River ,'Jaynestown'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risque (and frisque), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
There has to be some special effect with the eyes. I don't care. Maybe it's not technically a retouch, but those are not human eyes. A child (even without a pound of make-up on, and I agree, that's a minimum guess at how much those baby doll kids are wearing) wouldn't need retouching, because there are no wrinkles, lines, etc.
It's just all so wrong. Wrong. Make it stop. Quick, let's talk about politics and religion.
I had an argument about circumcision last night. We could talk about that again. My opinion is that it's not something worth fighting over, but the girl I was arguing with thought that defending a child's foreskin was a vitally important battle.
Is it reversible? Could he have it reattached at eighteen?
I think the lack of reversibility was one of the elements that made it worth the fight, for her.
We could talk about female circumcision for a change...
What is the evolutionary advantage of foreskin?
After spending a week in the Borneo jungle, the advantage of a foreskin was obvious. EVERYTHING hits you at hip level when you go through the jungle - vines, thorns, bugs.
My opinion is that it's not something worth fighting over, but the girl I was arguing with thought that defending a child's foreskin was a vitally important battle.Does she know that wives of circumcised men have a lower rate of cervical cancer?
What is the evolutionary advantage of foreskin?
It makes the penis less funny looking and therefore reduces the chance of erection defeating laughter?
Does she know that wives of circumcised men have a lower rate of cervical cancer?
Doubt it. Is there any evidence that that's causative? It seems like a strange correlation to me.