Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Argh
cap, captain miss america
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.

  • 1
Yes? And then I realized I read the other/wrong article... Uh, sorry?

Aha okay! That makes a lot more sense. Your argument is entirely valid and I completely agree with you about condoms and preventative education and stuff, I was just confused.

Hahaha, totally fine. I actually confused myself for a minute there!

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account