May 14, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:What is normal
A little over a month ago, I attended a Liberty Fund conference run by the inimitable Tyler Cowen, of Marginal Revolution, on biological determinism. For those of you who have been wondering what Mr Cowen is like, the answer is that he's incredibly smart, as is his co-blogger, Alex Tabarrok. Their styles, however, are very different. Alex is hawk-eyed when it comes to spotting lazy reasoning or fallacious argument, and lightning-fast at exposing it where it occurs. Tyler is quieter; he sits and listens for a long time, and then just when you've forgotten to wonder what he's thinking, he unleashes, in his quiet way, some devastatingly obvious (in hindsight) demolition of your argument, or a new point so clever and elegant that you know you would never have thought of it in a million years. Both are very good, if somewhat unsettling, company.
But back to the reason for this post: one of the pieces that we read was on female circumcision, more perjoratively known in the west as female genital mutilation. The author of the piece argues that our attitude towards it is mostly irrational prejudice. And most of us reacted with--well, to be honest, a fair amount of irrational prejudice.
That's not to say that I think the author made his case. A lot of his argument relied on the fact that female circumcision is often practiced, and encouraged, by women, particularly the mothers of the girls. African women, he is at some pains to point out, love their daughters just as much as Americans do. Well, of course, that's true, but not really useful. Victorian mothers certainly loved their daughters, but that doesn't mean that their encouragement of chattel marriage and one-gender chastity taboos was good for women. Victorian mothers pushed their daughters into these things for the same reason that mothers in cultures that practice female circumcision push their child under the ceremonial knife: because it's necessary, in that society, in order to get a husband, material security, and children. That doesn't mean that the 19th century oppression of women was a good thing, and I doubt that the author would attempt to argue that it was simply because Victorian mothers, the primary enforcement agents, loved their daughters.
Nor do I think that arguing that infibulation (the most drastic and repulsive of the procedures, which I won't describe here) occurs in "only" 15% of the cases is reallly very compelling.
But he does make a good case that, far from being grounded only in patriarchal power politics, as most feminists opposed to the practice argue, there is a strong aesthetic component; women (and men) in societies that practice female circumcision think that uncircumcised women are repulsive-looking, and feel the same disgust towards them that we feel towards women who circumcise their daughters. The "Ick factor" makes it hard, on both sides, to have a rational discussion.
Oh, we think we're being rational; of course we have the better argument. After all, our way is pristine and natural; that's why alterations, particularly drastic ones, are "mutilation".
But consider this: intersexuals, people with abnormal quantities of X or Y chromosomes (XO, XXY, XYY) or hormonal conditions that alter fetal development, are often born with genitalia that are ambiguous, or abnormal. We commonly perform surgery on these people in order to define them as one gender or another. We do it for the same reason that African mothers have their daughters circumcised: so that they will fit into the tribe, meet our aesthetic standards for genital appearance, and have an easier time finding a mate. Yet most of the people who are repulsed by the actions of those African mothers, would, if they had a baby with one of these abnormalities, eagerly schedule it for surgery to normalise its gentalia. So are we really opposed to mutilating the pristine work of nature, or are we, like those African mothers, simply enforcing our own cultural norms?
Posted by Jane Galt at May 14, 2004 12:40 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksFirst off, forget the 'ick' factor, I'd put this in the 'ouch' factor.
This can also be correlated to the circumcision debate. I am circumcised, so naturally if my next child is a male, so shall he. Many people consider this mutilation and are adamant that it not be performed.
Also, what about piercings? No, not the nipple / genetailia / bellybutton / armpit craze where someone chooses to do so to themselves, but rather when people pierce their children's ears without letting the child decide? Is that the same?
When you talk about cultural norms, you invoke strong emotions and not all of them are logical. Trying to change a culture because your ick factor is different than someone else's leads to a lot of anger and resentment. Hence why some people are not in favor of the gay marriage thing.
There is no answer to your question, only more questions.
What truly stuns me in the FGM discussion is that we completely ignore that we routinely engage in male circumcision, a wholly unnecessary medical procedure that at best results in the loss of highly sensate structures and that at worst, as accidents too often happen, results in permanent disfigurement, complete loss of the penis, and sometimes even death of the child. Funny how that's okay, 'cause we do it and, ya' know, it's not as bad 'cause, well, 'cause we say so. And, god, those uncircumcised penises are SO gross!
