Category: Logic

I Do Matthew Yglesias’ Homework

Last week, in a post lamenting the not-odd fact that the words and actions of politicians do not match, Matthew Yglesias wrote this:

My personal feeling, the longer I spend in DC and working in the political domain, is that I get better and better at understanding other people’s ideologies. I also feel that people writing about politics often caricature opponents’ views as part of a rhetorical strategy. But I’ve been back-and-forth on the main issues long enough that I’m pretty sure I could switch this blog’s point of view and do a credible job of offering critiques-from-the-right of the progressive liberal health reform movement and the progressive liberal approach to domestic policy generally. One happy consequence of this is that I find the stubborn persistence of principled disagreement less mystifying than I once did, and have a greater appreciation for what I now think of as a certain irreducibly Kierkegaardian element to ideological commitment that, in turn, helps explain why so many “normal” people have such fuzzy political views.

The words I placed in bold are important to remember while reading an entry Mr. Yglesias posted¹ yesterday (archived version:

There’s lots of great stuff in this Ed Pilkington story about the dark side of free market health care (via Tomasky) but my favorite bit was this part:

Eventually his lack of motor control interfered with his work to the degree that he was forced to give up his practice. He fell instantly into a catch 22 that he had earlier seen entrap many of his own patients: no work, no health insurance, no treatment.

He remained uninsured and largely untreated for his progressively severe condition for the following 11 years. Blood tests that could have diagnosed him correctly were not done because he couldn’t afford the $200. Having lost his practice, he lost his mansion on the hill and now lives in a one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs. His Porsches have made way for bangers. Many times this erstwhile pillar of the medical establishment had to go without food in order to pay for basic medicines.

This is the kind of thing that makes it so hard for me to take seriously the idea that we can’t have the government give people health care because it might subject them to “rationing.” Depending on the details, it may or may not be correct to believe that any particular government program is being too stingy. But how does giving people nothing at all resolve that problem?

There are two issues here, closely related to Mr. Yglesias’ entry from last week linked above. The initial problem is glaring but only if you follow the link to the Ed Pilkington story. You wouldn’t know this from his excerpt, but the paragraph continues (emphasis mine):

He remained uninsured and largely untreated for his progressively severe condition for the following 11 years. Blood tests that could have diagnosed him correctly were not done because he couldn’t afford the $200. Having lost his practice, he lost his mansion on the hill and now lives in a one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs. His Porsches have made way for bangers. Many times this erstwhile pillar of the medical establishment had to go without food in order to pay for basic medicines. In 2000 Manley finally found the help he needed, at a clinic in Kansas City that acts as a rare safety net for uninsured people. He was swiftly diagnosed with Huntington’s disease, a degenerative genetic illness, and now receives regular medical attention through the clinic.

Mr. Yglesias’ excerpt is an incomplete representation of the complex facts, presumably to make the point – a caricature, if you will – that the free market has failed. But has it really failed?

Mr. Manley probably should’ve saved his money for potential later-life crises rather than buying a new Porsche every year, as the article states he did when his practice was strong. That is a relevant point, but it’s little more than a distraction to the real issue underlying Mr. Yglesias’ belief that everyone has an obligation to pay for everyone’s care, especially where the free market (allegedly) fails. Regardless, we have the system we have, not the one either side wishes. It shouldn’t have taken so long for Mr. Manley to receive the care he needed. Stating this needn’t be considered a concession or profound.

What Mr. Pilkington, and subsequently Mr. Yglesias, failed to explore is the care that Mr. Manley eventually received.

[Dr. Sharon] Lee’s clinic, Family Health Care, is a refuge of last resort. It picks up the pieces of lives left shattered by a health system that has failed them, and tries to glue them back together. It exists largely outside the parameters of formal health provision, raising funds through donations and paying all its 50 staff – Lee included – a flat rate of just $12 an hour.

