I do not have any sympathy for sex offenders. However, violating one person's body because they violated someone else's feels like revenge, not justice. Can we as a society please step back and...
I do not have any sympathy for sex offenders. However, violating one person's body because they violated someone else's feels like revenge, not justice.
Can we as a society please step back and think about what the point of the justice system actually is? Violating someone's body can only be done once you sufficiently dehumanized them.
I don't claim to have the right answer, but given the rate of false convictions, the death penalty and other permanent punishments like castration, seem to punish a large number of innocent people just to punish the actually guilty.
I don't think this kind of punishment is a good idea, but I don't think this is the right way to think about it It may depend how you define "violating", but certainly we do (and maybe must)...
I don't think this kind of punishment is a good idea, but I don't think this is the right way to think about it
violating one person's body because they violated someone else's feels like revenge, not justice
It may depend how you define "violating", but certainly we do (and maybe must) assert dominance over others bodies for many punishments for crimes. We confine and imprison people, we compel them into labor, and (less often) we kill them.
I think what's important to consider is how permanent these actions are and to what end we do them.
Is it for rehabilitation? to prevent the offender from doing it again? for vengeance? to make an example? Which of those ends are just?
How permanent is what we do? The death penalty and castration are obviously very permanent. Imprisonment is less permanent, but can come with some permanent side-effects (drug addiction, mental health, economic disadvantage).
I think the right way to think about what you're trying to say is:
Castration could be a way to prevent an offender from repeating their crime on others. However imprisonment would serve the same purpose but is less permanent in case the convicted is found later to be innocent. So more likely in the worst case castration is used for vengeance against the offender, which would be an immoral thing for the state to pursue. In the best case it's used to make an example of the offender in order to discourage others from committing the same crime. In that case we should consider if this type of negative reinforcement is how we want to run a society. It could be argued that castration and life outside prison is preferable to imprisonment; I don't know about that but perhaps the offender could make a decision to be used in sentencing.
Yeah that would be awful. We already know how that would turn out, considering the rate at which guilty pleas happen, very few people ever even get their day in court. The system is actually...
I don't know about that but perhaps the offender could make a decision to be used in sentencing.
Yeah that would be awful. We already know how that would turn out, considering the rate at which guilty pleas happen, very few people ever even get their day in court. The system is actually designed around railroading people into taking plea deals and they use extra harsh sentencing guidelines as one factor to facilitate this practice. Sentencing punishments have increased over time in order to facilitate this practice. If our system had to actually give everyone their right to defense in court, the system would come to a screeching halt.
Giving the offender a 'choice' in that matter would be like the same 'choice' they have now to plead guilty, no real choice, just an illusion of choice so people not familiar with how the system works can continue believing that it's a system of justice and not one of injustice.
That bit was the least of what I was trying to convey, I'm not really attached to it as a proposal. It just came from an acknowledgement that some might consider castration and freedom to be more...
That bit was the least of what I was trying to convey, I'm not really attached to it as a proposal. It just came from an acknowledgement that some might consider castration and freedom to be more humane than imprisonment, but I don't know that a global preference could be made between the two.
There's an old Tom Lehrer song from the 60s where he describes the American South as having laws that are medieval. It's a shame to see that's it's relevant still. I don't think this focus on...
There's an old Tom Lehrer song from the 60s where he describes the American South as having laws that are medieval. It's a shame to see that's it's relevant still. I don't think this focus on punishment over rehabilitation helps anyone.
Isn't New Math the one where he complains about children learning about why maths works, rather than just rote learning the rules like he did in his day? Given a lot of his other songs, I've...
Isn't New Math the one where he complains about children learning about why maths works, rather than just rote learning the rules like he did in his day? Given a lot of his other songs, I've always felt that one doesn't really fit somehow.
Here's a decent writeup. They were introducing it so early that kids were being asked to do some incredibly complex shenanigans before they could even add 9+8. The general process has improved...
Despite initial enthusiasm from researchers and endorsement from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the New Math curriculum proved difficult to maintain in real-life classroom situations. Teachers, whose classrooms were bulging with baby-boom students, struggled to introduce New Math concepts, often with little training. Parents were doubly confused. They could not understand the New Math concepts themselves, and they became concerned that many of the fundamental concepts they had learned (multiplication tables, for example) were foreign to their children. Although many school districts attempted to allay parents' concerns by conducting classes in understanding New Math, both parents and students continued to struggle.
They were introducing it so early that kids were being asked to do some incredibly complex shenanigans before they could even add 9+8. The general process has improved with time, however one of the fundamental problems of "learning to walk before you learn to run" still exists at the core of New Math. It's like teaching what a predicate is before teaching the alphabet.
Reviewing current 1st-grade math literature, it seems most of the benefits of New Math can be instead be realized by introducing incredibly basic algebra concepts from a young age instead of trying to wholesale replace the entire way math is taught.
Also, multiplication tables are incredibly useful things, having learned them in the early 90s. Some people think I'm a wizard because I can multiply 7x8 almost instantly without thinking...so quick in fact that here on 3 hours of sleep I double-checked myself with a calculator because no other part of my brain is working that well and I didn't trust myself.
My kid is learning in 1st grade what amounts to 'addition and subtraction tables' for the numbers 1-12. And while it sounds silly, it's also an immensely useful foundation for not wasting time and making dumb mistakes while learning to do complicated math.
I will concede that New Math isn't quite as timeless as Who's Next though.
I get that, but the song isn't really about New Math in general (which had lots of failings), but about the modern way of doing long subtraction, which involves first understanding how we have...
I get that, but the song isn't really about New Math in general (which had lots of failings), but about the modern way of doing long subtraction, which involves first understanding how we have groups of tens, hundreds, and so on, and then using that fact to do the subtraction.
But this specifically is one of the successes of New Math, isn't it? Like, I never studied under New Math, I'm from the UK, and decades too young for that, but this is exactly how we learned long subtraction. It's the same way that my partner teaches long subtraction in Germany. I'm fairly sure I've seen the same structure in US worksheets that I've seen online as well.
It's not the only way to do subtraction, and it hinges on, as you say, being able to quickly add and subtract smaller numbers. We also learned things like number bonds, counting up, doubles, and other quick ways to do maths in our heads -- the stuff that makes it possible to do mental maths quickly. But the core idea that you don't learn maths by rote learning a bunch of algorithms, but you instead learn it by getting an understanding for what the numbers actually mean -- that's a goal that's hard to argue with, isn't it?
I hate these kinds of laws. How about we make sure kids are fed, have healthy adults to talk to, and are taught basic sex ed to make them more resistant to predators? How about free mental health...
I hate these kinds of laws.
How about we make sure kids are fed, have healthy adults to talk to, and are taught basic sex ed to make them more resistant to predators? How about free mental health services for survivors?
This is just for show: they haven't even meted out chemical castration more than once or twice in ten years. Just stamp papers and pretend they've helped kids.
We exonerate people on death row way too often to be experimenting with this type of permanent punishment. You can't never completely undo a surgery on someone if they're later found innocent,...
We exonerate people on death row way too often to be experimenting with this type of permanent punishment. You can't never completely undo a surgery on someone if they're later found innocent, assuming it's reversible at all.
