[lbo-talk] The Rights of Baby Boys

[ravi]

On Dec 11, 2007, at 10:29 PM, Mr. WD wrote:
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/the-rights-of-baby-boys/
>
> But Dr. Hinchley counters with a recent study that showed the
> uncircumcised adult penis is more sensitive than the circumcised
> penis, largely because the five most sensitive areas are removed
> during circumcision. "This implies a reduction in future sexual
> sensitivity for circumcised adults,'' he notes. "Far from being a
> harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys."
>
> Dr. Patrick disagrees, noting that no good research has examined the
> long-term psychological effects of male infant circumcision. "Until a
> large, representative study of sound methodology examines this issue,
> we cannot know for sure if men who grew up without a foreskin feel
> that they were assaulted,'' she writes. "Only a tiny proportion of the
> billions of circumcised men have reported emotional distress as a
> result of it."
>

The response (from Dr. Patrick) does not address the point against  
which it is attached. Hinchley writes that "circumcision damages young  
boys" and he points out how ("reduction in future sexual  
sensitivity"). Dr Patrick's response that nobody has examined the  
"psychological effect" (assuming perhaps a particular meaning of the  
word "damage") ignores the physiological effect altogether, and  
instead meanders into the strange (though common) [error in]  
reasoning: well, nobody has complained! ;-)

One can argue that mild genital mutilation is a small price to pay for  
potential future health benefits, as the rest of the article notes.  
But it is a poor argument to counter the proposed fact -- that it  
reduces sexual pleasure -- with a claim that nobody has reported  
emotional distress. Well, duh! I say "proposed fact" because it would  
be legitimate to counter by questioning that fact, but that is not  
what Dr. Patrick offers either.

	--ravi