Mortality Blog

A large study in Uganda involving 5,534 men found that those who underwent circumcision as adults were 25 percent less likely to become infected with herpes and more than 30 percent less likely to catch human papillomavirus (HPV) than their uncircumcised peers…. Previous research has shown that circumcision reduces a man’s risk of acquiring HIV by as much as 60 percent.

Male Circumcision Cuts Risk of HIV, Herpes, and HP Transmission [blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats]

MALE CIRCUMCISION FENDS OFF THE MOST COMMON STDS [sciencenews.org]

This is an interesting fact to learn - but I won’t be surprised when pro-circumcision groups cite this study as strengthening their argument against foreskin retention. It’s unfortunate, because even if circumcision protected males 100% against HIV, I’d still be very basically against the practice, since it would still fall squarely under preventative surgery. People who have their appendix or tonsils removed at birth have a 0% chance of developing appendicitis or tonsillitis - so why isn’t it common medical practice to have those organs removed at birth, along with the foreskin? You can live without them - but why would you want to, if it’s not necessary? In the case of a man’s foreskin, attention paid to sexual partners and use of contraception can provide 99.99% protection against all kinds of STDs, fluid-transmitted especially. Which is better - to snip off some of the most sensitive skin on a boy’s body at birth, or make sure they’ve got easy access to condoms when they’re teenagers?

I’ve got to admit that a little bit of my incredulity over the implication of the results of this study is the countries that it targets - it wasn’t conducted in the United States, and there are a lot of socio-economic factors that additionally influence infection rates. But even if that weren’t the case, I would feel the same way: that despite the latest revelations about the benefits of this practice, it’s still completely unnecessary, and arguable more harmful then helpful.

Okay, so the whole point of the Mortality Blog is that I have less then 80 years to live, and I think there’s a few things that I’ve run up against in my life that might be good for other people to see my thoughts on.

That said - how do I put this? I experienced an intriguing conflict of interests today. It’s a pretty stellar example of something that I’ve really only had the privilege of being exposed to a few times - a girl more or less explicitly asking me to sleep with her. In this case, it was someone attractive, someone smart and funny and cute and all that, but a girl nonetheless - and despite being comfortable in my relative lack of interest in that sort of thing, I realized that I felt bad, in a ‘I’m letting someone down’ sort of ‘not meeting expectations’ sort of way. Which is total bullshit - how many times have I protested that responsibility can only be accepted, not assigned, and that I feel that I’m under no circumstances obligated to follow cultural conventions regarding romance?

And yet - not saying, “Yes!” felt bad. In my head, I know that it wouldn’t have gone well - it would’ve just been disappointing to both of us. And yet there’s this sort of distinctly masculine cultural responsibility that I found myself aware of, where a guy is supposed to sleep with a girl especially if she really wants it. And I was failing at that duty.

It’s times like this that make some of my gay friend’s humorous accusations that I’m a straight man with a penis fetish seem just a little bit accurate - there are plenty of girls with whom I would gladly flirt if only there wasn’t this more or less inescapable reality of a vagina laying in wait. It seemed like a lot to explain to this particular girl, considering my general reluctance to bring this sort of thing up due to my cultural obligation aversion, but it was striking - how many times do I actually have reason to momentarily regret my sexual tastes? Not very often.

Anyway, it seemed interesting, and like I said, if anyone feels like taking a peek into my head, this is the sort of stuff that tumbles around like a wet load of clothes in a dryer.

It depicts a white protagonist going into an apparently poverty-stricken village (the location is unspecified) and killing throngs of black zombified men and women (see the trailer yourself)…

What was not funny, but sort of interesting, was that there were so many gamers who could not at all see it. Like literally couldn’t see it. So how could you have a conversation with people who don’t understand what you’re talking about and think that you’re sort of seeing race where nothing exists?

- Newsweek’s N’Gai Croal On The ‘Resident Evil 5′ Trailer: ‘This Imagery Has A History’ [multiplayerblog.mtv.com]

Let me help you out, N’Gai Croal - the reason so many gamers can’t see it is because it’s all in your head. It’s totally subjective. The trailer depicts the main character of a zombie killing game, killing zombies. The setting is some sort of impoverished african village. The zombies are zombies. This isn’t racism, it’s a classic zombie situation.

There was stuff like even before the point in the trailer where the crowd turned into zombies. There sort of being, in sort of post-modern parlance, they’re sort of “othered.” They’re hidden in shadows, you can barely see their eyes, and the perspective of the trailer is not even someone who’s coming to help the people. It’s like they’re all dangerous; they all need to be killed. It’s not even like one cute African — or Haitian or Caribbean — child could be saved. They’re all dangerous men, women and children. They all have to be killed.

