Chabon's Unkindest Cut

“I tend to think that once people admit that a policy is absurd and cruel, they’ll abandon it”

I tend to think that too – and I’m constantly disappointed when they don’t.

Perhaps, for most people, the function of policy is to signal allegiance to a group. So, ironically, the policy become even more useful as signal if everyone knows it’s absurd.

Now there is a very good justification for circumcision. It drastically reduces a man’s chance of contracting HIV (and possibly other STDs). This is enough for me to seriously consider circumcising any potential boys I may have.

I agree with the poster above. Female circumcision is much worse than the male variety. The correct analogy to female circumcision would be the outright cutting off of the penis.

In the absence of a good justification, circumcision is a strange practice, but then so is ear piercing. What are the negative effects of circumcision that make it so harmful?

This comment perfectly illustrates why Bryan Caplan is often not convincing in his arguments.

Caplan’s very good at stating his position in a clear, uncompromising, provocative and interesting way. In fact, he’s *too* good at it. Consider the second sentence:

In fact, I can’t think of a good reason why we shouldn’t punish it as child abuse.

The operative word is “good.” But that’s not clear on a casual reading. On a casual reading, it sounds like Caplan hasn’t thoroughly thought about the issue and yet has a strong opinion. But what Caplan is really saying would be more commonly, and more boringly, stated as “None of the reasons that I have heard for circumcision seem to outweigh its drawbacks.” If Caplan stated his position this way, it would be unremarkable, less jarring, and also less interesting.

***

In this case, Caplan is also wildly wrong about the substance of the matter.

Let’s assume by stipulation that the overwhelming majority of males born in the Jewish tradition were circumcised. Over the long term, has it done them any harm? Considering the high proportion of Jewish Nobel Laureates, it seems deeply unlikely.

Furthermore, circumcision does not impair reproduction and, if pornography can be taken as prima facie evidence, hinder sexual pleasure.

But it does perform little functions like, oh, I dunno reduce HIV transmission.

Caplan makes the following claim:

Unless you have a good reason for circumcision, it is child abuse. Cutting off a baby’s healthy body parts might be justified in some situations, but justification is a must.

I suppose that this means that haircuts are child abuse. And what will become of trimming fingernails?

Also, how does Caplan propose to enforce his punishment for this old, intimate, cherished custom which has gone on for thousands of years across the world? Coercive government action could logically be inferred to be Caplan’s proposed remedy. Is that any position for nice anarcho-capitalist to take?

Caplan seems to blithely assume that 79% of American males are subjected to child abuse within the first 10 days of their existence.

Admittedly, this is logically possible. But it cuts against the grain of what we know about parental sentiments toward their children.

Caplan seems to blithely assume that 79% of American males are subjected to child abuse within the first 10 days of their existence.

Not only that, but he claims he can’t think of a good reason why all the parents of the 79% shouldn’t be punished for child abuse. I guess we’re going to need some bigger prisons, and a lot more orphanages.

It was a very difficult choice to have this done to my boys; I was against it, the doctor was against, but others thought it was necessary (I didn’t really understand the arguments)

What finally sold me? Not wanting him to shock his girlfriends later in life. Probably not a good reason; but as I think back to my youth, I’m glad it was done for me.

I should preface the following statement with an assertion that Mr. Caplan opened this bag of worms. Anyhow, it would be useful to know the facts about Kaplan’s own nether regions, as to expose any biases based on personal experience (perhaps the doctor had a bad case of arthritis).

Full disclosure: I’m circumcised, and can’t say I’ve developed any negative traits as a result (at least none that I am aware of).

Strong evidence that it significantly reduces the likelihood of acquiring HIV, bacterial STDs, and certain other STDs.

Done.

We didn’t circumcise our son. The overall medical benefits were ambiguous at best (see, e.g. here: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686 ). We can expect him to be a condom-user as an adult, so we needn’t worry as much about AIDs, etc. Overall, cost-benefit analysis of circumcision for someone with our SES makes it come out negative. Thus, to circumcise our son would be to inflict pain and suffering on him for insufficient reasons, and would thus be immoral. Of course, all of this depends on background empirical claims, which I have not adequately defended here. (Still, pro-circumcision people bear the burden of proof, since the moral default is that you do not inflict suffering onto infants.)

