Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    In some cases, where the society in question is undisputedly harming
    someone, yes, someone else should step in and tell them to stop.
    For example, various nations stepped in when the Nazis were
    exterminating millions of Jews.  This practice of removing the genitals
    from a female (remember, no anesthesia, no antibiotics) makes me
    shudder to think of it.
    
    If the practice does not cause harm to someone without their consent,
    nothing should be done to stop it.
    
    If someone else (Kirk and Spock) were to come here and show us some
    better ways (say, they had some idea that would forever stop war),
    I would want them to 'interfere' with our society.
    
    However, if someone wanted to stop a society from engaging in certain
    types of religious devotion, sexual/marriage customs, and so forth,
    I'd say don't interfere.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    
    
    	We should strive to follow the Prime Directive of "You keepa
    you hands offa".  (Something Kirk and Spock preached about but rarely
    followed)
    
    It's none of our bloody damned business..
    
    								mike

    
    If your next door neighbor is beating the hell out of their
    5 year old boy, do you say it's none of my damn business?!!?
    
    I say, "Beam down a landing party armed with Phaser #2, and set
    phasers for stunn....If that's not enough, we may have to set
    phasers for kill!  We won't tell the Federation!"
    
    Dwight

    
    Yeah, lets show 'em the GOOD life like we did for the Indians in
    the U.S.  If they don't like it tough, after all they're only savages.
    

    RE: .1
    
    I disagree with the statement that, during WW II, many nations 
    stepped in to help the Jews. Most countries who were participants
    in that war against Nazi Germany did so for political and defensive
    reasons, not humanitarian.
    
    Our own country entered the War, only after the Japanese attacked
    Pearl harbor. Indeed, as far as trying to help the Jews, the U.S.
    sent back to Europe (and certain death) a ship filled with Jews
    who had escaped from Europe.
    
    The Vatican, which, today, worries about such vital matters as birth 
    control, artificial insemination, test tube babies, and other forms
    of morality had a dismal record of speaking out against what was
    happening to the Jews and the evils of Naziism and Hitler.
    
    On the subject of Jews, a requirement of males, as part of the Covenant
    with God, is that they be ritually circumcised 8 days after they
    are born. Recently, there has been much concern of this so-called
    "barbaric practice" by many non-Jews in America. I can't help but
    wonder if this concern is really about circumcision as much as it
    may be a more subtle form of anti-Semiticm.
    
    BTW, how did this topic find its way into H_R? I'd think that
    SOAPBOX would be a natural for this topic.
    
       Alan
       
    

    Any culture that cuts the penis off of all boys entering puberty
    (so that they don't get any ideas) would be considered barbaric
    and stupid.  Valueing differences stops where savage, pointless 
    mutilation and crimes against human nature begin.  

    RE: .7
    
    Are you equating circumcision to cutting off a boy's penis?
    
    Do you consider ritual circumcision to be "savage, pointless
    mutilation, and a crime against human nature"?
    
       Alan
    

    RE: .9
    
    In my .6, I was mainly responding to .1's assertion about the
    countries' stepping in to aid the Jews. My last paragraph was
    a segue into some people's claims in Americaa that ritual circum-
    cision (as practiced by Jews in which the male child is not 
    anesthetized) is a barbaric practice.
    
    When I read .7, I mistakenly thought your comments were tied into
    the circumcision issue. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your intent.
    
    I definitely agree that the removal of the clitoris (even if it
    were done with the availability of anesthesia and antibiotics) is
    an abhorrent custom.
    
        Alan
                       

    There's a line between being a Concerned Citizen and being a busybody.
    Unfortunately, the line isn't thin, it's broad and fuzzy. 
    
    Yeah, we're all against sending people to the gas chambers. We're all
    against child-beating. But I, for one, am in favor of privacy. 

    "Ritual mutilation" is difficult to call. I, myself, have been involved
    in ritual mutilation of the sort that makes Nigel cringe -- I have a
    pierced ear. It was done with neither anethesia nor antibiotics. Since
    I would like to say something nice about the people who did it, they
    did avise the use of rubbing alcohol, and mentioned that I'd know when
    it healed when the alcohol no longer stung. (Insert wry smile here.)
    Mind you, I had my ear pierced because I wanted to. No one drug me off
    to have it done. 
    
    Infibulation is much more difficult to call. Personally, I'm rather
    grossed out by the idea. However, it is hardly done so that the young
    women "don't get any ideas." I think that that is ethnocentric. I read
    an article on infibulation in (I belive) "Discover" magazine. The woman
    who wrote the article went and inteviewed some young women who were
    considering infibulation, and their mothers. The mothers were dead-set
    against it. The young women wanted it. They insisted that it would make
    them more feminine and more desirable. 
    
    The whole thing eerily scary, because it sounded to me *exactly* like
    the fights my sister had with my mother when my sister wanted to get
    her ears pierced. These young women were not being drug off kicking and
    screaming to be infibulated. On the contrary, their mothers were
    holding them back in spite of their daughters' kicking and screaming to
    go have it done! My reaction is, "Yech!" but I also think that people
    have a right to go do stupid things to their own bodies. After all,
    it's *their* body, not mine. 
    
    Is it okay for people in our culture to get their ears pierced of their
    own free will, but infibulation in another culture is barbaric and a "
    crime against human nature"? 
    
    Seems to me that there was a time in our culture when that very phrase
    was used to describe what is now called "being horny." Does valuing
    differences stop with people who have the horrid notion that what they
    do in their own home is their business? I know someone who likes to
    walk around the house with no clothes on. I also know people who would
    consider that pointless, savage, and a crime against human nature. Does
    valuing differences stop there? Should we then pass a law against it? 
    
    	Jon

    Piercing ears does not prevent the ear from functioning the way
    nature intended it to function.  A more appropriate example would
    be the binding of the feet of little girls (an ancient and no longer
    existing tradition).  Any tradition that warps a human organ preventing
    it from functioning the way it should or any tradition that surgically 
    "removes" a fully functioning, healthy human organ is a crime against
    nature.  Little girls that are raised in an environment that encourages
    submission are hardly in a position to argue against social
    expectations.  If my twelve year old son came to me and said that
    it was "really punk" to have an eye removed and it would make him
    look tougher and cool,... it would hardly influence me to have his
    eye removed.. or to remove it myself.  The point of no return is
    that point where the function of nature itself is interferred with
    and using the attitudes of vulnerable, impressionable children as
    a justification of an act of society seems like rationalization.
    My apologies to Alan.  I tend to over-react from time to time but
    we must not forget people that the cultural issue we are discussing
    is the removal of a healthy, fully functioning female organ from
    a pubescent child.  
     

>>-< we only know right and wrong for OUR society >-
>>It's equally a crime against nature to force your ideals
>>upon another culture.
>>    
>>You're making yourself judge and jury without the consent
>>of the "injured" party.  This is not something that I can
>>agree with.
    
This assumes that right and wrong are determined by a society, a religion,
a government or a culture.  If humanity's determination of right and wrong is
an intrinsic part of the nature of an intelligent and sentient species and 
not necessarily determined by customs of evolving societies, ...
then certain global mores emerge as standards of right and wrong for mankind.  
One of these is murder, another is the physical mutilation of the human body 
beyond function.  

Consent is often influenced by the condition of our lives.  The depressed, 
the poor, the young, the overwhelmed are often influences by factors other 
than wisdom, judgement and experience.  Children are seldom put in a position
where they are truly uninfluenced in their decision making.

Making myself judge and jury with or without the consent of the "injured party"
is part of the process of value judgement.  That kind of critical analysis of
the behavior of one's own species is the primary method of ethical 
determination and is the vehicle of evolutionary advancement of character and
integrity.  You can't accuse me though of forcing my ideals on another 
culture until I go over there with a sub-machine gun and several cases of
plastic explosives and express myself in a more physical manner_;-)

    Okay, then it boils down to this: As horrid as I think infibulation is,
    I don't believe that I have the right to impose my beliefs on someone
    else who is acting of their own free will. You think you do. Because of
    my beliefs, there's nothing more I can say.
    
    	Jon 

    I understand where you're coming from Jon.... but do you really
    believe that these little girls choose this for themselves.. without 
    any pressure from their society, culture, or authority figures?
    Do you see any advantages to them to have this done other than to
    please those authority figures?  Perhaps it is only in our definition of 
    "free will" that we disagree.

    Wait a minute... I just thought of something... you guys aren't saying that
the men of a particular culture have the right to do whatever they feel is 
appropriate to the women of that culture are you?  Are you saying that women
should be subject to whatever mores have been determined for them by the
culture they were born in ... and thats ok?  

The Council For Human Rights condemns torture of certain groups of people 
within a society by their own government, the political situation of blacks 
in South Africa is condemned and disfavor is shown by attempts at trade 
embargo, .....but (and I may be completely misunderstanding this).... do you 
guys feel that it is ok for the women of a specific culture to be subjected 
to anything that represents the prevailing attitudes of that culture?  

    Some time ago, and I can no longer remember where, I read a short
    story written by an African woman. The heroine was a modern, western
    educated woman who had never been "circumcised" as it was called
    in the story. The emotional crux of the story centered around her
    discovery that the intelligent, educated man that she loved and
    who loved her would not marry her because his family felt she was
    unclean. The story delt very effectively with the feelings and pain
    that this custom produced in this one woman's life.

    I see a holier than thou attitude in the past few replies. My belief
    is that "you have a right to swing your arm, but your right ends
    where my nose begins". Being concerned about it is good, maybe
    letting other party (here people from other culture) know that we
    feel it does not seem right and how they are hurting themselves
    is ok, trying to educate them of their rights is ok, but forcing our
    decisons on them and making decisons on their behalf - well that 
    is holier than thou..
    

    Mary, well said in all your responses!  I completely agree with
    you.  (Imagine a society where only men enjoy sex.  Not exactly
    my idea of equality of the sexes.)
    
    Lorna
    

        First let me state that I am NOT suggesting that the mutilation
    of females was started as a solution to a health problem.  But isn't
    that the reason that circumcisions were performed?
    
    ASP

    No circumcisions were originally performed as part of a relgious
    rite which symbolized the belonging of an infant male to the religion
    of his forefathers. It was a symbol of the covenant between the
    Jewish nation and their God.
    
    and re several since my note. Is not the fact that some educated
    women at least of those nations are upset and concerned about the
    custom (at least from the evidence of the story I read by and African
    woman) indicate that it goes beyond our own cultural bias?

    RE .23
    
    Actually, I don't know why circumcision of males was started amoung
    the Jewish people, except as a way of setting them apart from other
    peoples of the area.
    
