Our thanks to L, a doctor, for this. Once again, the state refuses to spend money on protecting the health of males, in this case boys. It’s a reminder that while prostate cancer kills more men than breast cancer kills women, the two gender-specific national screening programmes are both targeted at women – breast and cervical cancers. L writes:
As a doctor, I’m appalled and disappointed. Had I not taken the red pill, I’d be shocked. Sadly, it was predictable. Glad I left the NHS.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I am probably swimming against the tide here, but please hear me out.
The health and well being of men is not the responsibility of the state. It is the responsibility of each individual man. The idea that the government funded NHS has the right or responsibility to inject new vaccines into boys, on the assumption that they will engage in sexual activity with an opportunistic infected female or five (at some point) is, to me, insane.
True Men’s Health is a process of sensible, controlled, self-regulated behaviour in all things, including sexual practice and engagement. If the Feminist Agenda want free blanket-bombed injections to assist in their own promiscuity?..then let them have it.. if that’s what is important to them. However, I suggest men should consider their sexual options carefully, and introduce the concept of appropriate sexuality as opposed to
inevitably taking whatever is available, whatever the risks.
Free abortions, free contraception, free anti-STD vaccinations?…
Perhaps we need to consider our life styles more if we want to maintain good health, rather than expecting the feminist mummy-state to look after us when we contract a disease through ill considered sexual indulgence.
A Capable Man is not a promiscuous man. A Capable Man takes care of himself and controls his desire because he understands the risks.
If on the other hand an infection occurs, then by all means seek treatment for it. But otherwise I suggest the NHS should focus on more legitimate costly concerns. And perhaps,women could follow suit and reconsider their own multi-partner sexual practices. Maybe then our families and relationships would move towards more harmonious outcomes.. and that would be more welcome to me than a freebie sex-virus vaccination, any day of the week.
LikeLike
You do understand don’t you that HPV infection in men has relatively minor short term symptoms but can cause penile cancer and throat cancer (the latter through oral sex with a carrier)?
LikeLike
Paul. Yes I understand that. We appear to live in a world of hyper sexuality. I’m not sure that has really benefitted any one. Engaging in oral sex is a risky business if you are not very familiar with the recipient, and my point is that our sexual practices are our own responsibility, and our choice of sexual partner is also our own. Without appearing flippant or provocative I also understand that smoking 60 cigarettes a day can be potentially fatal, and I don’t see that it is the government’s responsibility to develop or administer a vaccine for boys (or girls) against the potentially fatal outcome of irresponsible smoking habits.
There are many sexual practices which are actually harmful. That is a reality which, particularly in a hyper-sexualised society, we are best not to forget.
LikeLike
You’re not going to be able to stop young people from indulging in sex nor un-invent the HPV vaccine.
So in a nutshell your position amounts to one in which males face the consequences of a poor choice of sexual partner or practice, even if those consequences include terminal cancer, but females will be protected from those consequences.
LikeLike
Paul. With the sincerest of respect it is time we took on the responsibility of being a brotherhood and started educating each other as to any risks we face. We are men not children and need to accept that responsibility rather than handing over men’s health to the state, which funnily enough puts it into the hands of women. You are advocating the deferring of personal responsibility on the grounds that what?… men are irresponsible, ignorant, or stupid, and so must be protected from themselves and infected women by the army of nurses in the NHS. I won’t set the bar that low for the convenience of not talking about sexual health to other men.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree but education and changes in attitude take time. Why would you in the meantime deny men the protection of a medical technology, from which women are currently benefiting?
I think that you are putting forward a false dichotomy.
LikeLike
Paul.. thanks for your reply again. I’m not intending to deny anyone anything..(least of all their Autonomy).. and I have faith that Nature will teach important lessons whether we like it or not. The lesson we are being taught is that hedonism and promiscuity are contrary to physical and mental health. Nature does not pander to self-destructive self-indulgence. The nanny/mummy-Sate continues to try to do just that… There comes a time when we need to sleep with the lights off, and to cross the road without having our hands held. Now is that time.
The alternative is to open the floodgates to government pharmaceutical intervention.. they already intrude and exploit the mental health vulnerabilities of boys with their pseudo science psychiatric agenda.. I for one do not intend to extend the power or influence of the pharmaceutical industry any more than is absolutely necessary… Cheers, Stay Safe, and Best Regards.
LikeLike
Paul my aim is not to deny men anything except unhealthy practice.
I certainly do not intend to deny them autonomy, and I am not able to deny them the natural negative consequences of ill-advised unhealthy sexual conduct.
LikeLike