Not long ago a state (I forget which) passed an anti-FGM law that included genital piercing. Many pointed out that the ban only covered women and how sexist this was. It never seemed to occur to anyone that it *had* to only cover women, otherwise male circumcision would be illegal and we can't be having that. The law was sexist all right, just not quite the way people wanted to portray it. That log is embedded so deeply in our own eye that we don't even seem to realize it's there.
Our hypocrisy on this issue is stunning.
Myria
Actually, I wish I could find the article, but there is a growing movement within the intersexed community not to "fix" a baby's genitalia until after they have hit puberty, since it is becoming increasingly obvious that sexuality as much in the mind as it is part of the body. I would also like to point out that the intersexed are not the norm, but the exception to the very common rule.
There is a difference in trying to figure out what the right thing to do is when you have one of the uncommon exceptions. It is entirely another when you are talking about 50% of everyone born in your community.
That being said, I think the concern here is that, aside from the fact that many female circumcisions are brutal and violent and performed under the worst possible conditions, that it robs these women of a huge part of a non-circumcised female's life.
I could survive on a diet of nothing but protein shakes specifically designed to give my body the proper nutrients, but I would miss out on and cream and popcorn and eggs and fresh berries (not all together) and my life would be sadder for it. The same is true of sex. I could live my life without orgasms...but my life would be sadder for it.
I appreciate people's cultural norms. I appreciate ceremonial scaring and religious holidays. But I'm not in favor of ritual sacrifice, whether it be a life or a clitoris. To my knowledge there is no other cultural ritual that is currently practiced that does so much physical damage to those it is practiced on. I certainly don't recall seeing anything on Eunuchs recently. It's interesting how that "cultural mutilation" has died out and female circumcision has not.
I have met very few men who were unable to have orgasms because they were circumcised as an infant.
As I said above, cultural mutilation of a body isn’t my problem with it. The problem is completely removing a huge aspect of life from the lives of these women.
Oh, and on a side note, there are lots of reasons to have your son circumcised in this day and age. Lets start with the fact that there are lower rates of cervical cancer in women who are married to circumcised men and it is my understanding that the men themselves are less prone to urinary tract infections.
One of the arguments he made -- which is very hard to prove either way -- is that it doesn't, in fact, decrease sexual satisfaction. Of course, since htere are very few sexually active women choosing drastic circumcision, there's really no way to know.
And while the procedure is painful, it's no more painful than some male circumcision procedures which don't produce the same revulsion in us.
"Actually, I wish I could find the article, but there is a growing movement within the intersexed community not to "fix" a baby's genitalia until after they have hit puberty, since it is becoming increasingly obvious that sexuality as much in the mind as it is part of the body."
The ISNA (see here), among other groups, has been working on this for a long time but it's an uphill battle against entrenched opinions amongst parents and the medical community.
"There is a difference in trying to figure out what the right thing to do is when you have one of the uncommon exceptions."
Not *that* uncommon. Best estimates are that between one and two in one thousand births receive surgery of one kind or another to "normalize" genital appearance (see here). In a population of 300million that's a whole lot of people.
"That being said, I think the concern here is that, aside from the fact that many female circumcisions are brutal and violent and performed under the worst possible conditions, [...]"
You are aware, I hope, that male circumcisions are done around the world and often under those same "brutal and violent" "worst possible conditions"? Deaths from male circumcision in the developed world are far from unheard of, but they're relatively common in many parts of Africa.
"I have met very few men who were unable to have orgasms because they were circumcised as an infant."
Ah, well that makes it okay then... Of course neither you nor those circumcised males have the foggiest notion what exactly they lost when those highly sensate structures were chopped off, but somehow we're all certain that it wasn't much.
"Lets start with the fact that there are lower rates of cervical cancer in women who are married to circumcised men [...]"
Do you seriously wish to argue that an unnecessary surgical procedure is "okay" because it benefits someone else? That's an extraordinarily dangerous ethical road to start walking down.
"[...]and it is my understanding that the men themselves are less prone to urinary tract infections."
And performing bilateral modified mastectomies on all girls at age 14 would result in far fewer cases of breast cancer, a far more deadly and expensive condition that can't be treated with a simple course of antibiotics the way UTIs can.
Chopping a body part off of an infant on the off chance that doing so *might* prevent a later complication is about the weakest argument for said procedure that is possible.
Myria
My absolutely final political involvement ever was in one of the biggest men's issues groups. Male circumcision is a major issue for these groups. Gay and bi-sexual men seem to be predominant in these groups.
