Matt Steinglass has responded at length to some of my thoughts on the circumcision debate, in the comments of my posts on the subject. If you’ve read any of my posts on this issue please take the time to digest Steinglass’s rebuttals.
by Freddie on September 9, 2009
Freddie deBoer used to blog at lhote.blogspot.com, and may again someday. Now he blogs here.
Borat, Art, and the Eye of the Beholder
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I am just listening with sadness…sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt, consult the classics [5:30 mark].
( 0 comments)
Over on the Mindless Diversions site...
Our intrepid commenter A Teacher tells the story of how he published his NaNoWriMo book (and, of course, tells us how we can get a copy of it for ourselves). ( 0 comments)
Nobel Peace Prize Jury Faces Formal Inquiry
Read the story here. Here’s the paragraph that would make clicking through worthwhile, if you’re still undecided:
If the Stockholm County Administrative Board, which supervises foundations in Sweden’s capital, finds that prize founder Alfred Nobel’s will is not being honored, it has the authority to suspend award decisions going back three years — though that would be unlikely and unprecedented, said Mikael Wiman, a legal expert working for the county. ( 7 comments)
{ 2 comments }
Same old same old, basically. Summary: Matt backs parental choice, I back personal.
Actually, shit, I’m wrong:
Let me reassure this guy: no one is planning to do anything to his dick. Assuming, that is, that he is more than 8 days old. But with respect to the practice of circumcision, the important point is this: he’s my son. Not yours. Parents have the right to decide on medical treatment for their children, presuming such medical treatment is not actively harmful. And parents have the right to include their children in cultural rites and practices, again presuming no harm is done.
(empad)
Matt is under the misapprehension that circumcision is not harmful, most likely because he deems the foreskin as inherently of no worth, whereas in reality it removes erogenous tissue, thus impairing the function of pleasure provision. So this is an ”understanding of the world we live in”, not just a value judgement thing.
Comments on this entry are closed.