Category: Old Dish

A must-read from Charles Murray. One of my proudest moments in journalism was publishing an expanded extract of a chapter from “The Bell Curve” in the New Republic before anyone else dared touch it. I published it along with multiple critiques (hey, I believed magazines were supposed to open rather than close debates) – but the book held up, and still holds up as one of the most insightful and careful of the last decade. The fact of human inequality and the subtle and complex differences between various manifestations of being human – gay, straight, male, female, black, Asian – is a subject worth exploring, period. Liberalism’s commitment to political and moral equality for all citizens and human beings is not and should not be threatened by empirical research into human difference and varied inequality. And the fact that so many liberals are determined instead to prevent and stigmatize free research and debate on this subject is evidence … well, that they have ceased to be liberals in the classic sense. I’m still proud to claim that label – classical liberal. And I’m proud of those with the courage to speak truth to power, as Murray and Herrnstein so painstakingly did. Pity Summers hasn’t been able to match their courage. But recalling the tidal wave of intolerance, scorn and ignorance that hit me at the time, I understand why.

A reader reminds me of another excellent resource on ubiquitous homosexuality among animal species: “Biological Exuberance,” by Bruce Baghemil. 450 separate species show evidence of homosexuality. What was God thinking of?

“For what it is worth, when my son was born, I said no to circumcision. The doctor could offer no benefit beyond aesthetics. As my wife said at the time, ‘He’s perfect as he is, why would I do that to him?’ Making him ‘look like dad’ – my friends’ justification every time – seemed about as dumb a reason as anyone could present. (I also have many scars and healed broken bones; does he need those ‘badges of dad’s life’ as well?)
If it were routine in this nation to cut up newborn baby girls’ bodies for aesthetic reasons, … well, I can stop right there; there is no way we would still be cutting baby girls’ bodies for aesthetic reasons right after birth. People making (still essentially unsupported) arguments about how ‘it doesn’t hurt later enjoyment of intimate relations’ and ‘there might be health benefits’ would be properly shouted down by university faculty, social activists, government agencies, leftist groups of every variety, and an army of hysterical (an etymologically dangerous word in this hypo but useful) female ‘survivors’ of the procedure.
But boys? ‘Pull out the knife and get to work, doc! Swab a little numbing agent on there … if you think it is necessary.'”

It is interesting, I think, that this would be a non-issue for baby girls for entirely defensible feminist reasons. No, I’m not talking about female genital mutilation, which is far more drastic and barbaric than male genital mutilation. But any sort of involuntary prettifying of baby girls for purely aesthetic or cultural reasons would be protested and banned. More evidence that there actually is a growing bias against boys in our culture. And it starts at birth.

They’ve even contaminated the paper cups in Saudi Arabia.

MEANWHILE: As Iraq’s careening journey toward some sort of attempt at democracy continues, Russia and China get chummier and chummier. Funny how al Jazeera noticed, innit?

A DIVORCE AMENDMENT? The theocons are not dumb enough to introduce one, but some are honest enough to concede it’s a much bigger problem for marriage than gays’ committing to each other.

The D.C. Examiner asked a bunch of us to recommend some books for the president to read on vacation. My pick? Winston Churchill’s “The River War.” More suggestions here.

Greg Djerejian makes the case against.

That’s the date for Massachusetts’ legislature to decide whether to continue with the state constitutional amendment process to convert civil marriages between gay couples into civil unions. After a year in which gay families have strengthened, straight families have seen no change, and everyone wants to move on, the chances of the amendment going forward have dimmed somewhat.

Mark Kleiman removes what’s left of Cole’s credibility.

Here’s an email explaining some of the finer issues of circumcision, and responding to the Slate survey I mentioned Tuesday:

Your survey of men circumcised in adulthood has already been conducted – but first let’s correct a misconception:

One perennial error of the circumcision debate is lumping together the modern hospital technique with the traditional techniques used by Jewish mohels (and I presume by Muslims). The traditional Jewish technique is much less invasive, and preserves almost all of the erogenic tissue of the foreskin. Briefly: the foreskin is like the sleeve of a suit jacket, with an outer layer of skin and a freely-sliding inner lining of skin. This inner lining is the erotically responsive bit, and traditional Jewish circumcision preserves it.
In contrast, the modern hospital technique used since the 1960s totally ablates both layers of skin. This technique replaced the freehand technique with a specialized clamp or cone that allows unskilled health workers to circumcise newborns.
It’s possible to tell the difference between the two circumcision styles by visual inspection. In fact here in Israel (where your study has already been conducted) many circumcised Jewish men would not by be “circumcised” by American standards, as their penis heads are partially covered by a cuff of foreskin. Many of the negative effects of circumcision – skin too tight during erection, friction during sex, loss of sensation – are relevant only to the modern medical circumcision technique.

Now for your study: Israel has absorbed over a million Jews from the Soviet Union over the past decade, and most of the men were not circumcised in infancy. Many of these men have undergone (Jewish-style) circumcision in adulthood. An Israeli doctor sent a follow-up questionnaire to several thousand of these men. The results split rather evenly into thirds: One third said “no change.” One third said “circumcised sex is better.” One third said “circumcised sex is worse.”
Of course the anti and pro circumcision forces began wrangling over the “no change” group, while the rest of us commonsensically concluded that circumcision (at least, the kinder, gentler, Jewish ritual) had negligible effect on sexual satisfaction.

Because of the international interest generated by the study, a later researcher went back and re-examined the questionnaires. He compared the sexual satisfaction question with the question asking why the subject opted to be circumcised. The result: the overwhelming majority of the “circumcised is worse” group were forced into the procedure by girlfriends or other peer pressure (army service, etc.) – which seems likely to have influenced their perceptions.

I am a rare American Jew who was circumcised in adulthood (Jewish technique), and I would say “no significant change”. On the other hand, I have seen some hospital-circumcised guys with whom I would never want to trade equipment – on aesthetic grounds, and projecting what sex must be like for them.

My own view is that circumcision should be a decision made by an adult male on health grounds alone – and the data on HIV should make many men consider it. But the involuntary genital mutilation of newborns remains an outrage.

Borat hijacks a retriever-chihuahua wedding.