Human Nature

Tweets 11/20/09

William Saletan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Here are some of this week's Human Nature short takes on the news. To get them in real time, subscribe to the HN Twitter feed.

1. Mayor on Chicago's surveillance network: "cameras are the next best thing" to cops. http://bit.ly/syCfU Prediction: Domestic drones are next.

2. Latest totalitarian hubris: central weather planning http://bit.ly/47M3a6 Didn't work for shamans, won't work for China, Cuba, or Venezuela.

3. GPS tracking is being extended from felons to old folks: http://bit.ly/1ufgAa And that's good for both of them. http://slate.com/id/2118117/

4. Penis-numbing spray prevents premature ejaculation: http://bit.ly/3bsu8i Overdose might have saved Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Foley...

5. If Pistorius' artificial legs aren't faster than real ones (http://bit.ly/10eGGM), the next generation will be. http://slate.com/id/2191801/

6. Dispersed insurgents force US to disperse surveillance & communications to soldiers: http://bit.ly/4sspv2 Infantry is becoming white-collar.

7. "Data does not tell us what to do" in medicine; we must consult "values." GOP on stem cells? No, Dems on breast cancer: http://bit.ly/2axkNH

8. Stupak consolation: No abortion coverage, but contraceptive coverage would cut your risk of having to pay for abortion. http://bit.ly/3nUFke

9. Latest female arousal drug: http://bit.ly/1YjUYL I've seen such hype before. But at least they're targeting the brain now, not the vagina.

10. Palin denies we evolved from "monkeys who ...swung down from the trees." http://bit.ly/3h6VMc So do scientists, dingbat! http://bit.ly/N8k1N

11. As smokers decline to 20% or 15% of population, it becomes economically logical to ban them from apartment buildings. http://bit.ly/4hPmjk

12. "The IED has now replaced direct-fire weapons as the enemy's weapon of choice." http://bit.ly/31auLJ Surveillance, not combat, is the future.

13. God bless this effort to teach mullahs contraception: http://bit.ly/1JcRXf But the surest way to control population is to empower women.

14. 26 gallons of water from a single moon probe impact: http://bit.ly/4pxXSK That's a lot of water. Moon habitation is looking more plausible.

15. Scary theory: By boosting your impression of alertness, caffeine dangerously masks the intoxicating effects of alcohol. http://bit.ly/1ofV83

16. The Vatican may burn a heretic now & then, but the arc of Catholic science bends toward curiosity: http://bit.ly/2HeIZp Also best lede ever.

17. Regrowing penises http://bit.ly/3b83l0 and breasts http://bit.ly/2KDjGT: Will it become possible to alter (or double) your sex "naturally"?

18. Laptop porn-viewing in public: http://bit.ly/2CrSyH Another sign we're mentally drifting out of physical/social reality and into cyberspace.

John Edwards - Bill Clinton - Chicago - Mark Foley - Cuba

Tweets 11/11/09

William Saletan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:18:00 GMT

Here are some of this week's Human Nature short takes on the news. To get them in real time, subscribe to the HN Twitter feed.

1. Is youth a kind of wealth? Should you pay more for health insurance so old folks can pay less, in the name of equality? http://bit.ly/EE2pl

2. Runaway Toyotas http://bit.ly/143rMA don't help us get comfortable with automated cars. Expect more such oops stories as we delegate driving.

3. Now that we can test for genetic susceptibility to harm from vices http://bit.ly/TeDi0, we'll use this to find out what we can get away with.

4. Cell phones as microscopes: http://bit.ly/2zZWRj Another step in the relentless consolidation of gadgets to 1 handheld (http://bit.ly/3Qe1MM).

5. Fascinating challenge to Judaism as inherited trait: http://bit.ly/2mI1dg Is racial self-definition of who's a Jew religious discrimination?

6. US kids too fat/unfit for military? http://bit.ly/20pyQX Bah. More jobs are automated or remotely operated, e.g. drones (http://bit.ly/2ScJzO).

7. Fruit juice is as bad as soda: http://bit.ly/1kMCzt Just as I feared. "Natural" isn't a sure guide to morality—or to healthy eating.

8. War against the machines, traffic-cam version: http://bit.ly/1zJKV2 Humans will win these elections ... till machines get the right to vote.

