SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Cosmetic procedures are of increasing interest to millennial men, a new industry report found.
Thirty one percent of men said they were extremely likely to consider a cosmetic procedure, either surgical or noninvasive, according to a survey conducted by the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Among that 31 percent, 58 percent were from 25 to 34 years old and 34 percent were aged 18 to 24 years. Both age ranges are members of the millennial generation.
The top reason cited by respondents pursuing cosmetic procedures to appear younger was wanting to feel better about themselves, followed by the desire to appear less tired or stressed, and then to please their partners. In the 25- to 34-year-old range, 42 percent cited wanting to remain competitive in their career as a reason to go under the knife.
The most common procedures for men are rhinoplasty (nose jobs), otoplasty (pinning back the ears), and treatment for gynecomastia (a surgery that reduces male breast size), according to Clyde H. Ishii, a surgeon and president of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
Part of the reason young men are increasingly interested in cosmetic procedures derives from social media, said Dr. Fred G. Fedok, president of the academy that conducted the survey. "People are more aware of their looks from different angles," he said. A growing interest in health and self-care also plays a part. "It's sort of like exercise," Fedok said about cosmetic procedures.
Apparently man boobs have gone out of fashion.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @01:00AM (16 children)
That's just weird. As an owner of a penis, I can confidently state that all other penises on the planet are disgusting, stinky, ugly lumps of flesh. Mine, of course, is glorious and simply named Emperor. I assumed that all other men felt the same, excepting the gay ones? As the owner of an Internet connection, I can also quite confidently state that the uncircumcised penis is well represented. No cock too small, or too clownishly gargantuan, is missing from the Internet. That, and anything is a dildo if you are brave enough. It's like a buffet of all the body parts you do, and sincerely do not, want to see. Of course the implication of diverse cock on the Internet, is that females in general are not the ones body shaming cocks. They're taking all of it, and then once it is spent, moving on to the hardware. That, being incredibly diverse. You want alien penises? Amazon.com
To my knowledge, circumcision was made mainstream because of health arguments related to Head Cheese. Personally, after having explained what that was, I didn't mind being circumcised (thank God at an early age). Nothing to do with being ashamed about the extra skin. Perhaps anecdotal, but I love my penis just the way it is. Proud of the little guy, actually.
There is no war against the natural penis, or the penis in general. You can calm down mate, nobody is coming to chop of the tip of your Jolly Roger.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @01:08AM (12 children)
If you were born male in the USA, you were raped of the human right of “my body, my choice” at birth. If you were born male, there certainly is somebody coming after your foreskin. If you were very unlucky, you might have been raised as a girl and forceably injected with estrogen. If they didn't go that far, perhaps somebody goofed and used a laser cauterizer, completely burning your penis off. Other men experience skin tearing and bleeding during erection because there is not enough skin on the shaft.
Why do you wish these fates on others?
Circumcision is said to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Do you have a lot of sex with male infants?
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Saturday June 24 2017, @01:36AM (11 children)
I am male, was born in the US, and have my foreskin.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @02:10AM (10 children)
Good for you. I understand you're disproving my point by counterexample, which is fair enough. I was using hyperbole. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2012 report, there was a crisis in the USA. Ritual infant male genital mutilation had fallen to be used in only 50% of male births.
The practice must be made illegal. Even in cases of phimosis and paraphimosis, there are alternatives to bringing out a butcher knife.
Personally I don't care what somebody does to their body when they're of the age of majority. However, it is wrong to take that choice from somebody when they are unable to even protest for the flimsiest of reasons.
I'm glad you were given a choice. Many of us were not, and some of us have suffered life-altering problems. There is no way to get any kind of justice if a problem doesn't manifest until puberty.
In some African genital mutilation rituals, they at least wait until the organ is mature before taking a knife to it. If ritual male genital mutilation were really about STDs for example, then there would be no reason to perform the procedure until the patient is sexually active. However, that's not what it's about.
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Saturday June 24 2017, @02:25AM (8 children)
If your view is logically sound, you don't need hyperbole.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @12:55PM (3 children)
So do you deny that there is a high rate of male genital mutilation in the US?
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Saturday June 24 2017, @03:34PM (2 children)
Are you mentally handicapped?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
>>> If your view is logically sound, you don't need hyperbole.
> Are you mentally handicapped?
KGIII, why troll?
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Saturday June 24 2017, @08:26PM
Quotes taken out of context, assumptions made, position assumed, and I'm the troll?
LOL Thank you for your confidence in my trolling ability. However, I'm quite serious.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @04:05PM (1 child)
Found the 9th grade English teacher!
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Saturday June 24 2017, @04:45PM
LOL Nah, retired mathematician.
It seems that the other AC may be a little bit unhinged. They've decided to just assume my opinion for me. What a crazy world we live in.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @06:38PM (1 child)
You're correct. Hyperbole weakens one's case, doesn't it?
Then allow me to use clarity without hyperbole.
