If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Twas circumcision and fringe groups that broke the internet, not those videos of your Mom   (slate.com) divider line 443
    More: Sad, systematic review, marketplace of ideas, penile cancers, male sexuality, circumcisions, amputations, female genital mutilation, mutilation  
•       •       •

7975 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 5:17 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



443 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-19 06:02:30 PM

maelstrom0370: I don't think he thinks he won the internet or anything.


Nope, won't even take credit for the course of the thread, any info I've posted was mentioned first by other Farkers, I just repeated it when folks were ignoring it. I didn't really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other until reading through the thread, and decided hardinparamedic was putting out good information, and a bunch of loons (not including one person with a very personal though extremely rare reason for disliking the procedure) were attacking him and other supporters.
 
2013-09-19 06:03:57 PM

maelstrom0370: Fafai: ...it also doesn't permanently alter his body.

I dunno. Some of those scars last a long time.


Pretty sure it alters the body to be more resistant to specific diseases. As does circumcision in a different manner.
 
2013-09-19 06:04:34 PM

maelstrom0370: Jill'sNipple: I wouldn't say you have done a good job of slapping down anyone. I haven't seen a good reason, in this thread or elsewhere, to allow parents to whittle on their children's genitals without it being medically necessary. Give me a good reason. I haven't seen it.

As soon as you produce a good reason NOT to. Aside from a "study" based soley on conjecture, your own personal aesthetic or some rabid and hyperbolic comparison to ACTUAL mutilation (we're talking the implied meaning, here. Semantic arguments are SO yesterday)

P.S.- The "slapping down" he was referring to was the insane comparison of circumcision to FGM. I don't think he thinks he won the internet or anything.


Ok, I'll bite. As I mentioned before, I've traveled some in the MENA region, where genital cutting/mutilation is practiced widely. I've talked to women who had it done. And what none of you seem to realize is that the mutilation/cutting (yes, I do prefer the term 'mutilation,' both for males and females) ranges widely for females. I'm opposed to any degree of genital cutting. But it ranges from radically removing most or all of the female external genitalia to only a ceremonial that probably doesn't even scar.

The point is that FGM ranges from a cut that is far less traumatic than male circumcision to something that is far worse. My position is, why the obsession with cutting on babies' genitals? I do it all together into the same category: mutilation. There's no reason for it. If an adult male decides he'd like to get rid of part of his penis, good for him. But keep your hands off the babies.

Again, my question: why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?
 
2013-09-19 06:06:35 PM

Boojum2k: maelstrom0370: I don't think he thinks he won the internet or anything.

Nope, won't even take credit for the course of the thread, any info I've posted was mentioned first by other Farkers, I just repeated it when folks were ignoring it. I didn't really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other until reading through the thread, and decided hardinparamedic was putting out good information, and a bunch of loons (not including one person with a very personal though extremely rare reason for disliking the procedure) were attacking him and other supporters.



Really had no opinion one way or the other and I rarely last this long (That's what she said!) in an argument. I couldn't resist when I saw how mouth-foamy the opposition was.
 
2013-09-19 06:08:28 PM

maelstrom0370: I couldn't resist when I saw how mouth-foamy the opposition was.


Yep. And when they resort to statements like this:
Jill'sNipple:  why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?

It's obvious what kind of obsessive conspiracy whackos they are. Which are fun to smack around, but unlikely to come to sanity.
 
2013-09-19 06:11:08 PM

Boojum2k: maelstrom0370: Fafai: ...it also doesn't permanently alter his body.

I dunno. Some of those scars last a long time.

Pretty sure it alters the body to be more resistant to specific diseases. As does circumcision in a different manner.


That's why I said "immediate benefit." You guys are just nitpicking now. Worse, insinuating anti-vaccine is anything like anti-circ sounds a lot like the FGM comparisons you decry. You know, the comparisons no one in here made.

And if you do think anyone made those comparisons, show me. I'll apologize for not being observant. But you won't find those comparisons from me so you can skip my posts to save time. Or scrutinize and twist them if you want. Should be fun.
 
2013-09-19 06:13:39 PM

Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now


It's ironic when you guys get snippy.
 
2013-09-19 06:18:25 PM
Jill'sNipple: The point is that FGM ranges from a cut that is far less traumatic than male circumcision to something that is far worse. My position is, why the obsession with cutting on babies' genitals? I do it all together into the same category: mutilation. There's no reason for it. If an adult male decides he'd like to get rid of part of his penis, good for him. But keep your hands off the babies.


