Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1264 Editor's Choice: 102
-
Definitely weird
[Read the article: Whack-a-baby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wrote to the e-mail address right under the illustration and suggested to them that it was not in keeping with the tone of the article, and also in very poor taste. Nowhere does the author suggest that she felt hostile toward the fetus (though she might have - one can). In fact, she says specifically that she was surprised at how protective she felt.
OTOH, my heart sank when I read, "People have careers with babies." I hope they are ready for the reality. People with babies have almost nothing else for a while. Very worth it, of course, for the privilege of being a parent. But I hope her family will be coming to Mexico for a month or two to support them. It is very hard to be new parents in any situation, let alone less than a year after moving to a new place.
-
OT: accountability
[Read the article: Whack-a-baby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is only one libraryprincess, but there are innumerable anonymice, so posting as one of those is an attempt to protect yourself from accountability for your posting history. It serves the function of trying to confuse people into thinking there are more of you trolls than there are, for instance. Or just trying to confuse people who are trying to keep track of which one you are, thus making it difficult to coherently attack you. Maybe we should start calling you zebras instead of anonymice.
Too bad for you zebras, though. Most of us can tell you apart anyway. Not that it's worth it, because you're just a small herd of trolls.
I do not generally agree with RealName, Ben Dover and brightstar on gender issues, but I respect them for posting in good faith, as themselves, most of the time. Obviously none of us want to give away much personal info (there's a reason the web is called WORLDWIDE), but it still takes a certain amount of courage to be accountable as a single online personality. And it simply respectful, since this is theoretically a community of people discussing ideas. People who respect that deserve respect, even if you don't agree with their ideas. And people who don't ... don't.
-
I am against circumcision
[Read the article: Circumcision cuts female pleasure?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but it has nothing to do with female pleasure. WTF? I'm very happy for this couple if they found more pleasure through this surgery - hopefully the man who put himself at risk did, and not just the woman - but I agree with other posters that if your man is "scraping" your vaginal wall, there are many less risky ways to deal with that. (HINT: Astroglide.) I hope, hope, hope that the anti-circ discussion doesn't get to be about female pleasure. That should be a total afterthought, even if it's relevant at all. When we decided not to circumcise our sons, believe me, the pleasure they were going to give their future partners because of their intact penises was not at the top of our list of reasons. EEW. (FTR, I'm perfectly happy to sexualize penises, just not my sons'.)
Now maybe for most men who have lived their whole lives circumcised, it's not that bad - which is why I always get annoyed when people try to compare circumcision to the range of female genital mutilations, which are much more dangerous and completely rule out sexual pleasure and often result in sexual pain and excruciating childbirth. But I still believe it is immoral to cut the sexual parts of people who can't consent, unless it is medically necessary in order to save life or limb. And having a VERY slightly lower risk of contracting HIV doesn't count as a medical necessity. If you want that protection, you can choose it when you reach the age of consent.
-
Isn't it a little early?
[Read the article: Joe Wilson endorses Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pretty soon we'll be giving out Xmas candy to trick-or-treaters, putting Easter candy in Xmas stockings, and endorsing candidates before the parties choose nominees. Oh wait - already did that last one.
This is the first time I have doubted Wilson's judgment.
-
Who said anything about rights?
[Read the article: Whack-a-baby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cool your jets, bud. I didn't question anyone's "right" to post anonymously. Society is much nicer, however, when we use our rights judiciously and respectfully.
-
My dear anonymous
[Read the article: Whack-a-baby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't use words for genitalia as insults. You are a sad specimen of humanity.
-
No, dear Anonymous
[Read the article: Whack-a-baby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's all about YOU. Time for bed now, honey.
-
What an unfortunate name they picked.
[Read the article: Party time!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It sounds like they have a really good handle on their objectives and what they think their country needs. Why did they have to choose such a ridiculous name for their party? It's not even descriptive of their stated goals. The name alludes, humorously one assumes, to a Freudian text about how mysterious women seemed to Sigmund and his friends. But the party is about representing the interests of the underclasses and reforming the Old-Boy system of representation. That is not encapsulated for me in "what women want."
Still, I wish them well. It must be nice to have a system in which starting a new party can actually mean something.