John is right, of course, but unlike ear piercing I am made to understand that circumcision later in life is expensive and very painful. It seems to me if we think the boy is going to wish he’d been circumcised as a baby then we ought to do it. After all, if we end up being wrong it’s not as though we’ve inflicted some major harm on the child.

I think some of you are getting caught up in the details and ignoring Bryan’s point.

A central tenet of libertarianism is that we should not harm others. Here, we have a parent in a position of authority and responsibility over a child. If you’re going to harm the child, Bryan’s argument demands that you have a good reason for doing so.

Here you have someone who rejected every proffered reason for circumcision (so we don’t have to decide whether his final reason was a good one) and still had his son circumcised anyway.

Circumcision is a surgical procedure. There is every reason to believe that it is painful for the infant (he has a brain, he has nerves, you’re cutting his flesh). By any rational definition, that is harm.

Consequently, we have a parent who harmed his child for no good reason, which seems to be the very definition of child abuse. Contrast with other harms, like inoculations (they hurt, but the benefits rationally outweigh the harm).

We’re not trying to decide whether there are any good reasons, we are trying to figure out why someone who has rejected ALL reasons for an act, still carries it out. Whether good reasons exist don’t let that person’s thought processes off the hook.

I think the Bryan, as usual, ignores the social aspect of body modification.

Being sufficiently different from everyone else is, for the vast majority of people, a horrific enough fate that it would be akin to some sort of daily torture that lasts a life-time. (I’m autistic enough not to really fell that, but it’s *easily* inferred by watching people’s behavior).

If one believes that circumcision is one of those differences that is sufficiently large that it will make your child miserable in later years (due to freaking out girlfriends, derision from peers, etc.), then one could make a case that it would be child-abuse *not* to circumcise one’s child.

“there is plenty of convincing evidence that sexual pleasure is considerably diminished by the absence of a foreskin.”

He is reading the evidence incredibly selectively if he argues that all the studies showing medical benefits are ambiguous and “debatable at best” but that the evidence that sexual pleasure is diminished is “convincing.”

The vast majorities of sexual pleasure involve surveys asking people who were circumcised at birth or not if they’re pleased sexually. There are people who are circumcised that believe that someone it affects their pleasure, although studies surveying people who then had artificial foreskins made don’t report a difference. Perhaps there’s a study out there surveying only people who were circumcised in adulthood, as in Africa.

OTOH, the data showing reduced AIDS transmission are based on actual disease transmission, not surveys of “so, do you think you gave her AIDS?”

There are other reasons to argue the point, but I do wonder why someone takes answers to survey questions as extremely convincing, but not scientific data.

However, I will admit that if people think it affects their sexual pleasure, even if they have no real evidence or indeed it they would find that it wouldn’t, then that psychologically can affect their pleasure.

The overall medical benefits were ambiguous at best (see, e.g. here: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686 ).

No, the medical benefits are clear. What the AAP statement argues is that the medical benefits aren’t worth the other costs.

If you follow your link and read the statement, you’ll see that the policy statement absolutely admits that all studies show that circumcision reduces urinary tract infections, reduces penile cancer, and HIV and other STD transmission. They simply argue that this isn’t significant since the first two diseases are quite rare, and in the last case behavior is more important for preventing HIV anyway. (The behavioral is an argument in general for being less likely to vaccinate against STDs or even to research vaccines for them in preference to other diseases that are transmitted through less-consensual methods.)

OTOH, if you follow that, you will see more recent articles on their website entitled:

“Circumcision in the Time of HIV: When Is There Enough Evidence to Revise the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Policy on Circumcision?”

and

“Ignoring Evidence of Circumcision Benefits”

Both articles, published by MDs in the journal Pediatrics, argue that the AAP policy statement ignores many convincing scientific studies, and even ignored studies back in 1971. They footnote and link to other papers and studies.

No, the medical benefits are clear.

Is there *anyone* who is danger of *actually* basing their decision to circumcise on the medical/sensual benefits or lack thereof?

I think realistically, all of this tempest is a waste of time, simply used to provide justification for a decision that will be made for far more human reasons than rational evidence.

Evidence of the last few thousand years is proof that the difference in observable outcomes between the two are small enough that the decision will be based almost entirely on social factors.