Unlike Mr. Yglesias, I researched Family Health Care. It took approximately 10 minutes. Mr. Manley is getting care thanks to the “dark side of the free market.” Consider the clinic’s financial profile for 2005-2007:

The clinic receives 0% of its funding from government, meaning that the remaining 100% of its budget comes from the bank accounts of individuals, corporations, and non-profit organizations. Where is the free market failure to provide health care to those in need?

The structure of the American health care and insurance system is idiotic and needs reform. We should talk about that. The article even includes anecdotal stories to suggest problems that need to be addressed within the views of each side’s extremes. But presumably that wouldn’t have made the point for Mr. Pilkington or Mr. Yglesias that government needs to step in to protect the poor from the free market’s alleged failures, which are, we are told, ignored by the mean-spirited right-wing capitalist liars opposed to President Obama’s proposal. A neat, tidy box, indeed. That reaches closer to ideological commitment – propaganda, if you will – than journalism.

Update: I’ve struck the reference to propaganda. This isn’t that. Rather, Mr. Yglesias’ ideological commitment is more likely laziness embracing the appearance of victory.

¹ Normally I refuse to reprint an entire entry because links are survival. In this case, I can think of no other way to make my points.

Immigration Laws Are Too Strict

Classically Liberal discusses a New York Times article on a decline in illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States. I can’t say it better, so here’s the whole thing:

Doesn’t the anti-immigration lobby find this curious? Under their theory of immigration these people should still be coming to the United States at the same pace as before. The anti-immigration crowd argues that immigrants are only coming to America to “get on welfare” and “live off the taxpayer.” Did someone abolish the American welfare state when I wasn’t looking?

Nope, it’s still there. What has changed is that lots of jobs have disappeared. With fewer and fewer jobs the immigrants are not coming in. Since welfare remains, since the “free” health care remains, since the public schools remain, then the this sharp downturn in immigration is a very, very strong indication that most immigrants come to America to work, not to live off welfare. I fear that the tendency to sponge off the state is a habit that is indulged in more by the native born than by migrants.

This is not proof, of course, but it is a logical first step in exposing the xenophobia embedded in most arguments against immigration.

“With your head on my shoulders we could wreck civilization!”

I haven’t followed the story surrounding The Pirate Bay closely, but I know enough to find no outrage at the recent conviction of the four founders. I don’t share what seems to be the typical libertarian revulsion at copyright laws. Although I agree they’re flawed as they’re written, there are legal ways for content producers to contract with customers that ignore the process. The system is broken but the free market created a work-around. So, I’m not ready to hoist a Live Free or Die banner on this issue.

That’s my short version. I like this longer, more detailed version from Eugenia’s Rants and Thoughts.

In my opinion, they are indeed guilty — they have been total assholes to lawyers who have sent them takedown notices over time. These dumbasses think that they are some kind of revolutionist heroes. Yes, a revolution is needed for copyright laws and the entertainment industry today, but these guys haven’t realized that in this day and age there is only one way to start a revolution: work through the existing system’s limitations and lobby extensively for new laws. Anything [sic] other approach will be shot down by the system and the corporations. This is not 1789 France. You can’t win with riffles, and picketing or rage anymore. You simply can’t ignore the laws. We live in a bureaucratic, corporation-led world, and so you will have to work through these constrains to change the world (e.g. via Creative Commons which is a clever approach that doesn’t cancel the current laws, so it can’t piss off the establishment to come after you). This Gandhi approach works: if you don’t buy the RIAA/MPAA-bound products, these empires will eventually fall, but it’s the only way to do it.

I’d change “corporation-led world” to a more general reference about special interests, but that’s mostly semantics based on politics. The basic idea is correct. If you don’t like the rules, refuse to participate or change them. Violating them instead is not a valid option.

Title reference here.

I should have thought of this long ago.