    However, the major reason circumcision to all infant males started
    in America is that it was believed (about 1880-1930) that removal
    of the foreskin would prevent the boy from masterbating!  I don't
    understand how this was supposed to prevent this horror-of-horrors
    from occuring, but that was a major reason behind it.
    
    RE (the girls choose to be mutilated):
    Can you think about the head trip that has been done to these girls
    to get them to *want* them to have their genitals removed, so that
    they can have an *extremely* painful experience, followed by a lifetime
    of lack of sexual response?  Can the men reading this imagine what
    kind of brainwashing would have to be done to him to have him *want*
    to have his (healthy) penis removed?  Think about this.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    RE: various
    
    I don't have references handy, but ritual mutilation also is done
    to males in many tribal cultures. Fraser documents a numebr of
    instances in "The Golden Bough" - at least one that I recall involved
    slitting the penis (but not removal). The ritual was performed as
    a puberty rite *and* was often repeated by adult males later in
    life to demonstrate their courage. I was acquainted with an African
    man in graduate school who still had the facial scars that he acquired
    as part of a puberty rite. I don't think this is a male/female
    dominance issue.
    
    -Rich
    

>>I see a holier than thou attitude in the past few replies. My belief
>>is that "you have a right to swing your arm, but your right ends
>>where my nose begins". Being concerned about it is good, maybe
>>letting other party (here people from other culture) know that we
>>feel it does not seem right and how they are hurting themselves
>>is ok, trying to educate them of their rights is ok, but forcing our
>>decisons on them and making decisons on their behalf - well that 
>>is holier than thou..

Does this mean that the Nazi's (as a legitimate government in their time)
had the right to exterminate the Jews?  Does the western world have the
right to prevent genocide, if a majority of a culture/government/religion
feels that the genocide of a minority group is appropriate?  Does your
right to determine the cultural traditions end where my (or anyone's) 
body begins?  The cultural traditions we are discussing were developed
by men for women.  Unless you believe that women are "owned" by the men
of their culture then those women (just like any other group of oppressed
people) should have dignity and human rights of their own... weither the
"established authority" wants them to or not.  Human Beings are entitled
to certain inalienable rights regardless of the prevailing attitudes of
established authority... one of those things is their own body.


    
>>I'm NOT saying that "the men of a particular culture have the
>>right to do whatever they feel is appropriate to the women of that
>>culture".
    
>>I AM saying that neither the men nor women of a particular
>>culture should do whatever they feel is appropriate to the
>>women or men of another culture.

We are not discussing us "doing" anything to anyone in another culture.  We
are discussing the prevention of a cultural tradition that is savage and
barbaric in nature.  Most people don't feel that Nazi Germany had the right
to exterminate Jews... weither that practise was in keeping with their 
cultural attitudes or not.  There has to be a point where we (humanity) 
draw the line... where we decide that certain treatment is beneath the
dignity of any human and is intolerable.  We, all of humanity, have the 
right to life, free of torture and mutilation.  No culture, religion, or
government has to right to deprive any human being of their life or their
body.  

    re: .26
    Rich, how can you think that the removal of a female sexual organ
    is not a sexual issue involving male dominance?  We are not talking
    about marking the face in such a way as to appear attractive to
    the local culture.  

    RE: -.1
    
    I also mentioned that there are rituals involvingthe mutilation
    of the male sexual organs in some tribal cultures. These are apparently
    not only voluntary but even sought-after marks of honor. I don't
    know if the men are still sexually functional afterwards or not
    (my guess would be that they are). My point was that it was both
    sexes undergo such rituals in some cultures and the results of the
    rituals are a source of pride to the bearers. Therefore, these rituals
    should not be automatically considered an indication of the dominance
    of one sex over the other. Both sexes areinvolved and it is voluntary.
    
    I stress that I say "some cultures" - I'm trying to avoid having
    generalizations made. The charge of male (or female?) dominance
    may indeed be true for some specific tribal cultures.
    
    -Rich
    a specific culture, then it 

    An afterthought: *I* certainly don't view the removal or mutilation
    of anyone's sexual organs with anything but horror. But my feelings
    aren't the issue. It seems (amazing to us) that such rituals are
    viewed quite differently by those that perform them and we should
    strive to understand why this is so before we condemn them.
    
    An analogy: Compare a culture to an eco-system. There are some
    animals/insects/plants that we may think are useless or annoying
    or dangerous or whatever. But they serve a purpose in the overall
    ecology, perhaps not one that is immediately obvious. If we destroy
    a species in an effort to improve things, we will almost certainly
    do terrible damage to the system as a whole and probably not be
    pleased the the results; the entire system is balanced in ways we
    don't understand. The same is true of a culture. From our point
    of view (within our culture) we may see things in other cultures
    that are repugnant. But we should first ask how these things fit
    into the whole culture. They may have religious, philosophical, or
    psychological significance that we are unaware of, and which make
    them "okay" *for that culture.* If we attempt to interfere in a
    culture we don't understand, by removing something we don't like
    we may do irreparable damage to that culture; like destroying a
    species, destroying one custom/ritual/belief may have unexpected
    ramifications in other parts of that culture. Killing a culture
    is a dastardly thing, and tampering with an unfamiliar culture is
    something we should not do in ignorance if at all.
    
    -Rich                 

    Re: 27  (MANTIS::PARE, I am sorry, I don't know your first name.)
    
>>>  The cultural traditions we are discussing were developed
by men for women.  Unless you believe that women are "owned" by the men
of their culture then those women (just like any other group of oppressed
people) should have dignity and human rights of their own... weither the  
"established authority" wants them to or not...
    
    I never said this or implied this. All I said was that "your right
    to swing your arm ends where my nose begins". This is true for all
    humans irrespective of sex, creed, color or race etc. By the way,
    I think that women's movement was the next best thing to sliced bread.
                       
    However you have NO right to force your decisons on ANYONE. Anytime
    you decide to force, you are going to decide based on what YOU think
    is right or wrong and not based on what IS right or wrong. Surely,
    this in not a hard and fast rule, and in some cases it helps to
    have groups and organizations watching (eg. amnesty international).
    Also I am absolutely opposed to governments interfering in some other
    country's internal affairs. I am seeing a whole lot of this with
    the more powerful nations. And that is one more reason why I am
    opposed to one person/group thinking they have a right to force their
    decisons on others. (eg. Russia thinks they are justified in occupying
    afghanistan and saving the afghans, and your arguement seems to support
    such cases also, along with the more genuine ones like the nazi
    genocide)        
    
    anil.
                                         

    Let me begin by saying that I do not believe that one act of savagery
    diminishes or justifies another.  And the acts you are describing do
    not take place within the same cultural framework.  
    
    That we hurt each other and ourselves now and in the past is a given
    fact of our existence.  That we condone the continuation of such
    needless hurt reflects on ourselves as a species and on where we
    fall in the scheme of nature and of our evolutionary process.

    To me the point is that if these women were enlightened as to the
    way the majority of the educated world views mutilation of genitals,
    they would soon decide they would rather not partake of this ritual.
     Once they realized they would find their love lives to be far more
    pleasurable without this little "operation", I doubt any of them
    would go for it.  That is why educated women who formerly came from
    these tribes are trying to get the practice stopped.  (At least
    that's what I assume from what Bonnie R. wrote in.)
    
    I agree with Mary that regardless of cultural customs there comes
    a time when anyone with at least an average intelligence and a high
    school diploma knows the difference between right and wrong.  A
    good way to judge this is whether you would want it done to yourself.
    
    Face it, these tribes are living back in the dark ages, and I don't
    think there's anything wrong with an educated, enlightened people
    saying to them, "Hey, there's a little better way to do things,
    ya know."
    
    I really can't believe the men writing in here saying they think
    we should leave these people alone to continue with their
    ignorant, cruel ways.  Wouldn't you rather be pulled out of the
    dark ages and taught more enlightened ways to live, knowing what
    you know now, if you were in their position?
    
    Re .34, how can you possibly suggest that there is any good to be
    found in "needless hurt"?  Don't you have any imagination or any
    dream for a better world?  
    
    Lorna
    

    I've been a bit troubled by this discussion. I espouse an ethical
    principle which is: 

	My body is my body. It is not your body. I have the right to do
	whatever I please to, no matter how silly it seems to you.

    I am troubled because this is to me a basic principle of human dignity.
    I am not sexually partisan on this. I believe that all intelligent
    beings have this right, be they male, female, African, American, human,
    gorilla, or space aliens from a small planet in the vicinity of
    Betelgeuse. 

    While appeals to authorities etc. *might* be an underlying reason why
    people do stupid things like mutilate their sexual organs, so what?
    Don't people have the right to appeal to authorities? 

    There are lots of examples of people doing silliness to their bodies. 

    Examples:

    Until quite recently (late 1800's) it was not uncommon for boy sopranos
    to be castrated to keep their voices. The castrato died sometime in the
    20's or 30's, and claimed he never regretted it once. I think the
    fellow had the right to do whatever he wanted to with his own sexual
    organs; after all, they're his. 

    Someone mentioned this in a previous note, but it seems to have been
    ignored. There's a society in which the young men have their penis slit
    open. This involves placing a sharp object up the urethra and pushing
    it down to split open the penis. It it split all the way back to the
    scrotum. It is done with neither antibiotics nor anesthesia. 
    
    Another culture embeds stones and other objects in the penis. Some real
    macho types embed enough jetsam to make their penises three to five
    inches in diameter (yes, diameter). Like the young women who are fond
    of infibulation, the young men who do this claim that it makes them
    more attractive to the opposite sex. Anthropologists who observed this
    culture speculate that it is rather painful, even long after the wounds
    have healed. The young men themselves generally deny this. 
    
    There are several cultures less exotic than the last two in which
    people sometimes demonstrate their grief upon the death of a loved one
    by lopping off a joint of a finger. Usually the finger is the pinkie of
    the left hand. In the same culture and in others, young men who wish to
    demonstrate something -- they call it bravery, I call it stupidity --
    remove a joint from a finger, or sometimes other unused bits of their
    anatomy. 

    The list of distasteful things that members of various cultures do in
    their spare time goes on. Note that in all of these cases, the people
    who mutilate themselves do not do it because the Nazis carry them off,
    but for their own reasons. As ugly as I find all of these things, I
    think that that these people were not forced -- they did it of their
    own free will, although for reasons that I can't fathom, and am really
    not terribly interested in fathoming. However, I stand by my principle
    that one's body is one's body and not anyone else's. 
    
    I'll have some more to say on this in another note. Specifically, why I
    think it is important that people have the right to self-mutilation. 
    