9. Experts using "panda viagra, panda porn and pelvic-thrust exercises" to make pandas mate. http://bit.ly/DBqhZ Pathetic. Let this species die.

10. Using pot munchies to sell sushi: http://bit.ly/1W43xn Commercial integration will legitimate marijuana more effectively than politics can.

11. Uproar over doctors group letting Coke fund its education site: http://bit.ly/45lzcW Are soda makers heading toward tobacco's pariah status?

12. The fierce urgency of now can blind you: http://bit.ly/2O3JQi Gay marriage backers should delay such showdowns till old folks have died off.

13. Dog-scent lineups: http://bit.ly/38Gtza Like polygraphs (http://bit.ly/3E4i7e), a device to make you think you've been caught and confess.

14. Muslim creationism more flexible than Christian version: http://bit.ly/4669dR More evidence that creationism is mostly attitude, not theory.

15. Reframing of mental disorders from either/or to spectra: http://bit.ly/43PYsy Good move. The brain is hugely complex with lots of gray area.

16. Sleeping while your copilot minds the instruments is banned by airlines "but is allowed on military planes." http://bit.ly/2hEhkF Why?

Health - Mobile phone - Health insurance - Cannabis - Twitter

Abortion, Socialism, and Health Reform

William Saletan — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:20:00 GMT

There's something poignant about the last-minute outrage of the pro-choice groups. The complaints they're leveling—that people had more choices in the private market, that the House bill radically upsets this market, and that it violates Obama's promise not to deprive anyone of their existing coverage—are hardly novel. Republicans have issued such warnings all year. But liberals didn't pay attention until the coverage in jeopardy was abortion.

More here.

Pro-choice - Republican Party - Abortion - Democratic - Pro-Life

Women, Combat, and Fort Hood

William Saletan — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:38:00 GMT

Fort Hood, Texas, hosts tens of thousands of men who are trained to fight for their country. But none of them stopped Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as he blew away 13 of their colleagues Thursday afternoon. It was a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who confronted and shot him in an exchange of gunfire. For her trouble, Munley took bullets in both legs and an arm. Maybe the president will pin a medal on her.

Here's a better way to honor Munley: End the ban on women in combat.

More here.

Fort Hood - Police officer - United States - Texas - Military

Genes, Murder, and Bad Driving

William Saletan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:56:00 GMT

Can crimes and crashes be blamed on bad genes?

On Friday, Nature reported details of an Italian case in which a court, for the first time in Europe, reduced a criminal sentence based on a genetic theory of behavior. According to the report:

Pietro Pietrini, a molecular neuroscientist at Italy's University of Pisa, and Giuseppe Sartori, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Padova, conducted a series of tests [on the defendant] and found abnormalities in brain-imaging scans and in five genes that have been linked to violent behaviour—including the gene encoding the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA). A 2002 study ... had found low levels of MAOA expression to be associated with aggressiveness and criminal conduct of young boys raised in abusive environments. In the report, Pietrini and Sartori concluded that [the defendant's] genes would make him more prone to behaving violently if provoked. ... On the basis of the genetic tests, Judge Reinotti docked a further year off the defendant's sentence, arguing that the defendant's genes "would make him particularly aggressive in stressful situations". Giving his verdict, Reinotti said he had found the MAOA evidence particularly compelling.

Scientists interviewed by Nature say this kind of genetic determinism is too crude and tenuous to justify sentence reductions. Genes operate in relation to each other, not independently, and they produce different effects depending on environmental factors and population differences such as ethnicity. My colleague Dan Engber, who alerted me to the Nature report, has made similar points about brain scans and neuro-determinism. I'm highly sympathetic to his indictment of the field.

Despite these criticisms and the skepticism of judges, Nature reports that according to a database maintained by Nita Farahany of Vanderbilt law school,

in the past five years there have been at least 200 [U.S.] cases where lawyers have attempted to use genetic evidence to support the idea their clients' were predisposed to violent behaviour, depression or drug or alcohol abuse. In Britain, there have been at least 20 such cases in the past five years.

