October 26, 2004

• I wonder what Ashley's labia look like?
• Sorry ... Hoax? Gag? Serious? Serious. For money. This sort of shit really gets up my goat.
• Being a woman and having those types of deformities on their vaginas can hurt one
• Vanity knows no bounds. Think they call it, bumping uglies for a reason guys ... lol Looks legit. My SO's mother tells a story of a certain very famous actress who had a surgical procedure like this done back in the 1950's. Seem to recall this was all the rage a few years back in California. after reading parts of the sight I can't resist a, ROFLMAO!!!!"get pouty vaginal lips"
• Serious. Jenna Jameson had one of tghese labial trimmings done a while back. She had the bits they cut off encased in lucite and auctioned them off, which is beyond gross. The whole thing is pretty icky. I hadn't realised how insecure women can be about this until the first time I met a woman who didn't like getting head because it made her uncomfortable to have someone nuzzling around her labia because she thought they looked wierd.
• As labium is 'lip', I think it makes a fair amount of sense to call the vulvar folds the 'female lips'.
• That'd be pretty sweet to have Jenna Jameson's labia trimmings. I'd have them made into a suede 2-panel footbag. Maybe she could even sign it!
• They also seem to be affiliated with Mammary Enhancement, the Vagina Institute and the ever-so-slightly troubling Female Pumping website. I have no idea what universe these people live in.
• Like rogerd, I had one partner who was very self-conscious about her labia. She loved her body and loved me looking at it, but as soon as the underwear were about to come off she'd hit the lights. She did have quite pronounced labia, but me, I loved it all! I never could convince her that she wasn't somehow a freak. Just like penises there is a whole lot of variety in size and shape out there and there will always be people willing to exploit sexual insecurities to make a buck (or any insecurities - in most cases this is simply cosmetic surgery).
• I have no idea what universe these people live in. I have a rough idea. I think it involves men in white lab coats and stethoscopes, working tirelessly around to clock to research the vagina. Grant funding is always tight, but these doctors are on top of things.
• What a load of cunts!
• That was a joke; don't go call me names, now.
• Just one more way to convince women that there is something wrong with our bodies. In general, I think there is more more variation among female genitia, than there is male genitalia.
• Sadly, I hear people say shit like this all the time - in women's mags and stuff. It really scares me. A lot. I mean, how fucked up does our society have to be? There was an article in Jane about how women are voluntarily chopping off parts of their personal areas - including the clitorios! - because they "look ugly" and, more frighteningly, because then sex for them was like a "friendly hug". ! And this wasn't ritual female genital mutilation in Africa, this was in the suburban US! Sorry, the stuff still blows me away.
• Oh my god... I just noticed "Get Pouty Vaginal Lips" on the sidebar of the front page. Why are they supposed pout exactly? I mean, when my vag is engaging with another person, it's generally quite pleased!
• every girl's dream No it's not. Speak for yourself, sirs. As a woman taunted by a former partner for "not looking like the pornos" (I still don't know what's wrong with me, as that sent me screaming for the hills as far as dating is concerned): I feel a smidge of sympathy for anyone who feels that way, but not enough sympathy to think that going through with it is actually a good or psychologically healthy idea. Rogaine, Viagra, plastic surgery, The Swan, fad diet drugs. No one ever went broke overestimating the body insecurity of the American people.
• AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
• I'd like to see anyone try to get near my happy bits with a knife. You don't wanna see my mean side, mister.
• As a woman taunted by a former partner for "not looking like the pornos" Holy crap, Wurwilf, I hope you broke up with that bastard TOUT SUITE. I still can't believe that any person would say something like that - goes on my list of unbelievably horrible things bastard exes have said.
• actually, I stayed with him for another year and a half because I am a rampaging moron. and also fairly desperate, at the time. Would request more tact in future. Definitely. anyway, just illustrating that there is, absurdly, pressure.
• And how come this isnt outlawed like female circumcision is? Is it because the women have a choice here?
• You're idiots if you think this is for real. Check out the survey questions for men: Do you prefer a vagina that is fresh or one that is smelly? Do you prefer a pretty vagina or an ugly one? Seriously, guys? This site is obviously supposed to parody the way that society is forcing stupid measures of "beauty" on women in every area - even their most intimate ones. It's also a satire of how we don't accept the normal processes of aging in women. Observe: "Experience life with a tight and normal vagina, like other women; No woman wants to be an oddity, and having a big vagina means that you are no longer are normal." "Arched vulva: typically found on all young women, the vulva has a good definition where the outer lips are pouty and well rounded giving it an arched look, representing health and beauty as all the feminine contours are fully present." ALL young women? Satire. "You will no longer suffer from embarrassing size problems; as we all know, size can be uncomfortable for any woman when it comes to her vagina, the usual tendency is big boobs, small tight pussy. So being
• OMG OMG >...lol... Vagina Dentata...
• nicola: If you're surprised that Western women are happy whacking bits off genitals, you've obviously never listened to women who decided to circumcise their sons because they don't like normal pensises 8-/ ramix: For the same reason, I imagine, you can get tattoos, piercings, and the like. It is, after all, your body, and you can do what you like with it as an adult, no matter how silly other people think you are.
• I punched the "pay by phone" option to see whether there was really a pay site behind it. They are, alas, for real. No, I didn't join. But there is a phone number to call. I thought the grossout factor for female genitalia was supposed to be the smell. How far behind the times I am! And how grateful I am that I'm old enough that if I ever end up dating again, my target pool of men will probably still pre-date the heavily airbrushed "arched vulva" look that this site seems to think you should want. Despite the fact that I am not waxed and pouty like a porn star, and, I suspect, am quite ugly by the standards of the web site, the only man who's ever said anything specific about my appearance in that area was gentleman enough to offer a compliment. The moral of this story is that this considerate fellow got nookie, whereas any inconsiderate creep who thinks I'm insufficiently pornoriffic for his narrow tastes will be sleeping at the curb. And any inconsiderate female who says anything will get a freezing response of the sort endorsed by Miss Manners for impertinent jerks.
• Will noone celebrate "Meaty Fins"?
• Ugh This is terrible
• could I get a side of (fries/chips) with those meaty fins?
• I'm sorry, but I have to say that the funniest thing about this thread is Nicola's misspelling. clitorios? Like cheerios only uhm... [insert one of 7 million innapropriate comments]
• I know, I saw the typo afterwards and I meant to post an apology earlier. Should probably also be 'TOUTE' too, huh? My only excuse is that I'm at work, so I a) didn't want to risk going to the site, b) couldn't spell-check words that would make my officemates' eyebrows raise and c) couldn't spend too much time on the page to leave my comment. So - the site maybe is (and is probably after reading quotes above) a joke, but the fact that people want the procedure, that's not. Re: circumcision - I think those women are crazy too. If you're doing it for religious reasons, that's one thing, but if you're doing it for athestic reasons - or because "that's what's done now" - that's different.
• I want a "Meaty Fins" T-shirt.
• I doubt that's a fake site. Plastic surgery has reached quite scary levels. Saw a couple minutes of a program dealing with that subject last week on some BBC affiliate. Everything from 'correcting the symmetry' to enlarging the labia (some people find that attractive... who's to blame them?) to the latest fad: injecting collagen to the G-spot. For that 'added sensation'. Sheez.
• Isn't it "labias"?
• No, "la bias" is what you find in the media.
• Fresh. *muses for a moment" Yep, definatly fresh.
• Apparently, the obsession with perfect naughty bits isn't restricted to the er, front side. If the ol' brown eye ain't sufficiently pink, you can have it bleached.
• And men always say they all look the same in the dark! I thought they looked all the same anyway. I never did have much interest in other ladies' genitals, or my own. Try 'vagina dementia' for these women. /slinks away to find the hand-mirror for self-examination.