The article says Louisiana already has the option for a chemical castration punishment that is rarely imposed. If that's the case, what's the need for a surgical castration? I say that, but it's actually pretty obvious. They want to change the law so that if someone even talks to a child about LGBTQ issues that person is guilty of a "sex crime" against the child. And oh look how convenient, they just recently made the punishments for such crimes way more ghoulish, so better keep those lips sealed tight school teachers and librarians!
Yep, I love the idea of removing body parts from rapists. But our court system is wrong way too often for me to be comfortable with really actually doing that.
Yep, I love the idea of removing body parts from rapists. But our court system is wrong way too often for me to be comfortable with really actually doing that.
That's very much where I feel that a victim doing some vigilante justice when they know the victim (vast majority of rapes) and then getting a lighter sentence due to rape as a mitigating factor...
That's very much where I feel that a victim doing some vigilante justice when they know the victim (vast majority of rapes) and then getting a lighter sentence due to rape as a mitigating factor is much preferable to letting the state do the same.
At least then, the person seeking revenge has some disincentive for following through. The state has no such soul.
You're not wrong, perhaps a rape conviction is needed for lenience for victim in advance. But my key modifier: I'd rather it didn't happen, but better individuals than the state. TBH we need to...
You're not wrong, perhaps a rape conviction is needed for lenience for victim in advance. But my key modifier:
is much preferable to letting the state do the same
I'd rather it didn't happen, but better individuals than the state.
TBH we need to better approach how we handle murderers as well. Remember most murderers are not repeat offenders. Rehabilitation rather than revenge.
Thomas Jefferson once proposed a bill to the Virginia assembly which, among other things, would have made castration the legal punishment for homosexuality. Of course, this was ostensibly his...
Thomas Jefferson once proposed a bill to the Virginia assembly which, among other things, would have made castration the legal punishment for homosexuality. Of course, this was ostensibly his attempt at a more "proportionate" punishment in lieu of capital punishment, which was the status quo at the time.
There's your "history and tradition", Alito.
Roe v Wade was decided in 1973 and recognized a right to abortion as an extention of the right to privacy precedented in Griswold v Connecticut. Laws punishing homosexuality were declared unconstitutional in Lawrence v Texas as an extention of the same right to privacy.
Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2000.
First they came for the child molesters...
Of course that's just hyperbole, right? I mean, it's 2024 and public acceptance of basic LGBT rights is at an all time high. The Supreme Court would never...
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub-
stantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to
“correct the error” established in those precedents.
-- Justice Thomas, concurring in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health (2022)
Hmm, maybe we shouldn't be cool with genial mutilation being on the table as a valid legal punishment even if we agree that child molestation is particularly heinous.
It seems that the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas forgot to list Loving v Virginia, the case that allowed him to marry his wife! What a silly mistake he has made!
It seems that the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas forgot to list Loving v Virginia, the case that allowed him to marry his wife! What a silly mistake he has made!
I'm not entirely sure it is ignoring that. It seems that a simple response would be, "well let's see how powerful they feel when their balls are cut off." It sure does feel like it could easily be...
I'm not entirely sure it is ignoring that. It seems that a simple response would be, "well let's see how powerful they feel when their balls are cut off." It sure does feel like it could easily be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment, but there's a decent chance they won't ever actually enforce it, so the law won't ever actually be stricken. The article says that they've only ever chemically castrated one or two people and that punishment has been on the books for years.
He doesn't, but as he's been willing to use his office to pressure other government units to do what he wants (like making the city of New Orleans prosecute abortions), I could certainly see him...
He doesn't, but as he's been willing to use his office to pressure other government units to do what he wants (like making the city of New Orleans prosecute abortions), I could certainly see him pushing for its use in both over and underhanded manners.
Either way, I don't like relying on "well they probably won't do the thing they've said they're gonna do."
Is this intended to be a serious answer? I understand you're not advocating it but it seems ludicrous to me. An adult is obviously capable of feeling very powerful over a child with or without...
I'm not entirely sure it is ignoring that. It seems that a simple response would be, "well let's see how powerful they feel when their balls are cut off."
Is this intended to be a serious answer? I understand you're not advocating it but it seems ludicrous to me. An adult is obviously capable of feeling very powerful over a child with or without balls and sexual assault doesn't require any. This cannot seriously be considered a preventative measure, it's just revenge to satiate the eye for an eye crowd.
But that has nothing to do with the power vs sexual desire thing. I was not commenting on revenge. I was commenting on the two sentences I responded to.
But that has nothing to do with the power vs sexual desire thing. I was not commenting on revenge. I was commenting on the two sentences I responded to.
It's kind of related, no? The hypothetical argument on how this might address power vs desire isn't a very good one. In my opinion, the only thing left is revenge and biblical style justice.
It's kind of related, no?
This law is ignoring that.
I'm not entirely sure it is ignoring that. <Weak hypothetical argument>
The hypothetical argument on how this might address power vs desire isn't a very good one. In my opinion, the only thing left is revenge and biblical style justice.
Honestly a while back I read that doing that does tend to stop most serial rapists (but not all). Honestly with pedophiles I do think it's a disease and I do think that a big thing we can do is...
Honestly a while back I read that doing that does tend to stop most serial rapists (but not all).
Honestly with pedophiles I do think it's a disease and I do think that a big thing we can do is make it easier for pedophiles who have not actually acted on their urges to be able to come out and say they have these urges and need to get mental help to combat the urges. I think a big problem is that as soon as people hear pedophile they immediately want to make the person an outcast rather then help them. But I have read that once they start downt he path of acting on their urges it is a lot less likely you can get them to stop (it may also be that the ones less likely to feel bad about it are more likely to act on it so they are less likely to want to stop).
Honestly I'm not sure I'm against legislation like this for ones who have acted on their urges. Having read it does actually work and that once they start it's harder for them to stop. And I'm not sure pedophelia really is the same reason as rape is (even if both are rape).
Child sexual abuse should be considered distinct from pedophilia. Most abusers of children are heterosexual men who would prefer an adult female partner. It really is about power and the ability...
Child sexual abuse should be considered distinct from pedophilia. Most abusers of children are heterosexual men who would prefer an adult female partner. It really is about power and the ability to "take" or "hurt" in sexual actions. Sometimes hurting another adult by proxy.
Someone who is a pedophile by orientation and abuses a child may have different motivations though usually the control is still a factor, but they're a much much smaller subset.
Lobotomies "worked" to address any number of things considered criminal which includes women that didn't want kids and the mentally ill among many others, but at the cost of major brain damage leaving people docile and absent. I don't see this as much different.
I fully oppose capital punishment but if you're going to violate someone's bodily autonomy like this just kill them and stop pretending to be kinder. Everyone stops re-offending if they're dead.
It's actually just marketing that makes us think that sexual assault is the worst for re-offending.
I don't have data on CSA recidivism and I'm at work so I'll look it up later but having worked with people on parole, but not sex offenders in that job, I can confirm former murderers were my nicest clients.
Even if you're a 100% believer in rape being about power, not sex, removing the source of testosterone would reduce recidivism. Removing a biological factor for impulsive male behavior in those...