And don't be surprised if the next target of genetic determinists is car crashes. Neuroscientists from the University of California at Irvine have just laid out the case in a paper in Cerebral Cortex, accompanied by a catchy press release. The release is titled, "Bad driving may have genetic basis, UCI study finds." It reports:

People with a particular gene variant performed more than 20 percent worse on a driving test than people without it—and a follow-up test a few days later yielded similar results. About 30 percent of Americans have the variant. ... The driving test was taken by 29 people-22 without the gene variant and seven with it. They were asked to drive 15 laps on a simulator that required them to learn the nuances of a track programmed to have difficult curves and turns. Researchers recorded how well they stayed on the course over time. Four days later, the test was repeated. Results showed that people with the variant did worse on both tests than the other participants, and they remembered less the second time.

The release explains how the gene works:

This gene variant limits the availability of a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor during activity. BDNF keeps memory strong by supporting communication among brain cells and keeping them functioning optimally. When a person is engaged in a particular task, BDNF is secreted in the brain area connected with that activity to help the body respond.

The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, will surely become fodder for defense attorneys in civil and criminal cases involving crashes or dangerous driving. And these lawyers won't be alone in their interest. In the press release, Steven Cramer, the neuroscientist who led the study, says, "I'd be curious to know the genetics of people who get into car crashes. I wonder if the accident rate is higher for drivers with the variant."

I bet every auto insurer would like to know the same thing.

I'm counting on Engber to pick apart the study and the press release. Let's hope the authors are oversimplifying the impact of genes on behavior. Because if the link between genes and driving performance is solid enough to justify reduced sentences and damage awards, it's hard to see why insurances shouldn't be allowed to test and charge you accordingly.

University of California Irvine - National Institutes of Health - Brain-derived neurotrophic factor - Traffic collision - United States

Tweets 10/30/09

William Saletan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:01:00 GMT

Here are some of this week's Human Nature short takes on the news. To get them in real time, subscribe to the HN Twitter feed.

1. "Abortion addict" http://bit.ly/VRJHr says she "abused her rights." Bingo: Abuse doesn't invalidate rights, and rights don't validate abuse.

2. IEDs spreading across south Asia & Africa: http://bit.ly/vSb9l Huge problem for the future. See http://bit.ly/2beWk7 and http://bit.ly/7ABuJ

3. GPS RIP: http://bit.ly/NF0U0 The reduction of gizmos to smartphone apps continues. Better figure out how to sell your hardware as software.

4. Using gene therapy ... to repair somebody's organs ... to give to somebody else. http://bit.ly/2k8uZ8 Another step in human parts technology

5. Agassi admits he used meth and lied after being caught: http://bit.ly/3NnF1B Remind me why we test athletes for drugs that don't help them?

6. Dad's absence alters brain growth in rodents: http://bit.ly/Q2d1N Lesson: Brain & environment aren't alternative explanations for behavior.

7. No more simulated sex while dancing: http://bit.ly/yp8as Regulation hasn't been this interesting since Sonny Bono "cracked down" on bikinis.

8. Baby Einstein? Not: http://bit.ly/KoOL6 Here's a tip: Your kid does not need more IQ. Just give her the mental health to use the IQ she has.

9. Requiring RX for cold meds? To stop meth production? (http://bit.ly/bLHgB) Good luck putting the home chemistry genie back in the bottle.

10. "Screaming is the new spanking," http://bit.ly/33SsYl. Yes, and representative democracy with executive power is the new fascism. Please.

Sponsored Topics: Sonny Bono - Global Positioning System - Improvised explosive device - Intelligence quotient - Africa

Freeway Autopilots

William Saletan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Maybe one lesson of Northwest Flight 188 is that driving should be more like flying. There are tricky parts that require close attention and adjustment—takeoff and landing for planes, local navigation for cars—and then there are parts that can be automated: cruising altitude for planes, freeway driving for cars. A freeway autopilot would have to keep you in your lane until your exit. It wouldn't zip around from lane to lane like a jerk. But I'm guessing most of us could live with that.

More here.

Sponsored Topics: Freeway - Altitude - Recreation - Roads and Highways - Autopilot

Outdoor Smoking: A Compromise

William Saletan — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:00 GMT

Last month, I went ballistic over New York City's plan to ban smoking in parks and public beaches. My argument was that you don't have to ban smoking on every square inch of park land to protect nonsmokers from the person next to them. You can chalk off spaces where smoking is prohibited. Just figure out how much clean breathing room people need, and draw a line.