If somebody is seeking cosmetic surgery for an infant's genitals (male or female, since I'm being clear now) in order to reduce the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, that person is presuming the infant is sexually active. That person is a child molester and a pedophile. They should be tried, and if found guilty by a jury, they should be required to register as a sex offender.
Here is my reasoning:
1. The only possible, credible medical reason not related to STDs in the literature for performing infant genital mutilation is urinary tract infection. However, UTI is a routine condition that is easily dealt with by administering antibiotics. Amputating a body part because of a routine infection that can be treated with antibiotics is insane, and it would be the only routine infection medicine recommends amputation for. That right there should make it suspect. We do not amputate the patient's ears to protect them from the risk of ear infection.
1a. Penile cancer is a disease that develops in old age, and the literature is uncertain whether a foreskin is an organ that is at some special risk for the disease. Penile cancer occurs in circumcised men the same as intact men. This is not a credible reason to amputate body parts from an infant.
2. The remainder of the reasons involve STDs such as HIV (GRID/AIDS) and HPV (cervical cancer). In order to treat a patient for a condition that they can only contract by being sexually active, the patient must be sexually active. Therefore, anybody who is recommending male or female circumcision for infants is implying that they believe the infant is sexually active. We call people like that pedophiles.
2a. Additionally, recommending amputation of a body part in order to prevent a type of cancer that can only manifest in a body part they do not have is insane. It requires several presumptions. i.) The infant is sexually active (see above); ii.) The infant is heterosexual; iii.) The infant is engaging in promiscuous sexual activity with women.
2b. As concerns HPV (which can cause cervical cancer), there is a vaccination available. Let's examine the logic that tells us that we cannot vaccinate teenage girls against HPV. The fear is that offering them protection against an STD is implying they are sexually active. Many people are uncomfortable with that. How is it that these same people are comfortable with the notion that infants are sexually active? (As argued above, in order to protect a patient from a disease transmitted through sexual activity, that patient must be sexually active, especially since the larger point we're talking about here is amputation, not vaccination.)
I could go on into a 3rd point that stipulates that the foreskin serves an important protective function for the glans, analogous to the clitoral hood in females. I'll just say that I'm the AC who suffers from intense pain without wearing an artificial foreskin.
There could be a 4th point that in cases such as these where medical benefit is dubious and the main motivation is cosmetic, because this is a body part that is not normally exposed to the public, informed consent from a patient of the age of majority should be required. (If I'm going to state “my body, my choice” then I would be the last person to stop an 18 year old man who does not wish to have a foreskin from obtaining medical assistance in amputating it. People do stranger things to their bodies. Age of majority and informed consent are the key.)
I believe these points will establish that somebody wishing to perform this surgical procedure on an infant is a child molester and a pedophile. In order to recommend this procedure, one would need to believe that the infant is at immediate risk of being sexually active.
I hope that helps.
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Saturday June 24 2017, @07:07PM
I agree with your idea/premise. I didn't have it done to my son, either.
My only objection was to the dishonest approach of claiming "all." It's not all. I'm not even sure if I find it acceptable for religious reasons.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday June 24 2017, @04:35AM
What it's really about is masturbation. Dr. Kellogg hated masturbation and promoted circumcision as a way to get boys to stop jerking off.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @01:56AM
You don't have much of a choice: You either face some disconcerting facts about having had a valuable part of "your" sexual organ surgically removed, or you pretend that everything is just fine or even fantastic!
Also, the Internet is a recent phenomenon; Americans (and others in the Anglo-Saxon world... maybe you're Australian, where the practice is still in its death throes) were circumcising long before the Internet—your rebuttal is completely nonsensical.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Saturday June 24 2017, @07:23AM (1 child)
Were that true, circumcision would be an alternative to good hygiene. It is not. As long as you have good hygiene, you don't have knob cheese.
The real reason it became mainstream was because some wankers who didn't want people wanking decided that they should physically make it both less convenient (by having no "give" in the skin when not totally lubed up) and less enjoyable (by removing fairly nerve-dense bits of the cock). It also has the later side effect of exposing the bell end to sensations almost constantly - clothing, pubes - which desensitises it as the "there's something making contact" signal burns in and burns out, but I suspect that additional anti-sex bonus wasn't in Kellogg's mind when he forced his flakey religious beliefs upon that rationalism-forsaken country.
When I was typical US prick-hacking age, the child mutilation rate was about 95% amongst WASPs, there most certainly was a war against cocks. Even today, that rate is still apparently over 90%. Blacks and hispanics have got more sense, so the national statistic is lower, or course.
Aside - if anyone wants to feel good about their todger, I can highly recommend the "documentary" /Dick/. It's a useless documentary, it's just some women talking about fucksticks, but that is accompanied by so many stills of utterly horrible wangers, that you really will think you've got a masterpiece between your legs once you've seen it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24 2017, @07:07PM
Heh, if you're lucky. Well, most people are lucky compared to me. I'm not even cisgendered! However, I doubt the American Academy of Pediatrics has any desire to find out why I developed debilitating pain instead of numbness.
The whole this is massively disingenuous. Especially the part where justice is denied.