One of the most interesting political convolutions of our time is the strange, multiple meanings of the word "imperialism," a favorite word of the left. This seems to be a very evil thing when the U.S. flexes its military power. It seems to be a very good thing when we attempt to export feminism, gay activism and secularism to Asian, African and Arab societies.
And, just to throw in a ringer. It seems to be accepted as common knowledge in the educated West that the relationship between men and women is more "equal" in the West than in the East. I used to believe that myself. After 13 years of marriage to a Filipino woman who adamantly disputed that from day one, I now believe exactly the opposite. It is the traditional East that really believes in equality between male and female, while the West believes unequivocably in the supremacy of the female and the degradation of the male. It's a long story that I won't tell, but I no longer have any doubt.
Well, a tiny bit. Speak for a few minutes to any Western feminist woman. You will hear this credo, I guarantee: 1. Any man who believes that a woman's sexuality should be controlled by some sort of general community standards is a godawful male chauvnist bent on human rights violations. 2. Men's sexuality should always be rigidly controlled by societal proscriptions. That's just a start.
Kate:
"I have met very few men who were unable to have orgasms because they were circumcised as an infant."
You can't make a statement like that without disclosing survey methodology and sample size. Details, Kate, details.
I recommend 'Middlesex" by Jeffrey Eugenides
I gotta say, I have read that men who have been circumcised as adults (for medical reasons) assert that sex is not nearly as good. (One man said that it was like going from a smooth shifting standard transmission to a awkward automatic one. Take from that what you will.) Suffice it to say, circumcised men are still able to feel plenty of sensation and orgasm.
I've assumed for some time that a real, but unspoken aim of female circumcision is to control _male_ sexuality.
One of the most dangerous things a society can experience is a bunch of post-pubescent unattached young men running around with no real interest in keeping the society going.
Any attempt by a society to control female desire is really a bid to make marriage the surest or only game in town for sex. If sex is a rare commodity outside marriage _and_ it's hard to get married (many ways to do that, for instance bride price, family consent, expense in feeding the whole village etc) then you have comparitively more young men trying to get married and that process gives them a stake in keeping the system going. Otherwise, the young men will get into the sort of awful trouble that unattached young men who spend too much time with each other do and lots of other people suffer.
It doesn't follow from the fact that savages go "ick" at the thought of an unmutilated woman and we go "ick" at the thought of mutilating our daughters but not at the thought of circumcizing our sons that these judgments are merely different conventional standards of ickworthiness.
The point of genital mutilation of girls is to impair their sexual function. The benefits that accrue to the mutilated in a society where mutilation is expected are no doubt real, but that doesn't make mutilation merely a conventional means to social acceptance or improved marital prospects. Even when a girl is mutilated with these ends in view, what is done is an injury, like smacking baby girls on the head with a mallet in a society where clever women are shunned. The unsmacked may be genuinely worse off for not undergoing cerebral circumcision, but they are worse off because they did not suffer evil: no one made them stupid.
Piercing ears, regularizing the genital appearance of the intersexed, and circumcizing boys really are conventional matters, which may be pursued for their social benefits and significance.
If my son's circumcision is a big deal to my wife's family because it marks him as a Jew and a small deal to me because I'd prefer he not look like a monkey, the ick-factor can properly carry the day. We're not doing something in order to injure him. Circumcision doesn't in fact injure him by our ordinary standards. (My sample size of one is unanimous - a circumsized penis works just great. And while my son clearly felt pain, it abated quickly. As well, he'll be playing football in the fall, if anyone wants to call children's aid.)
Rod (AZ)
Jane might like to know that in Canada, it is a crime to mutilate the genitals any girl or woman unless there is a compelling medical need for the procedure. Whether piercing or tattooing is prohibited by this law has not been judicially determined yet.
Yes, to date there is no law prohibiting similar mutilation of the male genitals. But with a growing population of immigrants who practiced female circumcision in their homelands, the Canadian government rushed ahead with this legislation without taking into consideration the needs of men. Perhaps that will be corrected at some future time.
Beyond that, circumcision, male or female, prevents the victim from making any decisions about himself/herself when they come of age. They may not choose at that point to adopt the customs of their birth family or culture. They should have that right.
Ditto in the case of intersexed infants. Surgical reassignment after birth deprives them of the ability to choose when they reach maturity and understand for themselves the choices involved. In our present culture, it is easier for children with "special needs" to avoid disclosing their genital development.