Even if you're a 100% believer in rape being about power, not sex, removing the source of testosterone would reduce recidivism. Removing a biological factor for impulsive male behavior in those who cannot control it seems to be a net benefit for society compared to keeping them locked in prison (and re-offending anyway after release—rape has one of the highest recidivism rates, IIRC).
Honestly, when the punishment is this cruel and unusual (don’t we have an amendment about that?), I don’t care if it helps recidivism or not. It is still obscene, it will still be abused, it will...
Honestly, when the punishment is this cruel and unusual (don’t we have an amendment about that?), I don’t care if it helps recidivism or not. It is still obscene, it will still be abused, it will still inevitably hurt innocent people, and we can absolutely do better.
The fact that Weinstein continued abusing people even after his dick had all but fallen off due to an infection should prove that having the physical equipment isn't a strict prerequisite for...
The fact that Weinstein continued abusing people even after his dick had all but fallen off due to an infection should prove that having the physical equipment isn't a strict prerequisite for terrorizing victims.
I didn't say it was. I mentioned there was at least one seriel killer (who raped when he killed) that they did castrate (physically I believe too) that it did not stop him. And my info may be...
I didn't say it was. I mentioned there was at least one seriel killer (who raped when he killed) that they did castrate (physically I believe too) that it did not stop him. And my info may be wrong, I got it a long time back from some book I read, but it at least claimed there were studies showing that it does usually stop repeat rapists.
This is simply horrible for so many different reasons. It goes against the 8th Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. It creates irreparable harm for which later being found to...
This is simply horrible for so many different reasons.
It goes against the 8th Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
It creates irreparable harm for which later being found to be innocent cannot undo. If new evidence comes to light later that exonerates an individual who has been surgically mutilated, they can never be whole again. Unlike (at least in theory) prison, where the punishment ends once released, there is no such option here.
It is an embarrassment for us as a nation in the eyes of the world and damages our credibility on matters of legal legitimacy and humanitarian issues.
It damages the, for lack of a better way to say it, 'legal spirit' of the nation. Do we not decry nations for forcing genital mutilation?
There is also a concept that I don't know if there is a name for. It is something that I have thought about as I spent years teaching martial arts, thinking about violence, human nature, victimhood, the desire to lash out at another - and having the tools to do so. Let us say someone has hurt you, made a victim out of you. Now let us say you find them, and beat them bloody until they are crying on the ground in revenge - now they feel as you felt, do they not?. It is obvious what you have done to that person. Here is the less obvious: what did you just do to yourself? You have made yourself into the person who stalked and violently beat that person for vengeance. Now you will always be the person who chose to do that. What does that do to you? How does it change your view of using violence and barbarism in order that you might feel power? Vengeance and power can feel quite good, knowing 'you won and they lost', knowing you could take power from another, force your will on another. Now that you have felt that... will you not always have the desire to feel it again? And if that desire will be with you going forward... well, maybe this is what Nietzsche meant with the warning about fighting monsters.
I have a slightly different take on your last paragraph about retribution. I used to work with street kids, generally ages 13 to 22, who were either runaways or 'throwaway' kids in a major...
I have a slightly different take on your last paragraph about retribution.
I used to work with street kids, generally ages 13 to 22, who were either runaways or 'throwaway' kids in a major Canadian city. There was a lot of drama on the streets but one thing that everyone took seriously was child sexual abuse. Likely because so many of them had experienced being abused and exploited. They would yell and scream if they were mad at someone but one thing you did NOT do was call someone a "goof" or a "diddler" because that was beyond insulting - it meant you had sexually abused a child and that infuriated everyone.
One day there was a particularly weird vibe at our street drop in center and it came to a head when one person stepped in the door. Everyone suddenly went quiet and just stared at him. He deliberately made himself obvious to everyone there, and then left. And as soon as he did, a group of about 6 guys followed him out the door.
I had no idea what was going on, so I asked one of the kids. They said, "He's a diddler. He got caught diddling an 8 yr old. Everyone hates him now and he's gonna get his 'beats' now"
Sure enough, those 6 guys followed this guy into a back alley and then he stopped and faced them and got ready for what he knew was coming. They pushed him to the ground and kicked and boot stomped and punched and hit him with a 2x4 for several minutes, unleashing a lot of fury and probably frustration not only against him but others who had abused THEM in the past.
When I saw this guy again about 15 minutes later his face was bloody and he was obviously in pain so I ended up taking him to the emergency to get him stitched up. He wasn't particularly upset though. So I asked him why he showed up that night, knowing so many people were angry with him. He said he got tired of hiding, of avoiding everyone and he knew he had messed up and people weren't going to forget until he got his beats.
But here's the odd part. He was accepted back into the crowd after that. After a week of healing he showed up again and there was one comment, but no one touched him again. He had "served his sentence" in the eyes of the street community and he was free to be part of it again. When I asked another kid about why they beat him instead of letting the court system take care of him, he said, "Cause the court isn't going to do anything. IF he even gets charged and convicted, he's gonna get like community service or a couple weeks in jail. Its nothing" And he was probably right because this is Canada, and convicting someone of child sexual abuse is hard enough to prove but our sentences tend to be pathetically light even for serious crimes.
So the street justice system seems to be considerably more effective in my view. This kid knew he'd made a mistake, committed a crime, and he knew he either had to hide, run away, or else face the community and receive what the community decided was fair - a very hard and brutal beating for his crime.... I've thought about it many times since then. And Im not sure they're wrong.
The concept you're talking about towards the end here is pretty well explored in a number of stories about vengeance and the cycle of violence. I feel like I caught a good example recently... I'll...
The concept you're talking about towards the end here is pretty well explored in a number of stories about vengeance and the cycle of violence. I feel like I caught a good example recently...
I'll come back if I remember it, it's on the tip of my tongue, it's gonna bug me.
Your comment on wrongful convictions makes me curious whether there is an estimated rate of wrongful conviction by crime. I could see strong arguments in either direction on whether rape has a...
Your comment on wrongful convictions makes me curious whether there is an estimated rate of wrongful conviction by crime. I could see strong arguments in either direction on whether rape has a higher or lower than average wrongful conviction rate.
The US loves chopping bits off babies without their consent. Over 80% of American men have had their genitals mutilated. A few for valid medical reasons, but mostly not. I do not believe religion...
Do we not decry nations for forcing genital mutilation?
The US loves chopping bits off babies without their consent. Over 80% of American men have had their genitals mutilated. A few for valid medical reasons, but mostly not. I do not believe religion is a valid excuse either, frankly.
Any moral or even legal high ground that may exist on this particular topic has never been occupied by America.
I absolutely agree with your final paragraph though. I'm sure there is a name for this but it eludes me too.
True, and agreed on religion not being a valid excuse (though I'm not sure about the percentage). I'm one of the men that was done to as an infant, and I would not have chosen to have that done to...
The US loves chopping bits off babies without their consent. Over 80% of American men have had their genitals mutilated. A few for valid medical reasons, but mostly not. I do not believe religion is a valid excuse either, frankly.
True, and agreed on religion not being a valid excuse (though I'm not sure about the percentage). I'm one of the men that was done to as an infant, and I would not have chosen to have that done to me.