It looks like I may get my wish—not in New York, but in Los Angeles. L.A. already forbids outdoor smoking in parks and beaches. But yesterday, the city council advanced a proposal to ban outdoor smoking at restaurants. And this time, the ban isn't comprehensive; it's spatially circumscribed. Maeve Reston of the Los Angeles Times spells out the details:

A Los Angeles City Council committee voiced support today for a ban on smoking in the city's outdoor dining areas, but ordered several changes to the ordinance before sending it to the full council for approval. ... The legislation ... would ban smoking within a 10-foot radius of outdoor dining areas. The proposed no-smoking area around mobile food trucks and food kiosks would extend for 40 feet.

Ten feet sounds about right. After I attacked the New York plan, an anti-smoking researcher challenged me to examine studies of outdoor secondhand smoke. So I did. Among other things, the studies noted that smoke exposure levels from outdoor cigarettes were "very localized." One study reported:

We observed a clear reduction in OTS [outdoor tobacco smoke] levels as the distance from a tobacco source increased. Generally, average levels within 0.5 m [meters] from a single cigarette source were quite high and comparable to indoor levels, and OTS levels at distances greater than 1 or 2 m were much lower. ... At distances larger than 2 m, levels near single cigarettes were generally close to background.

Roughly translated, this means that if you're downwind of an outdoor smoker, standing within two feet subjects you to exposure comparable to being indoors with that smoker. Move seven feet away, however, and you're breathing normal air. Accordingly, a city that prohibits indoor restaurant smoking to protect nonsmokers should extend this policy to smoking within two feet of an outdoor dining area. Beyond seven feet, the restriction loses its logic. I don't see any harm in extending the radius to 10 feet, just to play it safe.

The Los Angeles proposal is still being haggled over. For all I know, the buffer zone will end up being 15 or 20 feet. The important thing is that it'll be clear and limited. If we're lucky, it will set a precedent for regulating outdoor smoking based on science, not revulsion. And you'll be free to light up and enjoy your cigarette, as long as you keep your butt out of my face.

Sponsored Topics: New York City - Los Angeles - Tobacco smoking - Cigarette - Health

Napping, Sex, and Abstinence

William Saletan — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:20:00 GMT

Which is more important: food, sleep, or sex? My instinct is to go with sleep, on the grounds that if you try to avoid all three, sleep is the one that will overtake you first. It's the one you need most. If that's true—and if we know that it's unreasonable and dangerous to insist that people abstain from sex—then isn't it stupid to expect pilots to abstain from sleep?

More here.

Sponsored Topics: Sleep disorder - Health - Conditions and Diseases - Organizations - United States

Ambulances for the Ample

William Saletan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:59:00 GMT

Everywhere you look, fat people are being charged extra. More for plane seats. More for health insurance. More, in the form of reduced incentive payouts, under proposals for Medicare and Medicaid.

Now, more for ambulance service.

We've talked about ambulances before. Along with toilets and coffins, they're part of a global size upgrade for bigger bodies. And it's expensive. Heather Hollingsworth of the Associated Press does the math:

Transporting extremely heavy people costs about 2 1/2 times as much as normal-weight patients. It takes more time to move them and requires three to four times more crew members, who often must use expensive specialty equipment. ... [One] unit in Topeka recently spent about $10,000 to retrofit an ambulance with equipment that accommodates patients weighing up to 1,600 pounds. Ambulance services with helicopters also are creating larger patient compartments and adding stronger gurneys. Sales of specialized lift systems nationwide are expected to reach $193 million by 2012, up from $75 million in 2004, according to EMS Insider, an industry newsletter. The sale of specialized stretchers is expected to nearly double to $50 million in 2012.

Now there's a movement to pass on the costs. Hollingsworth reports:

Ambulance companies say it's time for insurance providers, Medicaid and Medicare, or patients themselves to begin paying the added costs, which are cutting into their razor-thin profit margins. In the past, ambulance companies often absorbed the extra expense of serving the obese. Now they are adding charges similar to those already imposed on intensive-care patients, people requiring multiple medications and patients on ventilators.

The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds. In raw numbers, that's around $500 to $700. Fat-rights activists say the extra fees are discriminatory. The president of one group tells Hollingsworth, "Ambulance services are a critical public service and should accommodate the needs of all of those who require them at a fair cost."

I don't have a quick answer to this problem, but maybe we can start to think it through. First, we need to decide whether privately operated ambulances are, as the fat-rights spokesman says, a public service. It seems pretty clear, for example, that private airlines can make you pay double if you don't fit in a seat. Do ambulances have to play by nicer rules because medical services are inherently public? If so, shouldn't the public reimburse them?