One of the common defenses of infant male circumcision is that it’s the parents’ decision and that they make many decisions that may or may not be the best decision. The argument is that the State is no more qualified to make those decisions than the child’s parents. I disagree with this, as I’ve explained before. (One example here.) And it’s obviously ridiculous because we’ve already legislated against parental decision-making for the genitals of their daughters, prohibiting the same excuses we permit for the genitals of sons. There is no valid line of thought that supports that legal distinction.

I’d already reached that conclusion, of course. But I consistently missed a fallacious approach to the argument. If parents have “rights”, a proxy power granted only to the genitals of their sons can’t be legitimately referred to as a right unless we concede that the state is infringing upon their right to cut their daughters. This should be obvious, and it always has been to me. However, the argument based on rights generally leads to a statement that among the many decisions parents make for their children include such decisions as where to educate them, whether or not their friends are acceptable, and what to feed them. Those are all valid parental decisions.

Those are an unintentional distraction from the real question. The (male) circumcision decision for parents of a healthy (male) child is whether to allow their (male) child to keep his normal anatomy or not. The analogous decision is not whether to send their (male) child to school X or school Y. The analogous decision is whether to send their (male) child to school or not. The analogous decision is whether to allow their (male) child to have friends or not. The analogous decision is whether to feed their (male) child or not.

In every one of those examples, we immediately recognize the legitimacy of state intervention to prohibit objectively reckless decisions. (The anarchists don’t, but that’s a different blog entry.) The decision to circumcise a healthy male child is no different when properly analyzed.

Even when the claim is medical benefits, those benefits are merely potential benefits for risks that are universally low to begin with for normal males. The remaining non-medical reasons people offer simply cannot withstand any rational consideration of the truth that prophylactic circumcision is an invasive surgical procedure forced upon a healthy individual, with all the inherent risk of complications and without any direct medical need. Again, we fully understand this basic truth for the normal, healthy genitals of female minors. The notion that parents possess a right to proxy consent distinguished only by the gender of the child is indefensible.

If You Can’t Beat Them, Resort to Name-Calling?

There’s a new meme popular among advocates of routine infant circumcision referring to those who oppose routine infant circumcision as “foreskin fetishists”. It’s not a surprising strategy because it’s the type of tactic deployed when one is on the wrong side of logic and facts. It’s been deployed against me, and I’ve seen it deployed as a general tactic. It’s unwise to the point of being odd, since it’s so easy to dismiss with a simple observation. But it’s clear those who use it do so because they realize that most people believe what they’re told if it fits their opinions, not what fits with reality. Smear your opponent and some will buy it.

So, the claim itself. I support the right for each male to choose for himself. If he chooses circumcision for any reason, that’s his right. If he chooses against circumcision for any reason, that’s his right. My only concern is that each healthy child be left his choice for when he can consent or refuse.

Circumcision advocates believe that parents should choose. They are wrong, for the many logical reasons I continue to write about. This isn’t the place to rehash most of those directly. However, there is one that is relevant. I’ll point to a claim by Professor Brian Morris, linked in the entry I posted yesterday.

Getting circumcised will result in:
…

• A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.

And what about Dr. Edgar Schoen?

Women’s Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect:

Sexual function is not adversely effected by NC. On the contrary, published evidence shows that circumcised men have a wider variety of sexual activity, and women prefer circumcised men, mainly because of better genital hygiene.

I can find any number of further examples, but the point should be clear. If there are fetishists, which side contains the fetishists? Is it those who advocate for each male to choose for himself for his reasons or those who believe that parents may impose unnecessary surgery on their son’s genitals because they believe his future partner(s) will find his circumcised penis more sexually appealing?

Anyone who tosses this meme around is engaging in propaganda.

**********

For an example, consider this entry from Dr. Amy Tuteur. She labels herself “The Skeptical OB”, but it will be clear that she is hardly skeptical in any meaningful way on circumcision. She opens:

A visitor from outer space might be forgiven for concluding that the most important part of the human body is the foreskin. It is, after all, the only part of the body that has multiple organizations devoted to its preservation in the natural state. The visitor might get the impression that the choice of circumcision is a fateful choice with profound implications for the rest of life.