[Note for the literal minded: generalization for rhetorical effect employed in the first paragraph]

Female circumcision, depending on how extreme the procedure, is not equivalent to the male circumcision. It’s equivalent to the head of the penis being chopped OFF, or removed entirely. It results in a woman’s inability to enjoy sex. What culture would do that to men? NONE. It also drastically increases the likelihood of death during childbirth, as high as a 50/50% chance in some areas. Who does male circumcision kill?

I say this only to argue that male circumcision and female genital mutilation are NOT the same thing. That said, I think the practice of male circumcision in post-industrial countries needs to stop. There are NO medical benefits to a man who practices proper hygiene (and most do), and instead it can cause problems with his sexual functioning… that affects both him AND his partner.

Female circumcision, depending on how extreme the procedure, is not equivalent to the male circumcision. It’s equivalent to the head of the penis being chopped OFF, or removed entirely. It results in a woman’s inability to enjoy sex.

This is a dangerous and misleading line to take. It is simply incorrect to say that female circumcision results in the removal of all sexual pleasure. You should spend some time listening to Fuambai Ahmadu and her studies on the topic. That said, I still oppose all forms of elective child modification.

If Mr. Caplan’s point was that some people pursue some activities or ends despite their own logic, he could perhaps have found a better example that didn’t bring in so many side issues.

If his point was to rag on circumcision, he should leave that debate to doctors and theologians and stick to things he knows something about.

Women prefer circumcision, so if you want to improve the mating opportunities of your boys, then you should circumcise them.

If, in the future, women start to prefer uncircumcised, then we should stop.

I challenge the basic premise that it represents any kind of grevious harm to the child.

I haven’t really seen anyone say it’s grevious. Real and unnecessary, I’ve seen.

By all outward appearance, it is not especially greater than the pain a child feels on experiencing birth, a first breath, hunger, or lack of sleep.

I’m not sure that’s true. The shreaks I’ve heard seem different, but I’m not sure how one would prove this one way or another.

I think some people are excessively attentive to the pain experienced by a 1-day or 8-day-old child because of myths they may hold about an infant’s personhood.

Does it then follow that post-birth abortions should be allowed? Or how about slapping a newborn? Clearly they’re only partly human so they won’t remember and thus it’s ok, no?

LEB,
you seem to be making a category error, as if you were comparing apples as a class to cameo apples in particular. Genital mutilation, of infants of any sex, comes in myriad forms varying horror.

It results in a woman’s inability to enjoy sex. What culture would do that to men? NONE.

Of course, history is replete with examples where young men had to perform tests that had every chance of killing or maiming them in order to have the opportunity to enjoy sex.

Social norms that involve significant discomfort, danger, or sacrifice in order to obtain social acceptance are not in anyway unusual both historically and currently.

Campaigns to change these behaviors have to understand that or they are basically doomed to failure.

I think you mean shallow American women prefer it.

So what?

You’re not going to go very far if your answer to social exclusion is “live in a different society”.

Of course, I’d like to see any statistics to back up the original claim about what women prefer. Somehow I suspect such preferences are almost entirely in the minds of men.

Um, religious freedom?

It’s worth remembering that no-one except for Jewish and Muslim people would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don’t believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians’ Own Words

Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

Joshua Lyle makes a good point. Is it ok for anti-abortionists to make the same point?

Thanks, Joshua. I’m giving you the last word on Thomson, but it’s not because I don’t have counter arguments (at least to her ‘Violinist’ or ‘Seeds’ cases), but out of respect for the owners of this blog.

cards on the table, i’m moderately anti-circ (not gonna have it done to my sons). that being said, *all things equal* it does seem very convincing that in many nations circumcision does cut down on transmission of STDs (e.g., see south africa, xhosa vs. zulu, kenya, luo vs. non-luo). but is that a reason for americans? there’s no difference between japan and south korea, one uncirmcised and one circumcised. so social context matters. if you’re a middle class american the STD arguments probably should not be weighted too strongly, unless you plan to raise your sons as polyamorist swingers.

finally, the argument about not shocking girlfriends in the USA doesn’t hold much anymore. circ rates are down to 60%, and only a minority of boys on the west coast are circumcised. so there’s a strong regional variation. i’ve known young women from the pacific northwest who were a little curious when they first slept with a guy who was circumcised (circumcision is obviously common in portland and seattle, but if there are enough uncircumcised men then the likelihood of simply dating a sequence of them is not trivial).