Second, to the extent that fat is an issue of personal responsibility, does that really apply to ambulance service? Nobody's going to lose weight so they can save $700 on their next ambulance trip. To the extent that motivation can overcome obesity, the reason people are going to lose weight is to stay out of the hospital altogether.

Third, if you think fat people should bear the extra cost of transporting them, what does that say about your overall views on insurance for preexisting conditions? The health-care reforms being debated in Congress would bar insurers from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. The argument is that people aren't responsible for such conditions and shouldn't be priced out of the insurance market on account of them. Therefore, we would socialize their extra cost. Is that OK with you? If so, to the extent that obesity is genetically or environmentally induced, shouldn't we treat it the same way?

Sponsored Topics: Medicaid - Health care - Insurance - Health insurance - United States Congress

Big Brother Is Watching Your Weight

William Saletan — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:10:00 GMT

When the government tells insurers what they can or can't do, it's easy to restrict outcome-based incentives for weight loss. Why let those nasty, greedy companies charge people more for being fat? But the public sector is a different ballgame. When taxpayers fund wellness incentives, they're entitled to see results. So don't expect the government to protect fat people from outcome-based incentives while footing the bill for health care. The more it pays, the more results it will demand.

More here.

Sponsored Topics: Weight loss - Health - Obesity - Shopping - Health care

Mini Soda: The New Light Cigarette?

William Saletan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:27:00 GMT

You'll drink Coke mini for the same reason you already drink Coke: to sate your addiction. And if you don't get enough "sparkle" from the smaller can, no problem. Just open a second 7.5-ounce can, and you'll get 20 percent more sparkle than you used to get from a 12-ounce hit.

You'll also get 20 percent more calories. But you'll feel better about yourself, because now you're practicing "portion control" and "a healthy lifestyle." Just like you felt better about smoking light cigarettes.

More here.

Sponsored Topics: Cigarette - Addiction - Health - Tobacco - Portion control

Boys, Girls, and HPV

William Saletan — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:37:00 GMT

In other words, boys don't have to get vaccinated against HPV for the same reason they don't have to wash dishes, do laundry, buy birth control, or think about other people in general: Girls will do it for them.

More here.

Sponsored Topics: Human papillomavirus - Birth control - Sexually transmitted disease - Reproductive health - Health

Polanski: Three Questions

William Saletan — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:48:00 GMT

I've been reading your comments on the Roman Polanski case. Some of you are mischaracterizing what I wrote on Tuesday and Wednesday. But if I'm going to criticize you for confusing the issues, I'd better criticize myself, too.

What we've been debating in "The Fray" are at least three different questions. One is whether Polanski raped Samantha Geimer outright. By this, I mean rape defined by coercion, not simply by the younger party's age. This is a question of fact. Ideally, if we were a jury, we'd hear her testimony and his, and we'd be presented with corroborating evidence for each side, to the extent that it could be produced. Unfortunately, we don't have such a complete case. What we have is her grand jury testimony and a few other bits that have been disseminated over the Internet. Under these circumstances, I can't pretend to resolve the facts, and this wasn't my point anyway. But I should be clear: If the case is ever fully presented and Polanski is proved guilty of rape, he should be put away for a long time, and that's that.

If he isn't proved guilty of rape, we move on to the second question: Should he have been allowed to plead to statutory rape instead? I can understand the desire of prosecutors and the public to nail him for something. But I don't like using rape defined by age as a proxy for rape defined by coercion. (I don't like using sodomy as a fallback charge, either, which the prosecution also employed in this case.) To the extent that elements of coercion are present—and according to Geimer's testimony, they were—it's better to make them part of the statute and the prosecution's case.

The third question is whether to treat sex with a 13-year-old as pedophilia. That was my original question, and my answer is complicated: The age of consent can't really be one number, since people mature in different ways at different ages. This question touches on the claim from Polanski's probation report that I originally targeted: that there was evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing." Is maturity an arguable factor with a 13-year-old, particularly one who's posing nude in a jacuzzi? Yes. Is Polanski's age, as opposed to Genarlow Wilson's age, an arguable factor in assessing his culpability? Yes again. Is either factor dispositive? No.