It is the only part of the body that has multiple organizations devoted to its preservation in the natural state because it is the only body part we regularly remove from non-consenting individuals in its natural (i.e. healthy) state.

… Foreskin fetishists also employ inflammatory language to express their judgmentalism. Circumcision is “mutilation” and parents who choose to circumcise their sons are “mutilators”.

Does fetishist qualify as “inflammatory language”?

The foreskin fetishists are so obsessed with the foreskin that they actually dare to advance the misogynistic claim that male circumcision is analogous to female genital mutilation, in other words, that the foreskin is the analogue of the clitoris. The male analogue of clitoridectomy is is amputation of the penis. Comparing circumcision to clitoridectomy is like comparing ear piercing to having your ears cut off.

My claim is that unnecessary genital cutting on a healthy, non-consenting individual is wrong. Gender makes no difference to that principle. That is a different, and more fundamental, claim than what Dr. Tuteur puts forth for people who state (accurately) that female and male genital cutting are comparable.

She adds to this in the comments:

The comparison is essentially misogynistic. FMG exists specifically to prevent female sexual activity by permanently removing the possibility of sexual enjoyment. Male circumcision is performed for religious reasons or for medical benefits. It has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction, and is certainly not meant to interfere in any way with male sexual satisfaction.

Every claim in that comment is incorrect. There is no misogyny in stating that males and females possess equal human rights. FGM exists for many reasons and in different forms, not all of them intended to permanently remove the possibility of sexual enjoyment. (They may still do that, and probably do in most cases. But that’s obvious because parental intent does not guarantee good outcomes, another point not specific to the gender of the recipient.) Male circumcision is also performed so that parents don’t have to learn how to care for a normal penis or so that the son will look like the father or so the mean kids won’t pick on him in the locker room or because his parents think women won’t sleep with him if he has his foreskin. The latter point is clearly about sexual satisfaction. And whether or not it is meant to interfere is subordinate to the truth that it interferes with male sexual satisfaction. That interference could be positive, negative, or neutral, but only the male himself can make the relevant determination to that subjective question.

Anti-circ activists like to claim that there only risks and no benefits to circumcision, but that is not true.

Dr. Tuteur links to zero sources making this claim. I don’t doubt that some people are making that claim. People on both sides make ridiculous claims. Still, if one wants to make a sweeping claim, defend it with evidence.

Yesterday, I wrote that “[t]he reduction in UTI risk is likely real. The reduction in HIV-infection risk is likely real, at least in the short-term. And so on. I accept this.” This is not complicated, but as I added after that statement, it is not enough to dismiss the fact that the child is healthy at the time of the surgery. That makes the ethical evaluation the primary focus. Non-therapeutic circumcision fails this test. Yet Dr. Tuteur seems uninterested in anything more than potential benefits as an excuse to permit parents to make the decision.

She defends this opinion in the comments:

Parents have the right to consent to ANY surgery, brain surgery, heart surgery, so consenting to removal of the foreskin is hardly a big deal. Moreover parents have the right to consent to piercing, removal of birth marks and other forms of body modification.

Do parents have the right to consent to non-therapeutic brain or heart surgery for their healthy children? A heart stent for a 2-year-old because he might have problems at 50?

The core evaluation is very simple. If the child is healthy, no surgery is indicated or justifiable. Chasing benefits for children is an illogical path that can be pursued to other irrational avenues and on both genders. It has no place in the proxy decision-making of parents for the geni
tals of their male children, as we already understand clearly for female children.