It’s called ‘foreshadowing’ - the village is full of spooky looking people because they’re going to turn into zombies. No, you can’t spare any of them, because they’re zombies! Lack of redemption and compassion does not make this racist. Let me take a moment to brainstorm situations in which the game would be racist:

1. If the black people became zombies because being black they were too stupid to avoid getting infected
2. If the black people were zombies in the first place because only black people, having inferior physique and poor personal hygiene, are naturally more zombie-infection-prone.
3. If the protagonist called them ‘niggers’ as he was shooting them between the eyes.

Actually, even the last example wouldn’t make the game racist - it’d make the main character racist. It’d make the audience uneasy about their avatar in the game - they’d enjoy the thrill of making him fight his way through waves of zombies, but be a little uncomfortable with his overt bigotry. It could be an important lesson in the grey area of morality.

If it had been me in that situation, I wouldn’t have put out a trailer like that. I think it’s very easy to misunderstand what that game is about based on that trailer.

No kidding.

This is an interesting point, one which I think I agree with… at least for the first two sentences.

” What’s with the label? Gay rights. Do they need seperate rights? Do they need a gay Bill of Rights, and a gay right to vote too? Please. Irony is not the fact that tolerant peoples do not want the legislation passed. Irony is the fact that Gays don’t want to be singled out and labeled, yet they have their own community (gay community), and they want Gay rights. Wow - I am going to start telling people I want White rights…i want a fair share and have people not worry more about minorities than me. I am an individual, just like everyone else. I want equal, white rights, too. Ironic…Don’t you think? ”

Gay-rights advocates press for change in N.D. law [bismarcktribune.com], comment by ‘Dante’s Inferno’

Kind of weird how he (apparently inadvertently) points out that the struggle for ‘gay rights’ is really a struggle for ‘equality’ and ‘civil rights,’ period - but then he immediately makes these sweeping generalizations about the ‘Gays’ (with a capital ‘G’) who ‘want Gay rights’, which he says is as ridiculous as ‘Whites’ wanting ‘White Rights’. Which is right - but he’s not saying it in a very considerate way. I wonder if one of my few concessions to political correctness is attempting to keep generalizations concerning characteristics of ‘groups’ of people to a minimum?

Do things like this scare other people? An article on digg.com talks about a russian kid who attacks his sister’s rapist with a knife, inflicting 8 stab wounds before being killed by the rapist. That’s heroism, unquestionably, and in my book a totally acceptable level of violence for a situation like that: the guy was trying to rape his sister, so the boy stabbed him; the boy was stabbing the guy, so the guy killed him. It makes sense.

But the comments are where things go wrong:

What a tragical story! I’m usually a pacifist, but I would condemn all those pedophiles with a death sentence!

- sanela86

I heard a story from a Russian woman. She talked about Russian prisons. She told me that it is sufficient to lock the criminal up into prison and inform the other prisoners about his crime. They will pay daily attention to him and no prison guard will disturb them. Normally those criminals hang-up themselves within a few months.

- Wulffy

Pretty much the same in the US. Child-murders and rapists are usually dealt with…appropriately…in prison.

- AriaStar

To begin with, you can’t have it both ways. Is rape morally acceptable, or not? This is almost exactly like the death penalty - is it okay to murder people in cold blood, or not? Non-consensual sexual acts are obviously morally reprehensible, regardless of the circumstances. The victim never ‘deserves it’ - because if they ‘deserve it’ in prison, it’s a real slippery slope towards ‘deserving it’ outside of prison too. This disgusting cheer-leading for prison rape as ‘justice’ is totally sickening - and terrifying.

I’m almost afraid to contemplate the possibility that criminal vengeance has become a source of entertainment in our culture - we like seeing the bad guys get handcuffed, smacked around, pepper-spray, and tazered. Do we really take pleasure in the knowledge that people are being raped, or killed? Can we really call this ‘justice’? This is where ‘moral police’-like groups come from - citizen vigilante militia that violently enforce their own behavioral restrictions in spite of the freedoms provided to citizens by law.

Blog title is a song reference, see Shiny Toy Guns’ latest album ‘Year of Poisen’, track 1. This is probably one of the first blog posts I’ve written that I’ve (briefly) considered keeping to myself - it’s really just me talking about me, but I figure that you, my friends, are probably nearly as interested in me as I am, and that complete strangers certainly don’t have anything to lose. It’s kind of rambling, as usual.