Several of you have said that Polanski is a bad case for making my point about pedophilia. You're right. I tried to focus on the third question and then the second, but the first overwhelms the conversation. I don't mean to slight the first question. But I do want to separate the three questions so we can talk about each of them clearly.

On that point, I'm guilty of conflating them myself. In my first post on this subject, I mentioned that the probation report said Polanski's offense "appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant." I then wrote: "That's an entirely reasonable assessment of the incident." I shouldn't have written that sentence, because it characterized the whole case and thereby took a position on the first question, which wasn't my point and on which I had no expertise.

I hope that by laying out the issues this way, I've undone some of the confusion I caused and liberated each of the questions for clearer consideration.

Sponsored Topics: Rape - Roman Polanski - Pedophilia - Statutory rape - Samantha Geimer

Polanski Revisited

William Saletan — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:22:00 GMT

Yesterday I wrote about the importance of legal and moral distinctions in the Roman Polanski case. Many of you, in response, called attention to the victim's grand jury testimony, which alleges that Polanski gave her a Quaalude and that he ignored her instructions to stop. Those allegations are important pieces of evidence. Not decisive—we don't convict people in this country based on grand jury testimony from one party—but important. So are other parts of her testimony, which detail apparently voluntary acts of compliance, such as taking off her underwear.

It's obvious to everyone—including Polanski, who has conceded as much—that what he did was wrong. Viscerally, I'd like to punch the guy in the mouth. And I wish the rape charge had been tried and resolved. But we shouldn't contort our justice system to nail this or that defendant. The distinctions we draw or fail to draw in our laws endure from case to case. We have to get them right.

It's entirely legitimate and relevant to cite evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing," as Polanski's probation officers did. It's also legitimate and relevant to cite evidence that the victim was unwilling, as her grand jury testimony did. The same goes for the fact that he gave her a Quaalude, that he took one himself, and that she saw the one he gave her and took it anyway, knowing what it was because she had taken one before. All these details are relevant.

This isn't an argument for knowing or thinking less about such incidents. It's an argument for knowing and thinking more. Sometimes that means rethinking sentences that conflate teen exploiters with pedophiles. Sometimes it means exposing child abuse that's been swept under the rug. For an illustration of the latter problem, check out the story in today's New York Times about ultra-Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn who are beginning to report child sexual abuse to police instead of leaving such cases to rabbinic authorities. According to the article,

The father of a Brooklyn 10-year-old said in an interview that the mishandling, as he viewed it, of sexual abuse cases by rabbinical courts had persuaded him to contact the police immediately when his son told him last year that a neighbor had abused him. ... When his 6-year-old son told him one day that Rabbi Kolko had sexually abused him, [another] father said he resolved to go to the police because he knew that the Brooklyn hierarchy had protected the rabbi in the past.

These aren't 13- or 15-year-olds, for whom an argument about willingness can at least be made. They're prepubescent kids. And ultra-Orthodox communities seem to have been slow to recognize the rights of individuals, as opposed to families or peoples:

Taboos codified long ago during times of persecution discourage community members from informing on other Jews; violations can result in ostracism. ... Rabbi Meir Fund, who leads a synagogue known as the Flatbush Minyan, said that child molesters should be prosecuted, but that victims should consult with a rabbi before going to the police. Connections among the [ultra-Orthodox] are too entangled to discount the damaging ripple effects of accusations on the accused person's family, Rabbi Fund said. Advocates for victims say similar views have informed some of the Brooklyn rabbinical leadership's worst judgments, allowing prominent rabbis who were repeatedly accused of abuse to keep their jobs and reputations.

This kind of coarseness gets in the way of justice. Victims and perpetrators deserve their due as individuals. They mustn't be ignored or protected for the putative sake of their families or their communities.

The same goes for laws about sexual abuse. If you have the goods to convict a man of rape, prosecute him for rape. Don't invite him to plead guilty to sex with a teenager. That kind of plea deal, coupled with a stiff jail sentence, just furthers the conflation of sexual assault defined by force with sexual assault defined by age.

And if you think it's fine to conflate these two definitions of rape—that any statute is worth using to put away this or that scumbag—don't forget the other crime Polanski was charged with: sodomy. Sex-crime prosecutions, detached from proof of force, can take you places you don't want to go.