Quick Comment on Two Posts

I’ve written two posts responding to a series of statements and entries a blogger posted on infant circumcision. They’re extensive, so I expect only the truly interested will read them. However, I’d like to point out an interesting and useful section from each. From the first entry, in response to a claim by Professor Brian Morris on the cost of circumcision for infants and adults:

Speaking strictly from a finance perspective, advocating for infant circumcision is the more expensive approach. His analysis is that the cost is 10 times 0.1 for his preference and 0.1 times 10 for his worst case. The present value of $1 spent over many years in the future is less than the $1 spent today. Professor Morris prefers the more expensive option.

From the second entry, apropo to this recent tweet directed to me, this:

Infant circumcision is a surgical procedure performed without medical need because it offers potential health benefits. The latter defense is what proponents obsess on, as the author does here. But just to prove that the author’s last claim is ad hominem deployed to prop up her indefensible case, there are potential advantages to being circumcised as an infant. The reduction in UTI risk is likely real. The reduction in HIV-infection risk is likely real, at least in the short-term. And so on. I accept this.

But so what? That gives no validity to prophylactic infant male circumcision. There are better, more effective, less invasive ways to achieve every single benefit or to treat the maladies in the unlikely instances where they occur. The objective health is what matters for proxy consent for a child. Is the intervention indicated and necessary? Infant circumcision fails this core test. Moving forward is unethical because objective reality trumps the subjective chase for justifications.

As I responded to that tweet, I don’t refute the scientific research. I reject the flawed (i.e. unethical) application of that research. There is a difference.

It’s worth noting, too, that I can accept the scientific research because my position remains strong regardless. The position that relies on the scientific research without ethics or core facts pertinent to each individual case falls apart if it acknowledges anything beyond its talking points.

This does not mean that I think the studies looking for potential benefits are sound and will withstand the scrutiny of time and further research. I suspect many of them won’t. The history of infant circumcision and the search for potential benefits demonstrates the belief in stagnant arguments for the procedure to be a silly proposition to defend with any certainty. Still, I can accept the findings as present scientific consensus. But I will continue to probe those potential flaws, as anyone who cares about science and furthering knowledge should. We don’t stop just because we find the answer we want.

PETA Is Boring

This is almost two weeks old, but I can’t let Ingrid Newkirk’s preposterous publicity stunt will go without some comment. I know I’m supposed to agree because I’m a vegan, but PETA is generally a pointless diversion from whatever a vegan may seek. Not always, of course. Still, PETA’s better actions seem to be more broken clock theory than intent by the organization.

Anyway, as a vegan hearing of Newkirk’s will, I suppose should say something. I’ll outsource the effort to Ken at Poephat, who nails it.

PETA’s public relations strategy depends upon the premise that if people knew how badly animals are treated behind closed doors so that we might eat well and wear leather and go to the circus and so on, we would rise up and become Cirque-du-Soleil-appreciating vegans in shitty plastic shoes. But PETA lacks a sense of proportion — it seems willfully indifferent to the fact that humanity already routinely shrugs off far worse suffering inflicted upon people.

I think the post veers just a bit when it gets to a woman wrapped in human-sized meat packaging because PETA uses men in this way, too. I don’t see any sexism in this or PETA’s naked campaigns because the models, male and female, volunteer. But as Ken highlights, I agree that it’s stupid marketing. It misses the larger point to make the cheap, easily-refuted point. Ken does just that, and offers a much better approach that PETA could take. It won’t.

If you care, I hate Cirque-du-Soleil, but I love my shitty plastic shoes.

Uganda Epidemic != United States Epidemic

I’m slow getting to this story, but the United States loves irrational fears when it comes to the foreskin, so it’s still as relevant today. A re-evaluation of one of the studies used to claim that (voluntary, adult) male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission suggests that (voluntary, adult) male circumcision reduces the risk of herpes transmission by 25% and HPV transmission by 30%.