    	Jon

    Re .36, this is straying from the main topic, but, I'm curious,
    based on the beliefs you state, how would you react if a person
    that you love called you on the phone this afternoon and said that
    they had come to the conclusion that they don't want to be bothered
    dealing with life's little ups and downs any longer and that they
    are about to commit suicide?  Would you say, well, it's your body,
    you've certainly got a right to do what you want?  Or, would you
    try to convince them that there might be a better way of viewing
    the situation?
    
    In my opinion, it's all very well to say that people have a right
    to do what they want with their own bodies, but if I think what
    they are going to do is completely stupid, then I have a right to
    try to convince them otherwise.
    
    Lorna
    

    We seem to be getting bogged down with our definitions of hurt -
    needless hurt, desirable hurt, hurt for punishment, hurt for 
    pleasure - and whether some "hurts" are better than others. The
    opinions so far seem to be that: "good hurts" are to be allowed
    (at least not interfered with by outsiders), while "bad hurts" seem
    to branch to two viewpoints: to be changed by external forces or not
    intefered with by outsiders.
    
    Obviously (at least I like to think so), it comes down to our first
    agreeing what is a "good hurt"  and what is a "bad hurt", before
    we can decide what we -  as individuals or as a society -  ought to do.
    
    For example, a parent who corporally punishes his/her child to instill
    proper behavior, or children attending parochial schools who used
    to be (I'm not sure this is still done) struck hard on their hands
    by a ruler for some rules infraction - good or bad hurt?
    
    Ritual circumcisions by Jews and Moslems - good or bad hurt?
    
    Anorexic behavior by an adult - good or bad hurt?
    
    Sexual partners who are into bondage and discipline or
    sado-masochism - good or bad hurt? 
    
    In our own country, society forced a sub-group (Mormans
    who practiced polygamy as part of their religion) to agree to
    abandon this practice before Utah would be admitted as a state?
    Who, realistically, were they hurting?
     
    It can be argued that women were forced into that life-style by the 
    males. However, recently on 60 Minutes, there was a segment showing 
    that polygamy, practiced by Mormons, is alive and well in a small 
    town in Arizona, and the women interviewed seemed to be happy 
    with that living arrangement. Should outside society interfere
    again?
    
       Alan
     

    The reason that I think that people have the right to do what they
    please to their bodies is that if I don't grant them the right to their
    bodies, who's going to defend my right to mine?

    Here are some examples from a culture only mildly less exotic than
    the ones I mentioned in my previous note:

    A fellow that I went to school with decided one day that he was going
    to have a sex-change operation. Actually, he had thought about it from
    the time he learned such things were possible -- about the time he was
    seven. I was a bit taken aback and said to myself, "well, there's more
    going on in his head than *I* know about!" His parents, upstanding
    Bible-belt sorts, were more than taken aback. They were convinced that
    he was certifiable. In fact, they tried to certify him. Fortunately,
    the mental health folks in their state were a little more enlightened
    than they. I heard that they tried to get a deprogrammer for him, too.
    But I heard *that* bit of it N-th hand. I think he had the right to do
    whatever he wanted to with his body. 
    
    A couple I know (others in my peculiar group of friends from college)
    had other problems. She was wary of the pill, having read a lot about
    its side-effects, and loudly proselytized the virtues of the diaphragm.
    Well, pride goeth before a fall. It failed on her. She had an abortion.
    He felt that he should exchange blood and pain for blood and pain, so
    the day after his twenty-first birthday, he went to the local clinic to
    have a vasectomy (neither one of them were the least bit interested in
    children). Since he was so young, they tried repeatedly to talk him out
    of it. I remember his telling me that he repeated the phrase, "yes, I
    really want to do this" over and over, placing the emphasis on each
    successive word each time he said it. "*Yes*, I really want to do
    this." "Yes, *I* really want to do this." By the time he got "*want*"
    the second time around, they decided that there was little more they
    could do, and gave him an appointment with their urologist. I think
    that both of them have the right to do what they want with their
    bodies. 
    
    A dear friend of my mothers was once afraid that she might have
    Alzheimer's disease. It turned out she didn't, fortunately. However,
    when she was first in a tizzy, she modified her will so that if she
    ever ended up on life-support, they could pull the plug. A few days
    later she announced that she had procured a bottle of barbiturates and
    had hidden them someplace in her house where *she* wouldn't be likely
    to forget. She said that if it got too bad, she'd just take them all
    with a few glasses of sherry. I asked what would happen if she forgot
    where she'd hidden them. She admitted that was a flaw in her plan, but
    she didn't see a way around it, because she didn't want to make anyone
    an accessory by telling them. Fortunately, all this was unnecessary,
    but I think she has the right to do what she wants with her body. 
    
    To conclude, I'd like to state again that if you don't give people
    control over their bodies, you can't expect to have control over your
    own. 
    
    	Jon

    Lorna,
    
    I just saw your .37. I don't think you're straying at all from the
    topic. I think your note is precisely what the topic is about, where we
    draw the line. I've been saying rather forcefully where I draw it, why
    I draw it, and that I draw it rather darkly. You *should* be pressing
    me on it. 
    
    If my loved one called out of the blue and said, "I've come to the
    conclusion that I don't want to be bothered dealing with life's little
    ups and downs any longer and I'm going to end it all." I'd probably say
    something like, "I'd like to talk to you first. Will you be there when
    I get home? If not, will you at least not leave a mess?" 
    
    Less flippantly, yes, I think someone has the right to suicide. I'd
    want to make sure that this person knew what they were doing -- I'd
    press them as much as the clinic pressed my friend when he went for a
    vasectomy, probably harder, but what can you do? You can't *keep*
    someone from killing themself, although you can make their last days
    miserable. 
    
    	Jon

    
    RE: .37, .40
    
    I don't want to veer off the subject, but I think this is important.
    
    When someone calls you and tells you they are considering suicide,
    convinced it is the only way out - *they*are*asking*for*HELP!*
    
    They are *inviting* you to convince them otherwise.  Therefore you
    have a right, if not an obligation, to do so.

    This is not an opinion, this is FACT.
    
    Carol
    :-(
    

    

    And just as we should try and help a person who wants to commit
    suicide, why can't we make an effort to educate people in a society
    that practices female "circumcision". If we don't try and "force
    people to change" why can't we teach?
    
    Bonnie

    In the article I read on female circumcision, they mentioned that
    there are varying degrees of mutilation:
    	1) "just a little nick with the razor" said by a mother whose
	    daugher forced her to "do it" to her.  Involves no removing 
    	    ANYthing.
    	2)  removal of one or both layers of labia.  Leaves clitoris
    	    intact.
    	3)  removal of clitoris.  may or may not include removal of
	    one or both layers of labia.
    	4)  removal of clitoris + both labia + stitching up VERY tight.
    
    From what I understand, education is bringing people (slowly) over
    to #1.  #3 and #4 are still widespread (last I heard, 4 was more
    popular).  Significant numbers of women are severely injured by
    childbirth as a result of #4 (as were women in the US whose OBGYNs
    put in "an extra stitch or two" after childbirth cuts/tears).
    
    Seems to me #1 is a "cultural rite of passage/purification" and
    tho i would never permit MY loved ones to undergo it, not something
    I can in good conscience even "educate against."
    
    #2 is barbaric, #3 more so.  I would be willing to support causes
    purporting to educate against such rites.  Removing the nib of the
    clitoris does not remove ALL of it however (it stretches up into
    our thighs says "Our Bodies Ourselves" and I can vouch for that
    :)_), and I would be hard pressed to impose my culture's will on
    another's by force.
    
    #4 can lead to death and I would be willing to put all pressure
    our country (-ies) has to bear (short of war) to have it ended.
    
    Lee

    
    How many of you who object to others doing what they want with their
    bodies have had your ears pierced?

>Note 373.11                Where do we draw the line?                   11 of 44

    re: .11 
    To demonstrate the "extremity" and "how far out of context" we can
    be at times, I'd like to present this demonstration as "food for
    thought". "WE" in the good ol' USA, have very good ideas on how
    we'd like to "remake" the world into a clone for our own ideas,
    without realizing how bizare we can really be at times.
    

>    existing tradition).  Any tradition that warps a human organ preventing
>    it from functioning the way it should or any tradition that surgically 
>    "removes" a fully functioning, healthy human organ is a crime against
>    nature.  
    
    Consider the statement given above, given the situation on "how
    other people live in other countries". Lets bring this statement
    home to us, here, to DECcies, and USA persons.
    
    Is it a crime against nature to get a hysterectomy ?
    
    Is it a crime against nature to get a Vassectomey (removing healthy
    tissue) ?
    
        Is it a crime against nature to get a appendectomy (as a precaution
    against appendicitis) ?
    
        Is it a crime against nature to get a tonsilectomy, as  precaution
    against tonsilitis ?
    
        Is it a crime against nature to get circumsized (removal of
    healthy tissue) ?
    
    
>    If my twelve year old son came to me and said that
> it was "really punk" to have an eye removed and it would make him
>    look tougher and cool,... it would hardly influence me to have his
>    eye removed.. or to remove it myself.  
    
	What if the same boy wanted to defile his face and get his ears
    pierced ?
    
    What if the boys parents wanted to "alter" his face and have part
    of his nose removed (nose job) ?
        
    >we must not forget people that the cultural issue we are discussing
>    is the removal of a healthy, fully functioning female organ from
>    a pubescent child.  
     
	What is being discussed are ways to change other peoples cultures,
    tradiditons, religions  before changing our own way of life to be
    in harmony with the rest of the world.

    Its one thing to have an opinion about what we believe to be correct,
    it quite another to try to persuade other people to accept our beleifs
    as being corect simply on the basis of our own cultural conditioning.
    
    In point of fact, outside of the "entertainment value", does the
    clitoris have any useful function ? So if it is removed before a
    person has an opportunity to discover its "entertainment value",
    so what ? Perhaps if fewer AMERICAN women had "clitioris's" there
    would be LESS teenage pregnancies, more female scientists and
    engineers,and MORE men might be obligated to do more domestic chores
    to compensate for their professional spouses absences ?
    
    Why don't we spend MORE time improving our own degraded society,
    and less time trying to change other peoples lifestyles ?
    
    .bob.
    
    
        
    

    re .45  (Bob)
    
    Removal of the clitoris in these primitive societies under discussion
    are *far* from being freed by the loss of its 'entertainment' value.
    
    Much of the last part of your note does not follow, especially since
    women often have sex for other reasons than how it feels physically.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Re .45, I'm sure if more American MEN were neutered there would
    be less unwanted pregnancies and VD, also! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

RE: .27

"Does your right to determine the cultural traditions end where my (or anyone's)
body begins?"

It seems the case that these are self motivated mutilations.  In which case,
the above does not apply.

"The cultural traditions we are discussing were developed by men for women."