• Interesting Salon article on this topic. From back when they still had a 'mothers who think' section. And didn't absolutely suck.
• I'd say fake. Why would you need a 30-day introductory membership with automatic billing every month thereafter...what is it exactly that these people do? *shudders*
• Anyone who thinks a set of dick and balls is any great natural aesthetic triumph, raise your hands. Sorry, nicola, but excusing circumcision because of religious beliefs is barbaric. Superstition should not allow people to legally mutilate their children.
• What's wrong with a circumcised penis?? I've been quite happy with mine.
• Nothing's wrong about circumcision, provided the person being cut is doing so willingly. Mutilating babies is yet another concern. Oh, and then there's these vulvas.
• *ponders* Yeah, I think Kimberly said it best. And anyone who has the nerve to complain doesn't deserve to see them in the first place.
• and also? coppermac made me laugh. 'Anyone who thinks a set of dick and balls is any great natural aesthetic triumph, raise your hands.'
• I didn't think it was real. But I could imagine that it could be. That's what makes good satire - sometimes it's bloody hard to tell the difference.
• Jeez, coppermac, why don't we just take them away at birth, so the parents can't mutilate their minds, either? Jeez. JEEZ! "Mutilation" is part of being human; various body modifications exist in every culture. If a rite doesn't affect one's ability to live a normal life or experience normal activities, as with a properly done circumcision, who are you, or anyone, to say that it is wrong for other people to perform it upon their own children? And also, why is that particular religious rite barbaric? I think what's really barbaric is implying that a unique ritual be made illegal because of some private feeling of disgust. COPPERMAC OUT OF MY COCK, AND MY CHILDREN'S COCKS, AND MY CHILDREN'S CHILDREN'S COCKS
• I have to agree with coppermac, clockzero. While many cultures practice body modification I dare say some practices are not done to others willingly. Most instances of body modification involve adults who have an idea of what they are getting into and its done voluntarily, without force of coercion. Circumcision on men typically is not done to a willing participant neither is the female form of the practice. I don't view it as disgusting I do view it as taking away someone elses ability to have pleasurable sex because of some outdated, outmoded views on sexuality. Did you know male circumcision was introduced to English speaking countries in the 1800's to prevent masturbation? As for women who want 'pouty lips' their adults and can do whatever they want with their bodies.
• *force or coercion
• Did you know male circumcision was introduced to English speaking countries in the 1800's to prevent masturbation? Did you know it didn't work a bit?
• Well, beeza, you obviously don't know anything about circumcision. First of all, male circumcision removes only a small amount of skin which (trust me) does not prevent pleasurable sex. And I think it's obvious that within cultures in which infant circumcision takes place there is no coercion. Second, the act you refer to cavalierly as "female circumcision" is now known by most people as female genital mutilation, or FGM. It is not an analogue: it's not a ritual in the same sense, it's done without regard for the girl's health or well-being and totally at the whim of the mutilator. Whereas in circumcision the surgery is performed in the presence of the parents and some members of the community (and I assume we're not talking about secular circumcision), FGM is performed by forcing a young girl into a bush or a darkened dwelling and having others hold her down while someone either slashes clumsily at her genitals with a rusty razor blade or perhaps sews her vagina shut, or both. The two practices are extremely different both in intent and execution, so much so that they are really not comparable in any meaningful way. I don't see why you subscribe to this idea that body modification is the purview of so-called consenting adults. That's simply not true, cross-culturally. Many body modifications take place in childhood. Also, as for the masturbation part: English-speaking countries? Like, England and the United States? I don't know why or when non-Jewish Europeans started circumcising their infant sons (and I don't know if what you said is true), but Jewish people have done it for many, many centuries, during which time it (wisely) was never intended to curb masturbation, and in fact had nothing to do with it. So the rite existed in English-speaking countries well before then, though perhaps Christians didn't practice it.
• To start, arrogant of you to assume what I do and do not know on any given subject. Nothing more irritating than having someone think they know what I know. It is debatable whether circumcision reduces the pleasure. Some men who have gone through the procedure during adulthood say it lessens pleasure, others say they like the feelings associated with being circumcisized. There are men who have stretched their skin to regrow a foreskin (hard to do since the orginal skin which is quite different from the skin on the shaft) to try and reclaim what was taken from them during infancy. To try and argue for the practice from medical grounds is folly considering the number of studies done on the subject and the conclusions reached. The UN has even pondered the ethics of the practice. (second paragraph is enlightening) My comment about the use of the term, female circumcision, was not cavalier in any regard. I find the practice deplorable, and believe it or not I do know about occlusion practiced in North Africa (some go further by removing the clitoris first). I think the word coercion was very approprite in the case of women, might want to pick up a dictionary and read the definition sometime. As a side note some women look forward to the day that this is done to them. Not all circumsicions are done in a surgical setting, they can also be done at home as some jewish families do. You missed the word, most in the sentence regarding body modification. I never stated catagorically only adults practice it. Sadus have been know to start sexual negation in their pre-teen years. Men in Borneo have peicings in their foreskin and if married, their wives insist they use a oetang (big ring) through the peicing and weld it shut if they are going to travel without them. Missing my point entirely. A male infant can not say, "I don't want this done to me" anymore than a female infant can say, "I dont want my ears peirced". Consider me a renegade, I consider for men (or women) to have something done to them against their will, either because of a religious practice, or cultural one to be deplorable. Its not necessary and it is barbaric. There is no medical proof to show that this practice is warranted. It has come down to being done for religious, cultural and aesthetic reasons.
• I didn't mean to be arrogant, and I apologize if I offended you. You failed, though, to make a critical distinction between a safe and relatively minor modification and a procedure which is, by most accounts, very painful, and which is known to severely affect women's sexual being, both physical and psychological, in a very negative way. That is why I said what I did. Also, personally, I think men who complain about their lack of foreskin probably have underlying psychological issues surrounding their sexuality and what has been "taken from them" which are more pressing and significant than the absence of a bit of skin. I don't know, though, and I suppose in some cases a circumcision could be problematic if not done correctly. Yes, I agree, it is not medically necessary, and done entirely for reasons specific to culture. But isn't it a presumption to say that a circumcision is against an infant's will? How can such a thing be known? I'm not saying they're complicit, or desire it, just that there is really no agency or deliberative desire at that age. By "surgery" I meant a predetermined physical procedure involving some kind of cutting of tissue, not that it is done in a hospital; it is, in fact, surgery, even if performed in a home. What do you mean, warranted? I think your cultural biases are occluding your judgement. If you find it repugnant, that is fine, but I don't think your response is any less culturally informed than the practice itself (and here I'm talking about male circumcision); moreover, who do you think you are to assert this cultural superiority? I think your barbarism is an embarassing and cognitively retrograde obsolescence of the colonial mind. I would like to point out that religion itself could be broadly said to be unnecessary and without medical proof for its warrant. Religion and culture exist outside the realm of empirical provenance and medical necessity.
• Any girlies out there want a good knobbing from my circumcised thingbit?* *For scientific purposes only. I promise not to enjoy it.
• What can I say? I get on the sauce from time to time. Offended? Sorry! Offer still stands.* *Don't touch me. I have insane germs.** **Proof of insanity? I pressed "post".