To the extent that adult males want to volunteer for these reasons, so be it. Everyone is entitled to his own decision. Personally, I’d rely on safe sex, not surgery. But that’s not how the data are being used in the U.S. Here, it’s predictably OMG 25% 30% OMG YOUR SON IS GONNA DIE A SAD HORRIBLE PAINFUL DEATH IF YOU DON’T CIRCUMCISE HIM BEFORE HE HITS THE DOCTORS HANDS IN THE DELIVERY ROOM OMG! OH AND WOMEN PREFER CIRCUMCISED PENISES WINKWINK. From one of the researchers involved:

Dr Judith Wasserheit went on to say: “All providers who care for pregnant women and infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know that circumcision could help protect their sons from the three most common and most serious viral sexually transmitted infections, all of which cannot currently be cured.”

Again, notice how easily Dr. Wasserheit dropped voluntary and adult from the study’s results. If voluntary, adult circumcision was enough to protect the men involved in the study, surely the exact same is capable of protecting American males. Maybe she wants to suggest that the American STD situation is more dire than the situation in Uganda to justify dropping voluntary or adult?

But to her point, all providers for infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know the objective status of their son’s foreskin health. Almost always that will mean a statement that no intervention is indicated or warranted. There is no defensible reason to impose surgical risks for a surgery that is a) not needed and b) can be postponed until the child can choose. That was the ethical standard applied in the study. American public health officials have not explained why American infant males should be provided fewer ethical protections.

As the BBC journalist shows, it’s possible to find different views. First, the key point that everyone forgets in the hysteria:

The reason why a foreskin might increase the risk of infection with various viruses is unclear.

Whatever the data reflect, this should not be forgotten. It’s reasonable to consider the possibility that there is a methodological flaw, for example. What if improper controls existed? What if the timeline was too short? This should not be ruled out, which further highlights the already clear ethical flaw in pushing these results as an excuse to circumcise infant males. And what if the mechanism suggests that some level of female genital cutting would also reduce risks? Would the current advocates endorse that research, or are findings like the current re-evaluated study merely a solution in search of problems?

Dr Colm O’Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an “obsession” with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.

He said: “Sure, a dry skinned penis is a bit less likely to contract HIV, herpes and possibly genital warts but it will get infected eventually.”

That’s what I mean by a flaw in the timeline. If a male has unprotected sex – the only way circumcision could provide protection – with HIV-positive females, he will become infected. The choices are condoms/monogamy/circumcision or condoms/monogamy. Circumcision is superfluous and unnecessary, so infant circumcision is indefensible.

Keith Alcorn, from the HIV information service NAM, also warned against a knee jerk reaction.

He said: “We have to be careful not to take evidence from one part of the world and apply it uncritically to others.

Given the U.S. reaction, it’s too late for that.

“Male circumcision will have little impact on HIV risk for boys born in the UK, where the risk of acquiring HIV heterosexually is very low.

The same applies to the United States.

Faith versus Individual Rights (of Children)

For a few days I’ve mulled over whether or not I should comment on this story:

Accepting a plea bargain that her attorney described as unprecedented in American jurisprudence, a 22-year-old Maryland woman yesterday agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of other defendants in the death of her son under the condition that charges against her be dropped if the child rises from the dead.
…

The boy’s mother, Ria Ramkissoon, is shaping up as prosecutors’ star witness against a 40-year-old Baltimore woman named Queen Antoinette. Prosecutors allege that Queen Antoinette led a small cult, called One Mind Ministries, based in a West Baltimore rowhouse. In early 2007, prosecutors say, Queen Antoinette instructed Ramkissoon and others to deprive Javon of food and water because he didn’t say “amen” before breakfast.

I’m inclined to make a comparison to infant circumcision for religious reasons. It’s easy to make even though there are many steps between the two points, but I worried about the perception that I’m claiming a moral equivalence between circumcision and death. I am not, so I stayed away. Then I read this entry by Rogier van Bakel, which I think gets the angle correct (emphasis in original):

Yeah, no insanity there. I mean, since she felt compelled by God to let her baby die a drawn-out, miserable death, why would anyone question her mental capacity? That just wouldn’t be respectful to the Big Guy, and to people of faith, now would it?