I question that *assumption*.  As pointed out, there are many mutilations in
such societies.  Do not assume other people's motives.  Don't *assume* this
is another of men's crimes against women.

Education is possible.  Enforcement is not.

"We are discussing the prevention of a cultural tradition that is savage and
barbaric in nature."

We are discussing *suppressing* a cultural tradition...

"No culture, religion, or government has to right to deprive any human being of
their life or their body."

Or any *part* of their body??? :-)  Do the human beings have the right to do
it to themselves???

RE: .43

It would seem to me that #2 would *increase* the sexual stimulation... Wouldn't
it?

RE: RE: .45

I can't agree with his last part, but where are your answers for his first
part?  His point is that there may be reasons for doing that which may seem
repugnant without all the facts.

Jim.

    1) For all you smokers, stop smoking. I have determined that you
       are harming your body, so YOU BETTER QUIT!
    2) For all you women who bleach/color their hair, I KNOW it is harmful
       for YOU. So stop it!
    3) Half of these costmetics are bad for YOU. Stop using them.
    4) I think that by piercing YOUR ears, YOU are abusing your body.
       So stop doing it.
    5) You steak lovers, stop eating red meat. YOU are abusing your
       body. Red meat and cholestrol is bad for YOU.
    6) You crazy joggers, stop jogging on the roads. YOU are abusing
       YOUR KNEES.
    ....
    ....
    
    I have decided that you are abusing your body in millions of ways
    and MY job is to enlighten you and to PREVENT you from abusing your
    bodies. 
    
    This seems to be the reasoning that some of you have taken. 
    I COMPLETELY DISAGREEEEEEE!
  
    "It is my body and I will abuse it the way I like, provided it is
    acceptable in MY culture. If I am doing something that are not within
    the acceptable boundaries of my culture/environment then tell me to
    stop it. I will listen to all your suggestions and concerns, and I am
    glad that you are concerned about me for you love me, but don't force
    your views on me. " This is my philosphy. I thing that what is right
    and wrong is very relative and there are very little absolutes in it. (All
    of us will agree that the nazi genocide was wrong - there are very
    few such absolutes). No one person has to right to force his/her
    views on others for what THEY think is right may not be that right.

    I cant belive I read the whole thing.
    A few observations:
    1. the readers of this file have little understanding of jewish
    customs.
    2. Maybe I missed something but where was the description of what
    is being done? I have heard everything from removing the labia
    to removal of the clitoris or more?
    3. Noone has considered that changing custom dosent change beliefs
    and changing this custom could very likly make these women unacceptable
    to their own people? Is this right just because WE think they shouldent
    be doing it?
    4. If it is just plain mutilation why is circumsision still in practice
    in the good 'ole US of a where we know how the world should live
    and act.
    
    Geez when we get this all settled we can start convincing the chinese
    to change their methods of population control which includes infanticide!
                
    -j(who loves stirring the ashes of a prehistoric fire)
    
    

    
    re: .52 -
    
    See Womannotes, note 432.  That's where it got started.
    
    Carol
    
    
    

    Re .52, circumsision might be considered "mutilation" in one sense
    but, at least from my observations, it doesn't stop men from enjoying
    sex.  I, for one, admit I have almost no understanding of Jewish
    customs.
    
    Re .51, if you can't see any difference in degree of mutilation
    or harm between coloring your hair, and having your clitoris cut
    off, or piercing your ear or having your clitoris cut off, then
    I'm at a loss for how to convince you of my view.  (But, I *still*
    think I'm right!) If I bleach my hair, my hair can still look good
    and it can still keep my head warm (what else is hair for???)  If
    I pierce my ear I can still hear (unless the person doing has a
    *real* unsteady hand!).
    
    I can't believe how many people have brought up ear piercing as
    being mutilation of the human body!  That really puzzles me.  I
    hate pain.  My pain threshold is definitely not high.  But, I have
    two holes pierced in each ear!  Just one quick pinch and that was
    it.  It hurts less than trying to wear clip earrings for a day!
     Comparing ear piercing to cutting off a clitoris really boggles
    my mind!  It's like comparing a paper cut to being stabbed in the
    heart!!  (This has bothered me before since I have a best friend
    who cannot bring herself to get her ears pierced, yet has had TWO
    Ceasarean sections!  I had one Ceasarean section over 13 years ago,
    was in almost unbearable pain for 3 days, and have made sure I have
    never repeated the experience.  Compared to that getting 4 holes
    made in my ears was inconsequential.  Yet, here's my friend shuddering
    about getting her ears pierced, yet eagering having 2 Ceasareans.
     It beats me.)
    
    As far as forcing views on others.  In my opinion I have had other
    people force their views on me all of my life, so why shouldn't
    I reverse the trend once in a while?  I will give an example.  I
    HATE playing team sports that involve baseballs, basketballs, field
    hockey, volley ball, etc.  Yet I was forced to attempt to play these
    horrendous games for 6 years of school why supposedly well meaning
    dolts who thought playing these sports would be good for me.  Why
    couldn't they mind their own business?  Why did they have to force
    their views on me and make me miserable?  I haven't played these
    hellish games for 20 years and I feel fine.  So, even in our society
    we have people forcing their views on us.  I don't feel quilty for
    saying that Africans should stop cutting off clitoris.  I don't
    feel overly meddlesome.  People have been meddling with my life
    ever since I was born.  If other people feel they have a right to
    push their views off on me, then I feel I have the same right.
    
    Lorna
    

    Circumcision is a very, very common practice among peoples who
    live in sandy environments.  I have been assured that a few grains
    of sand trapped in the wrong place are quite capable of convincing
    a male-type person that circumcision is a Good Thing.
    
    A hole in the ear will heal, leaving no or only a little scar.
    
    Bleached hair will grow out.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re : .54
    Lorna, If someone tries to shoot at you, it does NOT give you the
    right to go buy a gun and shoot at everybody else. I sympathize
    with you that things were forced on you but trying to reverse it
    and do it to someone else!!.... Again there are no absolutes, but then
    there are issues we strongly feel about and we should be heard 
    when we speak on those issues.

    I am amazed at this note.  We are not discussing adult women making
    this decision, nor are all of the little girls who have their clitoris
    cut off asking for it.  That some of the men in this note feel that the
    world would be better off if women felt no sexual pleasure speaks
    volumes about themselves (I believe the quote was that the clitoris
    serves "no practical purpose"), our own culture and our world.  That they
    seem totally unable to equate the removal of the clitoris with the
    removal of the penis speaks volumes.  That they don't feel outrage
    that this is happening to children speaks volumes.  I feel honored
    and incredibly lucky that I love a man who is capable of feeling
    empathy for all of humanity,... and who considers women to be unique
    and special human beings and not just baby machines, and who would
    never truly find fulfillment or bonding in a relationship in which
    the woman was without physical involvement.  This note shows me
    how far our species has to go, how poor our sense or distinction
    is and how very much we lack love and understanding for each other.

RE: .57

You are being inflamatory without reason...

Jim.

    Jim, could you expand on what you mean by without a reason please?

    personally,
    
    I find the right of other cultures to give the stamp of approval
    to body mutilation to end when it cripples/damages/incapacitates
    the person in some way.
    
    The foot-binding of oriental women several hundred years ago to
    create the fashionable 4" foot (the smaller the foot, the more
    desirable the woman, it seemed) revolts me.  They were cripples,
    could not walk, and thus were only good for breeding/mothering.
    
    The wearing of whale-boned corsets in the late 1800's, corsets which
    placed nearly 80 psi on some waists, also gets my goat, because
    women wore these corsets at an early age so their ribcage would
    be stunted.  Some women had their ribs removed so they would be
    thinner, more acceptable, more desirable, more highly prised.
    
    Earrings do not cripple, neither does hair dye, nor does electrolysis,
    nor does tattooing, etc....and all of these do alter the human body
    
    As was said before in another reply, the girls who have their genitals
    removed often become infected, and without the fleshy protection
    their I'm sure their pubic area becomes bruised/damaged easily.
    Also, there is the point that although male stimulation is necessary
    for procreation (although with in vitro fertilization, this is not
    necessarily during the sexual act), somehow it is perceived by some
    that female stimulation may not (viz. the previous maintaining that the
    clitoris may be unnecessary).  Frankly, I'm glad I live in this
    culture, at this time....if I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't do it.
    
    -Jody
    

    Gee,.. are we repeating ourselves?  Women can be SO exasperating
    can't we?   ...(wonder what comes after infibulation... lobotomy?)
    
    It seems that it WAS said that one act of savagery does not diminish
    nor justify another if I recall.
    		

    Through such organizations as the Peace Corps, Foster Parents
    Plan, the Ship of Hope, Mecial Missionary groups, the UN children's
    fund and many others we are interfering with third world cultures
    all the time.
    
    Western society spends large amounts of time and money attempting
    to educate people, to prevent disease, to spread the use of birth
    control, to teach hygene, to eliminate parasites in the environment,
    to build wells, etc etc etc. I do not see any difference between
    teaching a group of women how to sterilize water or eliminate insects in
    her home or other simple health measures and teaching them that
    clitorectomies can cause infection and damage their daughter's bodies. 
    If we can teach and encourage people to go against customs or practices
    in so many other ways (i.e. birth control for one) why *NOT* this
    issue. 
    
    And in reference to societies which scar or otherwise mutiate the
    male organ, they aren't removing it, nor does it affect the male's
    abilities so I do not think the two are annalogous.
    
    Bonnie
    

    
    Okay, let's suppose we manage to convince ourselves that we ought
    to stop these people from performing clitoridectomies and
    infibulations.  The very thought that there are societies still
    doing this nauseates me.  I'm all for trying to do something about
    it.
    
    The first step is obvious -- organizations such as Bonnie cited,
    attempting to show them our way by education.
    
    However, suppose that doesn't work?  We have to concede the possibility
    that it might not.  Then what?
    
    DFW

    There is nothing we can do if that doesn't work. 

    If one of these girls/women want to do this, there is nothing much
    we can or should do about it.  However, if their parents, family, village
    requires or forces them to do it, shouldn't they be treated like
    other abusers of children or women?
    
    Sure, it is their body to do with what they want to.  However, it
    is *their* body, not their parents, family, village, governments,
    or whatever.  If they are being forced (being denied the possibility
    of a suitable husband when you can't support yourself is force)
    something should be done about the force.
    
    Elizabeth

    re: .68
    
        Unfortunately part of the problem is that as far as their society
    is concerned they don't own their bodies.

    re.all   will somebody please take a sociology course here!
    re.65  i tend to agree with you
    
    
    
    
    if anybody is interested in learning more about this subject(which
    also took place in the u.s.a),i just finished o book on it called
    a dark science-women,sexuality and phychiatry in the nineteenth
    century
    by  jeffery masson

    Instead of taking a sociology course, why don't we all take a course
    on ethics, integrity, the changing role of men within society, the
    evolution of customs and traditions.
    
