by Chris Bodenner
After news broke that the CDC might recommend circumcision for HIV prevention, KJ Dell'Antonia noticed that few if any people were debating the chance of increased promiscuity among teenage boys. Since opposition to HPV vaccination has centered on female promiscuity, she sees a double standard:
If both procedures might make unprotected sex marginally safer, why is the conversation so different? [...] Granted, circumcision is an actual procedureone I've watched twice, and one that's not accurately described by the word "snip." And we're talking about babies, not preteens, so the whole issue of sex seems less imminent. But still, a vaccine and a procedure with a shared goal of making unsafe sex just a little safer each caused a small but vocal minority to rise up in very different forms of protest. Girls might have more sex. Boys might feel less pleasure. Could the difference be any starker?