• Considering there is no medical benefit, on the whole, to circumsize males and its largely done for aethetic reasons, of course its unreasonable to not wait until the infant can decide for themselves. Until that infant can make the decision themselves it is done against their will. There is no way to say, "do you want this procedure?" and get a response back. They aren't making the decision for themselves, someone is doing it on their behalf. That, by all definitions is against a persons will and having the will of another forced upon them. If that view makes me, "cognitively retrograde obsolescence of the colonial mind" then so be it. There are many examples of religious and cultural norms that are repugnet and have been stopped. Take the Fore people of New Guinea, at one time they ate the tissue of a deceased tribe member and many developed kuru (similar to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease). It was outside influence that stopped the practice. Guess the outsiders were 'colonial' since they were instrumental in stopping the practice as it was done previously. When some tribe members were asked if they did follow this cultural practice many admitted to palming the tissue and disposing of it later. They only pretended to eat it and yes *shock* some found their own cultural practice disgusting. I personally don't like your debating style. Using the term debate loosely and will some hesitantcy since from where I stand you'd prefer to get personal rather than discuss the pros and cons of the issue itself. I'm even tempted to use the 'T' word or the 'F' word. I'm going off to find some cute fluffy kitten pictures, maybe some puppies too. wolof proof of insanity? hmmm I'd say a symptom but not complete proof. Will need a couple more examples before I'd agree with you. ;)
• I'm happy to see children removed from the homes of abusive parents, clockzero. Abuse in the form of emotional trauma or genital mutilation are sufficient grounds to have a parent declared unfit. Body modification is not the issue: consent is. Should I have been allowed to cut and shape my daughter's ears into a fringe when she was a baby? If not, why not? It's as 'valid' a modification as circumcision. Who am I to say what people ought to be allowed to do to their children? For over 25 years I was a police officer who was often charged with protecting children from abuse primarily committed by family members. Just because a person has the ability to produce a child does not give him or her the right to own the child as property and harm him/her. Your idea of barbarism is infantile. And, excusing mutilation because some book of superstitions commands it is laughable. I don't have any desire to interfere with your family's shrivelled little cocks, but I certainly don't condone you hiring a doctor or some mumbo-jumbo spouting witch doctor to mutilate anyone.
• I sincerely doubt that the percentage of sentient beings who would like bits of their genitals sliced off is very high. Given that infants can't speak, I would prefer to take evidence from the adult population and add it to the aversion that most infants have for pain and conclude that circumcision is not welcomed by an infant.
• I simply feel an irrascible urge to keep this going, after coming across this article by Dan Savage, in the Village Voice. Although his paradign is different the issue of circumsion and decision-making is intuitively addressed, in an interesting (?) manner.
• Although it can be amusing to see two people bite each others heads off... so to speak.. perhaps we should agree to disagree and let this topic drop.
• I'm going to start a website where I'll try to get as many people as possible to send me their foreskin and labia trimmings. Once I get enough, I'll have them tanned and made into a leather jacket, and maybe a wallet.
• Just thought I'd mention two things: 1, that the two words, "increased sensation", which I came across in some textbook or other, in relation to males who have not been circumcised, that those two words have bothered me for over ten years whenever I have occasion to think of my having been circumcised, which is oftener than I would have thought had my case been anothers'; 2, this, which is a self-link, but mentions labia, heh.
• beeza - again, didn't mean to offend you, don't know exactly what the issue is, but I again apologize. Perhaps you're offended because I said your way of approaching cultural difference was part of an obsolete way of looking at the world? I said that about the position you took, not you personally. Also, the anecdote you relate is really not terribly convincing to me. Repugnance is not some universal standard, and despite the ending to that story, the tribesmen apparently still practiced that rite for hundreds, if not thousands, of years before the Europeans enlightened them. Yes, the outsiders obviously were colonial. The point I want to make is that there is no objective position of authority from which to make judgements about the practices of a culture. coppermac--Wow, for a former representative of the state, you certainly have a lot of disparaging things to say about the free practice of religion. I don't know exactly what you're referring to by saying "a book of superstitious commands" or a "mumbo-jumbo spouting witch doctor". Perhaps you'd like to be more specific? And, speaking of getting personal, I don't want you interfering with my family's (quite nicely proportioned, thank you) cocks either, and I don't care if you condone what is done within my family, or anyone else's. How, exactly, speaking of consent, can a child consent to be removed from their own home, by the way, if they are too young to understand what that means? And if you belong to a culture in which ear modification is practiced, then I see no reason why you oughn't do it to your children. If you just feel like cutting your kid's ears up, that is a different thing. And I don't know what idea of barbarism you think I hold; I was referring to beeza's use of that word. I didn't use it myself. And while I respect your service as a police officer, I don't think it empowers you, nor does the state's position empower it, with some overriding moral clarity and authority.
• Suomynona--Perhaps you're right.
• To all those in the circumsion debate, I must admit, that Im a middle-aged lady who survived the late sixties and seventies with considerable abandon. /small blush of discreet modesty. Until a few years ago I thought I had never seen an uncircumsised penis and said so to my darlin'. He got a very strange look on his face and said 'I'm not circumsised'. *huh?* After a discussion, it turned out that my conception of the uncut penis was based on some porographic pictures I had seen in my teens, of a humongous foreskin. I'd assumed afterwards they were all like that. Henceforth I enjoyed a multitude of men, during those glorious days, only noting the things came in varieties of shapes and things and assuming all were circumsised. Well, 'duh'! Now I understand so much more. So I don't see that foreskins are such potent an issue, unless they look like that one I saw in the picture. 'Each to their own', whatever way one reads that.
• Interesting that MoFi has as much trouble discussing circumcision as MeFi. As someone who is opposed to it, I think it's a good sign: it indicates that a whole lot more people than there used to be are opposed to it. But about the labia modification surgery: whether this site is real or not, the existence of this form of elective plastic surgery isn't. I read an article about this last year. I was shocked. I mean, I personally was shocked because I quite like labia and think that very visible labia minora is very attractive and was just astonished to discover that many women think it's ugly and actually pay lots of money to have parts of themsleves cut off. And, damn, a whole lot of nerves are in the labia minora. The whole thing is a travesty.
• I too am glad to see so many anti-circumcision sentiments expressed here. I'm thankful that I was born in a civilized country that doesn't practice genital mutilation on infants. As for the labia modification...while I've never seen one I didn't like, and even if I did I wouldn't express my disgust to the owner, it's just plastic surgery like any other, which I don't have a problem with. If it makes you feel better about yourself to have something changed, then go ahead and change it. I don't understand how people can have no problem getting tattoos and piercings, yet get all bent out of shape at the thought of a boob job or a labia tuck. It's all the same thing, as far as I'm concerned.
• So, clockzero, why don't you hurl your accusations of cultural imperialism at cliterodectomies?
• I think that with the issue of female circumcision, for many of us there is a conflict between (at least) two deeply held values a) that one should respect the wishes of another culture, and b) that the individual has rights to equality regardless of gender, including sexual freedom. There is no way to reconcile these perfectly in our world - if you (and your country) hold both of these values, you must compromise on one or the other. The compromise might be that cultural habits like clothing will be respected, but there are limits on body modification - the reason being that an individual can always choose to wear certain clothing or not later, but cannot change some forms of body modification. But where is the line? Do we allow male circumcision, but not female? One could make the argument that we only allow male because it is a part of our western culture. However, one could also argue that male circumcision is a much less radical surgery, and does not have the same degree of effect on health, whereas female circumcision can have a great effect on health, sexual or otherwise. Also what is striking is the response of the people involved - female circumcision is more controversial where it is being practiced; many women and men from those communities would like to see it stopped. They face opposition from many other women and men (mostly it appears to be an argument between women). However, I think most agree that somewhere the line must be drawn between the rights of the parent/culture and the rights of the child/individual, on many issues. This line is never easy, and certainly there is no sudden moral clarity (one can feel quite clear about FGM, but then realise that you have a double standard for men when it comes to their circumcision), but it doesn't mean that line shouldn't be drawn. And argued about, and drawn again... ---------------- All of which has nothing to do with labia plastic surgery, which is weird, potentially misguided, and the people who sell it are slimy, but it involves adults making decisions for themselves. Feel free to do whatever you want to your own body, and I'll feel free to just shudder.
