Boob jobs for military personnel.....?

BBC News Service

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6997316.stm

:kick:

I expect Bush to announce that every male U.S. soldier will be supplied with a penis pump because he's such a Colossal Dick.

I insulted you.

I'm sure they can double as floatation devices, too.

Any more or less out of touch than state gubmints that pay for sex changes in THIS country?

No, I don't have links, but there were dozens of posters here who supported that very thing when the subject came up.

Six in one, Half Dozen in the other?

Sex changes are necessary for people born in the wrong body. Science backs that up. No one needs a boob job.

And since when does the US government pay for sex changes? There are thousands of transsexuals out there who would LOVE to get in on that offer. I know people who hold fundraisers to get their necessary surgery, because most insurance companies won't pay anything of the sort.

Seriously, I would love to see you back up the statement, "Any more or less out of touch than state gubmints that pay for sex changes in THIS country?"

And what about a man who, in his mind, knows that he has a nine-incher, but can only physically manifest six of those inches?

The government shouldn't pay for that, as well?

It's not at all the same thing as breast augmentation. :hi:

Why might you judge a person's discomfort with their physical sexuality and desire for corrective surgery in the one case, but not the other, with regard to government funding for the surgery?

Breast augmentation most often is a cosmetic choice, rather than a medical treatment.

(I do support subsidized breast augmentation/reduction in cases where there is a valid medical reason.)

It sounds as if you're just dismissing the feelings of women who want to enhance their breasts, even though it may very well be affecting their mental health- their sexuality- as much or nearly as much as those with a gender identity disorder. These women were born with a particular body that they are not sexually comfortable with, just like those who want to have their sex changed surgically. Some of them may even look very much like men, in the chest, without such surgery. Why would you characterize their desire to alleviate their sexual discomfort as merely cosmetic, yet lend so much credence to the feelings of those who want to correct their genitals?

I think your view is inconsistent. Many people are uncomfortable with their bodies sexually, and surgery can often help them. If you're going to support government funded surgery for those uncomfortable with their sexuality in one case, you should support it for the other, as well. If we are to give such respect for one people's perceptions regarding their own sexuality, we should give that respect across the board- not pick and choose whose feelings are valid and whose are not.

Really?

I assume that you would support government subsidization of breast enhancement for women who have had one or two breasts removed. That would be a "medical procedure," right?

Well then why wouldn't you support women who, size-wise, might naturally look substantially similar to women who have had mastectomies (disregarding nipple issues) if they wanted the government to pay for enhancement of their breasts? Simply because they never had them in the first place?

This is what you're doing, here- you're applying a subjective standard of judgment to some people, and a normative standard to others. In your mind, a woman with very small or virtually no breasts, despite the fact that, in her mind, she looks like a man, and would more readily perceive herself as a woman through surgery and be substantially more sexually satisfied, just has to live with her "uncomfortable"- if you can think of a better word, I'm open to it- sexuality because it doesn't deviate, in your judgment, substantially enough from a societal norm. You are dismissing her sexual feelings about her own body- which, I am sure, are quite strong in HER own mind, at least (maybe not yours).

Yet you validate others' feelings despite the fact that, as far as societal norms are concerned, their "equipment" may look perfectly representative of the population at large.

So which is the proper measure of determining the "worth" of a person's desires for sexual surgery, in your mind? A subjective standard or a normative one?

I've been pretty clear in this thread that I support subsidies for medically-based body modification. I'm not sure what else you want me to say. :shrug:

But that is of no consequence. The question is, why put the woman who underwent a mastectomy back the way she was before, and not do the same for a woman who never had significant breasts to begin with?

While they circumstantially may differ from each other, shouldn't the strength of the feelings women's feelings be about the same? And, no matter the circumstances, why validate one but not the other?

I would submit that our culture has influenced many women to feel that way about their bodies, because it is not a fact that small breasts are insignificant, nor that larger breasts are more significant.

I disagree with you that medical diagnosis is of no consequence. Medical diagnosis is of great consequence for those seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. I believe we have an ethical responsibility to provide support and treatment for those medically diagnosed with "disorders," whether those disorders are mental or physical. Anyone who wants breast augmentation surgery and can convince a medical doctor to prescribe it as treatment, more power to 'em. I'm more than happy to help foot the bill for medical treatment.

Now, BullGooseLoony, I've gotta go get some work done. I miss seeing you in the Lounge, but it was nice to spar with you here in GD. :hi:

I don't doubt that there are people who could convince their therapist that their opinion of small breasts is actually a manifestation of this widely accepted medical condition.

It's a slippery slope Heidi, I'm sure you can understand that.

It pains me to disagree with you, but on this I must.

:eyes:

surgery is meant to promote -- the sailor or her shipmates?
:evilgrin:

things like this done for service people doesn't bother me.

if it helps peoplle and their time in service to their country -- good.

armed forces waste their money in order to justify their budgets to their governments in all sorts of ways -- spending money on the people who serve isn't one of them.

with the best plastic surgeons.

WTF 10000 dollar??

Since it's the Navy, I'm surprised they're not selling them as personal floatation devices and adding an extra zero to that figure. :sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

suspect that the U.S. military's plastic surgeons are rather busing doing skin grafts, facial reconstructions and work on amputees these days and are probably doing less boob jobs than in the past.

need more patients to keep their skills up so they'll be ready for traumatic repair work caused by accidents and war.

I was told by the civilian doctor who reconstructed my right knee (sympathetic injury, he called it, due to favoring my left leg for so long) that he could find no reason why the Navy doctor felt he needed to reconstruct.

I'm not angry about it, I guess that's why they call medicine a "practice". Hopefully someone who came after me got what he/she needed due to the doctor "boning up" on traumatic injuries and the protocols to treat them.