I'll bite back. When circumcision started getting compared to FGM in this thread, it was to Type 1 FGM. The worst, most heinous and horrendous kind. To say that it wasn't would make you a liar. Once that got slapped down as being the tippy-top of Douche Mountain, people started pulling back, much like you just did. "Well, I didn't really mean that kind. I was talking about one of the other kinds, you know, because definitions."

Again, my question: why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?

Aaaand yet another hyperbolic comparison. Yes, anyone whose pro-circ out there is just a big ol' baby butcherin' pedophile! It's arguments like this that make it hard to take you seriously.
Why are YOU so obsessed with a miniscule piece of vestigal skin? Seeing as a circumcized penis is still the norm (and the majority), are you hoping to make your son's teenage years that much more awkward? Why do you hate your future teenage son?
 
2013-09-19 06:19:16 PM

Boojum2k: Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now

It's ironic when you guys get snippy.


it's not that ironic. Some of us might get snipped later if we so decide. We aren't opposed to the procedure itself.

Nice play on words though ;)    ...funny'd
 
2013-09-19 06:20:26 PM
Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....Oh, wait. You were serious, weren't you?
 
2013-09-19 06:21:24 PM
Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.
 
2013-09-19 06:23:00 PM

Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.


Which comparison would that be, Fafai?
 
2013-09-19 06:25:52 PM

maelstrom0370: Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....Oh, wait. You were serious, weren't you?


I am serious yes. If I was nitpicking, it's because people forced my hand by twisting my words and saying I was making bogus comparisons to FGM. My nitpicking was damage control.

On the other hand, your "Oh-HO! But vaccines DO change the body!" is just grasping at straws.
 
2013-09-19 06:28:35 PM

maelstrom0370: Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.

Which comparison would that be, Fafai?


the type 1 FGM you just mentioned. If I honestly missed it I will concede there may be some confirmation bias going on on my part. Or at least ignoring dumbasses.
 
2013-09-19 06:35:41 PM
Globally speaking, I don't think circumcision is the majority. Any basic info site will tell you it's one in three at most. The circumcision rates are steadily dropping, in fact. I'd say it's due to people progressing and becoming more enlightened, Especially considering the majority still doing this are religious (Muslim or Jew).
 
2013-09-19 06:36:36 PM

Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.



Jill'sNipple: Second, how many of these pro-circumcision types would be as encouraging of a family that wants to make the decision to remove all or part of their infant daughter's clitoris?

 
2013-09-19 06:38:39 PM

maelstrom0370: Jill'sNipple: The point is that FGM ranges from a cut that is far less traumatic than male circumcision to something that is far worse. My position is, why the obsession with cutting on babies' genitals? I do it all together into the same category: mutilation. There's no reason for it. If an adult male decides he'd like to get rid of part of his penis, good for him. But keep your hands off the babies.


I'll bite back. When circumcision started getting compared to FGM in this thread, it was to Type 1 FGM. The worst, most heinous and horrendous kind. To say that it wasn't would make you a liar. Once that got slapped down as being the tippy-top of Douche Mountain, people started pulling back, much like you just did. "Well, I didn't really mean that kind. I was talking about one of the other kinds, you know, because definitions."

Again, my question: why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?

Aaaand yet another hyperbolic comparison. Yes, anyone whose pro-circ out there is just a big ol' baby butcherin' pedophile! It's arguments like this that make it hard to take you seriously.
Why are YOU so obsessed with a miniscule piece of vestigal skin? Seeing as a circumcized penis is still the norm (and the majority), are you hoping to make your son's teenage years that much more awkward? Why do you hate your future teenage son?


It's the norm for the US. Hardly the norm in any other part of the developed - and most of the undeveloped - world. That's not an argument.

Here's what you should probably say: "Genital cutting, at least on males, is the norm to me because I am a parochial North American who inherited an outdated, unnecessary, possibly pretty traumatic custom from our Judeo-christian culture, and I've never second-guessed it, and I've never wondered why we do it, and (apparently) I've never looked outside of the norms of the US, because I think it's the norm everywhere. So, basically, I probably shouldn't be commenting on topics in which to date I have shown remarkably little interest."
 
2013-09-19 06:39:36 PM
The hilarious part of all of this is that the article- while clearly written by someone who was pro-circ but backed that position up with facts- was not primarily about the subject of circumcision so much as the anti-circ movement being one of the most successful and prolific groups of anti-fact, poorly-sourced-statistic-quoting trolls on the internet to date, and ones who will bring up not-at-all-equivalent practices like FGM to try to scare you into siding with them.

And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.

If you cannot find reliable science to support your position, science is not conspiring against you.
 
