Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 3: Science and Tradition

Since the 1970s, routine MGC has seen a steady increase in opposition. According to social anthropologist Kirsten Bell, “the anticircumcision movement began to gain ground in the 1980s, with the publication of Edward Wallerstein’s (1980) respected Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy.” Since Wallerstein’s work, several groups have sprouted in the U.S. dedicated to eradicating unnecessary MGC, such as the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Center, or NOCIRC,[1] and the National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males, or NOHARMM.[2] Both organizations claim that they are aiming to make the world safer for children through education and activism. In more recent years, the word intactivism has been used to represent those in the U.S. who oppose routine neonatal MGC. Many intactivists argue that the procedure is not only unnecessary, but that the practice is child abuse in the form of genital mutilation, and that it denies the child of his inherent right to an intact penis (D’Arcy 2012). Additionally, others may stress the significant physical and emotional trauma that occurs as a result of the procedure (Schwartzman 2013).

MGC presents a unique meeting place for science and tradition. In other fields of medicine, scientific inquiry and research results tend to influence practice. As evidence accrues for a particular outcome, old practices are discarded and new, and hopefully safer, practices take their place. Oddly enough, this model does not fit the history of MGC in the U.S. Instead, the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) has gone back and forth on their views of circumcision over the years, resulting in confusion both in the medical community and the public at large. MGC became a standard practice for the prevention of disease, included among them the practice of masturbation, starting in the mid to late 19th Century. By 1920, the practice had become so standardized it wasn’t questioned and was considered standard practice without parental consent in many American hospitals (Gollaher 2000:172). Under pressure from opposition in the 1970s, the AAP reviewed what little evidence there was and decided that there was no absolute medical reason to circumcise (Bell 2005: 128). The AAP maintained this position, with some slight variations across the years, until mid-2012, when the group released the following stance: “A recent analysis by the AAP concluded that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks” (AAP 2013). The group stopped short of actually endorsing the practice of routine neonatal MGC, but its change in position incited fury amongst those who oppose MGC. The change in statement also meant that the AAP’s position now stands in opposition to the positions of national programs in other medically advanced societies including Canada, the U.K., Sweden, and Australia.

Additionally, the AAP’s stance seems to go against the evidence of modern medical research. While there is a positive correlation of MGC with a reduction in penile cancer rates in clinical research, worldwide rates of such cancer are so low, that the results are mixed. The majority of Swedish men, for example, are uncircumcised and have some of the lowest rates of penile cancer in the world. Additionally, penile cancer is so rare, that using it as justification for prepuce removal is a less rational argument than encouraging the removal of breast tissue to prevent breast cancer in females. As medical TV show co-host and pediatrician Jim Sears stated, “More babies die from getting circumcised than men die from getting penile cancer.” To risk not pointing out the obvious: penile cancer is a skin cancer; surely removing one-third to one-half of the total skin of the penis reduces the risk of contracting the disease.

In 1993, Edgar Shoen of the AAP stated the MGC should be considered “analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but the benefits accrue for a lifetime” (Shoen 1993). This statement was made in direct relation to “conclusive evidence” that MGC resulted in a reduction of the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) in males. While this appears to be the case, UTIs are much less common in men than women – “By one year, UTIs become ten times more common in girls… [and between] twenty and fifty years of age, women’s incidence of UTIs is fifty times greater than men’s” (Gollaher 155) – and the AAP does not recommend genital cutting of females for prevention.

Looking at the arguments for MGC and the prevention of other diseases, including HIV, cervical cancer, and gonorrhea, the evidence is problematic at best. Within certain regional or cultural groups, men who have undergone MGC may show lower rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but this does not hold looking across or comparing between cultural groups. For instance, the U.S. has higher rates of MGC and STIs compared to European countries such as Germany and the U.K. Additionally, cut men tend to have more partners and perhaps even participate in more adventurous sexual activity, which increase risk the of contracting and spreading STIs. This makes finding a direct causal relationship with MGC tenuous.