Also agreed on the US not having moral high ground on this topic: but if we view it as a more granular thing instead of binary (has / has not moral high ground) - we could say that now, with this not just being done by 'family choice / parental consent' but now being inflicted as a punitive act, that there is even less of that moral high ground than before.
Hooboy am I worried this is a way they're going to tackle "the great replacement". The south has a long and well earned reputation for using the criminal justice system as a means of controlling...
Hooboy am I worried this is a way they're going to tackle "the great replacement". The south has a long and well earned reputation for using the criminal justice system as a means of controlling minorities. I dobut the law makers considered cases of false convictions. This does look like a move towards biblical punishment for crimes, which is frighting from a different angle.
Maybe this is a pessimistic take, I'd be glad to be wrong about this one.
I'm wondering how realistic it is to find doctors that will actually perform surgery on an unwilling patient. I'm sure there's a few, but it's not like doctors are ever hurting for work and money.
I'm wondering how realistic it is to find doctors that will actually perform surgery on an unwilling patient. I'm sure there's a few, but it's not like doctors are ever hurting for work and money.
And I know this is a tangent, but I really wanna highlight this because of my own moral opposition to circumcision: If you find female circumcision abhorrent, male circumcision should be seen as...
And I know this is a tangent, but I really wanna highlight this because of my own moral opposition to circumcision:
If you find female circumcision abhorrent, male circumcision should be seen as equally abhorrent.
The normalization of male circumcision in the USA is weird. To the point that uncut men are seen as weird by the general public. At the very least, I'd like to see a ban on infant circumcision...let people decide for themselves when they're older if they'd like to do some cosmetic surgery on their penis.
This is so off topic here but the reason why the two are thought of as different is that most FGM is Type I which involves partial or total removal of the clitoris, and Type II which involves...
This is so off topic here but the reason why the two are thought of as different is that most FGM is Type I which involves partial or total removal of the clitoris, and Type II which involves partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora and sometimes the labia majora.
While from a foundational bodily autonomy perspective it makes perfect sense to object to both, coming in and conflating the two in casual conversations ignores the huge difference in the impact and harm caused. That's why "female circumcision" fell out of use.
I am not advocating for either procedure, but they're functionally different topics. This forced castration is far more similar than what is referred to as just circumcision.
Absolutely. It's the difference between removing part of someone's eyelid, and removing their eye. Either would be horrific and inexcusable to do for anything other than a valid medical reason,...
Absolutely. It's the difference between removing part of someone's eyelid, and removing their eye. Either would be horrific and inexcusable to do for anything other than a valid medical reason, but one act will obviously impair function far more than the other.
Male circumcision has some pluses - Lots of people find a circumcised penis much better looking than an uncircumcised one. And its easier to keep clean. It also makes the penis head less protected...
Male circumcision has some pluses - Lots of people find a circumcised penis much better looking than an uncircumcised one. And its easier to keep clean. It also makes the penis head less protected so more sensitive to stimulation - which isn't really a negative either. And for those who believe in it, it has religious value.
Female circumcision on the other hand has NO positives. Its just mutilation designed to kill sexual function and is highly abusive. There is no comparison between the two,
Hence why I stated "cosmetic surgery of the penis." "I want my baby's penis to look good" is a really weird take. If they want their penis to look good, the kid can do that themselves when they're...
Hence why I stated "cosmetic surgery of the penis." "I want my baby's penis to look good" is a really weird take. If they want their penis to look good, the kid can do that themselves when they're of age to do other body mods.
You know how hard it is to keep a circumsized penis clean? Not at all. No harder than scrubbing armpits or a butthole.
The actual medical need for male circumsicion is approximately 0. Far less common then like a lip tie.
It also makes the penis head less protected so more sensitive to stimulation
My understanding is that this is absolutely not the case. It's much more like developing callouses on your feet, numbing rather than enhancing.
Its just mutilation designed to kill sexual function and is highly abusive.
This is in fact the original primary driver of male circumsicion. In the 19th century, during the Victorian era of medical experimentation in the United States and English-speaking countries, circumcision was promoted as preventing masturbation in boys and as a “cure” for “hysteria” in women. It was the moral police dictating sexuality, no different than what happens elsewhere, except masquerading under a cloak of medical science in its infancy.
It's also the primary driver of female circumsicion elsewhere....sexual repression is almost exclusively the domain of religion. Religions can be damned, they can adjust to proper definitions of consent or STFU. Like when Mormons decided God changed his mind about black people.
Pretty sure the fact that its in a 2000 yr old book and an expected part of Jewish tradition before that, predates the 19th century by at least 1000 years, probably quite a bit more. The primary...
This is in fact the original primary driver of male circumsicion.
Pretty sure the fact that its in a 2000 yr old book and an expected part of Jewish tradition before that, predates the 19th century by at least 1000 years, probably quite a bit more. The primary driver was religious tradition. Still is.
Is your issue with circumcision? Seems like its more about religious beliefs you disagree with.
I forgot to add 'in the USA and other English speaking countries' in that line. Jews have always been a minority outlier in broader population, hence why they're a popular target for conspiracy...
I forgot to add 'in the USA and other English speaking countries' in that line. Jews have always been a minority outlier in broader population, hence why they're a popular target for conspiracy theories, and if it was only them....well I'd still oppose it.
I do very much dislike archaic behaviors that are justified almost exclusively because of religious dogma. Much like human sacrifice, body mods of children should be left in the dustbin of history.
While I agree the normalization of circumcision in the US is weird and performing cosmetic operations on infants' genitalia is generally wrong for bodily autonomy reasons, so-called "female...
While I agree the normalization of circumcision in the US is weird and performing cosmetic operations on infants' genitalia is generally wrong for bodily autonomy reasons, so-called "female circumcision" is much more invasive and removes much more of the functional capabilities of the genitalia when compared with male circumcision. This is generally why it's viewed as abhorrent even by cultures in which male circumcision is normalized. It's for much the same reasons that I presume most anti-circumcision advocates don't consider piercing a baby's ears as an infant as big of a problem as male circumcision is, even though it also violates their bodily autonomy for cosmetic purposes. One can be opposed in principle to all of these things while still acknowledging that the effects and risks of a given operation are a factor in how harmful it is societally.
As someone who clearly cares a lot about circumcision and wants to see it banned, you should learn more about the surgeries done on intersex babies to make them look "normal". This is an incredibly pervasive practice and is often done even when the cosmetics would impede function. While anti-circumcision legislation could be narrowly targeted at infant circumcision specifically and allow these types of surgeries to continue, broader legislation that protects bodily autonomy for all infants and prevents them having their genitals operated on for cosmetic purposes before they can consent would be better. I often find myself frustrated with anti-circumcision advocates for not being more aware of this issue as a result.
Yeah, to add on this, it's difficult because you do need parents to be able to make medically necessary decisions for their child that infringe on their bodily autonomy while wanting to protect...
Yeah, to add on this, it's difficult because you do need parents to be able to make medically necessary decisions for their child that infringe on their bodily autonomy while wanting to protect that autonomy as much as possible. I'm sure this is doable, but too often, I see bills that are mostly targeted at particular cultural practices, not the underlying principles. This is all probably better for another thread, but I agree with you wholeheartedly.
