Circumcision.

[Squidflakes]

HPV vaccine is given to girls in order to guard against cervical cancer.

Circumcision is done so boys don't look like anteaters.

In that case I don't see how you can compare those two. The word "analogy" was what made me think you meant that circumcission guards against cervical cancer, especially as exactly that has been claimed by doctors to trick parents into getting the procedure done to their children.

Whaaaaa? What the hell doctor needs to trick a parent in to getting their kid circumcised? That's the kind of claim that's going to take some pretty serious evidence to back up. Its not like foreskins are precious commodities that the doctor is trying to horde, and the procedure is usually done (in the US) by a nurse and takes about 8 seconds.

[Sageerrant]

I'm uncircumsized and prefer it that way. When I was young, I did have some very minor problems, but only of the "masturbate in the shower" variety. I have no problem with necessary circumcision, but I do oppose circumcision as a recommended procedure. I just don't think the default course of action should be surgery, however minor it may be. Nature is about as infallible as a blindfolded pope hopped up on cough medicine trying to play darts, but it generally doesn't produce bits which are likely to cause problems and are of no benefit. I mean, except for the appendix. And the little toe that you always stub on things. Oh, wisdom teeth too, I guess...

[Ce6]

In that case I don't see how you can compare those two. The word "analogy" was what made me think you meant that circumcission guards against cervical cancer, especially as exactly that has been claimed by doctors to trick parents into getting the procedure done to their children.

This is how:

...
Both are controversial to some people, completely mundane to others.
...
If everyone would just masturbate regularly and never have sex with anyone else, both procedures would be total non-issues.
Yet given the fucked-up mentality of my country, good luck getting anyone to agree with that line of thinking.

...
From my personal point of view, I thought comparing one minorly inconveniencing controlled medical procedure to another minorly controversial controlled medical procedure was better than using the blade-wielding actions done by a fanatic for control purposes.
...

(all non-necessary lines removed to minimize confusion)
And I'd not heard the BS line about circumcisions preventing boys from getting cervical cancer. Surely I would not support such an absurd idea or use it (or the actual non-jokified version) to present a serious point.

[Ce6]

Circumcision is done so boys don't look like anteaters.

Hahahahaahahahaha.. christ.

That needs to be a macro. "Pants Anteater sez: I'm in yer pantz, lookin' like yer cawk!"

I've been posting here for over 3 years, I'm unsure to be proud or not if this would be the first thing I've said that becomes meme'd.

[Lulujayne]

And I'd not heard the BS line about circumcisions preventing boys from getting cervical cancer

I'd like to meet any man that has cervical cancer and shake his hand.

[Xnapalmxmorningx]

And I'd not heard the BS line about circumcisions preventing boys from getting cervical cancer

I'd like to meet any man that has cervical cancer and shake his hand.

post op F to M?

[Churba]

Circumcision is done so boys don't look like anteaters.

Chopping anyone's anything off for Purely Cosmetic reasons when they have no say in the deal? I believe I Quote Shakespeare when I say FUCK THAT SHIT.

[Lulujayne]

post op F to M?

Wow, your comment kickstarted this horrifically pointless cycle of thought in my brain. It ranged every where from, "hmmm, can the bacterial and viral nasties that kickstart cervical cancer reach the cervix through a penis?" and then wandered over to, "do they leave the wombly bits in when they add the penis?" and finally ended with, "mah brain hurts."

Sometimes there are things which not even wikipedia can answer.

[Ce6]

post op F to M?

Wow, your comment kickstarted this horrifically pointless cycle of thought in my brain. It ranged every where from, "hmmm, can the bacterial and viral nasties that kickstart cervical cancer reach the cervix through a penis?" and then wandered over to, "do they leave the wombly bits in when they add the penis?" and finally ended with, "mah brain hurts."

Sometimes there are things which not even wikipedia can answer.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have an abbreviated version of both thoughts after reading the comment about "shaking his hand"

[Leeloo]

Whaaaaa? What the hell doctor needs to trick a parent in to getting their kid circumcised? That's the kind of claim that's going to take some pretty serious evidence to back up. Its not like foreskins are precious commodities that the doctor is trying to horde, and the procedure is usually done (in the US) by a nurse and takes about 8 seconds.