MGC’s secular history in the U.S. is rooted in the late Victorian era when a number of doctors and other medical professionals endorsed the practice as a cure for many things, among them masturbation. The inventor of the corn flake, John Harvey Kellogg, is an important player in both MGC and FGC practices in the U.S., as one of the staunchest defenders of both practices for moral hygiene. He also advocated for the surgery to be administered without anesthesia, so the patient associated pain with his or her genitals (Bell 2005; Gollaher 2000). Attitudes about masturbation, and the wide array of mental and emotional disorders that genital cutting was believed to cure, have evolved significantly since the late 19th Century, and while the practice of clitoral cauterization and other forms of FGC have disappeared in the U.S. over time, MGC remains a tradition of birth medicine.

Despite the lack of conclusive evidence that MGC has any medical benefits that would justify its persistence, the U.S. stance on circumcision emphasizes placing trust in the hands of the medical establishment. This becomes an issue when doctors and surgeons are seen as having authoritative knowledge, yet when discussing this surgery, they stress the benefits and not the risks. Where scientific authority has failed to confirm the benefits, they place the onus on the parents, who turn back to the medical establishment for guidance. This vicious cycle benefits no one and may result in the continuation of an unnecessary surgical practice.

----------------------------
[1] http://www.nocirc.org/
[2] http://www.noharmm.org/

Virtual Ethics, Pt. 5: Virtual Communities and the Law

The use of advanced technology to conduct criminal activity is not a new trend. Each year cyber attacks become more sophisticated and use a wider variety of attack vectors. It should come as no surprise then that virtual worlds are targets for cyber criminal activity as well as vessels for cybercrime communication. In response to growing concerns about the role of virtual communities in the larger framework of cybercrime, legislative bodies and law enforcement officials have begun to see a need to oversee and regulate virtual world interactions.

The issue of responsibility for governing virtual worlds has implications on multiple levels. First, virtual worlds are not restricted to the same lines of jurisdiction as other, more traditional environments. By the very nature of their existence, virtual communities transcend the physical limitations of geography. For example, five Second Life residents occupying the same plot of simulated land, or sim, can be controlled by actual world residents located on five different continents. Governing acceptable behaviors and interactions between those five in terms of what actually constitutes illegal behavior cannot easily be worked out. If, for example, their interactions are sexual in nature, the problem arises of which jurisdiction’s laws should stand? In the United States, First Amendment protections allow “age-play,” or virtual sexual encounters with childlike avatars. Other countries may not share the same view on freedom of expression and thus may deem such activity illegal. Furthermore, one or more of the residents interacting in such a way may actually feel harassed or put off by such interactions. Boellstorff notes that, while “age-play” may not be a particularly uncommon occurrence in certain virtual circles, “for many residents virtual pedophilia [is] highly discomfiting, not least because in some jurisdictions even simulated sex with minors could be a crime” (Boellstorff 164). Even if simulated sex with minors is not illegal, concerns may arise about the kinds of individuals who would fancy such behavior and whether or not this victimless virtual behavior would or could translate to actual world behavior.

The second issue with governance is the gap between law and contract agreements. Most virtual worlds have contractual agreements between users and governing bodies, such as Linden Labs, the San Francisco-based creators and maintainers of Second Life. Users must agree to the terms of service, which typically dictate the kinds of behavior that is deemed “illegal.” Such behavior might be hacking, sexual and other forms of harassment, or threatening other players. Other rules may be irrelevant to anything outside of in-world activity, such as the building of certain types of virtual designs in restricted areas of sims in Second Life, thus typical laws would not apply. With regard to the breaking of virtual rules, "the imposition of punishment for the breach of internal rules exists in a difficult conceptual gap between criminal law and the predominantly compensatory remedies of contractual doctrine” (Suzor §1). Punishment for crimes, then, is determined by which side of the gap the crime falls into. Whether or not a crime is actual, virtual, or both must be determined before disciplinary action, should any be required, is enforced.

The last issue with governance is crime reporting. In the actual world, a victim, observer, or bystander typically has to report a violation or crime when one has occurred. Occasionally, a criminal may choose to turn himself in without law enforcement even being aware of a crime. However, the virtual world offers a unique tool for rule enforcement that is not present in the actual world, at least in most places: continuous activity monitoring and logging. Because the whole of a virtual environment’s existence is possible only through the use of computers, that existence can be logged and monitored. Granted the size of some worlds, such as Second Life or World of Warcraft, are so large, the task is no small order. Yet, the storage capacity of today’s servers is vast, and while the task of actually monitoring logs can be tedious, there are elements in place that can allow for automated scripts to seek out specific types of information. This ability is typically not afforded to law enforcement outside of electronic crime investigations.