    A society that encourages (no, insists) on submission in women and
    especially girls is hardly concerned with whether those girls are
    willing to undergo this procedure.
    
    Its interesting that men will defend the right of other men to rule
    or dominate or control as they see fit.  Women as part of the human
    species, as part of the society of mankind, as a citizen of the
    universe, are entitled to rights beyond what the local despot deems
    to grant them.  Women have a right to use the bodies God gave them.
    If God didn't want them to have a clitoris, it wouldn't be there.
    What right does anyone have to change nature to suit their own blind
    prejudices or bizarre beliefs.  
    
    Throughout history wars were fought and societies were swallowed
    by each other.  Changes were forced on more people that were readily
    accepted.  THATS how Christianity REALLY was spread. 
    

    re: .8

    > Do you consider ritual circumcision to be savage, pointless
    > mutilation, and a crime against human nature?
    
    Yes! And I think it should be illegal, unless there is a good
    medical reason.

    re: .6 

    > ... concern about the "barbaric practice" amoung non-Jews ...
    > ... subtle form of anti-Semitism.
    
    Not true, many Jews are concerned too. It's not anti-Semitism,
    it's simple human compassion for infants.

    re: .all
    
    All this discussion of whether humans have a right to self-mutilation
    is beside the point. Because, in most cases, the mutilation is performed
    on infants/children who are too young to make the choice. I'm not familiar
    with the practice described in .0, but I am familiar with the
    ritual of circumcision, and it is performed on 8-day-old infants.
    It's nonsense to talk of infants making choices. Adults should not
    have the right to needlessly inflict pain on children, even if they
    are the parents.
    
    	- Rich

    My one objection to circumcision waas discussed in a 20/20 episode
    a while ago, namely that they tie a tight band around the foreskin
    and over a period of several days tighten it until the foreskin
    is removed.  Another procedure is to remove it quickly, but without
    anesthetc (something about the anesthetic doing damage to the baby
    I think).  It is questioned whether these practices, without proper
    painkilling, cause permanent damage emotionally or some such.
    
    As for circumcision being unnecessary (sorry I have to go into some
    detail), it has been proven (I believe I read it in "Everything
    You Always Wanted To Know About Sex, But Were Afraid To Ask" - by
    Dr. Reuben) that smegma (for those of you who don't know) is a
    secretion which can accumulate behind the foreskin when it is left
    in place.  This has been connected with infections in that area,
    and even cancer in some cases.  With the foreskin removed, the area
    stays cleaner, and the threat is reduced.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .62
    
    Concerning the justification of one act with another: The point
    of  my saying that men were subjected to mutilations as well was
    not to justify one act with another, but to point out that such
    acts were *not* specifically directed at women and that this was
    not just a "woman's topic." That was the question in the air at
    the time of that note. I think the rest of my replies gives my opinion
    as to why we should proceed with caution when we see something in
    another culture that horrifies us. This is an important question
    that can be discussed without without getting into sexual rivalries
    or misunderstandings. It's a male problem, too. 
    
    RE: .66
    
    I think you hit the nail on the head. The *only* acceptable way
    to attempt a change in a culture is to have it change from within,
    by education. The culture has to change itself; it can't be done
    by fiat from outside. And the problem you point out is a real one:
    It might not work. What do we do then? March in and change things?
    My opinion is "no," unless you're willing to accept that you may
    be eradicating a culture in the process. Perhaps in some cases this
    eradication would the lesser of two evils. But's it's not something
    to do without significant reflection on the consequences.
    
    -Rich

    Is it possible to discuss the general issue without going into
    explicit details of the various acts of "mutilation" that you
    object to?  I'm a bit worried that some may find the details
    a bit objectionable, and I don't see that they are necessary to
    the arguments.  And I don't see the point in yet another discussion
    of circumcision - see PARENTING and MENNOTES for two long arguments
    about THAT subject.
    
    I am as horrified as most at some of the rituals that are
    performed in the world today, but I also realize that there are
    no universal truths here, and that if I say I want group X to
    stop performing practice Y, I have two choices - force or education
    - and I have to accept the risk that education may not get the
    result I want.
    
    Really, I think that too many Americans get caught up in the
    role of "global nanny".
    					Steve

    re: .71
    
    Well, you've seemed to concede that there's only so far we can go
    in getting this stopped.
    
    >Instead of taking a sociology course, why don't we all take a course
    >on ethics, integrity, the changing role of men within society, the
    >evolution of customs and traditions.
    
    You can't seriously be implying that none of us has a grasp of integrity,
    ethics, or the changing role of men in *OUR* society.  It ain't changing
    everywhere, you know, as the principal subject of this discussion
    so horrifically illustrates.
    
        
    >Its interesting that men will defend the right of other men to rule
    >or dominate or control as they see fit.
    
    Men and women will defend the right of anyone to rule if they think
    that such a defense will achieve their ends.
    
    >What right does anyone have to change nature to suit their own blind
    >prejudices or bizarre beliefs.  
    
    You've contracted a disease, what right do you have to take medicine
    to thwart a natural process to suit your prejudice against dying...
    
    I'm not really contesting your point, only wondering about the
    statements you're picking to support it.
        
    >Throughout history wars were fought and societies were swallowed
    >by each other.  Changes were forced on more people that were readily
    >accepted.  THATS how Christianity REALLY was spread. 
    
    That's how collisons of society get resolved.  I suspect, should
    it come to pass, that's how this one will get resolved, too...
                                  
    It's tragic.  I think about such things and wonder whatever possessed
    them to start this up.  They probably don't even know any more.
    
    DFW

	Great! We'll show these uncivilized people what a real
	society should be. Lets make them stop those barbarous
	acts in exchange for our good social acts of drug and
	alcohol abuse, juvenile deliquency, adultry, divorce,
	polution (we could teach them how to make acid rain) etc.

	Suppose for example these tribesfolks were to look upon
	say abortion (or you what is your favorite) as a barbarous
	act and suppose further say had a similar debate such as we
	are having and decided to send over some of their folks to
	convert us - by force if necessary. Interesting hay what.

    re: .76
    
    >Its interesting that men will defend the right of other men to rule
    >or dominate or control as they see fit.
    
>>Men and women will defend the right of anyone to rule if they think
>>that such a defense will achieve their ends.

Correct me if I am mis-interpreting this statement but, this sound as if
you are saying that men are defending the right of other men to continue
the practise of infibulation because such a definse will achieve "their
own ends"?  What are those "own ends"?

    >What right does anyone have to change nature to suit their own blind
    >prejudices or bizarre beliefs.  
    
>>You've contracted a disease, what right do you have to take medicine
>>to thwart a natural process to suit your prejudice against dying...
    
The major distinction we are making is that I am discussing a procedure
done TO children (often without their consent.. and it is disputed that
when consent is ever give willingly) that involves the needless removal 
of an organ.  There is a major distinction between that and attempts 
to prolong a life or improve the quality of a life.

>>	Great! We'll show these uncivilized people what a real
>>	society should be. Lets make them stop those barbarous
>>	acts in exchange for our good social acts of drug and
>>	alcohol abuse, juvenile deliquency, adultry, divorce,
>>	polution (we could teach them how to make acid rain) etc.

No one said we were perfect.  Our lack of perfection neither justifies 
nor diminishes what they are doing to little girls.

>>	Suppose for example these tribesfolks were to look upon
>>	say abortion (or you what is your favorite) as a barbarous
>>	act and suppose further say had a similar debate such as we
>>	are having and decided to send over some of their folks to
>>	convert us - by force if necessary. Interesting hay what.

If we were FORCING all women of a certain age or all woman who got pregnant 
to have an abortion whether they wanted one or not, I would agree that those 
tribes folkes would probably be quite welcome by the women here to come over 
and save us.

    Yes.
    
    Do we agree that we have a situation that requires a solution?

    Re: .80
    
    I don't agree that the situation REQUIRES a solution.  I'd sure
    like to see a solution, however.  When you get to the bottom
    line, you want to impose your morals on another culture.
    What burning bush told you that this was necessary?  Can you
    see the distinction here?
    				Steve

    
    re: .78
    
    We appear to be getting closer.
    
    >Correct me if I am mis-interpreting this statement but, this sound as if
>you are saying that men are defending the right of other men to continue
>the practise of infibulation because such a definse will achieve "their
>own ends"?  What are those "own ends"?

    Not quite.  First of all, I'm disputing your apparent claim that this
    is a quality unique to men -- it isn't.  Women, as human beings, are
    just the same.  This particular situation is a manifestation of this
    behavior.  As for what the ends in this case are, beats the hell out of
    me.  You'd have to ask them.  The thread of the discussion seems to
    indicate that infibulation and clitoridectomy pass as purity or
    maturity rituals.  I can't fathom it.  They believe it's necessary.
        
>The major distinction we are making is that I am discussing a procedure
>done TO children (often without their consent.. and it is disputed that
>when consent is ever give willingly) that involves the needless removal 
>of an organ.  There is a major distinction between that and attempts 
>to prolong a life or improve the quality of a life.
    
    Hmmm.  I must have missed the issue of Lancet that announced that
    children are immune to painful, debilitating, terminal diseases.
    Pushing that aside, however...
    
    I think the crux of this whole problem is that someone, somewhere,
    believes this weirdness is going to improve the quality of life.
    Again, I'm going back to the maturity/purity rituals.  If they believe
    that this is necessary to improve the quality of life (where the hell
    they got such a notion is beyond me) then you're talking about the
    exact same thing from that perspective.  I can make the distinction,
    but *they* might not be able to. 
    
    We have to find a way to show them that distinction, since you have
    already come out against trying to force them to see it.
                                    
    DFW

RE: .71

"Its interesting that men will defend the right of other men to rule or dominate
or control as they see fit."

Come off it!  Nobody is defending that!

RE: .78

I suppose that you *just happen* to have missed the "*and* women" part, eh?

"No one said we were perfect.  Our lack of perfection neither justifies nor
diminishes what they are doing to little girls."

No, but it does point out that we don't have all the answers.  In any case,
our cure could well be as bad as the disease....

"If we were FORCING all women of a certain age or all woman who got pregnant 
to have an abortion whether they wanted one or not, I would agree that those 
tribes folkes would probably be quite welcome by the women here to come over 
and save us."

This has nothing to do with the magnitude of the attrocity.  This has to
do with 'our' right to step in and run other people's lives.

Abortion is quite as likely to be viewed as an attrocity as Infibulation.
Whether it happens to be your view is immaterial. 