• Yeah, I agree with rocket88 that body modification is not itself inherently "wrong", and if people want to modify their body in whatever way, I think they should be allowed to and it's okay. But the *reasons* why people have body mods done matters, right? And especially to the degree to which the mod is radical
• Based on a few posts of mine you've assumed: I know nothing about circumcision. That I view myself as somehow culturally superior. Because I take the stance that cicumcision is a violation of a basic humans rights and shouldn't be practiced, that I am somehow forcing myself on others. *Yes I confess I protest at the local hospital or synagogue with my little sign that says, 'free the foreskins!' *eyeroll* I'm not forcing myself on anyone. I offered an opinion which can either be agreed with or not. I haven't said everyone must agree with me. I'm not mad, I'm irritated but not offended in the way you might think I am. Debate the topic, yes most definitely. Facts, figures, surveys I'm interested in, not feeling and supposition. Considering that what is done to the infant wouldn't be dared considered a proper procedure done on an adult, that it can cause disfigurment, leaves psychological scars that we are still trying to understand, that is can cause death (in the last 2 years or so a baby in BC died because of this procedure and one in the USA - based on a quick search of the internets) I for one don't think it is necessary in order to make little johnnys pee pee look like the rest of the boys in the locker room. Give me some solid medical evidence to show that the procedure is humane, doesn't cause excruciating pain, doesn't impact on a persons quality of life and doesn't potentially cause disfigurment or kill in order to do it and I'll think about it. There was an epidemic of kuru amoung the Fore people in the 60's, outside introvention prevented them from making themselves extinct, I see that as a caring act of humanity, to step in an offer assistance. The ceremony surrounding the death of loved ones hasn't changed with exception to eating their flesh. Helping these people didn't make those who helped, 'colonial'. But I mistakenly though you could draw a parallel and understand that not all acts of 'interference' are colonial and without warrant. IMHO think you're incapable of making a distinction because of some religious/cultural fervor. There are many examples of practices done in the name of religion and culture that eventually are deemed 'wrong' and no longer practiced. Why should this be any different?
• What's interesting, and, to me, disapointing about the male circumcision debate is that, as beeza says, so much of the pro side's point of view is rooted in the hidden assumption that the status quo is in some sense inherently self-justifying. I don't agree that male circumcision is purely cosmetic. But for the sake of the argument, let's say that it is. It's purely cosmetic. Now, all tattoos and most piercings are similarly cosmetic in this sense
• When a person has some radical plastic surgery done in order to conform to some cultural physical ideal...is that decision fully their own? Yes, it is. People tend to assume that women who get implants or other plastic surgery are being coerced by society, or worse, by their male partner. This is hardly ever the case. They do it mainly because they want to, because it makes them feel better about themselves for their own reasons. Are balding men who get hair implants victims of society? How about college kids who get tattoos or piercings? Often they do it to fit in with their social circle, so are they victims of their subculture? I think we should give people credit for having the capacity to make rational personal decisions, and respect those decisions, even if we wouldn't make them ourselves.
• first of all, it's not merely cosmetic, it's functional In what way is circumcision functional?
• I agree that there should be the *presumption* of free will in these decisions, and that presumption is a key component of respecting people's individual rights. But I don't agree that, in practice, there is *no* coersion. Either from another indivudal or culturally. I think we should both acknowledge this reality and consider it.
• There are a considerable number of nerves in the foreskin that's removed. Also, the removal of the foreskin causes the remaning foreskin and glans to be less sensitive than they otherwise would be due to exposure. Altogether, this alters sexual functioning. As a circumcised male myself, I will agree that it certainly doesn't destroy sexual responsiveness and I don't particularly feel maimed or disabled because of it. But that's not really a valid argument as my experience is so limited to only myself. A better ground upon which to evaluate such a thing is physiology, which does prove that this is functional tissue being removed, and population studies regarding sexual responsiveness, which although more ambiguous, also indicate that male circumcision is a functional alteration.
• Okay...I thought you were implying that it's functionally beneficial. What you're actually saying is that it's (debatably) functionally detrimental.
• Right. "Functional" versus "cosmetic".
• 3 things: 1. He's not a troll for disagreeing with you. He's put up just as valid as arguement as you have. You don't have to take it as a personal attack that he hasn't been convinced by your arguments. 2. A tattoo on an infant would be bad just because it would distort plenty before adulthood. If it were possible to tattoo infants without distortion, many people would do it— some for cosmetic reasons, some for religious reasons. 3. The way this thread is going, I don't think anybody here is going to give away their labia trimmings or foreskin. I was hoping to use monkey flesh, but if I ever want to get that leather jacket made, I guess I'm going to have to go to labiatrimmings4less.com (maybe I can get a discount if I by in bulk, otherwise I'll just stick with making a wallet and a hackeysack).
• rodgerd--what do you mean? I think clitoridectomies are probably NOT the result of colonial phenomena. Do you disagree? beeza--I questioned your knowledge of circumcision for the following reasons: You conflated it with FGM, and they are extremely disparate things; if this is not obvious to you, I say that you don't understand either. You made that odd remark about circumcision being "introduced to English-speaking countries"; something about that phrasing and the apocryphality of the reference made me suspect you didn't know a great deal about the history of the practice. Um, actually it IS done on adults, both in a medical setting in this country and as a ritual in other countries. It involves a permanent change to the body, and whether or not that is considered disfigurement is a personal decision, perhaps. I think some men have psychological problems which they associate with their circumcision, but this doesn't prove that circumcision causes such by any means. And two babies in two years? Perhaps both were haemophiliacs, or had an incompetent surgeon, or something else. That, again, does not establish or prove anything. You don't need any evidence of its "humane" nature, since it is perfectly humane in a certain cultural context, and besides, that's exactly what we're debating. My position is that cultural mores, represented by terms such as humane and barbaric, are not standard across cultures, and thus your demand for "medical evidence" of the humane quality of the procedure is incoherent. You seem to think "colonial" is a very negative word; why is that? Of course the interference in the Fore culture involved social colonization; this does not imply that it was either a good or a bad thing. You think it was a good thing, and you are welcome to your own opinion, although I am hesitant personally to qualify such an act of cultural intercession as "helping" considering how such language implies a set of power relations in which the outside culture knows what's best for the Fore. If they had been left alone, perhaps the custom would have changed on its own, but we'll never know now, will we? And I don't doubt the Europeans thought it was warranted, they obviously thought it was. You can't use that presumption as proof of its own incontrovertible truth. I don't know what distinction you think I'm incapable of making. Yes, exactly, they are "deemed" wrong by some outside culture and then extinguished, and my position is that nobody has the moral right or authority to say that some practice in a culture not their own is wrong, and then end that practice. I know that you disagree, and you've made it obvious that you have no problem with the idea of imposing some alien morality on other people, even if you don't do so yourself. Hey, I hear they worship something called Allah in Saudi Arabia and Iran and many other countries! That sounds wrong to me! Let's go help them, as you say, to understand a better way to do things! And by the way, that html tag at the end of your post is hilarious, though probably not for the reason you intended.
• "...and my position is that nobody has the moral right or authority to say that some practice in a culture not their own is wrong, and then end that practice." Do you really believe that? Does this include slavery? The stoning of women who reveal their faces in public? Child sexual slavery? Child labor? Whale hunting by the Japanese? Seal hunting by the Innuit? About half of FGM includes clitorectomies and partial to full excision of labia minora. But about half does not, and a good portion is "just" a partial excision of the labia minora. In those cases, it very much is comparable to male circumcision.
• I, for one, have a tattoo that says "victim of society". I got it in college.