2013-09-19 06:40:14 PM

Boojum2k: Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.


Jill'sNipple: Second, how many of these pro-circumcision types would be as encouraging of a family that wants to make the decision to remove all or part of their infant daughter's clitoris?


You got me. Hardinparamedic, I'm sorry I accused you of bringing this up first.
 
2013-09-19 06:42:27 PM

Anonymous Bosch: And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.


Yep. I haven't seen one pro-circ, or even neutral but friendly position expressed without some degree of rational backing. From the anti crowd we've seen FGM!1!, The Joooos!, secret doctor conspiracies, and accusations of pedophilia.

It's fairly obvious which group attracts the loons and which attracts reasonable people.
 
2013-09-19 06:43:46 PM

Fafai: You got me.


I'll note you haven't done this, and while I disagree with your stance as expressed, you have not been one of the extremists. Some issues with your semantics, but you haven't gone batshiat like so many on your side have.
 
2013-09-19 06:46:40 PM

Boojum2k: Anonymous Bosch: And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.

Yep. I haven't seen one pro-circ, or even neutral but friendly position expressed without some degree of rational backing. From the anti crowd we've seen FGM!1!, The Joooos!, secret doctor conspiracies, and accusations of pedophilia.

It's fairly obvious which group attracts the loons and which attracts reasonable people.


I wouldn't go that far. You don't see much shaming of circumcised penises themselves in contrast to the smegma/anteater/snake wearing a turtleneck/lol you have to clean your dick with a q-tip jokes.There's some serious hate for uncut penises out there and yes it is irrational and comes from psychological insecurity to hate on the body 's natural form.
 
2013-09-19 06:49:57 PM

Fafai: You don't see much shaming of circumcised penises themselves in contrast to the smegma/anteater/snake wearing a turtleneck/lol you have to clean your dick with a q-tip jokes.


That's pretty much Fark. I don't see an aesthetic problem with an uncut penis at all personally. But yeah, there have been a few of those jokes in this thread, fair enough. Still doesn't quite balance the anti crowd nuttiness though, particularly the Jew and doctor conspiracy statements.
 
2013-09-19 06:51:16 PM

Boojum2k: Fafai: You got me.

I'll note you haven't done this, and while I disagree with your stance as expressed, you have not been one of the extremists. Some issues with your semantics, but you haven't gone batshiat like so many on your side have.


Thanks, Boojum! Gonna cut out while we're here on this high note before things get ugly again. Peace.
 
2013-09-19 06:57:33 PM

Fafai: Boojum2k: Fafai: You got me.

I'll note you haven't done this, and while I disagree with your stance as expressed, you have not been one of the extremists. Some issues with your semantics, but you haven't gone batshiat like so many on your side have.

Thanks, Boojum! Gonna cut out while we're here on this high note before things get ugly again. Peace.


lulz
 
2013-09-19 06:59:29 PM

Boojum2k: Anonymous Bosch: And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.

Yep. I haven't seen one pro-circ, or even neutral but friendly position expressed without some degree of rational backing. From the anti crowd we've seen FGM!1!, The Joooos!, secret doctor conspiracies, and accusations of pedophilia.

It's fairly obvious which group attracts the loons and which attracts reasonable people.


Actually, a number of people (including myself) had said that there's a small risk to doing the procedure and a small risk to not doing the procedure, so since it's all about a wash, why not just let the dick owner decide himself when he's an adult? Especially since a huge benefit of circumcision is the reduce rate of STD transmission (although as others have pointed out, Europe has a lower circumcision rate AND a lower STD rate so maybe Africa just sucks all around) and most children don't need to worry about that.
 
2013-09-19 07:02:19 PM

Mike Chewbacca: why not just let the dick owner decide himself when he's an adult?


Because, as noted, a lot of the health benefits do extend through childhood. So leave it to parent's choice, and if they choose not to, then the guy can decide for himself later.

Mike Chewbacca: Europe has a lower circumcision rate AND a lower STD rate


http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-worldwide.htm
Not so much.
 
2013-09-19 07:14:39 PM

Fafai: the type 1 FGM you just mentioned. If I honestly missed it I will concede there may be some confirmation bias going on on my part. Or at least ignoring dumbasses.

Well, TFA for starters. Then there's:
Jill'sNipple: Don't try to portray those of us who condemn genital mutilation as extremists.


And:

Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex

And:
Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.