Sponsored Topics: Sexual abuse - Child abuse - Brooklyn - Child sexual abuse - Sexual assault

The Polanski Affair

William Saletan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:46:00 GMT

Should Roman Polanski get a tougher sentence for sex with a 13-year-old girl than he would have gotten 30 years ago?

The New York Times suggests he might:

Manners, mores and law enforcement have become far less forgiving of sex crimes involving minors in the 31 years since Mr. Polanski was charged with both rape and sodomy involving drugs. He fled rather than face what was to have been a 48-day sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. But if he is extradited from Switzerland, Mr. Polanski could face a more severe punishment than he did in the 1970s, as a vigorous victims' rights movement, a family-values revival and revelations of child abuse by clergy members have all helped change the moral and legal framework regarding sex with the young.

The Times portrays the differences between then and now as reflections of a shameful past. And some of the attitudes reflected in the original Polanski prosecution really were stupid. For example, a 1977 report by two probation officers on Polanski mentioned "some permissiveness by the mother" of the girl in question, since she had let the girl spend time with the director. How is a mother's permissiveness relevant to the culpability of the guy who bangs her daughter? It isn't. It's straight old-fashioned cultural bigotry, blaming a crime against an individual on the morals of her family.

But what about other factors cited in the probation officers' report? The Times notes that "in a conclusion that might particularly jar readers today, [the report] pointed toward evidence ‘that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.' "

Hold it right there. Why exactly should we be aghast that the legal system of the 1970s considered such evidence relevant to Polanski's culpability? Why aren't the physical maturity and willingness of the girl—or boy—significant?

In fact, they are. As I've pointed out before, over the past 150 years in the United States and Europe, the average age of menarche—a girl's first period—has fallen two to four months per decade, depending on the country. In 1840, the age was 15.3 years. By the early 1980s, it was 12.8. It's quite plausible that the 13-year-old girl Polanski had sex with in the late 1970s was, to some degree, sexually mature.

Having sex at 13 is a bad idea. But if you're pubescent, it might be, in part, your bad idea. Having sex with a 13-year-old, when you're 40, is scummy. (Personally, I'd be stricter. If I ran a college, I'd discipline professors for sleeping with freshmen.) But it doesn't necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up. A guy who goes after 5-year-old girls is deeply pathological. A guy who goes after a womanly body that happens to be 13 years old is failing to regulate a natural attraction. That doesn't excuse him. But it does justify treating him differently.

And that's exactly what Polanski's judge and probation officers were inclined to do. The Times reports that the authorities treated Polanski "not so much as a sexual assailant but as ... a normally responsible person who had shown terrible judgment by having sex with a very young, but sophisticated, girl." The probation officers' report "quoted a pair of psychiatrists as saying that Mr. Polanski was not ‘a pedophile,' " and it concluded that his offense "appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant."

That's an entirely reasonable assessment of the incident. There's a difference between pedophilia and taking advantage of somebody who's old enough to be interested in sex but too young to judge the physical and emotional risks of messing around. If the legal officers and moral critics of the 1970s saw that distinction more clearly than we do, the shame is ours.

(See Wednesday's follow-up post on Polanski.)

Sponsored Topics: Crime - United States - Roman Polanski - Pedophilia - Child abuse

Advertisement: National Geographic Channel

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:46:00 GMT

New Series Follows Alaska State Troopers

They’re the first line of defense in the last frontier. Alaska State Troopers, a new series, premieres Wednesday at 10P e/p on Nat Geo. Learn more at
www.natgeotv.com/alaskastatetroopers

Ads by Pheedo

The Beauty of Artificial Virginity

William Saletan — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:14:00 GMT

If you're a woman in a conservative Muslim country, you had better bleed on your wedding night. If you don't, your husband or his family will know you aren't a virgin. For that, you could be beaten or killed.

If you're a man, on the other hand, all you have to do on your wedding night is ejaculate. Nobody expects you to bleed or produce any other proof of virginity.

Some day, this barbaric and hypocritical tradition will end. Until then, the best we can do is fool it. You want blood on your wedding night? We'll give you blood. Fake blood.

For many years, doctors have quietly offered hymenoplasty, a procedure that restores your hymen so you can fake virginity on your wedding night. And now you don't even need a doctor. Joseph Freeman of the Associated Press reports:

The Artificial Virginity Hymen kit, distributed by the Chinese company Gigimo, costs about $30. It is intended to help newly married women fool their husbands into believing they are virgins—culturally important in a conservative Middle East where sex before marriage is considered by many to be illicit. The product leaks a blood-like substance when inserted and broken. Gigimo advertises shipping to every Arab country.