Jim. 

    
    Thanks Jim, 
    It seems to me that there has been a lot of finger pointing going
    on concerning this topic.
    
    Although  I  do not condone such things as clitoris removal, I 
    would have a hard time justifying anyones right to stop them from
    practising their beliefs.
    
    also,  I know that when my sons were born their mother was asked
    if she wanted them to be circumcised. I'm not saying this is right
    or wrong, but lets get away from this men vs women thing.

    OK, OK, lets all load our guns and be typical americans and fix
    the problem in someone elses backyard instead of our own.
    If this note were about US involvement in a south american country
    we would all be saying lets let them work it out.
    
    We cant fix our own problems but yet we waste our time trying to
    force fix the problems of others.
    
    I say send em' a few teachers(Dr. Ruth maybe???) and let them choose
    since that is the only peaceful way of solving the problem.
    Or maybe you would prefer we start a war over it?? This male is
    not going to war over something like this. Dont write in anything
    other than I dont care to die because we can mind our own bussiness.
    BTW- I do think this is a barbaric practice but feel it is far from
    an issue the people of the US should be involved with beyond an
    educational level.
    
    

re:.81
        
>>Now, supposing this culture says "We don't want to change"

>>What do you suggest as our next course of action?
    
I don't know what to do next.  But if the time ever comes when we have
a world government, some standards should be set for human rights that
transcend local custom, politics/religion and tradition.  If we can 
(supposedly) construct agreements about how we will treat each other's
soldiers in times of war (ie Geneva Convention), why can't we construct
agreements about basic human rights that could cross cultural, religious
and political boundries.  

(I know, I know... talk about a pipe dream... but we'll never get anywhere
if we don't have a goal to shoot for)


    Re: .82
    
>>    I don't agree that the situation REQUIRES a solution.  I'd sure
>>    like to see a solution, however.  When you get to the bottom
>>    line, you want to impose your morals on another culture.
>>    What burning bush told you that this was necessary?  Can you
>>    see the distinction here?

Steve, 
I can admit that I would have a very difficult time living in a culture
that views women the way this culture appears to.  I can't help but 
empathize with how helpless the women there are to improve the quality
of their own lives.  As humanity evolves, we (collectively) move toward
greater understanding and common values.  I would hope that when the time
came (if ever) that international standards of law were established for
the planet, that this practice would be considered an atrocity... I don't
want to believe that any group of women would be subject to this kind
of treatment eternally (or as long as the species survives).  We found
Hitler's death camps to be an atrocity and they were.  Human beings must
and do make value judgements some times.


    re: .83
    
>>Not quite.  First of all, I'm disputing your apparent claim that this
>>is a quality unique to men -- it isn't.  Women, as human beings, are
>>just the same.  This particular situation is a manifestation of this
>>behavior.  As for what the ends in this case are, beats the hell out of
>>me.  You'd have to ask them.  The thread of the discussion seems to
>>indicate that infibulation and clitoridectomy pass as purity or
>>maturity rituals.  I can't fathom it.  They believe it's necessary.

The key phrase here is "THEY believe it's necessary."  Who exactly is 
*they*?  There is no hard evidence that the people this is being done
TO think its necessary or that they even have any real choice.


>>Hmmm.  I must have missed the issue of Lancet that announced that
>>children are immune to painful, debilitating, terminal diseases.
>>Pushing that aside, however...

I don't understand the relevance of this reference.  Are we as a culture 
somehow deliberately exposing children to painful, debilitating, terminal 
diseases for social or traditional reasons?

    
RE: .84

>>Come off it!  Nobody is defending that!

I guess one's opinion depends on which side of the knife one could possibly
be on.  

RE: .78

>>This has nothing to do with the magnitude of the attrocity.  This has to
>>do with 'our' right to step in and run other people's lives.

No, this has to do with the right of individuals to run their own lives.

>>Abortion is quite as likely to be viewed as an attrocity as Infibulation.
>>Whether it happens to be your view is immaterial. 

My view is contingent upon whether or not it is my body we are planning
on doing something to.  The attitude that women should not have a choice as
to what happens to their own bodies... that those choices should be made for
them by their culture, religions or society is the very crux of this note.

>>OK, OK, lets all load our guns and be typical americans and fix
>>the problem in someone elses backyard instead of our own.
>>If this note were about US involvement in a south american country
>>we would all be saying lets let them work it out.
    
>>We cant fix our own problems but yet we waste our time trying to
>>force fix the problems of others.

Its not a question of trying to force fix the problems of others.  Its
a question of recognizing that there is a fairly helpless part of humanity
that has a serious problem.  Just acknowledging a problem for what it is
will hopefully (as humanity evolves) lead to a solution.
Our government and leaders spend billions on solving political issues to
their convenience but care so little about the suffering in the world.
    
>>I say send em' a few teachers(Dr. Ruth maybe???) and let them choose
>>since that is the only peaceful way of solving the problem.
>>Or maybe you would prefer we start a war over it?? This male is
>>not going to war over something like this. Dont write in anything
>>other than I dont care to die because we can mind our own bussiness.
>>BTW- I do think this is a barbaric practice but feel it is far from
>>an issue the people of the US should be involved with beyond an
>>educational level.
    
Things don't always have to lead to war you know.

    I think Rich Simon made a very good point in .30, and I think that it
    has gone unacknowledged if not positively ignored:  we should not
    interfere with other people's cultural practices unless we are prepared
    and able to cope with disasterous consequences.  We mostly don't have
    the level of understanding that will keep us from breaking something
    (hell, as someone else in here put it, we can't even fix our *own*
    problems of sexism, racialism and the like!), and I absolutely cannot
    recall any case in which we've been prepared to mend what we mar. 
    
    As at least one respected anthropologist asserts (convincingly, to my
    mind) that cultural practices, no matter how complex or seemingly
    pointless, always serve mundane purposes.  They may be "neurotic" in
    that they are yesterday's response to today's problem, but like
    individual psychoneuroses they mostly still do work.  When they fail,
    it is generally because conditions change too fast for adaptation to
    take place.  Subincision (for example...and I hope I'm using the right
    term, it's been years since school) has always served to hold the
    aboriginal population of the Australian Outback at a level that the
    land could support.  Yah it's painful (I presume), yah it's "barbaric",
    yah there are better ways to manage population...but it works. I would
    guess ...and it is just a guess... that the mutilation of women serves,
    less directly, a similar purpose:  make sexual activity less attractive
    and thereby keep the population within bounds. 
    
    The infliction of mutilation on anyone is a terrible price to pay for
    societal survival and should be abolished, but let's make certain
    we aren't pushing them from the frying pan into the fire.
    
    						=maggie      
    
    (And it might be nice to practice our cultural reshaping skills
    on our own intrenched problems first!)
    

	re -1 
    	I never thought of that Maggie,... that this might be a population
    control issue... but wouldn't castration of selected groups of men
    be a more efficient way of accomplishing that goal?  I'm not aware
    of any cultures (now or in antiquity) that have incorporated castration
    as a method of population control.... and (believe me) if it were
    the routine castration of young boys we were talking about I'd be
    equally horrified. 

 re: .87
       
>The key phrase here is "THEY believe it's necessary."  Who exactly is 
>*they*?  There is no hard evidence that the people this is being done
>TO think its necessary or that they even have any real choice.
    
    "They" is this culture, whoever they are.
    
    You seem to be indicating that the women of this culture are slaves
    to the men.  If so, by what force?  Simple brutality?  Supersitious
    fear?  What power does the people doing it have over the people
    to which it is done?  What drives them to submit to this?
    
    Until we understand that (however simple or complicated it may be)
    we can do nothing about educating them.
    
    
>I don't understand the relevance of this reference.  Are we as a culture 
>somehow deliberately exposing children to painful, debilitating, terminal 
>diseases for social or traditional reasons?
    
    No, but the tone of your reply seemed to indicate that you were
    differentiating the situation from the one I cited simply because
    it was being done to children. (use of caps.)  It seemed unlikely
    that that was what you meant, but I responded to it just in case.
    It was rather a wisecrack.
    
>I guess one's opinion depends on which side of the knife one could possibly
>be on.  
    
    I imagine that has an influence, but you can't attribute it to that
    alone.
    
    DFW

    re: .90
    
    Meaning, it was rather a wisecrack on my part.
    
    DFW

RE: .97

"I can't help but empathize with how helpless the women there are to improve the
quality of their own lives."

What about the people in the US who are helpless to improve their lives? single
parents, people on welfare, etc?  Stick to your own backyard, there is plenty
that needs to be done here. 

In any case, people have to *want* to improve their lives before anything can be
done; education is the first step.

""Come off it!  Nobody is defending that!""

"I guess one's opinion depends on which side of the knife one could possibly be
on."

Ok, suppose you enlighten us as to who *is* defending that?

"No, this has to do with the right of individuals to run their own lives."

Well then why don't *we* sit here, and let *them* run *their* own lives?

"My view is contingent upon whether or not it is my body we are planning on
doing something to."

Your attitude seems to be that 'if it's not one of my causes, it isn't
important'.

RE: .89

"I never thought of that..."

You are too busy grinding your own axe to listen.  Several people have said
that there might be a reason, but you would have none of it.

"wouldn't castration of selected groups of men be a more efficient way of
accomplishing that goal?"

Castrating N number, or N percent of men will not have as big an impact as an
operation of the same effect on the same number or percentage of women.
Remember, one man could concieve at least a hundred children, one woman can bear
at most ten children.  Not that it's important.
 
Jim.

>>Stick to your own backyard, there is plenty that needs to be done here. 

Is this an order?

>>Your attitude seems to be that 'if it's not one of my causes, it isn't
>>important'.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my attitude.

>>"I never thought of that..."
>>You are too busy grinding your own axe to listen.  Several people have said
>>that there might be a reason, but you would have none of it.

"My own axe?"... Do you really feel that I have a self-serving interest in
seeing this custom fade away?

>>"wouldn't castration of selected groups of men be a more efficient way of
>>accomplishing that goal?"
>>Castrating N number, or N percent of men will not have as big an impact as an
>>operation of the same effect on the same number or percentage of women.
>>Remember, one man could concieve at least a hundred children, one woman can 
>>bear at most ten children.  Not that it's important.
 
This is ridiculous Jim.  Women who have this operation are still able to 
bear children... their fertility is not effected, nor is the desire of the
men who might mate with them effected, .. childbirth would probably
become more painful after some of the more radical procedures are performed
however.  We are not discussing a hysterectomy here.  It takes some real
reaching to use population control as justification for this procedure.

    RE: .87
    
    > We found Hitler's death camps to be an atrocity and they were.
    