Ahhhh! I see what you ddi there! Clever girl ;) In my search of the thread, I found that you are, technically, correct. Which, by the way, is all that really matters. You and Jill inferred FGM but never really bothered to clarify your position until everyone told you what tools you were being. Well played, sir, well played. By calling it simply "Genital Mutilation" (I know, I know, it's the textbook definition and all that), you get the reader to infer Female Genital Mutilation which, of course, everyone views as absolutely heinous. Then, when normal people start screaming about it, you can step back and say "Whaaaat? Why, I never!"
Hooowee! There's a lot I need to learn about internet arguing! :)
 
2013-09-19 07:20:50 PM
With all of this going back and forth on whether circumcision is mutilation, it's surprising nobody looked up the definition:

mu·ti·late
mu·ti·lat·edmu·ti·lat·ingmu·ti·lates  1.To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.2.To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.  3.To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Circumcision doesn't deprive a person of an essential part, cripple them, or render them imperfect.  Therefore it is not mutilation.  By definition.
 
2013-09-19 07:23:45 PM

Jill'sNipple: Here's what you should probably say: "Genital cutting, at least on males, is the norm to me because I am a parochial North American who inherited an outdated, unnecessary, possibly pretty traumatic custom from our Judeo-christian culture, and I've never second-guessed it, and I've never wondered why we do it, and (apparently) I've never looked outside of the norms of the US, because I think it's the norm everywhere. So, basically, I probably shouldn't be commenting on topics in which ...



Sorry, I live in the US, as does my son and he most likely will continue to do so through his teenage years. Now, if we lived somewhere outside of the US, I'd say your argument has merit. Also, if you live outside the US, your argument has merit. If I lived outside the US when my son was born, I'd probably consider leaving him un-snipped due to that being the norm. I'm not sure how I, or my father, were influenced by our religious upbringing when neither of us had one. I really haven't questioned it, much like I don't question other useless and petty that happen throughout my life. Somethings just are. I didn't realize "Fight the Power" and "Damn the Man" spread as far as circumcision. Please excuse my sheepleness.
 
2013-09-19 07:25:26 PM
Fafai:

Oh, all right! You've actually been quite fun to banter with. And in hindsight, my "vaccination" copmparison was a bit weak.
 
2013-09-19 07:32:09 PM
maelstrom0370:
Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.

Ahhhh! I see what you ddi there! Clever girl ;) In my search of the thread, I found that you are, technically, correct. Which, by the way, is all that really matters. You and Jill inferred FGM but never really bothered to clarify your position until everyone told you what tools you were being. Well played, sir, well played. By calling it simply "Genital Mutilation" (I know, I know, it's the textbook definition and all that), you get the reader to infer Female Genital Mutilation which, of course, everyone views as absolutely heinous. Then, when normal people start screaming about it, you can step back and say "Whaaaat? Why, I never!"

Hooowee! There's a lot I need to learn about internet arguing! :)


I can honestly tell you, no word of a lie, swear on my mother's life that I view circumcision as mutilation regardless of what other people do to girls in other parts of the world. You can go ahead and guess at my motivations all you want (like the time hardinparamedic tried to call me homophobic for claiming redheads experience discrimination and harassment--seriously ...which is insane because I myself am bisexual and have had sex with gay men) but the fact remains I never mentioned it until hardinparamedic started sounded like a broken record about it.

People need to stop with this either/ or attitude and quit claiming to know people's real meanings behind what they say.

/ok seriously going to bed now. Good nite.
 
2013-09-19 07:37:27 PM

Fafai: People need to stop with this either/ or attitude and quit claiming to know people's real meanings behind what they say.


Point taken. I'll blame it on too much FARK lurking and very little stamina (that's what she said!) for a sustained internet argument. You and I can differ on our feelings towards circumcision (I really had no opinion one way or the other, though to call it mutilation seems a bit scare tactic to me) and that's ok!
 
2013-09-19 07:59:23 PM

Boojum2k: Because, as noted, a lot of the health benefits do extend through childhood.


Still doesn't sound like a substitute for soap to me. One's a lot less permanent, for one thing, and that is actually quite important.

maelstrom0370: I'm not sure how I, or my father, were influenced by our religious upbringing when neither of us had one. I really haven't questioned it, much like I don't question other useless and petty that happen throughout my life.


More like you were influenced by  other people'sreligious beliefs, the whole circumcision movement being popularised by a puritanical upsurge against the eeeviiil masturbation. As we know, it didn't work, but it helped it gain acceptance and with alarming rapidity became tradition, so yay, I guess.
 
2013-09-19 08:07:45 PM

Barumpapumpum: Still doesn't sound like a substitute for soap to me.


Soap can actually cause a UTI, if not thoroughly rinsed away, and does not prevent them near as well.
 