Everyone should have the right as an adult to make these decisions.
How does the author of that piece feel about foot binding, as once practiced in upper-class China? This was a process that constricted and distorted the growth of girls' feet into a smaller and supposedly prettier form (prettier according to Chinese men). It also made walking painful and difficult.
IMO, this was a status symbol for the men who married these women. It was evidence that he could afford to hire servants to do all the housework, because his wife surely wasn't going to do much with those crippled feet. So if you wanted your daughter to marry a rich man, you would cripple her feet - but if somehow those wedding plans never materialized, she didn't have many options left...
"Any attempt by a society to control female desire is really a bid to make marriage the surest or only game in town for sex. If sex is a rare commodity outside marriage _and_ it's hard to get married (many ways to do that, for instance bride price, family consent, expense in feeding the whole village etc) then you have comparitively more young men trying to get married and that process gives them a stake in keeping the system going. Otherwise, the young men will get into the sort of awful trouble that unattached young men who spend too much time with each other do and lots of other people suffer."
What you mean like how in the US there's an incredibly low marriage rate and birth rate? So much so that we're going to suffer serious financial problems as a result? You don't say.
As well all the young men in prison who have illegitimate children but if they'd been responsible, married and supporting their kids, wouldn't be in prison? You don't say.
Also, doesn't female circumcision create real health problems as well as constant pain and impede sexual functioning? I think it's a bit different from male circumcision in that regard.
Is it possible to say something like "it's probably wise, generally speaking, to monkey with other culture's habits gently, if at all" without being labeled pro-female-circumcision?
As for male circumcision, here's a good Debra Ollivier piece for Salon about why she decided not to have her son cut.
http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/1998/10/26feature.html
Brief quote:
Within minutes, three feet of veins, arteries and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves and more than 20,000 nerve endings are destroyed; so are all the muscles, glands, epithelial tissue and sexual sensitivity associated with the foreskin. Finally, what nature intended as an internal organ is irrevocably externalized.
Pretty vivid!
I am not circumcised. As a man, it is much more difficult to keep clean and frankly to pee straight than it is for a circumcised man. Given a choice I'd rather not have that couple of inches of skin.
anon - Are you not aware that you DO have a choice?
none,
are you aware that this can hurt?
yup, I'm aware of the choice, also of the pain. I'm 50, and will live with it. My point is that not circumcising men leads to problems that outweigh the benefits, so as a rare person who knows, I reccomend male circumcision.
Male circumcision and the hysterical rhetoric of those who oppose it was one of the issues I had in mind when I came up with "Eiland's Theory of Compensatory Misery":
"As human society gradually solves the problems of basic survival and reduces the amount of other miseries rooted in the reality of the human condition, the fringe elements of that society feel an increasingly strong compulsion to become obsessively angry about ever more trivial causes to recapture the sense that life is a painful struggle."
The flip side of this is, of course, that when things get tough, these issues tend to recede into the background as not being worthy of attention. Opposition to male circumcision was becoming a rather trendy issue prior to 9/11 (I seem to recall a rather nasty war of words between Dr. Laura and Dr. Dean Adell on the matter). It's been pretty much MIA in the major media ever since.
Male circumcision is, of course, of a piece with female circumcision. I'm not sure where Jane Galt is coming from -- there are PLENTY of people who find the idea of male circumcision repulsive and repugnant who live in this culture.
I think anyone who stood back from an objective viewpoint would see both types of surgeries as very similar and anyone who reacts with revulsion towards one ought to feel the same way about the other. To perform this kind of partial amputation on a newborn infant is the most hideous kind of crime imaginable.
What we need is some multi-million dollar lawsuits to start getting found for the plaintiff against the hospitals and doctors who perform this except for medical necessity. Perhaps Massachussets or California can find a suitable jurisdiction in the more liberal areas. Once a few lawsuits are won we can bury this aberrant and disgusting practice in this country and then actually have the moral high ground to criticize circumcision of females.
Mr. Eiland,
You would no doubt call people in Africa who oppose female circumcision "hysterics" if you lived in that culture. Heck I can even see you defending the "peculiar institution" if you had lived back then.
Just because people are mad about having their genital function surgically modified against their wishes when they were infants doesn't mean they are nutcases. And just because there are worse evils to worry about doesn't mean we need to tolerate this one. For example, just because the Islamists are far more degenerate as witnessed by the slaughter of Nick Berg by having his head sawed off with a knife doesn't mean Lynndie England should get off scott free.