The question remains, however, whether or not users would agree to continuous monitoring, even for security purposes. Because Internet users, at least those in the West, are accustomed to “freedom of information” and minimal censorship, many would choose a virtual option that does not track their activity over one that does. So, while the ability for continuous monitoring may exist, the acceptance of such a process would likely be quite small—even if it meant an increased sense of safety.

Perhaps the one area that most people would not argue against increasing legal protections is in crimes against children. Joan Shaughnessy points out that there is crossover between existing laws against child exploitation and the virtual sex act of age-play. She found that “in many states, an adult who engages in virtual sex with a child may be subject to prosecution,” and that in some other cases, “the law has criminalized sexual behavior aimed at children, even if no touching is involved” (Shaughnessy). Laws such as these can be used against virtual crimes against children or where children can be harmed, even emotionally. Despite the laws not being written specifically with virtual crimes in mind, they can be applied due to the actual world developmental effects that such activity can have on a child. Perhaps most important to note is that in virtual environments, sexual interaction between users is direct interaction, whereby users specify language and actions to a particular recipient, or multiple recipients. In summation, and with regard to crimes against children, Shaughessy notes that if such a recipient is a child, “the child has suffered from the very type of harm the criminal law intends to prevent” (Shaughnessy).

--------------------------

Boellstorff, Tom. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Shaughnessy, Joan. “Protecting Virtual Playgrounds: Children, Law, and Play Online.” Washington & Lee Law Review, 66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 995, Summer 2009, accessed April 28, 2012.

Suzor, Nicolas. “Order Supported by Law: The Enforcement of Rules in Online Communities.” Mercer Law Review, 63 Mercer L. Rev. 523, Winter 2012, accessed April 28, 2012.

Virtual Ethics, Pt. 3: Defining Virtual Culture

Defining culture can be a daunting task for any individual. The word itself can conjure up a plethora of meanings and none of them are necessarily incorrect. For the purposes of this research, the accepted definition of culture used will be that which I have learned from my experience in the academic and professional worlds: the complete scope of learned human behavior. This definition is widely encompassing and includes all generally accepted cultures and subcultures as well as those that are a matter of debate. Virtual environments do embody a culture of their own and that culture, the collection of human behaviors learned and/or expressed solely in a particular virtual environment, is both specific to that environment and closely linked to similar virtual cultures.

In tune with my own regard of virtual culture, Boellstorff explains early in his monograph that virtual worlds are “places of human culture realized by computer programs through the internet” (Boellstorff 17). Reworded, virtual culture is simply human culture expressed in a different medium. In effect, virtual worlds are specific environments inhabited by persons and enabled by advanced technology. In this sense, they are not so different from other human environments that required advancements in technology to be habitable, such as those featuring extreme cold or lack of resources. After this view of virtual culture is accepted, the actuality of its existence as an equal and valid expression of human behavior can also be accepted. Likewise, just as one society’s culture should be regarded as separate from others and unique in its own right without being looked upon as inferior, the culture of virtual realities collectively and individually should be regarded no differently.

Culture is often viewed in terms of external expressions of human behavior, such as art, music, crafts, or religious ceremonies. While artistic expression of beliefs and customs surely exist in virtual environments, virtual culture as an extension, variation, or representation of human culture is not limited to merely external features. In his 2011 book on cognitive psychology, David DiSalvo, a writer on science and culture, posits that for role-playing of any kind to be successful, participants must feel empowered to assume a second, often far-removed identity. He states that the “appeal of living, in effect, another life, one that consumes the same cranial spaces as the one that requires breathing air and drinking water, cannot be separated” (DiSalvo 84-85). Furthermore, humans come fully equipped with a brain capable of housing multiple identities, complete with their own cultures of sort. For example, the way one behaves amongst friends and peers is markedly different from the way in which that same individual acts in the presence of parents and grandparents.