Suppose female genital mutilation produced precisely the same reduction in HIV transmission rates that male genital mutilation is supposed to. Would you honestly support giving parents the option of cutting off parts of their daughters’ genitalia to give women the same medical benefits male circumcision is supposed to provide?
The fact that many parents in the US decide to circumcise their sons is no defense. In ancient Sparta, many parents left their children to die in the wilderness if they were deformed in any way. That was barbaric, and probably child abuse. So a great many Spartan parents were child abusers. I fail to see what is wrong with saying that a great many American parents are child abusers if they cut off healthy, normal parts of their sons’ genitalia.
For the record, I underwent circumcision as an infant, and I’ve never felt the same about my parents. The fact that Bryan posts things like this is what makes me a regular reader of this blog.

This is a very interesting philosophical discussion, but it’s not new. The Greeks considered circumcision an abomination – and they went naked enough that men couldn’t hide their parent’s choice. They also argued that circumcision was child abuse – and tried to forbid Jewish parents from circumcising their sons. The Hannukah story is a celebration of the Greeks being kicked out and Jews getting back to mutilating their sons in peace.

The only long-term result of the Greek’s laws is that circumcision was made more strict. Prior to the Hannukah story, Jews only removed the end of foreskin. However, that circumcision can be reversed by stretching the remainder. In order to prevent that, modern circumcisions remove the entire foreskin.

the more i think of the analogy between vaccination and circumcision, the more i think the anti-circ screamers really have a point. these justifications are emerging to support a customary practice which has no real rational justification in the form it is practiced today. i mean come, the pain of a shot vs. removal of part of an organ? and to my knowledge, while children can be carriers for deadly infections, they generally don’t have sexual intercourse (though again, if pro-circers expect their 7 year olds to get it on, i can accept circumcision of infants as precautionary).

i’m not going to argue too much with people who have primitive religious beliefs which sanction the practice. male circumcision isn’t that high on the human rights abuses list in my world (if you can call it a human rights abuse). but the secular pro-circ people present some real dumb arguments (and yes, i know the history of dumb secular pro-circ arguments, e.g., re: masturbation). “cuz god said so” is really refreshing in contrast.

p.s. unlike judaism, circumcision in islam isn’t mandatory or a sacrament of the religion. rather, it is customary. there’s no reference in the koran to circumcision, though i believe there are some hadiths supporting the practice. but then, some hadiths also support female circumcision.

What are your views on ear piercing on young children?

Very similar arguments can be made against that. I am curious what you have to say.

People are letting definitions drift.

To say circumcision fights AIDS is ONLY true of
“adult voluntary circumcision” when certain pro-circumcision researchers are minding the study.

This article is about infant circumcision. Infants don’t have sex.

Most of the US men who have died of AIDS where circumcised at birth. In Sweden where almost nobody is circumcised AIDS is more rare than in Israel where 97% or cut. In 7 African nations, the circumcised have markedly higher HIV incidence.

Whatever circumcision might be thought to protect an infant from, the risks and harms overwhelm the potential benefits.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. It’s HIS body and HIS decision whether or not to reduce his pleasure-receptive apparatus for dubious protective value.

Google “circumcision damage” to see hideous cosmetic and functional outcomes of infant circumcision that ARE NEVER figured into the acute complication rates because they don’t manifest until puberty.

Before offering a comment, I thought it best to do some research on the topic first.

What I’ve read has led me to conclude that an intact penis is in fact healthier and can provide benefits both to the man and his partner. Maintaining basic hygiene does not appear to be a problem, certainly no worse than it is for a woman.

Having seen some of the complications that can occur as a result of botched procedures and inappropriate aftercare, I would say that the decision to undergo circumcision should be made by the son, once he has reached the age of consent.

I definitely do not recommend that men undergo the procedure to please a woman. IMO, any women who rejects her partner because he is uncircumcized has her own set of issues.

Alan Zisser,
1. Comparing male and female genital mutilation is in not “ludicrous”, as you would have found out if you bothered to read, for instance, my other comments in this very thread. Again, mutilation is a practice that widely varies in form and horror, even though all are mutilations.

2. Even as Economics experts may be wrong on a non-economic subject, they may be right. Further, many of us listen to Dr. Caplan on non-economic subjects because he has a perspective that is penetrating and unusually unencumbered by the cultural peccadilloes that people such as yourself seem prone to, giving us the chance at achieving valuable insight even when he is not wholly in the right.