FWIW I do find piercing baby ears disgusting as well. At the end of the day, hearing the screams of a recently circumsized infant is all I needed to full convert me.
FWIW I do find piercing baby ears disgusting as well.
At the end of the day, hearing the screams of a recently circumsized infant is all I needed to full convert me.
I'm not really trying to argue against you here. I agree with you on circumcision. My comment is more trying to appeal to you to take interest in other instances of cosmetic genital surgery for...
I'm not really trying to argue against you here. I agree with you on circumcision. My comment is more trying to appeal to you to take interest in other instances of cosmetic genital surgery for infants, not just circumcision.
Absolutely not, do you know how hard it is to get one of those if you're not married with 3 kids and a permission slip from your husband? And that's my quota of dark humor for the night.
Absolutely not, do you know how hard it is to get one of those if you're not married with 3 kids and a permission slip from your husband?
My mind went the same place, honestly. Absurd to think this is another context where that decision is made by men. (Full disclosure, I am a man, I've just been around a lot of women who have...
My mind went the same place, honestly.
Absurd to think this is another context where that decision is made by men.
(Full disclosure, I am a man, I've just been around a lot of women who have enlightened me on this topic and I find the culture around it baffling.)
Yeah, I mean, a large number of poor, Indigenous, Black and other women of color have been sterilized against their will throughout American history so I am not going to dismiss that either.
Yeah, I mean, a large number of poor, Indigenous, Black and other women of color have been sterilized against their will throughout American history so I am not going to dismiss that either.
Removing the ovaries (and do they even do oophorectomies without a hysterectomy?) without subsequent hormone replacement therapy (of either kind) causes a huge risk of osteoporosis. If the intent...
Removing the ovaries (and do they even do oophorectomies without a hysterectomy?) without subsequent hormone replacement therapy (of either kind) causes a huge risk of osteoporosis. If the intent is to remove the source of "the sex hormone", later supplementing it for basic "we don't want your bones to shatter" reasons seems counterproductive.
Of course, it's extra silly as a punishment because these parts are almost entirely uninvolved with a rape or sexual assault unless she gets pregnant. It would somehow be even less preventative than male castration (which itself isn't particularly preventative).
hrm ... afaik having normal sex hormone levels in combination with an estrogen/androgen (as appropriate) receptor antagonist inhibits the sex hormone's normal effect in the body and brain but...
hrm ... afaik having normal sex hormone levels in combination with an estrogen/androgen (as appropriate) receptor antagonist inhibits the sex hormone's normal effect in the body and brain but still suffices to maintain bone health. i'm certainly not advocating for any of this fwiw, but
Are estrogen receptor antagonists an actual thing people with normal levels of estrogen have taken where we know this, though? I'm not knowledgeable enough about medicine to know whether an...
Are estrogen receptor antagonists an actual thing people with normal levels of estrogen have taken where we know this, though? I'm not knowledgeable enough about medicine to know whether an estrogen receptor antagonist would effect estrogen's ability to prevent bone density loss, but I've also never heard of estrogen receptor antagonists existing for any legitimate medical purpose before this.
High-dose CPA significantly decreases sexual fantasies and sexual activity in 80 to 90% of men with paraphilias. In addition, it has been found to decrease the rate of reoffending in sex offenders from 85% to 6%, with most of the reoffenses being committed by individuals who did not follow their CPA treatment prescription
(i do want to reiterate that i am not advocating for this)
I do not have any sympathy for sex offenders. However, violating one person's body because they violated someone else's feels like revenge, not justice.
Can we as a society please step back and think about what the point of the justice system actually is? Violating someone's body can only be done once you sufficiently dehumanized them.
I don't claim to have the right answer, but given the rate of false convictions, the death penalty and other permanent punishments like castration, seem to punish a large number of innocent people just to punish the actually guilty.
Unfortunately, in the United States (especially the South), the justice system is about revenge and punishment, not rehabilitation.
In much of the states “rehabilitation” is a euphemism
just like in many of the same states, "bless your heart" is a curse.
It's about money first and foremost, but yeah.
revenge, punishment, and profit.
(and an almost fanatical devotion to the... nevermind, I'll come in again.)
I don't think this kind of punishment is a good idea, but I don't think this is the right way to think about it
It may depend how you define "violating", but certainly we do (and maybe must) assert dominance over others bodies for many punishments for crimes. We confine and imprison people, we compel them into labor, and (less often) we kill them.
I think what's important to consider is how permanent these actions are and to what end we do them.
Is it for rehabilitation? to prevent the offender from doing it again? for vengeance? to make an example? Which of those ends are just?
How permanent is what we do? The death penalty and castration are obviously very permanent. Imprisonment is less permanent, but can come with some permanent side-effects (drug addiction, mental health, economic disadvantage).
I think the right way to think about what you're trying to say is:
Castration could be a way to prevent an offender from repeating their crime on others. However imprisonment would serve the same purpose but is less permanent in case the convicted is found later to be innocent. So more likely in the worst case castration is used for vengeance against the offender, which would be an immoral thing for the state to pursue. In the best case it's used to make an example of the offender in order to discourage others from committing the same crime. In that case we should consider if this type of negative reinforcement is how we want to run a society. It could be argued that castration and life outside prison is preferable to imprisonment; I don't know about that but perhaps the offender could make a decision to be used in sentencing.
Yeah that would be awful. We already know how that would turn out, considering the rate at which guilty pleas happen, very few people ever even get their day in court. The system is actually designed around railroading people into taking plea deals and they use extra harsh sentencing guidelines as one factor to facilitate this practice. Sentencing punishments have increased over time in order to facilitate this practice. If our system had to actually give everyone their right to defense in court, the system would come to a screeching halt.
Giving the offender a 'choice' in that matter would be like the same 'choice' they have now to plead guilty, no real choice, just an illusion of choice so people not familiar with how the system works can continue believing that it's a system of justice and not one of injustice.
That bit was the least of what I was trying to convey, I'm not really attached to it as a proposal. It just came from an acknowledgement that some might consider castration and freedom to be more humane than imprisonment, but I don't know that a global preference could be made between the two.
There's an old Tom Lehrer song from the 60s where he describes the American South as having laws that are medieval. It's a shame to see that's it's relevant still. I don't think this focus on punishment over rehabilitation helps anyone.
The is the American South, or at least the people who control it: mean and backward.
I'm afraid Tom Lehrer's songs will never be irrelevant. He spoke truth to idiocy and power.
Who's Next? and New Math being my favorites.
Isn't New Math the one where he complains about children learning about why maths works, rather than just rote learning the rules like he did in his day? Given a lot of his other songs, I've always felt that one doesn't really fit somehow.
Here's a decent writeup.
They were introducing it so early that kids were being asked to do some incredibly complex shenanigans before they could even add 9+8. The general process has improved with time, however one of the fundamental problems of "learning to walk before you learn to run" still exists at the core of New Math. It's like teaching what a predicate is before teaching the alphabet.