On its Web site, Gigimo explains more about the product:

Artificial Virginity Hymen is created from Kyoto, Japan at 1993. it was first introduced to the locals, then it gets famous and spread to Thailand at 1995 and now available in South East Asia, South Asia and in the Middle East countries. It is mainly made of natural albumin, medical use inflation element and water-soluble base medicinal preparation which have no side effect. Insert this artificial hymen into your vagina carefully. It will expand a little and make you feel tight. When your lover penetrate, it will ooze out a liquid that look like blood not too much but just the right amount. Add in a few moans and groan, you will pass through undetectable.

Outraged Egyptian lawmakers are demanding a ban on the kit. Freeman reports:

Sheik Sayed Askar, a member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood who is on the parliamentary committee on religious affairs, said the kit will make it easier for Egyptian women to give in to temptation. He demanded the government take responsibility for fighting the product. ... Prominent Egyptian religious scholar Abdel Moati Bayoumi said anyone who imports the artificial hymen should be punished. "This product encourages illicit sexual relations. Islamic culture forbids these relations except within the confines of marriage," Bayoumi said. ... "If this thing enters Egypt, the country is going to go to waste. God protect us," commented a reader on the Web site of Egyptian newspaper Al-Youm Al-Sabie.

Pause for a moment to consider what these men are asking God to protect them from: a cheap, mass-produced insert that releases fake blood. It's the technical equivalent of a Halloween gag. But to them, this is no gag. It's an offense against God.

In this way, the artificial hymen serves as a useful test of religious idiocy. If a $30 item that leaks fake blood violates your faith so profoundly that you must ban it, then what you have isn't really a faith. It's a fetish. And your fetish won't survive globalization.

Sex within marriage is a perfectly good idea. It encourages commitment, structures relationships, builds a foundation for society, and secures a healthy environment for raising children. But rigid proscriptions against premarital sex are excessive, futile, and unnecessary. They breed hypocrisy and contempt for authority. In the age of the artificial hymen, you can still preach and practice fidelity. Just don't ask God to protect your sick craving for wedding-night blood. She can't and won't.

Virginity fetishism is doomed, boys. Give it up.

Sponsored Topics: Egypt - Middle East - Islam - Muslim Brotherhood - Kyoto

Hooked on Soda Taxes

William Saletan — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:08:00 GMT

When taxes on cigarettes were first proposed, the revenue was supposed to be used to help smokers quit and to prevent others from starting. But it didn't take politicians long to siphon the money away for other purposes. Now state governments count on cigarette revenue to help fund their budgets. We've all become nicotine-dependent.

Like the tobacco-tax movement, the soda-tax movement began with a rationale of preventing and curing addiction. And like the tobacco-tax movement, it's evolving into a revenue addiction.

More here.

Sponsored Topics: Cigarette - Tobacco smoking - Addiction - Nicotine - Health

No Smoking in Your Apartment

William Saletan — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:39:00 GMT

Two years ago, Belmont, Calif., outlawed smoking in apartments and condos with shared floors or ceilings. Then last year, two New York condo owners sued their neighbor for lighting up in her apartment and "causing smoke to enter into the common hallway." Now comes another court fight: According to the Dallas Morning News, a local woman is suing her ex-neighbor and her ex-landlord "for damage she says was caused by cigarette smoke wafting through adjoining walls of her high-end townhome."

No smoking if you share a floor. No smoking if you share a ceiling. No smoking if you share a wall. That pretty much covers it.

More here.

Sponsored Topics: Cigarette - Tobacco smoking - Health - Tobacco - Specific Substances

The Abortion Coverage Dilemma

William Saletan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:27:00 GMT

The argument being made by pro-choice groups is perfectly logical: If you standardize health insurance through federal subsidies and coverage requirements, people might lose benefits they used to enjoy in the private sector. But that's more than an argument against excluding abortion. It's an argument against health-care reform altogether. The left's argument against abortion exclusion is the right's argument against socialization.

More here.

Sponsored Topics: Pro-choice - Insurance - Health insurance - Abortion - Healthcare reform