• kmellis -- Good question. I may not agree with those things, and I may hope that the societies in which they occur will change their ways, but I think it would be wrong for the US (for instance) to forcibly change those practices. I can think that things are objectionable without feeling a moral imperative to impose my will on other people. And I certainly don't think that people in this country can claim moral superiority over the Japanese tradition of whale hunting, for example, considering how the agriculture industry treats animals in this country. Yes, perhaps certain *cases* of FGM are comparable, but that's just the point--it's not a very regularized procedure, and while certain instances may bear some resemblance to the well-defined procedure known as male circumcision, the thing *as a procedure* is very different. And I think that if the procedure does not seriously affect the sexual function and psychosexual being of the girl, it's not a problem. However, I think that FGM does those things so much more than male circumcision that the two are not really comparable.
• So if in culture A, murdering people is okay, I, as a member of culture B, should either.. A) push my government to take action against B so that murder is stopped. B) try to convince the people of culture B to stop murdering C) do nothing. D) some other option?
• (Okay, I'm in A, and murder is okay in B)
• I think it would be wrong for the US (for instance) to forcibly change those practices clockzero: You disapprove of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Because that's exactly what it's designed to do, although not forcibly. And opposition to whale hunting isn't about cruelty...it's about protecting endangered species. You can't compare it to farming.
• richer-- What you do is your business. Why would you do anything? rocket88-- No, I don't disapprove of it. I don't think that it has some overrriding moral authority, however, simply because the UN has decided to give itself that authority. And that part about forcible change is essential. Well, I don't see any essential difference. Animals are farmed for profit, whales are hunted for profit. And there is the particular cultural value: protecting endangered species, which we tend to think of as universally correct in this country (at least, some people do). I think it's highly comparable; modern animal farming presumes no value on an animal except its monetary value, and whaling is basically the same.
• Mr Kickerbocker - re: troll, A post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. I called it as I saw it. I don't take issue with his points of contention, I take issue with how he presents those issues, far different in my books. I'm not even upset he disagrees with me or that he is trying to nitpick my posts to death. For me it's a mental exercise in what I know vs what I don't (and where I don't know something I go out and investigate it). I have little emotion in regards to this (keeps me sane if I distance myself a bit) I thought I explained it pretty well earlier. The crux of the issue for me is this: it is a procedure that is done on someone who does not have the mental faculty to make the decision for themselves. Doll it up as religious or cultural it doesn't matter, it still boils down to the infant has not made the decision themselves, they can't. It is something forced upon them. Whereas if they want to do it as an adult I'm not going to stop them, it is their choice. ps: For anyone who is interested I found this site that covers some of the historical aspects of male circumcision.
• clock: Yes, but what should ONE do? What is the morally correct thing to do? What would YOU do?
• beeza-- You don't take issue with my points of contention? So...you agree with them? It's not nit-picking, by the way, but rather an attention to detail, a practice which is apparently foreign to you. So perhaps you could view the posts as my attempt to help you out by introducing this new, better practice. Isn't that how you think the world should work? And don't pretend to be emotionally distant. You wouldn't have mentioned three times, despite my attempts at apologies, how incensed you are at my ways if you were really disinterested. Doll it up? Gosh, you and your open-mindedness. Is it really so hard for you to understand that there are cultures other than your own, who do things differently, and that your way is not the universal standard? Or do you just not care that there is a world outside your head? Oh, and that site is cute. I especially like the part where the author identifies circumcision as a Jewish land-deal involving infant blood and flesh.
• richer--Ok, I understand what you mean, but I'm still not clear on exactly what the hypothetical situation is. Sorry. Can you explain it in just a little more detail?
• Okay, you argue for moral relativism, against moral absolutism. I argue against it, and I have two arguments: 1) Cultural relativism, the fact that moral norms vary from society to society, is hard to argue against, and I believe it to be true. Some societies are all for sex before marriage, others don't care, others still discourage and punish it. However, that doesn't lead to moral relativism, that is, to say that what is good and moral for society isn't for another. Just because everyone in a country believes X to be right doesn't make it right. 2) Moral relativism means you following the laws and mores of the society around you. However, following laws aren't always moral: A law, for instance, that forbids dissenting with the government under penalty of torture, and require that people report such dissent.
• Richer, you might be interested in what's been happening in the Pitcairns at the moment as a good example of your cultural relativism point (the men in the above article were all found guilty and were sentenced today).
• I think we've established that performing circucision on a person who cannot give his informed consent is not morally acceptable, because it's a) permanent, can't be undone, b) unnecessary on medical terms, c) painful, d) actually causes a loss of sensibilty. So just because a majority of Americans think it's acceptable, doesn't make it so. They're just wrong.
• Yes, it's a pretty extreme example. Rape and murder are never morally acceptable, no matter how you look at it.
• what's been happening in the Pitcairns You should post something on this.
• In what way is [male] circumcision functional? Rocket88-- The idea is that removing the foreskin keeps things cleaner downstairs and reduces infection and penile cancer rates, and may reduce problems for sexual partners. Some data seems inconclusive. Other data point to lower HPV infection and cervical cancer rates in women having sex with circumcised men. NB. I fall into the non-circumcision camp myself, just mentioning some of the science that may justify it, beyond the cultural factors.
• I hadn't thought of that, Wolof. I'll see if I can dredge up some good links for Monday.
• The crux of the issue for me is this: it is a procedure that is done on someone who does not have the mental faculty to make the decision for themselves. Doll it up as religious or cultural it doesn't matter, it still boils down to the infant has not made the decision themselves, they can't. It is something forced upon them. Whereas if they want to do it as an adult I'm not going to stop them, it is their choice. Beeza-- What about "baby jabs"? That is, should we be witholding innoculations against diseases, given that the baby is incapable of making a decision whether to allow agents to enter his or her body which alter the immune system? I'm not sure this point stands up, on its merit.
• Richer-- Cool. Point by point: 1) Who decides what is moral or what is right, though? I think you imply some moral system's supremacy without saying so. Morality is a *cultural construct*, and as such, it changes cross-culturally. You cannot grant cultural relatvity and deny moral relativity. They are the same. Besides, I avoided saying anything from a particular culture was right for just that reason; any assertion of moral rectitude may work in one context and not another. 2) No, it doesn't imply any such thing. And I would go a step further and say that law is never moral, or rather amoral. It has nothing to do with morality. Your second post: Oh, we established that, did we? I missed that part. Your criterion don't prove anything. It's just an opinion, and your attempt to couch it in the terminology of moral philosophy does nothing to improve your case. "So just because a majority of Americans think it's acceptable, doesn't make it so. They're just wrong." Well...how do you know? Maybe you're wrong. I think you're relying on declarative morality (e.g. X is wrong because I/we say so), which is essentially meaningless because any claim can be made in that way. Yeah, that Pitcairn situation is interesting.
• "Yes, it's a pretty extreme example. Rape and murder are never morally acceptable, no matter how you look at it." If you take the strong relativist position, as clockzero does, there's no reason they can't be. The problem I have with moral relativists is not that I think they're wrong in arguing against moral absolutism; and it's not that I disagree with the point that because of cultural relativism we need to be very careful about these things. No, the problem I have is that I've never met a relativist who's actually a relativist. In every case there is some place where they draw the line and take an absolutist position. Which would be fine, if they argued as I do (and others do) that relativism is a very good caution but not a very useful principle. Yet, these folks invariably argue the moral relativist position as a principle. This is what annoys me. And the result is almost always that they argue the relativist point of view when they disagree with someone else's idea of universal morality, but conveniently forget their own supposed relativism when the point of view being argued coincides with their idea of morality that is universal (like the prohibtion against rape or murder or whale fishing or whatever). That's my uncharitable view on most outspoken relativists. On the other hand, my charitable view is that an awful lot of really bad things have been done in the past (and are being done today) in the name of someone's particular idea of universal morality; and the result has often been the imposition of one culture's
• "You cannot grant cultural relatvity and deny moral relativity." That's not really true. One should distinguish between strong and weak claims of relativism
• Good points, kmellis. But I do have to say that Inuit seal hunting is just fine and dandy - Greenpeace propaganda aside, seals are not engandered (unlike whales), it's the more humane way to hunt them, and is necessary to the local economy (they sell the fur, but eat the meat).