The culture of each environment dictates which identity is on display. There is no reason to believe that the virtual identities taken on by an individual should not influence behavior changes in the same fashion. Instead, the existence of a secondary identity in a virtual environment allows the brain to express behaviors that may only be acceptable in such an environment. While this is a separate culture, it is no less real than an actual world culture. While the human brain is an extraordinary organ, the near entirety of its evolution occurred during the millions of years before the invention of virtual technology and, thus, it cannot distinguish between virtual reality and actual reality. To the brain, either reality is as real as the other.

----------
Boellstorff, Tom. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

DiSalvo, Daniel. 2011. What Makes the Brain Happy and Why You Should Do the Opposite. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.

What Humans Crave

          Individuals are continuously searching for the meaning of life. In essence, what people are looking to discover is: what does it mean to be human? Humans search for meaning, or an identity, to add value to their lives and the world around them. A common response you hear people give when asked what they want to accomplish during their lives is: “I want to be part of something bigger.” What is this something “bigger” and “bigger” than what? This something “bigger,” something “extra” is different to each and every individual, but is consensually aimed at achieving progress, either at a personal or social level. That being said, the humanities scholars, authors, painters, etc., understand this dilemma that people face; the questions regarding meaning, identity and being part of “something bigger” are what the humanities tries to answer. Putting all political views aside, when you read’s Marx’s “Communist Manifesto,” you are so attracted to the words Marx writes because he provides you with a sense of meaning. Hence, when you dream about being that deprived proletariat rising up against the selfish bourgeoisie; you are imagining yourself being part of “something bigger”. Marx is one of several humanities scholars that examined society across many generations.
          You don’t read Aristotle because he spoke of the day to day challenges that the Greeks of his time encountered. You read Aristotle, Plato or Socrates because these philosophers wrote about problems that mankind has come across since the being of time and continue to confront today. The value you obtain from studying the humanities is that when you search for what it means to be a human you are attempting to add meaning to your life and the society around you. When you read the stories of Homer or Shakespeare, you come to understand that the characters of the stories experience the same problems you do in your own life. The humanities teach individuals that mistakes have and will be made, but it’s up to humans to turn earlier errors into future progress.
          The humanities is the history of human thought; where it began, how it’s changed, what it has become. In the past people believed that the answers regarding meaning and identity came from above. However, since the Enlightenment, science rules this realm, having proved to people that facts and empirical data can be used to give people meaning. But has science really provided humans with the meaning of life? Nevertheless, the underlying message seems to get lost in the debate between creation and evolution. What really drives human beings is faith, and this is the value that humanities provide. One has to believe that progress can be accomplished before it actually is achieved. Whether one puts their faith in themselves or other individuals, a higher being or scientific knowledge, one has to believe that goals can be reached first because only then is there a reason to search for meaning; the drive to be part of something “bigger.”

          With that, I want to welcome you to reading "The Philosophy Fools: Unfiltered Observations of a Flawed World," the blog created by my brother Randy and myself. Like my brother told you earlier in his welcome post, although we are writing this blog together, we don't necessarily have the same beliefs or share the same opinions and that's what I'm hoping will make this blog so attractive to our readers. We share our father's gene's, our ruggedly handsome looks and maybe a bit of the same sense of humor (Randy's much more perverted, I think?), but that's about it. My thoughts are still undefined and although I'm starting to piece them together I would like you to understand that my thoughts will be all over the place. The advice or message I attempt to offer may come off as a bit misleading if you try conveying one singular message out of reading my posts collectively. No topic or event will be off-topic, but the majority of my posts, whether they touch on sports, foreign affairs or energy consumption, will try to convey a greater societal message. As a writer I will put my best effort in to writing posts that will be entertaining and/or thought-provoking. As the reader all I ask is that you please clear your mind before reading the posts. Approach every post with a fresh outlook and I promise you that you will not be disappointed with mine or Randy's writings. And always remember: the words on this blog express our opinions, but that doesn't mean that we agree with them.

          Thanks,

          Ryan - feel free to shoot me an email anytime at philosophyfool.002@gmail.com