A doctor recommending circumcision for reasons known to be false, that I would call "trick". The articele Swordsie linked to mentions three kinds of cancer that circumcision has been claimed to prevent - penile cancer, prostate cancer, and... cervical cancer (no idea what the last one is, so I really wasn't expecting people to go WTF about that one).

I believe I have read several accounts of parents that weren't sure, but in the end decided to have their kid circumcised exactly because the doctor recommended it. And apart from the "looking like everyone else" reasoning (i.e. be a good lemming and jump off the cliff like everyone else), I don't see any way a doctor can recommend destructive surgery with no benefits, without falling into the "trick the parents" category.

[RavenxDrake]

Hehe... Cervical cancer.... cancer of the Cervix, part of the uterus in the female reproductive system.

As for "destructive surgery with no benefits" that, I believe, is an unduly harsh(and in a few cases, flat out false) asessment of circumcision. Yes the surgery is at least partly cosmetic, however it does have practical applications as well as theological remifications. It's not a signifigantly dangerous procedure(though it carries with it any of the potential complications of any outpatient procedure), but carried out in a medical facility by trained professionals, it's less dangerous than getting a tooth pulled and less "destructive". Dosen't mean that parent's should blindly have it done because it's safe, but any time you're dealing with ANY surgical procedure, the pateient(or thier guardian) has to assume at least SOME responsibility to learn about the procedure, it's benefits and drawbacks, and alternatives, PARTICULARLY if they ARE unsure of the procedure.

[Squidflakes]

I believe I have read several accounts of parents that weren't sure, but in the end decided to have their kid circumcised exactly because the doctor recommended it.

That's called taking advice, and its a damn good idea if you're not familiar with what's going on. That would be like you looking for a new computer, coming to me with questions, then claiming I tricked you in to buying a specific product because you took my advice.

Trick connotes gain. i.e. If I were a computer salesman, and I recommended the model that would give me the most commission rather than the model that would do you the most good, THAT would be a trick.

Circumcisions don't have a commission built in. Like I said, there is no magical property of foreskins that the doctors are all crazy about. They aren't collectible, salable, rare, or precious. Plus, its included in the cost of baby delivery.

[Xnapalmxmorningx]

post op F to M?

Wow, your comment kickstarted this horrifically pointless cycle of thought in my brain. It ranged every where from, "hmmm, can the bacterial and viral nasties that kickstart cervical cancer reach the cervix through a penis?" and then wandered over to, "do they leave the wombly bits in when they add the penis?" and finally ended with, "mah brain hurts."

Sometimes there are things which not even wikipedia can answer.

I was thinking more that they had it before the operation, but now I'm wondering if it could happen like you figured out....

[Leeloo]

As for "destructive surgery with no benefits" that, I believe, is an unduly harsh(and in a few cases, flat out false) asessment of circumcision. Yes the surgery is at least partly cosmetic, however it does have practical applications as well as theological remifications. It's not a signifigantly dangerous procedure(though it carries with it any of the potential complications of any outpatient procedure), but carried out in a medical facility by trained professionals, it's less dangerous than getting a tooth pulled and less "destructive". Dosen't mean that parent's should blindly have it done because it's safe, but any time you're dealing with ANY surgical procedure, the pateient(or thier guardian) has to assume at least SOME responsibility to learn about the procedure, it's benefits and drawbacks, and alternatives, PARTICULARLY if they ARE unsure of the procedure.

A doctor should not give recommendations based on theological ideas, leave that up to the priest. Strike out that argument. As for practical applications, the only one I've heard (that wasn't based on debunked myths), there is only the one about a small percentage whose foreskin grows too large or too tight. That one should be fixed when it happens, not preemptively by cutting parts of everyone. No doctor would recommend removing other body parts just because a few might get problems later.

