And of course it's not just ancient ... my parents had my head shaped (and my brothers') over several years with metal and rubber bands, mostly in my mouth but sometimes attached to a frame wrapping around my neck, being slowly tightened over several years before puberty.
Wow, do elaborate! What's the shape of your head now? Is it extreme? Would you choose to have you head shaped if you were given a choice? Why did your parents do it, is it a cultural thing, did their heads get shaped too?
I know, it wasn't a perfect comparison :-). My jaw, not my cranium. But--it really was basically cosmetic, as are most braces (though our orthodontist invented enough of a reason that my parents didn't feel like they were being extravagant and superficial, and I think insurance even covered it).
It’s fascinating how various cultures modify their children’s bodies…also a bit unsettling, since it infringes on a person’s bodily integrity before they’re even properly a person. I find infant circumcision little different from head-binding or foot-binding—but that is a rather unpopular opinion here in the US.
> I find infant circumcision little different from head-binding or foot-binding—but that is a rather unpopular opinion here in the US.
Circumcision is a lightning rod issue partly because it is often performed for religious reasons.
One thing that's often overlooked when it's discussed, though: if the child grows up to be a woman (ie, transgender woman assigned male at birth), being circumcised makes gender reassignment surgery more complicated and difficult. It's still possible, but the doctors have less to work with for reconstruction.
I generally agree with you, though I don’t think “bodily integrity” is nebulous at all. I don’t only worry about the physical—I just didn’t mention the mental because the article is about body modification.
My point is don't worry about "bodily integrity", worry "are they doing good, bad, or neutral".
Obviously we would see squishing a head as bad, but there are other modifications that are not so cut and dry.
> I find infant circumcision little different from head-binding or foot-binding
Why? Using my principle, circumcision is neutral, it does no harm, and has a slight benefit. But foot-binding does clear harm. How do you justify considering them the same?
I mainly care about bodily integrity because I want very much for people to have the freedom of self-determination. Fostering that freedom seems like an instance of good parenting.
> Why? Using my principle, circumcision is neutral, it does no harm, and has a slight benefit. But foot-binding does clear harm. How do you justify considering them the same?
They are different degrees of severity of doing something to a person’s body that they can’t understand or consent to. With circumcision, there’s rarely a medical reason to do it, and it can have negative effects on sexual function, so I assess it as a net negative.
I've never seen a proper study assessing sexual function, only hearsay, are you aware of a proper study on that? Whereas I have seen studies suggesting that it helps prevent infections and even transmission of AIDS. For example:
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use."
To combine your points, the view that circumcision "does no harm" could be viewed as a widespread mental modification that helps perpetuate the physical one. Moreover, having the physical modification yourself, or having had it done to a dependent child, naturally predisposes to help in spreading the mental modification.
> It’s fascinating how various cultures modify their children’s bodies…also a bit unsettling, since it infringes on a person’s bodily integrity before they’re even properly a person.
But when that person becomes a proper person and wants to make a decision to modify his/her own body, the opportunity may have been lost.
This is still a thing today, but unintentional and to a mich smaller extent. In some cultures babies are put in tight clothes and lay flat on their backs most of the time, which gives them a less round skull.
A friend from Sichuan told me that a less drastic form of head binding was common practice where she came from, though I can't seem to find references to it online.
In Denmark, we do the opposite. It is common to make sure your baby sleep with their heads to different sides, so their skull won't be asymmetric or flat on one side.
I've also heard that other cultures, like the back of the skull to be flat, and keep their babies head from turning with well-placed pillows.
I think I read the same article (not totally conclusive though). Their perception of a positive influence could have lead to this behavior (modifying skulls).
And of course it's not just ancient ... my parents had my head shaped (and my brothers') over several years with metal and rubber bands, mostly in my mouth but sometimes attached to a frame wrapping around my neck, being slowly tightened over several years before puberty.