+18 18 0
Published 9 years ago by imokruok with 9 Comments
Additional Contributions:

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • idlethreat
    +3

    The blasé attitude about male circumcision really, really irritates me.

    Happen to do it to females? My goodness. Circumcision isn't strong enough of a word. Let's call it mutilation and hold a fundraiser. Little boys? Oh, well. It makes things cleaner, right? He won't notice it.

    Stop chopping up little kids. Period, end of discussion. There's absolutely no reason for males to be fixed. There's nothing wrong down there to begin with.

    And fuck you, CDC.

    • imokruok
      +3

      Good points. What really irritates me too is the second sentence of the CDC draft recommendations:

      Such decision making is made in the context of not only health considerations, but also other social, cultural, ethical, and religious factors.

      Those are pretty abstract ideas and it is concerning that doctors will be "counseling" parents into making non-therapeutic, irreversible, life-altering decisions based on religion and social norms.

    • drunkenninja
      +3

      Couldn't have said it better. Want to avoid disease? Don't sleep with shady fucking people, wear a condom, and don't stick your prick into diseased orifices... its that simple.

      • idlethreat
        +3

        Slow your roll, drunkenninja. We can't have you spouting off all of that personal responsibility crap. It makes no sense and they're not gonna go do it anyway. The only safe, sane thing to do is cut their cocks up. That will keep things all clean and tidy.

        Glad we had this talk.

  • imokruok
    +3

    Also, the research is based on clinical trials done in sub-Saharan Africa. I may be oversimplifying but wouldn't trials done in the United States be more beneficial to a population in the United States? Things are really different in sub-Saharan Africa.

  • imokruok
    +3

    And one last thing that troubles me about the CDC draft recommendations. Page 8, last section, final bullet:

    The incidence of severe adverse events associated with male circumcision performed by clinicians, such as permanent disabilities, disfigurements, and death, is so low that rates have not been precisely established; these events have occurred, but are rare. Other major complications requiring intervention including major bleeding, and severe infection are uncommon.

    Isn't that a little subjective? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder why the rates of adverse events and risks haven't precisely been established. Is it because they're so low and rare or because men are too embarrassed and ashamed to come forward with aesthetic complications?

    • drunkenninja
      +3

      I would put my money on the latter... I'm sure there are many procedures that end in men being extremely unhappy with the result only to suffer in secret afraid to go back in fear of making it even worse.

Here are some other snaps you may like...