I am vehemently opposed to male circumcision, but at least it is performed in a sterile operating room by a doctor
Removing a part of a child's body without his consent is barbaric. Why not pry out the teeth as soon as they sprout? They get infected a lot more often than foreskins.
Some of this discussion feels like a flashback to the moral equivalence arguments from the war in Afghanistan. Remember the ridiculous claim that bikinis are just as bad as burqas?
I can't say I'm necessarily a fan of cutting off a bit of foreskin, or ritually scarring the face or body, or putting a bone spear through your nose, or slitting your lip open so you can put a big ornamental disk in it. But like pierced ears, pierced genitals, tattoos, and similar practices these things are essentially harmless cultural customs that some people find icky and some people don't (usually depending on what culture you come from).
There is a significant difference between these practices and amputating a woman's clitoris so she won't experience sexual pleasure, or using footbinding to cripple someone.
A quick rule of thumb --
1. Ritually scarring the arm below the elbow, in a fashion that other cultures find disgusting or repellent, to create designs that people in your culture find attractive or meaningful: OK
2. Amputating the arm below the elbow: NOT OK
The notion that circumcision is in the same moral category as clitoral amputation, footbinding, or pro-actively prying out teeth(!) is laughable and demonstrates a false moral equivalence.
DRB,
Of course when you remove the foreskin you are only removing *PART* of the male sexual function, not the whole of it.
It's still a savage thing to do to a day-old infant!
PS -- women can experience sexual pleasure with other parts of their body than the clitoris.
Mr. Cromer -
What a typically modern way of approaching the situation: "Here's a problem - circumcision. How do we solve it? Hmm... Let's level some multi-million dollar lawsuits against parties that are not at fault! That fixes everything!"
Because who cares that, if the lawsuits are won, it costs hospitals money - you know, that they could use to pay doctors, or research diseases, or improve patient conditions. That's not important.
What's important is that we punish doctors and hospitals who are simply doing what is requested of them by parents: how dare they refuse the parents a procedure that, at least as of this writing, is still considered safe and sanitary enough to be performed on over 60% of newborn males in 2002(it is the most commonly-performed surgery in the USA). So a doctor's choice is to either refuse to perform the surgery, or face a lawsuit? BRILLIANT!
It's thinking like yours that drives up malpractice insurance and forces good, honest doctors to be unable to afford to practice medecine - because that's what we need in this country, is FEWER doctors, as the medical needs of the nation rise. Fantastic.
Personally, I'm completely indifferent on the issue - I don't care if circumcision is illegal or not. But to go about getting rid of it in such a rediculous way is not only silly, but would contribute to the worsening situation in health care that exists today.
Kyu,
I'm pissed that some fucking doctor cut MY genitals without MY goddamn permission when I was a fucking day old. Which means I never got to enjoy sex the way nature intended, with my glans as an internal organ with mucus membranes instead of thick keratinized skin.
Any honest doctor follows the Hippocratic Oath -- first, do no harm.
Well the ignorant jerk who carved up my genitals a couple hours after I was born DESERVES to be sued. He harmed me.
If the majority of men are happy that their genitals were carved up by ignoramus surgeons doing "cosmetic" surgery on their willies when they were infants, fine. But those who are pissed off -- yes I damn well hope some of them sue, and win, and drive this absurd practice to a well-deserved extinction. Lawsuits by the individuals involved are the PROPER libertarian responses to this outrage to autonomy of the individual.
Now is this the most important issue we face today? No. We are in a life-or-death struggle with barbarians who would laugh as they cut our heads off and dangled them by our hair. But this issue is damn well on the table, anytime, anyplace.
PS
I don't have any beef with circumcisions performed because of an intractable problem with the foreskin, any more than I have a beef with mastectomies performed because of breast cancer, etc. But those are the exception, not the rule.
As for adults or even teenagers who decide to get a circumcision, I would of course support their right to make that decision.
I'm afraid I can't agree with you; back in the early 1960s you would have absolutely had a point. But for some three and a half decades, "consent" has been required before performing a circumcision. As the baby can, obviously, not give consent, the parents are legally empowered to do so.
Back when circumcisions were performed as a routine for newborns, it was because the American Medical Association had suggested so(in the 1920s). When it was reformed in the 60s - before which no doctor would have been reasonably expected to go against the prevailing national wisdom - consent was then made to be required.