    Mary, who is the *we* to whom you are referring? As I pointed
    out in my  .6,  the U.S. and most other countries entered WWII
    only for their own political and/or defensive reasons. I don't
    think *any* country chose to stand up to Hitler because of his
    "final solution" to the "Jewish problem", in and of itself.
    
    Putting things into a perspective, I suspect that many Arabs
    today in the middle-East would thing that Hitler's death camps
    were a Great Idea, not an atrocity.
    
    I guess it depends upon who is making the judgement call.
    
        Alan
    
    P.S., just came back from vacation yesterday. Nice to see that
    this note is still going strong.
    

    <--(.89,.93)
    
    Mary,  I think Jim's point about the relative potentials of men and
    women to contribute to overpopulation is both correct and, his
    disclaimer notwithstanding, important.  One would have to eliminate
    most of the male population (or their gonads) for much of an effect on
    population to show up, since the only limiting factor would then be
    sexual exhaustion.  In most vertebrate species, very few males are
    actually needed, as males, for its physical perpetuation.  The biggest
    roles for human males are hunting and combat; in most industrial
    societies today, the former has been made obsolete and the latter has
    been largely decoupled from physical strength/speed.  That's not to say
    that there are no other roles that males can fill, just that hunting
    and combat are the two that males are "built for".  We've just advanced
    our social selves a great deal faster than evolution has advanced our
    physical selves. 
    
    So, again, I would _guess_ that female mutilation and the consequent
    lack of eagerness (if not positive reluctance! :-{  oyoyoy! ) to engage
    in coital activity could easily help keep their population within
    bounds. Does anyone know enough about the societies in which this takes
    place to be able to say whether they have other cultural prescriptions
    or proscriptions that would tend to have an anti-procreative effect? 
    
    						=maggie

    <--(.94)
    
    I don't think Mary was trying to assert that we (or anyone) entered
    the war for that reason, Alan, and in any event the statement you
    quoted is true on its face:  "we" --the people of the Allied Powers--
    *did* conclude that the camps and the genocidal programs of which
    they were the symbol were atrocious crimes against all humanity.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .94
    Its the royal "we" Alan_:-)_...(meaning those of us who find
    indiscriminate murder unpalatable).... and Alan... I can't 
    remember all the way back to .6 anymore... its been a very, very,
    long note!  (glad you had a good vacation,... I could use one
    myself_:-)_
    
    Maggie, 
    I can understand the historical perspective of using this for birth
    control but I can't understand using that as justification for the
    continuation of the procedure (not that you are trying to do that
    I know.. and not that we could do anything about it anyway).
    That this practice may have been of some social value in the past
    doesn't mean that it is necessary for it to continue forever and
    ever... 

    <--(.97)
    
    Absolutely, Mary.  I completely agree.  It is a dreadful practice that
    should be got rid of just as soon as humanly possible.  My argument was
    not for its continuation, but rather for our not leaping in with both
    feet when:
    
    (a) we don't *at all* understand what role it continues to play in a
    particular culture and 
    
    (b) we aren't prepared to grasp the nettle and support that culture as
    it learns to cope with whatever deleterious changes our intervention
    produces.
              
                                               =maggie

RE: .93 *sigh*

No, that's not an order; as I have stated, I don't believe in ordering other
people's lives. :-)

Self serving, no.  Self involved, yes.

You have to remember that these are *primitive* societies.  Who knows what
they're story of the Birds and the Bees is.  Perhaps 'they' (meaning the
originators of the practice) felt that this was a method of birth control.

In any case, noone has claimed knowledge that it *is* a method of birth control.
It was simply stated that there was probably a reason.

RE: .96

I don't understand why you insist on bringing this up.

"I can't understand using that as justification for the continuation of the
procedure." 

"not that you are trying to do that I know.. and not that we could do anything
about it anyway." 
 
RE: .95

Hrumpf!!  Maybe I should start screaming about how men have been abused over
the ages by women using them as cannon fodder! :-{

Jim.

    <--(.99 -->.95)
    
    Well, you *could* do so, but before you start, please note that
    I was not one of those postulating a "male conspiracy" theory to
    explain female mutilation. (It was tempting, but I personfully
    resisted :')
    
    						=maggie

    RE: .96 -- maggie,  and .97 - Mary,
    
    I agree with both of you. WE all decried the atrocities of the camps
    and the inhumanities perpetrated, but what did WE actually *DO*
    to help the plight of the Jews, until WE entered the war?
    
    To put this thought another way: 
        
       -  If the Japaneses had not bombed Pearl Harbor
                       and
       -  If the continental European countries were not falling
          to Hitler's military machine one by one
                       and
       -  If the U.S. felt that, even if Great Britain fell to
          Hitler, our country could reach an accommodation
          with that goose-stepping Nazi maniac
                       then
    
    The United States would not have entered the War when it did (if,
    indeed, it would have entered it at all).
    
    When the U.S. actually had a chance to practice some "humanity"
    to refugee Jews who had fled Europe, our country forbade the ship
    to land on our shores. The ship returned to Europe, and its cargo
    of Jews ultimately went to the death camps.
    
    I keep harping on this point since many replies in this note (not
    necessarily yours) continue to use the metaphor of how we all agree(d)
    that the camps were wrong. Maybe we should have written petitions
    to Hitler to tell him.
    
    Big deal. We all agreed the camps were wrong, and while we were
    busy agreeing..........SIX MILLION (6,000,000) souls were consigned
    to eternity.
    
    Never again!
    
       Alan
    

    <--(.101)
    
    I feel quite sure you're right, Alan.  The official "we" has never
    cared for human rights (as has been, and is being, repeatedly
    demonstrated) and the ordinary "we" didn't give a damn for the Jews
    until the end of the war, when the troops sent back their flicks of
    the camps.  And even then we didn't care about the Jews as such, and
    cheerfully retained our prejudices against them (as their exclusion
    from various social groupings testified); our revulsion was against
    the inhumanity portrayed in the photos.  That the photos
    overwhelmingly showed Jews was irrelevant.  And probably should have
    been irrelevant:  the gypsies, the polaks, the gays, and the other
    people who died in the camps and the ovens didn't suffer any less
    because they weren't jewish. 
    
    "Never again" will only have meaning to the extent that we *each*
    give it meaning.  Only when we're all willing to stare the creeps in
    the eye and say calmly "Over my dead body" will we be free. 
    
    						=maggie

    Exactly!  Thats exactly what I've been trying to say.  Maybe we
    can't change ourselves or other cultures to try to raise humanity
    up to a standard of ethical behavior where every living person is
    precious (ESPECIALLY children) and has a right to a basic quality
    of life, but where else is the species going?  Where will humanity
    be in a hundred years? In a thousand years?  What direction do we
    want to evolve in?  What traditions and customs do we want to bring
    with us and which do we discard?  Upon what basis do we make those
    choices?  What kind of legacy are we leaving behind us? 
    
    And Jim,... I personally haven't shot a man out of a cannon in at
    least three hours or so_:-) ... Can you really blame women that
    men go to war?  Its men who always consider war to be a final option...
    a lot of women don't consider war to be an option at all. 

    >Can you really blame women that men go to war?  Its men who always
    >consider war to be a final option... a lot of women don't consider war
    >to be an option at all. 
     
    Tell me you didn't say that.
    
    DFW

    ok, ... I didn't say that_:-)

I wonder if I may pose a question to the Activist camp? That is,
those who feel that we, the right ones, have the right to dictate to
lesser, primitive, cultures, that their barbaric rituals be abolished. 

Consider the following scenario: an African tribe, who consider
themselves above and beyond us in societal development, have just
learned that infibulation is NOT practiced in these retarded Unites
States. They, therefore, will get involved and --inflamed with the
ambition to improve our culture-- will force us to adopt
infibulation. (After all, it's the only right way - every tribesman
can see that!). 

This will be done, of course, for no other reason but to show us the
light. By explanation and education, of course! They will not use
force unless absolutely necessary (that is, only if we refuse to be
convinced). 

How would you respond to the idea? 

-- Ron 

    <--(.106)
    
    Ron, I'm pretty sure you'd consider me a member of the "Activist
    camp", so I'll respond, for myself if not for everyone.
    
    My goal is that nobody be mutilated or killed for cultural reasons.
    That the people who are born be made whole if damaged, left whole if
    not damaged, and allowed to live out their lives as they see fit.
    Very simple.
    
    It's pretty widely accepted, I think, that cultures develop to meet the
    needs of people in a particular temporal and physical environment, and
    it can then plausibly be argued that there's no one "right way" to do
    things and we should let well alone.  But that is really no very strong
    argument:  we've just shifted the non-interference rule from the
    interpersonal to the intercultural level, and there's no clear reason
    for doing that.  You can say "well, their culture is meeting their
    needs" and I can say "so what? Our culture is a meddlesome one and that
    meddling meets _our_ needs.  And we're bigger than they are."  It's too
    slippery.  And it ignores the fact that cultures meet group survival
    needs, not individual needs.  And I'm all for the individual.
    
    I'm not sure how well-crafted and clear that argument was, I've
    not had enough tea yet :-).  Feel free to poke holes.
    
    						=maggie

>        < Note 373.107 by VIKING::TARBET "Margaret Mairhi" >

        ...............
>    My goal is that nobody be mutilated or killed for cultural reasons.
>    That the people who are born be made whole if damaged, left whole if
>    not damaged, and allowed to live out their lives as they see fit.
>    Very simple.
                        ...............
        
        Who then will be responsible for the circumcision reversals etc?

    Gee, this is like a group meeting....
    
    	Well, since you brought it up Andy, ... you can be responsible_:-)

    (I like that idea, Mary!  :')
    
    Seriously, though...
    
    Nobody's responsible for mending the circumcisions, Andy:  it just
    gradually --or abruptly-- stops being practiced.   By "made whole" I
    was referring to the mending of birth defects that limit individual
    potential for comfort, achievement, &c.  And yes if we reeeeealy
    wanted to we could go rings-around about whether the absence of
    mutilation could be construed as a "birth defect" that limits the
    "achievement" of social acceptance but I'd rather not do semantic
    games on this issue. It might be the case that some individual male
    would have a foreskin large enough to be troublesome (the mind
    boggles), but any plastic operation should be done for the same
    reason breast reduction is: individual comfort, at the individual's
    request.           
    
    						=maggie

RE: .107

>	My goal is that nobody be mutilated or killed for cultural
>	reasons.

Your response is logical and 'right on the money' - from your 
cultural point of view. But, this whole "devil's advocate" exercise 
questions your right to force other cultures to replace their point
of view with yours.