I’m more or less agnostic on religion, and I don’t care what people believe. My only concern is how our civil government uses religion as a guidance on rules. Specifically, I’m concerned about how government treats what one person does to another in the name of religious faith.

This case demonstrates that we collectively believe our government must not rebuke religious intent in individuals who inflict objectively harmful practices on another. And we must punish only the most egregious examples. In America, belief in a higher being is a sign of increased rationality. We mistakenly accept that parents may undertake certain unjustifiable actions against their children because we do not wish to imply that the verifiable is superior to the unverifiable. That is wrong.

This case is obvious, so the deference to religion in pursuit of convictions is understandable, if not entirely acceptable. The mother is obviously incompetent, so we shouldn’t pretend that she is. That will only perpetuate further violations of the rights of children because it gives religious justifications credibility they do not deserve.

On Widespread Gender-Based Double Standards

One more story for today that draws a parallel to the gender-bias in child genital cutting in America. (Note: The names of the minors should be redacted, but they’re obviously known, so I’m leaving them in the excerpt.)

Alan Jepsen was playing videogames at his home in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, when the cops came knocking on his door. He was handcuffed in front of his sister and thrown in jail. In the words of his attorney, Jeffrey Purnell, “This child, this 17-year-old high-school kid, had to spend a week in jail—they locked him up and they put him in jail with grown-ups.”

His crime: Having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. And, perhaps, being a boy.

The day after Alan’s arrest, Sheboygan authorities arrested Norma Guthrie, also 17, for having sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend. Norma, however, did not have to spend a single day in jail. She was released immediately, on signature bond, while Alan was held on a $1,000 cash bond, which his family could not afford. Sheboygan County Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch is handling both cases.

The disparity in the punishment of these 17-year-olds, both accused of having sex with the 14-year-olds they were dating, goes much deeper. Haasch charged Alan with a Class C felony, which, according to court records obtained by The Daily Beast, carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. Norma, on the other hand, was charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of nine months in jail.

If the facts are as they appear, this is despicable. And entirely predictable. Males are viewed as possessing endless sexual appetities. Females are viewed as sexual victims. The typical defense of the non-existent ethical distinction between genital cutting on male and female minors rests solely on the mistaken notion that female genital cutting is strictly designed to limit the female’s sexuality, if not destroy it completely. (And imposed by women, even when it isn’t.) For males, we pretend that potential medical benefits dismiss the same ethical issues involved in female genital cutting because parents say their intentions are good. Anyway, we’re told, males enjoy sex more than enough, and genital cutting doesn’t affect male sexual experience. And if it does, although it doesn’t, that’s exclusively a good thing, except removing nerve endings couldn’t possibly alter sexual experience, so why are you worried?

Here’s an example:

Between 2002 and 2003, Turkish scientists studied how circumcision influences male sexual functions. They only studied men who were circumcised for aesthetic or religious reasons. The average age of those surveyed was 22.3 years old, and their sexual functions were equal before and after circumcision. After the survey was carried out, scientists concluded that circumcising grown men does not negatively effect their sexual functions. On the contrary, the fact that it causes a delay in ejaculation is more of an advantage than a complication.

Circumcision affects sexual function. It delays orgasm, which is an objective claim. Whether or not that is positive or negative is subjective to the individual, yet it’s treated as an objective finding. It’s not stated here, but most commonly the argument relies on some defense that women prefer this outcome, so it is good. (Check virtually any propaganda by Brian Morris or Edgar Schoen.)

If a man likes large breasts, he does not have the right to impose breast augmentation on his daughter to achieve this positive outcome. We understand that, of course, because it involves controlling a female’s sexuality. But we embrace a double standard when the roles are reversed, even though the ethical issue is the same. We must not deviate from the belief that men are predators and women are delicate flowers. So, no, I’m not surprised that there is a double standard involving prosecution of these two Wisconsin teens.

Original link via Radley Balko.