Reviewing current 1st-grade math literature, it seems most of the benefits of New Math can be instead be realized by introducing incredibly basic algebra concepts from a young age instead of trying to wholesale replace the entire way math is taught.
Also, multiplication tables are incredibly useful things, having learned them in the early 90s. Some people think I'm a wizard because I can multiply 7x8 almost instantly without thinking...so quick in fact that here on 3 hours of sleep I double-checked myself with a calculator because no other part of my brain is working that well and I didn't trust myself.
My kid is learning in 1st grade what amounts to 'addition and subtraction tables' for the numbers 1-12. And while it sounds silly, it's also an immensely useful foundation for not wasting time and making dumb mistakes while learning to do complicated math.
I will concede that New Math isn't quite as timeless as Who's Next though.
I get that, but the song isn't really about New Math in general (which had lots of failings), but about the modern way of doing long subtraction, which involves first understanding how we have groups of tens, hundreds, and so on, and then using that fact to do the subtraction.
But this specifically is one of the successes of New Math, isn't it? Like, I never studied under New Math, I'm from the UK, and decades too young for that, but this is exactly how we learned long subtraction. It's the same way that my partner teaches long subtraction in Germany. I'm fairly sure I've seen the same structure in US worksheets that I've seen online as well.
It's not the only way to do subtraction, and it hinges on, as you say, being able to quickly add and subtract smaller numbers. We also learned things like number bonds, counting up, doubles, and other quick ways to do maths in our heads -- the stuff that makes it possible to do mental maths quickly. But the core idea that you don't learn maths by rote learning a bunch of algorithms, but you instead learn it by getting an understanding for what the numbers actually mean -- that's a goal that's hard to argue with, isn't it?
Yeah the "new" math is so old that I don't follow at all what he's actually doing when he demonstrates the old way of doing it.
I hate these kinds of laws.
How about we make sure kids are fed, have healthy adults to talk to, and are taught basic sex ed to make them more resistant to predators? How about free mental health services for survivors?
This is just for show: they haven't even meted out chemical castration more than once or twice in ten years. Just stamp papers and pretend they've helped kids.
We exonerate people on death row way too often to be experimenting with this type of permanent punishment. You can't never completely undo a surgery on someone if they're later found innocent, assuming it's reversible at all.
The article says Louisiana already has the option for a chemical castration punishment that is rarely imposed. If that's the case, what's the need for a surgical castration? I say that, but it's actually pretty obvious. They want to change the law so that if someone even talks to a child about LGBTQ issues that person is guilty of a "sex crime" against the child. And oh look how convenient, they just recently made the punishments for such crimes way more ghoulish, so better keep those lips sealed tight school teachers and librarians!
Yep, I love the idea of removing body parts from rapists. But our court system is wrong way too often for me to be comfortable with really actually doing that.
That's very much where I feel that a victim doing some vigilante justice when they know the victim (vast majority of rapes) and then getting a lighter sentence due to rape as a mitigating factor is much preferable to letting the state do the same.
At least then, the person seeking revenge has some disincentive for following through. The state has no such soul.
After that law is passed, every murderer is now a rape victim.
You're not wrong, perhaps a rape conviction is needed for lenience for victim in advance. But my key modifier:
I'd rather it didn't happen, but better individuals than the state.
TBH we need to better approach how we handle murderers as well. Remember most murderers are not repeat offenders. Rehabilitation rather than revenge.
Thomas Jefferson once proposed a bill to the Virginia assembly which, among other things, would have made castration the legal punishment for homosexuality. Of course, this was ostensibly his attempt at a more "proportionate" punishment in lieu of capital punishment, which was the status quo at the time.
There's your "history and tradition", Alito.
Roe v Wade was decided in 1973 and recognized a right to abortion as an extention of the right to privacy precedented in Griswold v Connecticut. Laws punishing homosexuality were declared unconstitutional in Lawrence v Texas as an extention of the same right to privacy.
Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2000.
First they came for the child molesters...
Of course that's just hyperbole, right? I mean, it's 2024 and public acceptance of basic LGBT rights is at an all time high. The Supreme Court would never...
-- Justice Thomas, concurring in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health (2022)
Hmm, maybe we shouldn't be cool with genial mutilation being on the table as a valid legal punishment even if we agree that child molestation is particularly heinous.
It seems that the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas forgot to list Loving v Virginia, the case that allowed him to marry his wife! What a silly mistake he has made!
I've been told that rape is about power more than it is about sexual desire.
This law is ignoring that.
I'm not entirely sure it is ignoring that. It seems that a simple response would be, "well let's see how powerful they feel when their balls are cut off." It sure does feel like it could easily be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment, but there's a decent chance they won't ever actually enforce it, so the law won't ever actually be stricken. The article says that they've only ever chemically castrated one or two people and that punishment has been on the books for years.
Yeah but this is Louisiana and having just read the whole piece about their governor (in the weekly thread), I believe he'll use it.
The governor doesn't use it, though. Judges would sentence people to castration.
He doesn't, but as he's been willing to use his office to pressure other government units to do what he wants (like making the city of New Orleans prosecute abortions), I could certainly see him pushing for its use in both over and underhanded manners.
Either way, I don't like relying on "well they probably won't do the thing they've said they're gonna do."
Is this intended to be a serious answer? I understand you're not advocating it but it seems ludicrous to me. An adult is obviously capable of feeling very powerful over a child with or without balls and sexual assault doesn't require any. This cannot seriously be considered a preventative measure, it's just revenge to satiate the eye for an eye crowd.
Yes, it's seriously meant to be a justification that I suspect Louisiana Republicans would use.
I mean sure, but it's not a very good one and we don't need to pretend this would be anything other than revenge.
But that has nothing to do with the power vs sexual desire thing. I was not commenting on revenge. I was commenting on the two sentences I responded to.
It's kind of related, no?
The hypothetical argument on how this might address power vs desire isn't a very good one. In my opinion, the only thing left is revenge and biblical style justice.
You are going to trust republicans and republicans from Louisiana in the year 2024?
Honestly a while back I read that doing that does tend to stop most serial rapists (but not all).
Honestly with pedophiles I do think it's a disease and I do think that a big thing we can do is make it easier for pedophiles who have not actually acted on their urges to be able to come out and say they have these urges and need to get mental help to combat the urges. I think a big problem is that as soon as people hear pedophile they immediately want to make the person an outcast rather then help them. But I have read that once they start downt he path of acting on their urges it is a lot less likely you can get them to stop (it may also be that the ones less likely to feel bad about it are more likely to act on it so they are less likely to want to stop).
Honestly I'm not sure I'm against legislation like this for ones who have acted on their urges. Having read it does actually work and that once they start it's harder for them to stop. And I'm not sure pedophelia really is the same reason as rape is (even if both are rape).
Child sexual abuse should be considered distinct from pedophilia. Most abusers of children are heterosexual men who would prefer an adult female partner. It really is about power and the ability to "take" or "hurt" in sexual actions. Sometimes hurting another adult by proxy.
Someone who is a pedophile by orientation and abuses a child may have different motivations though usually the control is still a factor, but they're a much much smaller subset.
Lobotomies "worked" to address any number of things considered criminal which includes women that didn't want kids and the mentally ill among many others, but at the cost of major brain damage leaving people docile and absent. I don't see this as much different.