So I don't really see any real recourse against a doctor for a lawsuit. Sue your parents, maybe. Or the AMA for its incorrect information. But the hospitals and doctors are simply performing a requested surgery, and receive full consent for it from the parents, who are considered legally empowered to do so.
Your anger at your circumcision against the doctor who performed it is misplaced - either blame your parents, or blame national institutions. But civil litigation is absolutely the wrong way to go about solving what you feel is a problem(as I said, I really have no stance one way or the other on the actual issue, I just have a problem with your means of attaining your goal).
Lawsuits are hardly the response of the responsible libertarian, because the responsible libertarian examines the available information and makes an informed decision. Anger towards your doctor - manifested in lawsuits - is not only misinformed, it has negative externalities as well; something proper libertarians should be aware of, if nothing else.
You seem extremely passionate about the issue - have you contacted your senators/congressman/governor's offices? Just curious - if you haven't, then I'd suggest trying that first, before resorting to the courts.
Kyu,
1) Does the consent form mention the effects on sexual function for the adult in the future? Of course not.
2) Should we allow parents to "trim up" little girls genitals to make them easier to clean?
3) Bottom line is nobody has any business allowing unneeded cosmetic surgery with proven irreversable nerve damage on newborn infants. If you are talking about necessary reconstructive surgery for birth defects like Cleft Palette, sure. But not a life-changing unneeded surgery to make the kid "look like dad". We don't allow doctors to give nose jobs to day old infants to make them look like dad.
Kyu,
Why not stop trying to defend the indefensible?
If children have any rights whatsoever to protection from the whims of their parents and societies decision making, surely they have the right not to have part of their normal, functional genitalia lopped off for cosmetic reasons. Whether they are little girl children or little boy babies.
The way to stop male circumcision is for insurance companies to stop paying for it.
Circumcision for men was proposed during the victorian era as a means to prevent masturbation. The folks in that era believed that "self abuse" was so evil, that fathers who chopped off the evil bits when they caught their children playing with. But then folks back then believed that the bumps on your head decided whether you were a criminal or not.
The cervical cancer claim? Unsubstantiated by any medical study in the last 30 years. Chopping off body parts because they *might* cause cancer down the years would mean that infant girls would have mastectomies because 1 in 9 women develop breast disease.
I am amazed at the selective amnesia on this issue. Yes it really is related to the arab/african practice of chopping off little girl bits (female sexuality is dangerous you know, civilization will end if it is not tightly controlled).
Oh, whacking off the tip of your (son's) wienie is done by a nurse, not a doctor.
Jane:
One of the arguments he made -- which is very hard to prove either way -- is that it doesn't, in fact, decrease sexual satisfaction. Of course, since htere are very few sexually active women choosing drastic circumcision, there's really no way to know.
Then why not go with the empirical evidence, i.e., that it makes female orgasm extremely difficult (or impossible) to achieve? Not much point arguing a subjective in its home court when a graspable objective point is available.
Mryia: Female circumcision in its most basic form effectively disables orgasmic function. In addition, the more extreme forms -- which include sewing the outer labia together and leaving only a small opening for urine and menstrual blood -- make the expulsion of both waste types extremely time-consuming and painful, and correspondingly increase risks of infection. And these awful effects occur, by varying degree, in every case where the procedure is performed.
This is not even in the same league as male circumcision, which ordinarily has, at most, a mostly unqualifiable qualitative effect on that male's future sexual satisfaction. If you wish to view every instance of cutting the skin as equivalent on deontological grounds then that is of course your perogative, but you won't convince many consequentialist-minded unbelievers using that approach.
Matthew Cromer: Have you considered valium? Read Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises for an example of a man who has apparently learned how to cope.
anony-mouse,
Why should I care what a person who won't even sign his own posts has to say?
I'm just standing up for the little boys who are being robbed of a large portion of their genital nervous tissue for no good reason, and having their sexual function compromised. Not to mention the ones who die or have their penis destroyed during this savagery.
You're on the wrong side of history, nameless man. Along with Bull Conner, PW Botha, Neville Chamberlain, and all the other obstacles to justice and liberty who are now rightly ridiculed in the history books.
Some day our grandchildren will look back with utter uncomprehension that people sliced away healthy parts of baby boys and permanently diminished their sexuality through an inhuman, barbaric cultural meme. May that day arrive soon!