• clock: I can assert things are wrong using logic and values. Something like (1) Infants can't consent to surgery (2) Circumcision causes slight, permanent sexual damage (3) Circumcision is painful (4) Circumcision has no medical usefulness You can't inflict painful procedure (3) or do something that will cause permanent physical damage (2) to a person without their consent, unless it is medically necessary. However, infants can't consent, and circumcision has no medical usefulness(4). No God. No tricks.
• Richer-- I'd rather not quibble with your premises, but I don't think you've proven anything. Of course, you can make *assertions*. So can anyone else to support any moral position. Even if I grant that your premises are correct, you certainly haven't proven a moral precept. Also, the structure of your argumentation is a bit tautological. I think you may have already assumed what you're setting out to prove. kmellis-- I was responding to richer's question, and in that context I wanted to make note of the intimate connection between culture and morality. I don't see a good way to distinguish between cultural and moral values, though, do you? "Furthermore,...thinking beings." Well, two things. First, I agree that human values are not completely arbitrary; however, despite that, any moral value involves an appeal to an underlying principle, and my position is that it's impossible to establish the superiority of any principle over another. Therefore, while values may not be arbitrary, they are not really defensible in a universal sense, either. If you feel you can establish such a superiority, please do so. Second, with regard to your a and b points: A: Ok, what is that morality? Cultures certainly can and do share some values, and do not share others. The assertion you made was vague, though, so I'm not sure exactly what you meant. B: Well, I don't disagree in terms of possibility, but I doubt that every society would agree to abide by such a set of moral strictures, and if then the system is simply declared or imposed on humanity as a whole, it would be meaningless. I certainly did not mean to obfuscate the issue. I think that perhaps you have been obfuscatory, though, in your unwillingess to explain that important tenet, point a in your post, of your position.
• oops. I must jump in here, as I see some rigid patterns developing that are disrupting the flow on the real issue. We've moved from cosmetic labia surgery, an apparent matter of choice and hence basically condoned. This comes with agreement that FGM is wrong as performed without choice and upon unwilling victims. The discussion has brought in circumcision, an admirable issue of debate for our community, an international one, that embraces input, culturally and socially from it's pack. Should not the issue of circumcision be the general issue? With then, each's unique input provided to allow each member to refine their own perspectives, rather than the other person's? Circumcision is now more socially free of choice than ten, twenty and more years ago. Men and others are speaking up. Things are changing. There is a certain shoddiness in pulling out a particular example to attack a theory that was not intended to apply to that type of particular situation. I don't see that accepted in good methodology and don't see why it should be given status of debate in any proper discussion. Am I wrong? Why is an intelligent debate on the social, cultural, religious demands of body modification and the co-existent state of what is individual choice on such matters becoming so close to polite vitrolism? We seem to know what is acceptable and what isn't. Back and white....the binary....now can we explore the grey zone in between? That's where everyone's unique values and background helps to form a fabric. I've just realised, with a certain horror, that I felt free to have my daughter's ears pierced at age three. That was a presumption and a physical intrusion upon her physical integrity. That had never occurred to me before. Thanks. /We let that piercing heel over, though. now she has about six in each ear. /I'm also sitting here with a tattoo on my wrist that I just had 'reno'd' the other night. /I really did believe that the uncircumsised penis should have a grapefruit size knob on the end. It was no surprise then, that I wasn't concerned that some men had more skin their than others'. I thought maybe all circumsicions were different. sorry, I got carried away but I do mean it all.
• thanks, dxlifer.

• If you take the strong relativist position, as clockzero does, there's no reason they can't be.

  The problem is that clockzero only affects a strong relativist position on behaviour culturally acceptable to clockzero, and runs for the hills on cliterodectomies or child rape, both of which are perfectly culturally acceptable practices in certain parts of the world.
• clockzero an attention to detail would require a dissertation many pages long, something I'm not interested in writing (besides there are many books on the subject already just waiting to be read that express similar points of view to mine - Margaret Somerville comes to mind) I also don't consider myself to be the definitive source on the subject, I just have an opinion substantiated by some facts and figures. Mr Knickerbocker said using the 'T' word was inappropriate because you disagreed with me. Yes we disagree, but it is not the disagreement that has me using that word, its how you phrase some of those disagreements, not just with me but others too. I find your style inflammatory and somewhat accusatory, neither of which I personally think aren't necessary in order to fuel a debate. Being specific is not foreign to me, far from it. I get accused for going into too much detail on any number of subjects. I work hard at being less specific in order to avoid alienating my friends who are more interested in trying to beat a land speed record on the bonneville salt flats using vintage vincent engines, talking about history or current political events. For instance, I guess I made the mistake of asssuming you would know, that I knew, circumcision was also done on adult men, considering the amount I do know about the subject. (damn that is an awkward sentence) Sorta figured it was a given or are we back to me having to prove what I do or do not know? Alex Reynolds not the same thing in my mind. One is the prevention of a disease, whether it is something like meningitis or pertussis, that children can suffer horrible defects or die from if not treated. The other is a elective procedure that is done for cultural/religious reasons with some claiming there is a medical benefit to the infant (for instance one argument from the 'for cicumcision camp' is the lower likelyhood of urinary tract infections). The former has the aim of doing no harm and the latter, considering it is generally done without anesthesia causing great pain to the child ... hope you get the picture from all my previous posts.
• you're welcome, jb. I guess one's position on this may vary somewhat, depending on whether one personally has a clit or a dick. And on how one perceives the practice affecting the other.
• *
• Sadly I found this discussion late and have nothing to add--anything I can think of is already here. I just want to say that this is a great thread. It's exactly what I was hoping for when I joined MoFi--thoughtful, erudite and prolix posts.
• dxlifer I view it as a inhumane practice done on another human, never occured to me to be more outraged because of the sex of the person it is done to.
• rodgerd-- Oh do I? I don't think I said anything about those practices. I know that you'd like me to either condemn those practices (thus, in your opinion, invalidating my stance) or fail to do so, revealing myself to be the moral reprobate I must be. The truth is that I can condemn those things without ruining my argument, exactly because of its nature-isn't that obvious? I was arguing against a universal morality, and I wouldn't argue for one by offering my own opinion. Beeza-- Well, I don't know what to say. I bear you no ill will. "neither of which I personally think aren't necessary in order to fuel a debate." huh?
• Actually, beeza, I meant that one might identify more with the same sex genital mutilation. I saw that pattern in the discussion. I agree with you, clockzero, that there can be no defining universal morality, other than all individuals living to the best of the moral values they aspire to. /that being the ideal. Unfortunately, we then have that issue of choice, again. Seems as if it's a lose-lose situation whenever trying to define the moral standards for someone else. I believe education and time and the wworld's attention will bring change. The Chinese no longer bind females feet. Chastity belts were dropped. Circumsicion is not the assumed thing to do. Most importantly, the world is now sensitive to some of what can be described as barbaric practices, still in existence. Things that were not common knowledge not too long ago. I suppose I've just become more patient with age, and not so outraged. I don't know if that is a good thing or not, but I certainly have much less frustration now.
• dxlifer know what you meant but for me I don't get more upset because other women have this done to them. For me it would be like trying to argue that murdering a female is a greater injustice because they were female and I am female too. Since it was mentioned I thought you would (and everyone else) find it interesting I don't think about this discussion that way. I disagree with not being able to define a universal moral standard. Universally we agree murder is not 'right', we've defined what murder is, the different types (manslaughter, first degree etc) of murder and we punish those who commit it. On the flipside, wouldn't allowing each individual to come up with their own 'moral code' and following that 'moral code' be anarchy? Using the murder analogy, that is what psychopaths do, they define their own morality and act on it. But if there can be no universal 'moral code' to guide us I guess that makes what a psychopath does copacetic because s/he is following their own 'moral code' and hey who are we to force our own 'moral code' upon them. codezero - The key to understanding the last half of the sentence you quoted is to read the first half of the sentence.
