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: 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."