Barumpapumpum: the whole circumcision movement being popularised by a puritanical upsurge against the eeeviiil masturbation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Modern_times
Not so much.
 
2013-09-19 08:07:56 PM

Barumpapumpum: More like you were influenced by  other people'sreligious beliefs, the whole circumcision movement being popularised by a puritanical upsurge against the eeeviiil masturbation. As we know, it didn't work, but it helped it gain acceptance and with alarming rapidity became tradition, so yay, I guess.


Whatevs. The head of my penis is exposed and yours (I assume) is not.
Assuming equal hygiene practices, one of us takes about five seconds longer in the shower. Yay us!
There seems to be an equal amount of pros and cons to both sides of the debate.
Much like abortion and gay marriage: Don't want one, don't get (your son) one.
 
2013-09-19 08:17:37 PM

Fafai: Boojum2k: Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.


Jill'sNipple: Second, how many of these pro-circumcision types would be as encouraging of a family that wants to make the decision to remove all or part of their infant daughter's clitoris?

You got me. Hardinparamedic, I'm sorry I accused you of bringing this up first.


I disagree with your position on this topic, but I have a hell of a lot of respect for you for saying that.
 
2013-09-19 09:28:08 PM

Boojum2k: Because, as noted, a lot of the health benefits do extend through childhood. So leave it to parent's choice, and if they choose not to, then the guy can decide for himself later.


Well yeah, that's kind of the point isn't it?  If they choose not to, the guy can decide for himself.
 
2013-09-19 09:29:25 PM

kim jong-un: Well yeah, that's kind of the point isn't it?


And they can decide in favor, too. With good reasons.
 
2013-09-19 09:35:30 PM

wicked_sprite: With all of this going back and forth on whether circumcision is mutilation, it's surprising nobody looked up the definition:

mu·ti·late
mu·ti·lat·ed,  mu·ti·lat·ing,  mu·ti·lates  1.To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.2.To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.  3.To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Circumcision doesn't deprive a person of an essential part, cripple them, or render them imperfect.  Therefore it is not mutilation.  By definition.


The word "imperfect" is a bit vauge, since it may imply personal opinion, but #2 there is a bit more objective. Different dictionaries will give you different definitions, but most do seem to imply some sort of involuntary disfigurement.

The most common modern usage of the word implies violence and resulting physical harm. Proponents of circumcision tend to deny there's any harm in what they're doing. Who knows, maybe they're right? Ask a newborn if he's been harmed by circumcision, and he's not gonna say "yes" or give his perspective on the matter.
 
2013-09-19 09:37:39 PM
Or should I say, voluntary disfigurement of another. Damn, I need to start hitting Preview.
 
2013-09-19 10:10:04 PM
If most circumcised men are happy to be circumcised, that's great.  Not all are happy though, and I and I think most intact men would consider their genitals imperfect if they had to be circumcised.  I'd pay a year's salary rather than be circumcised.  It's not a huge amount of skin, but it makes a big difference.

Why can't we let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they wants parts removed from their genitals?  It's not like it can't wait.  There are only two countries in the world where more than 50% of newborn boys are circumcised - Israel and (probably) the USA.  Other countries circumcise, but later in life, usually anywhere from around seven years old to puberty or adolescence.

If our son wants to be circumcised when he's 18 (16 if he knows what he's doing), I'll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon.  Until then, he stays intact.  His body - his decision.  If he wants to be circumcised later, it's easy to fix - safer, less painful, and better cosmetic results.  If we'd had him circumcised, and he wanted to be intact, it's a problem.
 
2013-09-20 12:45:56 AM

maelstrom0370: Fafai: the type 1 FGM you just mentioned. If I honestly missed it I will concede there may be some confirmation bias going on on my part. Or at least ignoring dumbasses.

Well, TFA for starters. Then there's:
Jill'sNipple: Don't try to portray those of us who condemn genital mutilation as extremists.

And:
Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex

And:
Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.

Ahhhh! I see what you ddi there! Clever girl ;) In my search of the thread, I found that you are, technically, correct. Which, by the way, is all that really matters. You and Jill inferred FGM but never really bothered to clarify your position until everyone told you what tools you were being. Well played, sir, well played. By calling it simply "Genital Mutilation" (I know, I know, it's the textbook definition and all that), you get the reader to infer Female Genital Mutilation which, of course, everyone views as absolutely heinous. Then, when normal people start screaming about it, you can step back and say "Whaaaat? Why, I never!"
Hooowee! There's a lot I need to learn about internet arguing! :)


Infer =/= Imply
Genital mutilation = Genital mutilation
 
Displayed 43 of 443 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report