>	You can say "well, their culture is meeting their needs" and
>	I can say "so what? Our culture is a meddlesome one and that
>	meddling meets _our_ needs.  And we're bigger than they are."

Ah, this is the point I was trying to make. If you accept a culture's 
right to be meddlesome, then (in my scenario THEY are bigger then 
US) you acknowledge their right to impose infibulation on us.


Caveat:	PLEASE DO NOT GET ME WRONG. I FEEL THIS PRACTICE IS EVIL AND 
	HORRIFYING. IT DEPRIVES FEMALES OF SEXUAL PLEASURE, WHILE
	DEPRIVING MALES OF THE GREATEST REWARD OF SEX. I CANNOT
	COMPREHEND HOW SUCH AN ATROCITY COULD BECOME A CUSTOM. My
	personal opinion, however, has nothing to do with the
	theoretical discussion above. 

-- Ron

        He who proposes, disposes, eh? :*)
        
        It was  the  earlier  analogy  concerning the African tribe who
        thought the American  lack  of  a certain custom barbaric which
        provoked my comment as  much  as anything - it could be applied
        in a real sense to  the circumcision issue in that the foreskin
        does provide protection, especially to tribes in which the male
        habitually goes naked, and where some wear  a  bark  sheath for
        added protection against thorns etc.
        
        My  point is that should such a tribe  learn  of  the  American
        custom  of  (almost)  routine  circumcision,  then the reaction
        could be of shock, horror and dismay at such barbarity, leaving
        the  male  more   vulnerable  to  the  'slings  and  arrows  of
        outrageous fortune'.
 
        BTW, The commonest problem with a foreskin requiring surgery is
        not that it is too  large,  but rather too small/tight, without
        going into excessive detail.       

        Andy.

    <--(.111)
    
    Aha! I didn't grasp that in your scenario the "other guy" was bigger
    than us.  Right you are, if that's the scene then it plays out by their
    rules.  Happens all the time.  Is it right?  Hard to tell. By *my*
    lights, any mutilation or self-destructive requirement imposed on a
    fully-responsible individual by a culture, any culture, is, ipso facto,
    wrong.  But so far very few people seem to have felt any irresistable
    urge to have me tell them how to run their lives, so maybe my
    conclusions ain't so Divinely Inspired as I would suppose them to be
    :'} 
                                                     
    <--(.112)
    
    I don't get the "proposes...disposes" bit in this context, Andy. 
    
    Your, um, anatomy lesson is appreciated...as is your circumspection
    :')
    
    						=maggie

RE: .103

"Its men who always consider war to be a final option... a lot of women don't
consider war to be an option at all."
                    

I really wish you'd stop such one sided generalizations...  It's hardly true,
now, or ever...  Generalizations in general are allways false... (:-})

RE: .107

"My goal is that nobody be mutilated or killed for cultural reasons. That the
people who are born be made whole if damaged, left whole if not damaged, and
allowed to live out their lives as they see fit. Very simple."

The not-so-simple part is deciding on the definitions of "whole", and "damaged".

Jim.

    <--(.114)
    
    Not really, Jim.  "Whole" means at least an average degree of physical,
    cognitive, and emotional functionality as determined by the best
    understanding we have available to us in the scientific communities.
    (Yah, again we can go rings-around on semantics, but let's not.
    There isn't a whole lot of real fuzziness in the issues if we take
    maximising individual potential as the metric.)
                                                        
    						=maggie

    
    
    listen you women...
    get this straight!!!!
    
    you can't generalize!!!!
    when you do, we men will jump all over your case!!1
    
    generalizing is man's work!
    you may have gotten the right to vote but you have not yet
    gotten the right to generalize!
    and god willing (he IS  a man) ((thta's why they always say...aman
    aman aman....))
    it will never happen as long as we have this great country of ours!
    and we men are willing to kill to keep it that way.
    

    
    
    ....or *however* you spell wet rasberries!
    
    Carol |-)
    

    .117 & .118 My thoughts exactly.
    
    Pete.

    <--(.117 - .119)
    
    I take it this is your first encounter with Rik?
    
    						=maggie

    re .116
    
    [darn it, he's taken.  Guess we can't fall in love, eh?]

    
  my point was...
    
    many men seem to generalize (in notes) about many things including
    about women and their opinions/attitudes/beliefs.
    
    yet these same men (usually) are the first to tell a woman not
    to generalize...
    or to tell another man not to generalize about women's issues.
    
    sorta hypocrital, don't you think?
    
    i obviously don't believe that men should be able to generalize
    and women shouldn't.
    
    
    isn't it funny how so many of you really like my s.o. so much
    and you think she's wise and inteligent...
    yet , for some reason, though she and i think so much alike
    and agree so much on issues....
    
    you think i'm a jerk...!!!!!
    
    amazing.
    
    thanks lee....and after i learned how to pronounce your last
    name in only 3 tries i thought i culd expect friendlier responses
    from you.
    
    and maggie, thanks for the kind words....it's always nice to
    see that false impressions leading to bad reputations will
    precede me.
    and follow me.
    
    

    <--(.122)
    
    um, Rik, did you think Lee and I were slanging *you*??  I'm pretty
    sure Lee wasn't and I *know* I wasn't!  I happen to think very well
    of you, if it matters.   
    
    						=maggie

    re: -1 
    I'm different!!  Really!!!  I have a mole on my.... (oh, never mind)_:-)

    Not absolutely sure.... maybe a second opinion would clarify this
    issue_:-)

    are you looking for volunteers Mary? :-)  
    
    and perhaps before the moderators get after us we ought to
    get this note back on topic. :-)  :-)
    
    Bonnie

    Actually it was more of an attempt to instill abject terror_;-)

I have been reading this topic with interest, and it has brought many 
    questions to my mind.  I am sure that some question that I ask may
    offend different sides; however, this is not my intent.

(1) It seems that the overwhelming number of people responding to this
    note seem to feel this practice would be intolerable and morally
    wrong, at least given our culture.  Also, it appears that most of
    the respondents feel that it is appropriate to educate this "lesser"
    culture.  So, as the question has been often raised, what do we do
    if education fails ?  I have seen responses from some individuals that
    would seem to favor force, yet were opposed to war.  Where would you 
    draw the line ?

(2) I wish someone here actually had given the cultural reasoning for
    this practice.  I haven't read one, and therefore realize that much
    of this speculation in this topic could be totally irrelevant.
    Given that, and also the extensive discussion on whether circumsion
    of infants is something that should be eliminated, I ask this
    possibly irrelevant question:

    At least for the Jews, circumsion of infants was a declaration of
    faith in God.  This African practice may also be of religious
    significance. [I am not claiming that it is, just asking what if...]
    They may, as many Jews would believe regarding circumcision, that it
    is a commandment of God.  Can we say that it is not, for certainty ?
    Perhaps, with religious zeal, these people would defend their
    practice at the defense of their lives, thinking they would be cursed
    if they didn't.  Perhaps, if it were from God, they would !
    [You may not think so, but you can't conclusively prove they wouldn't.]

(3) If we decide that force is necessary to rectify this evil, then why
    wouldn't we use force to rectify all "evils" in the world ?  Why
    wouldn't we use force to end apartheid in South Africa ?  Why wouldn't
    we use force to end torture in all regimes, both allies and non-allies ?
    Where do we draw the line when using force, when they are as big as we
    are ?  When they can do as much damage to us as we can to them ?
    That would be a pragmatic, but not moral solution.


I would definately feel such a practice needs to be stopped, and would
    certainly try to educate this culture to accept views that I believe were
    right.  I have mixed feelings about using force; I can see valid arguments
    on both sides.  Apparently many in this file do not, and I understand
    this.  Maybe I would, too, if I had been similar abused/mistreated.  I
    do not know, but I know that I haven't any simple answer if education
    did not work.

Rick Rollins in Atlanta

    In the article I read about this practice, it said that the older
    women of these cultures were dead set against it, that it is slowly
    becoming an obsession of pubescent girls rather than full-grown
    women.  I look at it like I look at the 13-year old who is desparate
    to slop gook all over her face and wear a bra when she doesn't need
    one and use napkins instead of tampons so as to protect her virginity.
    
    The major difference between the obsessions of girls in our culture
    and clitoridectomy is that in our culture there is no removal of
    a functioning organ, nor maiming of one so as to cause severe damage
    in childbirth.
    
    The older women of those cultures will perform the operation, if
    only to make sure it is done "right", after they have tried to prevent
    it from happening.
    
    The role of men and boys in determining whether or not this should
    happen is what _really_ concerns me.  If indeed a large proportion
    of the men in these societies look down on the unaltered women as
    "unclean" and the adult women do not, you do not have a cultural
    tradition which we shouldn't mess with; you have a systematic
    persecution of one segment of the population by another.  That strikes
    me as fundamentally wrong, and something worth correcting.
    
    Educational efforts are continuing to bring the women of these
    societies to see this procedure as maiming, rather than enticing,
    as an optional (and stupid) thing rather than required.  It will
    take some time before the younger women come around, especially
    if the younger men call them unappealing without it.
    
    I have seen no literature which claims this is a religious practice.
    It seems to be more an attractiveness issue.  This can be compared
    with many parts of the world which regard Westerners as unclean
    because we only use paper when using the toilet, rather than water
    to clean our selves every time we excrete.
    
    Clitoridectomy is a horrid practice, but it seems to be going the
    way of the corset and foot-binding, and will probably take at least
    that much time to totally eradicate.
    
    Lee

    re .133    Is circumcision a "declaration of faith" or a
    "commandment of God" ? You state that for the Jews it is
    both. The two are not identical. Or is it both ? 

    The Commandment to circumsize male children is contained in the
    Old Testament, in Genesis (I think) in the bits about Abraham &
    C. 
    
    If you accept (as the Jews do) that the Old Testament was dictated
    by God, then it seems to me that complying with the Commandment is
    ipso facto, an act of faith. It is supposed to be a sign of the Covenant
    that God made with Abraham and his descendants.
                                                       
    Dave K

    
    
    	It's a commandment.
    
    

    
    re: 124
    it matters!
    thanks
    rik
    

    I have no new solutions to offer to this two-year-old topic, but those
    who are interested in the question might try tracking down "The Two of
    Them", a novel by Joanna Russ.  
    
    Like most of her other books, it's concerned with culture clashes and
    the results of outsiders "educating" individuals from another culture. 
    I mention this one since it starts off with the Star Trek problem
    mentioned earlier and ends up tredding much of the same "are we sexist
    or are we culturally imperialist" ground that showed up in this
    discussion.
    
    Of course, being a novelist, Russ doesn't have to offer a solution
    either.  (She does offer a moral of sorts, but one which I tend to
    reject since it's good news only for lesbian separatists....)
    
    Ray