So - after reading an incredibly good book (Spanking Shakespeare by Jake Wizner) I’m thinking about typical highschool experiences, and how I missed out on some major classics: drinking, drugs, parties, and dating. Or rather, I’m wondering, did I miss out?

Obviously, since highschool, I feel like I’ve more then caught up - and while I rarely regret any past actions, I do wonder a bit about how I might be different if I’d been exposed to some of that stuff before college - or, honestly, before working at CMD, ha ha. I mean, if I’d had a date to the prom, smoked some weed in the parking lot before we went in, spiked the punch or whatever, laughed at whoever was crowed prom king, then drove up to Mt Tabor to fuck around and drink tequila, where would that leave me today? Socially, things never really lined up - I was too nervous about the repercussions of being gay in highschool to ever really persue any romantic interest, and all my friends were straight, anyway. Well, not that a lot has changed since then - my sexual preference is pretty low-key, and my sparse encounters with the ‘gay scene’ have been disapointing. Most of my friends are pretty straight, and I don’t even remember who ‘knows’, ha ha, which might be because I just don’t care, or perhaps because it almost always sounds forced to me - like I’m trying to come out of the closet, when I don’t think that should even be necessary.

But what if I’d had all that stereotypical stuff - maybe not even a boyfriend, just a somewhat gay friend, a fuck buddy, perhaps, who I went to dances with and got super drunk with? It feels like it would’ve been totally out of character - but honestly I’d always wanted to get a taste of that sort of lifestyle, but wasn’t ever really assertive enough to seek it out. Now I wonder if my parent’s hypothetical “you’re not old enough to be doing that” response might’ve been right? I’m egotistical to think that i have a fairly supreme outlook on life and people and things in general - would I have developed it if I’d partied my way through senior year and into college? I don’t know, it’s like there’s a weird parallel universe version of me, who’s probably pretty simliar, but not quite the same as the me that’s writing this. I don’t believe in the theory about alternate universes constantly fractalling out every time a choice is made, but it’s an appealing concept. I’m attracted to that idea of there being more of me, ha ha.

The reason that this has relevance and isn’t just fanciful speculation is that it has bearing on how I make decissions today, and in the future. Should I be more adventurous? (another music reference, whee!) I might just feel this way because of the group of people I hang out with, but getting drunk, high, sleeping with guys, and living in a house with some friends and owning all this stuff just seems like a normal thing to do - it’s not really an accomplishment. All of these things were sort of milestones, in my mind, and yet they’re pedestrian to people a few years older then me. They would’ve been pedestrian to people a few years younger, even. So is that something that I’m concerned about? Reaching sort of cultural milestones, being recgonized for ‘being ahead’ by my peers?

I think it’s one of those rare occasions where peer pressure, societal pressure, cultural expectations, and maybe even basic animal instinct slip through my otherwise expertly maintained self-confidence - not even to the point where it degrades the trust I have for myself, but at least to the point where I occasionally question it. Why don’t I have a boyfriend? Why didn’t I try harder to stay at CMD? When I think about stuff like that, I can’t help thinking back to being younger, to a few of my brief often nerve-wracking encounters with girls, and my petty little spats with teachers - I’ve always been mulish about submitting to authority, especially if doing so would make me uncomfortable, or if I perceive that I’m being coerced into a decision. I’ve always second-guessed myself like crazy when it comes to starting and maintaining relationships - my ideals, my hunches, and vauge notions of cultural expectations all collide and leave me fumbling for the right thing to say, or the right move to make. And yet, despite all that, it doesn’t really bother me. I mean, thinking about it at this moment, it certainly seems like a big systemic problem in my life, but an hour from now it’ll be completely gone from my mind - I won’t lose any sleep over it.

Actually, the swing between not caring and caring, frank examination and frank indeference, is probably worth thinking about as well. Am I not interested in striking up a romantic relationship because I already lead a fulfilling life, or have I convinced myself that my life is fulfilling because I never had what I would consider a real ‘going out on dates’ relationship, and I’m 22? That sounds like the sort of thing that cultural expectations would interject into my thought process, and there is the overwhelming evidence that the subject only rarely surfaces in my near-nightly introspective pondering (again, is it because I have trouble sleeping, or a cause of my trouble sleeping?) and if I hardly ever devote much thought to it, can it really be that important to me? I think more about dying then I do about dating, and I try to think about dying as little as possible due to my fear of mortality (which this mortality blog refers to.)