As for destructive, it is. Before, there was a foreskin, afterwards there is not. Getting a tooth pulled is destructive too, but thankfully we generally DON'T do that unless the tooth has become a problem. Not because it might become a problem later in life, if you are one of the unlucky few. However, even when a tooth does need to get pulled, most of the time it's just one out of many (nowadays at least). The rest of them keep working as intended. In that regard it is not comparable, because there is only one foreskin. Once it's gone, it's all gone.

[Lulujayne]

post op F to M?

Wow, your comment kickstarted this horrifically pointless cycle of thought in my brain. It ranged every where from, "hmmm, can the bacterial and viral nasties that kickstart cervical cancer reach the cervix through a penis?" and then wandered over to, "do they leave the wombly bits in when they add the penis?" and finally ended with, "mah brain hurts."

Sometimes there are things which not even wikipedia can answer.

I was thinking more that they had it before the operation, but now I'm wondering if it could happen like you figured out....

Yeah, I know the pain, it's like those "if a tree falls in a forest" type questions - sorry for that

I'm trying to figure out how to most reliably google the conundrum, without ending up at /b/ or something...

[Churba]

yes the surgery is at least partly cosmetic, however it does have practical applications as well as theological remifications.

Well, There are no Real Practical Application - Considering that The Current data, Which seems to flip back and forth between "No Aids Prevention!" and "Lots of aids Prevention" every year or three, and either way, No matter if it does or doesn't prevent it, A condom makes that prevention irrelevant.

And As for the Theological ramifications, What if You hit Thirteen, and then after careful consideration, you decide that you do not follow that particular religion? Its not like your your foreskin is magically going to reappear.

If you have no very strong religious reason to circumcise your children, and considering that with one little bit of latex rubber, your only Medical Reason is Irrelevant.
So that leaves The cosmetic reason. Aside- What the hell is wrong with an uncircumcised penis?

Now, You're inflicting a very painful procedure on an infant, Who cannot consent to this procedure for obvious reasons, For purely Cosmetic reasons?

[PopeMac]

Nature is about as infallible as a blindfolded pope hopped up on cough medicine trying to play darts

Have you ever seen me play darts while blindfolded and hopped up on cough medicine? I'll have you know that I can nail the bullseye every time when I play like that!

[Leeloo]

yes the surgery is at least partly cosmetic, however it does have practical applications as well as theological remifications.

Well, There are no Real Practical Application - Considering that The Current data, Which seems to flip back and forth between "No Aids Prevention!" and "Lots of aids Prevention" every year or three, and either way, No matter if it does or doesn't prevent it, A condom makes that prevention irrelevant.

Aids prevention That's a good one, never heard that one before.

Wait, it wasn't meant as a joke? It does sound a bit too much like the cancer prevention myth, so maybe I shouldn't be too surprised if people are trying the same claims with a different disease.

[Squidflakes]

The AIDS prevention thing comes from several studies done in the 90s that showed a 40-55% lower rate of HIV infections in circumcised men.

However, the clarion call that should be shouted from the rooftops on these studies is "Correlation IS NOT Causation"

When the results went to the Lancet for peer review, the contributing authors even stated that the results were so unexpected that follow up research was needed, and that the findings shouldn't be used by anyone for anything, other than as a jumping off point for future research.

[Leeloo]

The AIDS prevention thing comes from several studies done in the 90s that showed a 40-55% lower rate of HIV infections in circumcised men.

However, the clarion call that should be shouted from the rooftops on these studies is "Correlation IS NOT Causation"

Both are regional. Circumcision is (by now) mostly a US thing, AIDS is worst in africa.... I bet the same guys could find a correlation between circumcision and being overweight too

If anything, I would expect cirumcision to increase the risk of transferring HIV virus. Less natural lubrication gives greater risk of tearing, thus giving easier access to the blood stream. Same reason that anal sex makes transfer easier, but different numbers - I won't claim that the difference is big enough to measure.

In either case, getting statistics that are actually worth anything would require counting how many people a HIV positive person is able to infect. Not just counting the general population, where the number of infected people are different in the first place. Which is why reliable statistics on this will never happen.