I fully oppose capital punishment but if you're going to violate someone's bodily autonomy like this just kill them and stop pretending to be kinder. Everyone stops re-offending if they're dead.
Rape has much lower recidivism rates than pretty much everything but murder. For more detail:
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/06/06/sexoffenses/
It's actually just marketing that makes us think that sexual assault is the worst for re-offending.
I don't have data on CSA recidivism and I'm at work so I'll look it up later but having worked with people on parole, but not sex offenders in that job, I can confirm former murderers were my nicest clients.
Even if you're a 100% believer in rape being about power, not sex, removing the source of testosterone would reduce recidivism. Removing a biological factor for impulsive male behavior in those who cannot control it seems to be a net benefit for society compared to keeping them locked in prison (and re-offending anyway after release—rape has one of the highest recidivism rates, IIRC).
Honestly, when the punishment is this cruel and unusual (don’t we have an amendment about that?), I don’t care if it helps recidivism or not. It is still obscene, it will still be abused, it will still inevitably hurt innocent people, and we can absolutely do better.
See above, but rape does not have a higher recidivism rate. It's generally about marketing.
The fact that Weinstein continued abusing people even after his dick had all but fallen off due to an infection should prove that having the physical equipment isn't a strict prerequisite for terrorizing victims.
Today I learned.
I didn't say it was. I mentioned there was at least one seriel killer (who raped when he killed) that they did castrate (physically I believe too) that it did not stop him. And my info may be wrong, I got it a long time back from some book I read, but it at least claimed there were studies showing that it does usually stop repeat rapists.
The "rape is about power" hypothesis is a myth that has become unfortunately widespread. We shouldn't use it as a basis for lawmaking.
Saying it is myth, doesn't make it a myth.
I'll do a web search to see if that is the case or not.
This is simply horrible for so many different reasons.
It goes against the 8th Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
It creates irreparable harm for which later being found to be innocent cannot undo. If new evidence comes to light later that exonerates an individual who has been surgically mutilated, they can never be whole again. Unlike (at least in theory) prison, where the punishment ends once released, there is no such option here.
It is an embarrassment for us as a nation in the eyes of the world and damages our credibility on matters of legal legitimacy and humanitarian issues.
It damages the, for lack of a better way to say it, 'legal spirit' of the nation. Do we not decry nations for forcing genital mutilation?
There is also a concept that I don't know if there is a name for. It is something that I have thought about as I spent years teaching martial arts, thinking about violence, human nature, victimhood, the desire to lash out at another - and having the tools to do so. Let us say someone has hurt you, made a victim out of you. Now let us say you find them, and beat them bloody until they are crying on the ground in revenge - now they feel as you felt, do they not?. It is obvious what you have done to that person. Here is the less obvious: what did you just do to yourself? You have made yourself into the person who stalked and violently beat that person for vengeance. Now you will always be the person who chose to do that. What does that do to you? How does it change your view of using violence and barbarism in order that you might feel power? Vengeance and power can feel quite good, knowing 'you won and they lost', knowing you could take power from another, force your will on another. Now that you have felt that... will you not always have the desire to feel it again? And if that desire will be with you going forward... well, maybe this is what Nietzsche meant with the warning about fighting monsters.
I have a slightly different take on your last paragraph about retribution.
I used to work with street kids, generally ages 13 to 22, who were either runaways or 'throwaway' kids in a major Canadian city. There was a lot of drama on the streets but one thing that everyone took seriously was child sexual abuse. Likely because so many of them had experienced being abused and exploited. They would yell and scream if they were mad at someone but one thing you did NOT do was call someone a "goof" or a "diddler" because that was beyond insulting - it meant you had sexually abused a child and that infuriated everyone.
One day there was a particularly weird vibe at our street drop in center and it came to a head when one person stepped in the door. Everyone suddenly went quiet and just stared at him. He deliberately made himself obvious to everyone there, and then left. And as soon as he did, a group of about 6 guys followed him out the door.
I had no idea what was going on, so I asked one of the kids. They said, "He's a diddler. He got caught diddling an 8 yr old. Everyone hates him now and he's gonna get his 'beats' now"
Sure enough, those 6 guys followed this guy into a back alley and then he stopped and faced them and got ready for what he knew was coming. They pushed him to the ground and kicked and boot stomped and punched and hit him with a 2x4 for several minutes, unleashing a lot of fury and probably frustration not only against him but others who had abused THEM in the past.
When I saw this guy again about 15 minutes later his face was bloody and he was obviously in pain so I ended up taking him to the emergency to get him stitched up. He wasn't particularly upset though. So I asked him why he showed up that night, knowing so many people were angry with him. He said he got tired of hiding, of avoiding everyone and he knew he had messed up and people weren't going to forget until he got his beats.
But here's the odd part. He was accepted back into the crowd after that. After a week of healing he showed up again and there was one comment, but no one touched him again. He had "served his sentence" in the eyes of the street community and he was free to be part of it again. When I asked another kid about why they beat him instead of letting the court system take care of him, he said, "Cause the court isn't going to do anything. IF he even gets charged and convicted, he's gonna get like community service or a couple weeks in jail. Its nothing" And he was probably right because this is Canada, and convicting someone of child sexual abuse is hard enough to prove but our sentences tend to be pathetically light even for serious crimes.
So the street justice system seems to be considerably more effective in my view. This kid knew he'd made a mistake, committed a crime, and he knew he either had to hide, run away, or else face the community and receive what the community decided was fair - a very hard and brutal beating for his crime.... I've thought about it many times since then. And Im not sure they're wrong.
The concept you're talking about towards the end here is pretty well explored in a number of stories about vengeance and the cycle of violence. I feel like I caught a good example recently...
I'll come back if I remember it, it's on the tip of my tongue, it's gonna bug me.
The Last of Us Part 2 explores this very well, that's the first thing I thought about.
Your comment on wrongful convictions makes me curious whether there is an estimated rate of wrongful conviction by crime. I could see strong arguments in either direction on whether rape has a higher or lower than average wrongful conviction rate.
The US loves chopping bits off babies without their consent. Over 80% of American men have had their genitals mutilated. A few for valid medical reasons, but mostly not. I do not believe religion is a valid excuse either, frankly.
Any moral or even legal high ground that may exist on this particular topic has never been occupied by America.
I absolutely agree with your final paragraph though. I'm sure there is a name for this but it eludes me too.
True, and agreed on religion not being a valid excuse (though I'm not sure about the percentage). I'm one of the men that was done to as an infant, and I would not have chosen to have that done to me.
Also agreed on the US not having moral high ground on this topic: but if we view it as a more granular thing instead of binary (has / has not moral high ground) - we could say that now, with this not just being done by 'family choice / parental consent' but now being inflicted as a punitive act, that there is even less of that moral high ground than before.
Hooboy am I worried this is a way they're going to tackle "the great replacement". The south has a long and well earned reputation for using the criminal justice system as a means of controlling minorities. I dobut the law makers considered cases of false convictions. This does look like a move towards biblical punishment for crimes, which is frighting from a different angle.
Maybe this is a pessimistic take, I'd be glad to be wrong about this one.