• On a related note. I kid you not, vaginoplasty performed by Dr. Poony.
• beeza, typically relativists distinguish between a personal moral relativism (which they don't endorse) and a cultural moral relativism (which they do). I don't agree that there's a qualitative difference between the two, but I will grant that the quantitative distinction is large enough that treating them differently is not unreasonable. Even so, in all of the comments above that support moral relativism, there is an implicit or explicit condemnation of certain acts, universally. This puzzles and frustrates me. That said, it's not a problem if, similar to the personal vs. cultural distinction above, one is making a claim about how things are and should be based not upon some deep principle (that there is or is not a universal morality), but, rather, just applying common-sense. That is, almost everyone can agree that murder is "wrong" in almost every context, cultural or otherwise while, in contrast, very few people will agree that shaking hands (greeting people) with one's left hand is "wrong" in almost every context, cultural or otherwise. Common sense supports both relativist and absolutist positions, depending upon context and what act is being scrutinized. That's not to say that there won't still be conflicts
• beeza-- I know, but you said that neither of those two things *aren't* necessary to fuel a debate...so they're both necessary? That's why I said huh. Double negative. Also you called me codezero. kmellis-- I think I know why that puzzles you. One important area of any discussion like this is to determine exactly what it means, or more accurately what a person means, when they say "X is wrong". One problem with ascertaining this is that people frequently mean different things with such a construction, but the language in which we couch basic ethical ideas tends to be uniform and simplistic, unless we're students of philosophy or language, or lawyers. I think, personally, that it is possible to say "X is wrong" or "you ought not do X" without implying a moral universal, which (I think) runs against the basic conception of the categorical imperative. Some people believe that it is impossible to make any statement about a moral issue without implying a moral universal. dxlifer: "We seem to know what is acceptable and what isn't." Well, actually, I think that that's exactly why we don't agree. If there were two such neat categories, we wouldn't have anything to talk about, would we?
• It puzzles and frustrates me as well. How can you argue, 'I have a right to do as I please and you have a right to do as you please' but then argue in the same breath, 'If I don't like what you are doing I will impose myself upon you' It just doesn't add up in my mind. Arguing from this point flys in the face of moral relavitism, does it not? How can one who espouses moral relavitism argue a morally neutral point of view when, as in this thread for example, they obviously are not neutral? 'X is ok but Y isn't', huh? I don't think you can distinguish between the two ideas (personal vs cultural) and to do so is just done for convenience sake to my way of thinking. Why I think it is confusing is the mixture of ideas, on the one hand you have moral relativism on the other Judeo-Christian ideas, moral relativism doesn't have absolutes, ought and should, right and wrong, they dont exist whereas the other does. Mixing the two creates much confusion, my 3 neurons are starting to smoke under the pressure ... lol Moral relativism to me equals, 'if it feels good do it' or 'if you feel it is right, do it' not a far stretch to apply it to the parallel of psychopathy in my mind since this is typically how they think, 'I want to, this is my justification so I'll go and do it and everyone be damned' Once you get to the point where another says, 'because I want too, its how I feel' I generally want to throw up my hands in frustration because it is pointless to argue with someone over their feelings. Using common sense one wouldn't do this to a child no matter what the culture/religion. Just the idea of taking a knife and cutting away skin without anesthesia gives me the heebie jeebies - no matter where it is done on the body. Common sense tells us we treat infection with anti-biotics, not prevent infection by cutting off flesh. Common sense tells us, using a condom is an effective deterrent to getting AIDS, so why cut off flesh to deter AIDS when you'll more than likely get AIDS if you don't practice safe sex? As for other diseases used on the 'pro' side - we don't start cutting body parts off because we may one day develop cancer, common sense tells us to wait until signs of a disease are apparent and then treat the disease. clockzero, sorry no offense meant over 'codezero'. As for the double negative - saw it, couldn't edit it, I write everything out in notepad but sometimes I miss things even after previewing them several times, to me falls under the 'shit happens' category. When it happens I hope that people get the idea behind the sentence rather than focus on a technical error. ps: mind is starting to melt so some concepts are not fully fleshed out - been thinking how I was going to respond all night and this is edited version 12 ... I think
• I don't think many people are complete moral relativists (or complete absolutists, if that's the word). Most people would say that some things (genocide, say) are definitely wrong whoever does them: and most people would accept that there are areas where a culture must have rules, but where different sets of rules deserve equal respect (you need a rule about which side of the road to drive on, but there's no fundamental reason why left or right is better). The point at issue here is whether certain practices fall into the former or the latter catefory. The difficulty in this kind of discussion is finding common ground, common 'meta-moral' assumptions which will allow the parties to connect with each other rationally - otherwise we end up merely asserting different (perhaps deeply felt) moral intuitions. Sorry, I'm not sure that helps.
• beeza-- "How can you argue...to my way of thinking." Ok, a couple of responses. First, you slightly mischaracterize my position by using the term "right"; I never talked, as far as I can remember, about rights in any posts, and I'm not about to start doing so now. I'd rather avoid that debate if possible. My position was, and is, that morality is culturally determined and that no moral framework can be compared to another in a qualitative sense; none can be shown to have primacy in any meaningful or irrefutable way. I'm not sure what you meant when you implied that I was imposing myself on people, but if you were referring to my participation in this discussion (which I don't think involved imposition any more than anyone else's), I don't think I was presenting inconsistent opinions; I was simply trying to show that what was emerging by apparent popular opinion as the sane, correct view on circumcision was merely another viewpoint which was culturally influenced, and no more correct than any other. My position is not one of moral neutrality. "Using common sense one wouldn't do this to a child no matter what the culture/religion." Well, I think this is a good example of your "common sense" grievously misinforming you about how the world actually is. How can you possibly say something like this? What about the cultures in which it is, in fact, done? I think that I have still not explicated this well, so please read this bit closely: your common sense is a cultural construct, and as such, it is not absolute; if someone or some people do something which offends your common-sensical view of how things ought to be, it is not because they lack common sense, it is because their ideas about what is appropriate are different from yours. I mean, really, what are you going to do, address the Chief Rabbinate in Jerusalem and inform them that the Jewish ritual of the bris is simply not in agreement with your ideas about common sense? Will you go to the Xhosa and just tell them that they got it all wrong? "gives me the heebie jeebies" Well, what do you say to the people who got the heebie jeebies when they saw lawfully segregated society crumbling in the 60's? "Moral relativism to me equals, 'if it feels good do it' or 'if you feel it is right, do it'" Well, that's really *not* what moral relativism is, and it's not the position I've taken and have been describing. I think what you're describing is not really a moral position, actually. No offense taken over the codezero mistype. Plegmund-- Good points, there. Sure, people will say that genocide is wrong, except when it's them defending themselves and their nation from the Chechens, or Jews, or Armenians, or homosexuals, or Dinka, or Ibos, or Mayans, or Muslims, or Hutus, or terrorists, or Communists, or non-Communists, or what-fucking-ever. Excuse me, I digress. I think perhaps it is questionable to assume that morality can have a rational basis, or that it is desireable to reach some kind of moral consensus; I mean, I know where you're coming from with the common ground part, but really, I don't think it's appropriate in this context. I think what people want, on a deep level, is not moral agreement as such but a shared sense of what is revolting.