… after writing all this, I kind of wonder what my motivation is. Do I have a somewhat compulsive desire to inform my fellow members of humanity that I’m gay, haven’t had a real date in forever, didn’t drink or smoke at all until I started working at CMD, and et cetera? Are these really all important factors that contribute to Matt Lohkamp? They must be - I mean, they seem kind of tame, but I’ve pretty explicitly identified them as important to me, what with all this thought I’m putting into them. My guess would be that it’s cathartic more then anything else - that was such a freaking good book I just read, and the main character sort of got his whole screwed up life together at the end, and now I kind of wonder if I’m in the process of doing that too. Well, my life isn’t exactly screwed up, though. Actually, it’s probably a sort of preliminary life story telling - I would’ve discussed any of this with anyone, if that conversation had happened, but if it does now, it’ll be easier because I’ve essentially already talked it out pretty thoroughly. I actually do that quite a bit - carry on long hypothetical conversations with myself, or play out hypothetical events, all in my head, and I’m honestly not sure if doing that ahead of time helps me any when the situations or conversation actually occurs - it’s more likely that it just calms me down if I’m nervous about something.

To end, I’m going to tell a story about one of my first almost-girlfriends, one of the crazy ones. We walked down the dark path to the beach, where the ocean crashed invisibly against the sand, and we huddled together next to a driftwood log. In between french kissing, she told me that she saw ghosts, and spirits, and angels, and devils. I felt incredibly akward, because I didn’t believe in any of that stuff (despite the fact that we were both currently attending a christian church camp.) She went on about how demons had come after her while she was talking to her counselor, and they had held hands and prayed, and a white sheet had fallen around them that protected them from their supernatural assailents. I wasn’t really sure if I wanted to kiss more, or maybe try having sex (I might’ve been a virgin at that point, I don’t remember), or if I wanted to seriously debate the existence of angels. I wasn’t brave enough to make any sort of sexual moves, or to do the conversation thing (she was a cool person to hang out with, appart from the semi-girlfriend thing, and this new supernatural revelation) so I opted for more kissing. A year or two later I told her I was gay, and she told me that she was bi.

Good story. The character in that book I just finished was supposed to write his memoirs as a senior highschool assignment - and I for sure would like to give that a try. I wonder - would I change the names to protect the innocent?

Would you get upset if you witnessed an act of racism? A new study published Thursday in the journal Science suggests many people unconsciously harbor racist attitudes, even though they see themselves as tolerant and egalitarian.

 - You may be more racist than you think, study says [cnn.com]

In short, a group of people were chosen to watch a white person interact with a black person. First the interaction was neutral, second it was racist, and finally the racism was more strongly expressed (whitey dropped the ‘nigger bomb’.) Immediately afterwards, the observers were asked to choose either the white peson or the black person for an ‘anagram test’ (whatever that is), and most chose the white person, “regardless of the severity of the comment that person made earlier.”

It goes on to point out that a second group who only experienced the interaction and partner-picking as a hypothetical situation was more likely to choose the white person if they acted racially neutral, but less likely if they were openly racist.

“Some people might think that they’re very egalitarian and they don’t have to deal with their prejudices, and that’s not related to them at all, when in actual fact they may hold these hidden biases,” Kawakami said.

The study is consistent with decades of psychology [cnn's link] research pointing to the same thing: People are really bad at predicting their own actions in socially sensitive situations.

This seems like total jumping-to-conclusions bullshit. Are the confusing racial preference for racial bigotry? In a situation where you’re supposed to choose between a white person and a black person, all other things being equal, then I guess the chances could be fifty-fifty, but I can’t see how all other things would ever be equal. Maybe the observer’s didn’t take the white person’s racial comment seriously - I know I wouldn’t. I can’t really imagine someone saying, “clumsy nigger” and meaning it. If they seemed like they were serious, I’d definitly be less likely to pick them as a partner, I suppose.

But I would say that in general I’m more attracted to white people. That doesn’t make me racist. It would be racist if I believed that people with lighter skin were more beutiful universally -but I don’t, I know that it’s just my own opinion. There’s plenty of good looking black guys, and girls, but by ‘default’ the white people are more attractive. Could something like that factor into the choice the test participants made? If I had thought that the one guy was racist, I probably would’ve said something, in a joking tone, to see if they really were serious. “Black people typically bump in to you?” “Did you really just say ‘clumsy nigger?’” If they were serious, I’d argue with them about it, if they weren’t, I’d let it go.

Yeah. This test is just poorly thought out. Making comments that could be construed as racist and then guessing at the impact those comments have on a decision process involving the commentor and an observer it way too abstract - an overtly racist act, on the other hand, such as lying to a black person but not to a white person, would most likely produce markedly different reactions.