Edit: spellczechs
Frightening?
I'm wondering how realistic it is to find doctors that will actually perform surgery on an unwilling patient. I'm sure there's a few, but it's not like doctors are ever hurting for work and money.
I'm a little afraid to ask, but how would this even work?
The only place my mind went was female circumcision/genital mutilation.
And I know this is a tangent, but I really wanna highlight this because of my own moral opposition to circumcision:
If you find female circumcision abhorrent, male circumcision should be seen as equally abhorrent.
The normalization of male circumcision in the USA is weird. To the point that uncut men are seen as weird by the general public. At the very least, I'd like to see a ban on infant circumcision...let people decide for themselves when they're older if they'd like to do some cosmetic surgery on their penis.
This is so off topic here but the reason why the two are thought of as different is that most FGM is Type I which involves partial or total removal of the clitoris, and Type II which involves partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora and sometimes the labia majora.
While from a foundational bodily autonomy perspective it makes perfect sense to object to both, coming in and conflating the two in casual conversations ignores the huge difference in the impact and harm caused. That's why "female circumcision" fell out of use.
I am not advocating for either procedure, but they're functionally different topics. This forced castration is far more similar than what is referred to as just circumcision.
Absolutely. It's the difference between removing part of someone's eyelid, and removing their eye. Either would be horrific and inexcusable to do for anything other than a valid medical reason, but one act will obviously impair function far more than the other.
Male circumcision has some pluses - Lots of people find a circumcised penis much better looking than an uncircumcised one. And its easier to keep clean. It also makes the penis head less protected so more sensitive to stimulation - which isn't really a negative either. And for those who believe in it, it has religious value.
Female circumcision on the other hand has NO positives. Its just mutilation designed to kill sexual function and is highly abusive. There is no comparison between the two,
Hence why I stated "cosmetic surgery of the penis." "I want my baby's penis to look good" is a really weird take. If they want their penis to look good, the kid can do that themselves when they're of age to do other body mods.
You know how hard it is to keep a circumsized penis clean? Not at all. No harder than scrubbing armpits or a butthole.
The actual medical need for male circumsicion is approximately 0. Far less common then like a lip tie.
My understanding is that this is absolutely not the case. It's much more like developing callouses on your feet, numbing rather than enhancing.
This is in fact the original primary driver of male circumsicion. In the 19th century, during the Victorian era of medical experimentation in the United States and English-speaking countries, circumcision was promoted as preventing masturbation in boys and as a “cure” for “hysteria” in women. It was the moral police dictating sexuality, no different than what happens elsewhere, except masquerading under a cloak of medical science in its infancy.
It's also the primary driver of female circumsicion elsewhere....sexual repression is almost exclusively the domain of religion. Religions can be damned, they can adjust to proper definitions of consent or STFU. Like when Mormons decided God changed his mind about black people.
Pretty sure the fact that its in a 2000 yr old book and an expected part of Jewish tradition before that, predates the 19th century by at least 1000 years, probably quite a bit more. The primary driver was religious tradition. Still is.
Is your issue with circumcision? Seems like its more about religious beliefs you disagree with.
I forgot to add 'in the USA and other English speaking countries' in that line. Jews have always been a minority outlier in broader population, hence why they're a popular target for conspiracy theories, and if it was only them....well I'd still oppose it.
I do very much dislike archaic behaviors that are justified almost exclusively because of religious dogma. Much like human sacrifice, body mods of children should be left in the dustbin of history.
While I agree the normalization of circumcision in the US is weird and performing cosmetic operations on infants' genitalia is generally wrong for bodily autonomy reasons, so-called "female circumcision" is much more invasive and removes much more of the functional capabilities of the genitalia when compared with male circumcision. This is generally why it's viewed as abhorrent even by cultures in which male circumcision is normalized. It's for much the same reasons that I presume most anti-circumcision advocates don't consider piercing a baby's ears as an infant as big of a problem as male circumcision is, even though it also violates their bodily autonomy for cosmetic purposes. One can be opposed in principle to all of these things while still acknowledging that the effects and risks of a given operation are a factor in how harmful it is societally.
As someone who clearly cares a lot about circumcision and wants to see it banned, you should learn more about the surgeries done on intersex babies to make them look "normal". This is an incredibly pervasive practice and is often done even when the cosmetics would impede function. While anti-circumcision legislation could be narrowly targeted at infant circumcision specifically and allow these types of surgeries to continue, broader legislation that protects bodily autonomy for all infants and prevents them having their genitals operated on for cosmetic purposes before they can consent would be better. I often find myself frustrated with anti-circumcision advocates for not being more aware of this issue as a result.
Yeah, to add on this, it's difficult because you do need parents to be able to make medically necessary decisions for their child that infringe on their bodily autonomy while wanting to protect that autonomy as much as possible. I'm sure this is doable, but too often, I see bills that are mostly targeted at particular cultural practices, not the underlying principles. This is all probably better for another thread, but I agree with you wholeheartedly.
FWIW I do find piercing baby ears disgusting as well.
At the end of the day, hearing the screams of a recently circumsized infant is all I needed to full convert me.
I'm not really trying to argue against you here. I agree with you on circumcision. My comment is more trying to appeal to you to take interest in other instances of cosmetic genital surgery for infants, not just circumcision.
Likely an oophorectomy, potentially including a hysterectomy.
Absolutely not, do you know how hard it is to get one of those if you're not married with 3 kids and a permission slip from your husband?
And that's my quota of dark humor for the night.
My mind went the same place, honestly.
Absurd to think this is another context where that decision is made by men.
(Full disclosure, I am a man, I've just been around a lot of women who have enlightened me on this topic and I find the culture around it baffling.)
Yeah, I mean, a large number of poor, Indigenous, Black and other women of color have been sterilized against their will throughout American history so I am not going to dismiss that either.
Removing the ovaries (and do they even do oophorectomies without a hysterectomy?) without subsequent hormone replacement therapy (of either kind) causes a huge risk of osteoporosis. If the intent is to remove the source of "the sex hormone", later supplementing it for basic "we don't want your bones to shatter" reasons seems counterproductive.
Of course, it's extra silly as a punishment because these parts are almost entirely uninvolved with a rape or sexual assault unless she gets pregnant. It would somehow be even less preventative than male castration (which itself isn't particularly preventative).
hrm ... afaik having normal sex hormone levels in combination with an estrogen/androgen (as appropriate) receptor antagonist inhibits the sex hormone's normal effect in the body and brain but still suffices to maintain bone health. i'm certainly not advocating for any of this fwiw, but
Are estrogen receptor antagonists an actual thing people with normal levels of estrogen have taken where we know this, though? I'm not knowledgeable enough about medicine to know whether an estrogen receptor antagonist would effect estrogen's ability to prevent bone density loss, but I've also never heard of estrogen receptor antagonists existing for any legitimate medical purpose before this.
well ... if it otherwise makes no difference, you could give them testosterone with an antiandrogen (which are much better studied)
I suppose you could but I doubt it would actually be effective for the desired purpose either.
wiki says cyproterone has been used for that purpose and is effective:
(i do want to reiterate that i am not advocating for this)