Tweet
I have to write a sociology paper on a "deviant" group (in the sociological sense of "not the norm", not as in "bad"), and want to use this for intactivism purposes. Should I write about foreskin restoration, or circumcision? My logic for considering restoration "deviant" or "not the norm" is that if the removal of the foreskin isn't the norm relative to the global population, trying to reverse this can't be the norm relative to the global population either.
-
-
Go for circumcision as the topic. Present the truth about it , the functions and structures of the foreskin, the ethics involved, the corruption, the harm and damage it does. You know the drill. Use Elephant in the Hospital as a template. If you cover all the points presented in that, you'll get an A! -
I would go for the circumcision topic as well. Going for the restoration group as a “deviant” group may not hold up very well. Sure approx. 20% (not sure on exact percentage) of the male population is circumcised which could be consider “not the norm”. And people restoring would be a smaller group still (although I suspect is a growing trend) with respect to the total population; however, the behaviour or motivation to restore could be considered normal. I.e. Recovering from the trauma of an invasive procedure, often without consent. Could also be complicated by the psychological trauma being delayed until the individual realises / understands what has happened to them. Wanting to and indeed being able to work towards some sort of recovery would be considered normal and a healthy thing to do. So, a small group for restoring but also part of a larger group of people recovering from something.
I guess it depends of how you want to structure your argument for your paper.
Just a thought, feel free to rip my logic apart.
Comment
-
Does anyone know if there are scholarly articles looking at the social class, gender, sexual orientation, race, age, etc. of people opposed to circumcision?Comment
Comment