• Two quotes from clockzero: "your common sense is a cultural construct..." "I think perhaps it is questionable to assume that morality can have a rational basis..." Of course the second is true. But equally questionable are the (your) assertions that common sense and morality are purely "cultural constructs". There is a real failure of the imagination when someone stakes out a strong claim of relativism with regard to human culture and human morality. Note my inclusion of the qualifier "human". In the context of all possibilities, human cultures, human common sense, and human morality don't actually vary much at all. Only in contrast to, but still within, the context of a particular human culture that has historically asserted its universiality does the strong relativist position seem plausible
• kmellis-- I know that you're looking at my posts, but it seems like you're not reading them. "There is a real failure of the imagination...or even most, human populations." First of all, I don't think there's any point in having a discussion of exactly how different one society's mores are from another's; they're different, and degrees of difference aren't really important because there's generally a certain way in which things are done in any given society, and the realm of possibility lying outside the area of appropriate practice contains those things which are not done. In other words, being five miles beyond the pale in any direction is roughly qualitatively equivalent. Your assertion that human morality does not vary *that much* cross-culturally is, besides, a highly subjective phraseology, and as such does more to obfuscate the issue than illuminate it. And also I would like to point out that moral frameworks, by their nature, assert their universality. I think it's supremely ironic that someone who so collapses human civilization into an ostensibly narrow area of difference would imply that someone else's imagination is failing, by the way. "But, again, compared to all possible intuitions, all possible moralities, human intuitions and moralities don't differ from each other greatly." This is a pretty comprehensive claim, and I don't think you've really attempted to substantiate it, even abstractly. Responding without concern for rhetorical efficacy, I'd say that it's completely asinine and indefensible, too, but that's just my opinion. "So the preponderance of evidence...arbitrary." I don't think I ever said that common sense or morality are arbitrary--far from it. They're highly determined by many factors. "As I've said before...is also self-evidently false. Really? No-one believes that? Wow, you're just omnipotent tonight, aren't you? How is it self-evidently false? Also, are you sure you're actually understanding my position? It seems like you're just sort of arguing against a definition you found in a textbook on ethics. "Basically, you keep asserting...(it wouldn't)." Well, no, I never said there was no right or wrong. Why do you insist on misquoting me? I would say that there are hundreds if not thousands of right and wrongs, and I think *that* is self-evident. Frankly, I don't see how you can deny its truth unless you assert that morality is spontaneously uniform throughout all human civilizations, and while I don't think it would "settle the argument" as you say, I think it's certainly an important factor to consider during a discussion of cultural practices.
• I can imagine a morality that defines a certain wavelength of light to be "evil" and to be avoided. I can imagine a morality that asserts that facing north-northwest is "good". I can imagine a morality where one should, upon greeting another person, piss in their face. The possible range of what could conceivably be considered "right" and "wrong" vastly exceeds the variety encountered in actual human populations. It's practically limitless and so, in contrast, the actual variation of human morality is very small.
• How can you argue, 'I have a right to do as I please... It was meant in a general sense. If you want to take it personally,go ahead but that was most definitely NOT its intent. It is like saying they, them, you, it. Since I can not apply a formal name to 'you' (because I am trying to keep this impersonal) I was stuck with using this pronoun. In short, it was a hypothetical person. I never once mischararterized your postition. I respond based on what you have written, not what you might have written. The word 'right' is used in a legal sense not in a moralizing one. While one could argue that morals are the foundation for laws - I don't want to go there because my understanding of philosophy is negliable. The 'if it feels good do it' was an interpretation of an outward expression of a philosophical thought. Since 'moral relavitism' is a school of philosophical thought and I don't know what it means - I took it upon myself to try and understand the principles behind the thought. It is an initial impression that may change once I know more about moral relavitism. While cultural introvention is not something I am not keen on (prime directive and all that) when the debate is about maiming, torturing, hurting, disfiguring, killing - then we move into 'rights' not whether it is appropriate to stick our nose into anothers culture. I'm sorry but your position is so out there - if we were talking about the mating rituals of a tribe in Africa and telling them their mating dance was inappropriate I would agree with you, but we're not. From a personal perspective - when I saw a video showing a child of 12 pinned down by other humans, and one of them proceeded to cut into her while she was screaming and writhing in pain, I empathized with her. They did this to her because she might become an adultress one day (one of the 'reasons' given for the practice in one particular culture) I was mortified, and my response as a human was, this wrong. Fuck culture. This is barbaric. We were born with labia and a clitoris or foreskin. If we weren't meant to have those body parts I don't think they would be part of the package when born. As rocket88 pointed out we have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all UN member states are to supposed adhere to, this includes countries that practice female circumcision. It is a violation of a persons fundamental right to self-determination and to be free from harm from another individual by allowing these practices to continue. To ignore these things puts us back to being nothing more than grunting animals, hunting and foraging for food. To ignore them and pass it off as 'cultural interference' is amoral and makes us no better than those who practice it. Women and men within these cultures think these practices are wrong as well, so do we ignore those who want our help? Would I tell a rabbi he was wrong? If given the opportunity to have a discussion on the topic, you bet. Disagreeing with a 'man of the cloth' is somehow sacrilegious? Pretty much figure you've taken my comments personally. Time to toss in the towel on this one, I think.
• kmellis-- Ok, well, whatever. I don't think imagination should be conflated with actual possibility, though; I can imagine lots of things that can't actually happen. Beeza-- "It was meant in a general sense. If you want to take it personally,go ahead but that was most definitely NOT its intent. It is like saying they, them, you, it. Since I can not apply a formal name to 'you' (because I am trying to keep this impersonal) I was stuck with using this pronoun. In short, it was a hypothetical person." Ok, I see what you mean, but it really seems by your wording as though you were addressing me and characterizing my personal position; even when you explain it that way, I'm still not sure what you meant by that bit about people doing what they want and then imposing themselves on others. What was that about? I didn't say it would be sacrilegious to disagree with, for example a rabbi; I was just trying to make it obvious that having a position on something isn't the same as being morally correct. Really, I haven't taken anything you've said personally, trust me. I do think you might be right about throwing the towel in on this, though. I'm not going to even attempt to address anything else you said in that post because it seems like I'm just spinning my wheels at this point.
• The reason I use the word 'imposed' is because an infant is incapable of using reason, weighing the pro's and con's of the act before making a decision for themselves, so it is imposed (exerting influence, forced) upon them by another who has come up with their own reasons for the action. You are telling that person what they will believe and what they will follow before they have an opportunity to make the decision for themselves by putting them through a 'right of passage' that has physical consequences. At minimum people call it a 'snip' (how what can grow into 15 square inches of skin can be called a 'snip' is beyond me) and life will go on. The worst case example would be a man being surgically turned into a woman, as in this case. As for FGM you are removing a peice of the body that will render a woman incapable of enjoying sex. It is an act that is done out of the fear that one day, she might become an adulterer. I don't completely disagree with you about interfering in another culture, my disagreement stems from the idea that an infant doesn't have the presense of reason, thought and the ability to communicate their own wishes to give consent and it involves life and limb. My disagreement stems from the idea that people have a fundamental right to not have pain intentionally inflicted upon them, no matter what a religion or culture says. Humans also have a right to self-determination. I think both acts (FGM and circumcision) are a violation of those principles. I think Plegmund brought some good points and with that, I toss in the towel.
• Vaginoplasty We are also proud to be known as a warm and friendly place.
• MonkeyFilter: I have no idea what universe these people live in. MonkeyFilter: scares the day lights out of me each time I look down MonkeyFilter: clitorios? Like cheerios only uhm... MonkeyFilter: Anyone who thinks a set of dick and balls is any great natural aesthetic triumph, raise your hands. MonkeyFilter: We are also proud to be known as a warm and friendly place. GramMa's proud of all of you for the reasoned discussion as opposed to rabid ranting.
• Hymen reconstruction and genital sculpting.