The question of protecting children from their parents is ENTIRELY different from suing medical institutions. It's so far and away not related - unless you plan to sue your parents(which, if you wish, you are entitled to attempt - I have no problem with that, as it has none of the problems or logical flaws that a lawsuit against a doctor or hospital has).
What you seem to be most concerned about is a question of 'information' - not practice. If you believe so strongly about it, get involved - don't just post on a weblog, start/get involved with an organization dedicated to dealing with the issue.
I also noticed you didn't respond to my question about contacting your legislative representatives. Perhaps because you haven't? Or you may have just missed that sentence. Either way, I think you need to try other avenues before resorting to litigation, and against those not at fault, to boot.
"Mr. Eiland,
You would no doubt call people in Africa who oppose female circumcision "hysterics" if you lived in that culture. Heck I can even see you defending the "peculiar institution" if you had lived back then."
*snicker*
And no doubt, if you were living three hundred years from now, you'd be filing a lawsuit to force all humans to sleep in a stasis field, to prevent them from rolling over in their sleep and killing helpless dust mites.
"You're on the wrong side of history, nameless man. Along with Bull Conner, PW Botha, Neville Chamberlain, and all the other obstacles to justice and liberty who are now rightly ridiculed in the history books."
It's a shame we don't see this type of insane ranting in wider forums these days--it's definitely a sign that we've got more important things to worry about.
I'm done conversing with Mr. Cromer. Especially after the last few posts, I smell a troll...
Kyu,
Of course you are done, you got your a** kicked trying to defend the indefensible. The whole reason to go through the courts is you don't need to persuade huge numbers of politicians to agree with you. That's why most progress in individual liberty in America has been made first in the courts, often in a single jurisdiction to begin with.
Eiland, your straw men don't hunt. What's your theory of rights that it's OK to carve up children's genitals for a cosmetic procedure? That children are chattel property? Why is it a crime to perform a "labia trimming" but just fine to cut off a functional part of a baby boy's wee-wee?
There's so many ways this procedure is a rights violation -- just to start with the equal protection issue is a slam dunk.
I'm sure on many other issues you two are on the right side of the issue. Sadly on this issue you are allowing cultural blindness to shade your vision. Sit back, reflect a while, and you will see that cutting up normal genitalia is just as wrong when done to a boy baby as when done to a girl.
Why should I care what a person who won't even sign his own posts has to say?
*yawn*...no really, that's it? You had all night to invent a better mousetrap, or at least something that would send me scurrying back under the kitchen cupboards, and all you came up with was a transparently facile ad hominem?
Let's see, "Matthew Cromer" whose email contact is "sdaconsulting@nc.rr.com"...so would you be the Java programmer or the photographer or both, presently residing in North Carolina, and why did you let the domain expire? Or did you just swipe the name and email at random from some innocent bystander? Either way, I have no way of knowing that "Matthew Cromer" is anything other than a fictitious alias -- unless of course you wish to publish physical address and phone number right now, but I wouldn't recommend it -- and either way that data has no bearing on the discussion.
So, "Mr. Cromer" -- try to stick with the substance. For someone who has already begun attacking other parties' alleged locial fallacies, you're off to a very bad start.
I'm just standing up
That's an odd way to type...
for the little boys
Given the, uh, object of our conversation, I came frighteningly close a crass Michael Jackson joke here.
who are being robbed of a large portion of their genital nervous tissue for no good reason,
First, you must establish that this tissue is really as significant as you say it is, and you haven't done that. You have, however, presented a lot of "just so" arguments, another form of logical fallacy, oddly enough.
and having their sexual function compromised.
Second, you must establish that their sexual function really is compromised.
Not to mention the ones who die or have their penis destroyed during this savagery.
Appeal to emotion (logical fallacy). You need to demonstrate that this is, by frequency of occurance or similar datapoints, a serious problem, and not merely a rare side effect.
You're on the wrong side of history, nameless man.
Call me "anony-mouse." Or just keep putting out more literary cheese, if you prefer.
Along with Bull Conner, PW Botha, Neville Chamberlain, and all the other obstacles to justice and liberty who are now rightly ridiculed in the history books.
M. Scott Eiland already gave that piece of limp hyperbole the witty ridicule it so richly deserved, so I'll defer to him.
Some day our grandchildren will look back with utter uncomprehension that people sliced away healthy parts of baby boys and permanently diminished their sexuality through an inhuman, barbaric cultural meme. May that day arrive soon!
