Milo advocates for circumcision of boys

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2016-09-18 15:07

Article here. The MRM has a wide range of issues. Not all MRAs will agree on specific issues. In this case, Milo is not in agreement with the circumcision issue. Possibly this is because he has not heard the argument. So please, politely contact him and make the case. Flaming the guy will not be constructive. Excerpt:

'Your penis is not a perfect, special snowflake. There are objective standards of beauty for men, just as there are for women. For the edification and enjoyment of your female partners, not to mention the quality of oral sex you’ll get throughout your life, you should get circumcised. And you should do it to your newborn sons, too, as early into their lives as possible.
...
This shouldn’t be a surprise to us. Circumcision isn’t a recent invention of misandrists, sadists or religious nuts: 15,000 years ago, men realised that making their wieners more attractive improved their chances of oral sex. Perhaps as a gay man I’m biased, but aesthetics matter. And let me tell you – sorry if this veers into “TMI” territory – that I’m infinitely more likely to make you happy down there if you’re cut.

Then there’s the medical stuff. Getting circumcised reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, some sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and penile cancer and cervical cancer in female sex partners. It prevents a whole galaxy of hideous illnesses that come from having a turtleneck: balanitis, balanoposthitis, phimosis and paraphimosis. (I won’t spell them all out, but they’re all horrible and, more to the point, avoidable.)

It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 per cent. It drops the risk of HPV, herpes and other stuff by similar amounts. And the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life goes down by an astonishing 90 per cent. The Mayo Clinic and the NHS both list huge advantages, together with the obligatory, diplomatic disadvantage list.

The American Academy of Pediatrics agree that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. Fine, but that’s because it’s not the AAP’s job to consider the sexual or aesthetic benefits of getting it done. Take it from me: your penis is 200 per cent more attractive to a potential blowjob-giver if you have the snip.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Milo is wrong on this issue. The fundamental, definitive question that trumps every other argument is the matter of basic human rights. A male has as much right to determine what body-altering procedure he is subjected to as a female. A man can after reaching adulthood decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised. No one denies that. The issue is that as a minor, but as a human being, he can't decide on a body-modifying surgery until adulthood but retains the right to bodily integrity until he is of age to give up that right competently. Milo's desire to have circumcised sex partners does not trump the human rights of same.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2016-09-18 15:33

I had never heard of Milo until a few months ago when some of his anti-feminist videos were posted here and coming across my newsfeed on FB. I completely agreed with his view on why women are not in STEM, that biological differences are the biggest factors, etc.

However, then I noticed his shaming and insults and I began to not like him....and now this article. I think he is arrogant, and I am no longer a Milo fan.

I agree with Matt, Milo is completely missing the human rights aspect.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sun, 2016-09-18 17:57

I just noticed this article is from 2015. Possibly Milo has an updated view since then. Still, it's worth checking in with him and letting him know (politely) how you feel.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2016-09-18 21:08

Ummm. . . if you're too scared to have it done yourself, YTF would you advocate this be done to kids? If you were a straight man advocating that people subject their daughters to a surgery on their genitalia because it "looks better", you would be shot at sundown.

And don't parrot a bunch of myths - that it reduces HIV (this was based on one flawed study, which is always the sole study referred to because the results have not been replicated), that you can avoid swelling and retraction problems of the foreskin (well, technically it's true but it's the same logic as plucking your eye out so you don't get eye cancer), that it reduces chances of contracting penile cancer (well, yeah, because the penis is smaller after surgery so there's fewer cells to get cancerous, but the difference in chance of getting it is so miniscule, and it's a disease which is extremely rare to start with), and as for the HPV argument - would men ever advocate girls and women get surgery on their genitalia to lower our chances of getting an STD? Really, these are just attempts to rationalize the indefensible and nothing more.

Seriously, dude, tell people what to do with their own bodies, but don't you dare tell them to do this to their kids!

And I say this, I might as well confess, as a man who was subjected to this procedure at birth, resulting in a truly humiliating disfigurement which makes me feel like half a man. It makes me quite upset that you just think of me as collateral damage. I assure you that what was done to me was a violation. It was not only unwanted contact, but an irreversible alteration of my genitalia. If that is not some sort of sexual assault, I don't know what else to call it. I just want to say that this has caused me so much anguish. I have people like you to thank for it.

Still think people should take your advice? You first. It is just a "minor surgery" after all, right? Until you get cut, no one should listen to a damn word you say on the issue. You are a hypocrite at best.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Mon, 2016-09-19 20:19

has anybody recently read anywhere about how in many states, married men are no longer required to get wife's permission to get a vasectomy?

I haven't heard a word about it anywhere. must not have changed. I read in some places where it isn't really required, doctors still try to get the wife's permission before they cut on a woman's 'equal partner's' junk.

so little real stuff gets covered in the press, don't u think?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Mon, 2016-09-19 23:15

There has never EVER been a law requiring wife's permission to get a vasectomy. A few men and women have reported that their doctor (or friend's doctor) "required" permission from their spouse before vasectomy or tubal ligation, but most these stories seem to be hearsay or really just a recommendation by the dr that they discuss surgery with their spouse, but if it did indeed happen, my advice would just be to find another doctor.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Tue, 2016-09-20 00:43

I asked a doctor once about getting a vasectomy when married. He said they law required me to get her permission. I believed that to be true until I found years later that it wasn't. He was lying. A lot of doctors do this apparently, so a lot of men think they need wifey's permission. They don't.

But apparently doctors can be sued for this. Don't know how many have to pay up. It's not illegal but it can result in a civil case. So most doctors just say they have to have the wife's permission just to be safe.

I've never quite trusted what doctors say after that one lied to me.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Tue, 2016-09-20 01:10

i have been surfing for a while tonite about this question and here is what I have found out:

n.y. for instance, doesn't require wife's consent; however, they do have a consent form to be signed as do most places. there is also a 30 day waiting period once the required initial counseling is completed. from n.y urology specialists.

it looks like a lot of places have a waiting period. also, a LOT of doctors have a spousal consent form and try to get the wives to sign it. some nurses get very pushy about it. probably relates to cya on insurance and being sued.

one doctor specifically stated that 'as of jan. '10 no state required marital consent for a vacestomy op.'. eHow.

one legislator in Tenn. tried to get a bill passed a couple years ago requiring marital consent. apparently it hasn't been approved, yet.

then there is the military, where across the board (Army, Navy, Air Force) the procedure requires marital consent. having served myself, I can believe it. every military guy anywhere I could find online who had the procedure while in uniform had to have the form signed. one guy said he went off base because he felt it was wrong.

the good news I learned is that 'it takes 15 to 20 ejaculations to evacuate all sperm from your system'. viva viagra!

the whole adventure was worth the search time. I now know how much it costs and all the steps required, blue balls and all. some interesting banter among women as to 'Men's Rights' ensued in several comments sections. while most agreed that both people should be involved in the decision, it wasn't always so, w/ some/many women getting really mad/livid about being told afterward. some of the women even commented on how men's rights were not nearly as strong in this area (reproduction) as a woman's.

interesting stuff. educational even. hand

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Tue, 2016-09-20 02:40

I did a quick google search and did not find any evidence of your claims, except for the 30-day wait period, which is the same for both tubal ligation and vasectomy (30 days from signing of consent form, no counseling, just a regular consultation like there would be for any surgical procedure).

Maybe I did not look in the right places?

The only thing I found regarding military and vasectomies was this (no mention of spousal consent)

http://www.military.com/spouse/military-benefits/questions-benefits-what-are-the-military-vasectomy-rules.html

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Tue, 2016-09-20 20:38