Argh

[teaberryblue]

I have seen this article linked a couple places today and I wanted to comment on it. (link here)

TL:DR description is that after the CDC's recommendation for infant circumcision based on the consideration that it seems to reduce HIV transmission from infected women to uninfected men by 60%, people threw a hissy because it would reduce men's sexual gratification. This is compared to the hissy fit people threw over the HPV vaccine, in which they said vaccinating might make women want to have more sex.

I get both sides of the circumcision argument and it isn't one I have a strong opinion on, mostly because I'm not male and I don't think I should be the one deciding that for male babies (if I have a son, I would probably let this be the father's decision). Frankly, at the moment, I hope people stop circumcizing their kids so we can avoid people demanding to see the Presiden'ts wang as proof that his is "American." But what bugs me is that not a single person in the comments seems to get the point of the article-- this isn't about opposing or supporting infant circumcision, this is about the fact that we seek to improve men's sexual experience while stifling women's. That the public outcry when it comes to men is that we might reduce their pleasure; that the public outcry when it comes to women is that we might increase their safety and indirectly increase their pleasure.

Not okay.

Comments

[teaberryblue.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I understand why people are upset at the suggestion of something that can be considered mutilation-- the issue is that the other big piece of moral outrage is missing. Especially when you consider the numbers-- the fact that far more teenagers know to worry about HIV than to worry about HPV.

[elikrei.livejournal.com]

I know this isn't the main gist of your original post, but as far as the mutilation thing goes...why should discovering an unexpected health benefit cause so much outrage over a procedure that's already accepted and common? I mean, the article says "an always-optional procedure would remain optional", but instead of circumcision for aesthetic/religious reasons, it's for medical ones. Surely that's better, not worse?

[teaberryblue.livejournal.com]

Because it's not accepted and common everywhere and a lot of people view the establishment's routine support of circumcision as a way to force people to Westernize or Americanize themselves, and furthermore because a lot of people feel that it isn't actually healthy for their sons-- it does involve cutting a very sensitive part of their body at an age where they can't have a choice in the matter.