You weren't waiting for an ovation, I hope?
You really need to back down and reconsider your presentation. I would think that if you are truly convinced your cause is just, you wouldn't spend nearly so much time (and energy) making it look ridiculous by your behavior.
Anony-mouse,
Since you are utterly ignorant of the facts, I will explain them to you.
The foreskin keeps the head of the penis moist and lubricated to facilitate sex. Without the foreskin the skin on the head becomes harder and thicker and less sensitive.
The foreskin also contains a great deal of the sensitivity.
As for the dead babies and the babies whose penis is damaged severely or destroyed by circumcision -- why an acceptable number for this wholly unneeded cosmetic operation would be zero.
Feel free to educate yourself -- there are literally hundreds of sites online, but you can start with this one.
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
You might start by learning why widespread circumcision was begun in the west -- to reduce sexual sensation in the penis and the incidence of masturbation.
"You might start by learning why widespread circumcision was begun in the west -- to reduce sexual sensation in the penis and the incidence of masturbation."
Gee--they were certainly successful in eradicating the scourge of masturbation.
Not.
Since you are utterly ignorant of the facts, I will explain them to you.
Logical fallacy, personal attack. I gave you nothing by which to judge whether I was ignorant of these alleged facts. As stated previously, my questioning centered heavily around your method of presentation. Which, diappointingly, has not improved.
The foreskin keeps the head of the penis moist and lubricated to facilitate sex. Without the foreskin the skin on the head becomes harder and thicker and less sensitive.
Yes, yes, I have Internet access, and looked this stuff up a long time ago. Do note that concomitant to these facts you present, the cicumcised male is fully capable of achieving orgasm. Additional fact: Unlike the human female, the male requires several minutes (or more) of recuperation after climax and cannot normally have multiple climaxes in a single sexual event, so an equally valid "quality" argument could be made to the effect that reduced sensitivity increases the time to orgasm and thus enhances his pleasure by prolonging the pre-climax experience.
Note that the only way to differentiate between those two disparate positions is to find better evidence on the matter, which you have still not presented, thus your point yet rests on a very sandy foundation.
The foreskin also contains a great deal of the sensitivity.
Again -- already knew that, and wasn't arguing against it. But what is the practical effect on actual male sexual satisfaction, given that normal orgasm can still be achieved by a circumcised individual? Defend with evidence, please.
As for the dead babies and the babies whose penis is damaged severely or destroyed by circumcision -- why an acceptable number for this wholly unneeded cosmetic operation would be zero.
And given that a social stigma of being uncicumcised might result in that child later being mocked by peers to the point where he commits suicide, or attempts self-circumcision in an unsterile environment, or procures an automatic weapon and kills thirty people in a post office, why he should he be abused by having circumcision witheld at the time when he would suffer the least for the procedure and......well, see what happens when we engage in creative writing rather than defending arguments numerically? People do all sorts of strange things for cultural reasons, and some of those carry risks -- along with the counter-risk of ridicule or even ostracization for conformance failure. That also can have consequences, which raises the stakes on any argument claiming that a cultural norm is invalid.
Now, I'm relatively ambivalent on the male circumcision issue, meaning I hold a do-it-or-don't attitude. And you're doing precisely nothing to convince me that I should change to your view.
Feel free to educate yourself -- there are literally hundreds of sites online, but you can start with this one.
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Ho hum, glanced over a few articles and it looks like the others I've read -- a few potentially valid points to make and a lot of hyperbole to fill the space in between. I would also note that the 'hard' (haha) evidences there given seem to provide little context for the casual reader to discern whether citations/quotations are being used selectively, although the structure of some arguments leads me to believe that such selection may be occurring.
You might start by learning why widespread circumcision was begun in the west -- to reduce sexual sensation in the penis and the incidence of masturbation.
What bearing does that have? The debate here was whether the practice as a cultural norm (circumcision that is, not self-discovery) is comparable to the female variant (meaning, again, circumcision) and if so, whether equally defensible/condemnable. I disagree on both points, finding the practice of male circumcision largely unnecessary but not apocalyptic, and correspondingly mildy amusing in nature -- if only because it seems to send apparently otherwise-rational persons like yourself straight over an ideological cliff, to a gully far below where the only resort is hand-waving and loud pontification (rather than reasoned discussion of evidence).
As I said before, so I repeat: In the event you truly believe you have a just cause to uphold, you're not doing it any favors by arguing this way.
Comments are Closed.