In life, we commonly default to holding a certain opinion or view, prompted by a myriad of factors including the culture of all the groups with which we associate ourselves (our family, our neighborhood, our city, our country, our religion, our sexuality, et cetera) and these in turn inform our choice of actions. Without exposure to new concepts, some of which may contradict things we’ve come to assume are indisputable, we’re stuck with those default beliefs, often to our detriment. Social progress is fueled by new ideas, and personal wisdom likewise results from the process of critically examining new information and choosing to incorporate new elements into our existing world-view. What we eat is obviously as much a product of that process as anything else – but sometimes we have trouble giving honest consideration to the viability of anything less then ‘free omnivorism’, the practice of eating whatever you like. We’re familiar with and grudgingly accept the necessity of expanding or limiting your diet for health reasons, but we treat a doctor’s recommendation to avoid steak in order to guard against a heart attack differently from PETA’s recommendation to avoid leather because of the violence surrounding its creation.

The decision to exercise self control concerning what you eat, wear, and use is a difficult one to make, to the point that many people almost refuse to consider it at all – as though their omnivore status were sacred, unimpeachable, and that the thought of anything less then unabridged freedom of food (much less strict veganism) is actually threatening. When asked to justify your animal consumption, it’s easy to get defensive, easy to ridicule the petitioner later around the barbecue with your meat-eating buddies. In addition. Even if you were to declare that from this day forth never more would you touch anything made from an animal, the amount of research and diligence required to maintain this resolution would seem prohibitive. If it were easy to tell which items contained animal products and which were ‘clean’, it’s likely that the indignant ‘I’ll eat whatever I want!’ attitude would persist, despite the removal of the ‘research and diligence’ barrier. So what is it about the subject that gets us so worked up?

Brainstorming reasons that self-assured omnivores would reject a philosophy of less-inclusive dining doesn’t take much imagination: jealous stubbornness, knowing the ‘right’ thing to do but being unable to do it because it’d involve admitting that they’d been doing the ‘wrong’ thing prior; honest hedonism, accepting the reality of the impact of their decisions and choosing their own pleasure over the condition of the animals sacrificed to facilitate those pleasurable experiences; or maybe even a belief in man’s superiority over lower life-forms, possibly outlined through the popular beliefs of the previously-mentioned groups with which they associate themselves. All this, to justify a course of action which undeniably involves the planned creation and subsequent destruction of life, a situation which abstracted would only be found acceptable by sociopaths. Despite this, animal-rights activists face derision and dismissal, and despite their best efforts, only about 3 percent of adults in the United States (as of 2008) have ‘converted’, or chosen to become a vegetarian. On the one hand, it seems strange that such a friendly, environmentally responsible ethos would fail to catch on – on the other, the fact of its lack of general appeal suggests that the afore-mentioned attributes (stubbornness, hedonism, and superiority) are substantially more powerful motivators then ‘environmental responsibility’.

This determination to disregard alternate points of view ‘out of principle’ is not at all a mature one – and possibly sets a dangerous precedent. Once presented with an alternate point of view, critical-thinking individuals are given the choice to reconsider what has been up to this point a (possibly unconscious) acceptance of (default) cultural norms. When faced with our own reasoning for continuing the consumption of animal products, can we really justify our actions? Biologically speaking, we are perfectly capable of maintaining a comfortable existence in an environment untouched by the ‘use’ of animals. Therefore any benefits or drawbacks concerning consumer preferences in this area are in our own heads, and a matter of morality rather then survival. Defining the essential distinction between humans and animals is a tricky task; Life itself is variously defined, somewhat akin to Justice Potter Stewart’s well-known statement of defiance: “I know it when I see it.” Debate over birth control, abortion, capital punishment, and even riot-control or military operations is an indicator of the wide range of opinions people hold on the subject, and it follows that the debate concerning ‘animal rights’ would be just as complex. Inasmuch as everyone would likely agree that animals are ‘alive’, it would be impossible to get them to consense on the definitive ‘rights’ that living bestows.

Once you’ve decided what constitutes a ‘protected’ form of life, there are a couple of common outlooks to explore: An ‘anti-capitalist’ view encourages safe, fair raising and slaughtering of ‘crop’ animals, and seeks to punish companies that ‘torture’ or use ‘creative marketing’ to sell products that are not what they seem; While ‘animal-lovers’ are opposed to the practice of causing harm to animals in general, and lobby for the complete cessation of ‘animal abuse’. Some people have trouble avoiding getting caught up in ‘what it means’ to be a member of whichever group they share an ethos with, and it’s important to keep in mind that your own personal decision to restrict your animal product consumption is distinct from the activism you choose to engage in – that is, whether you ‘preach what your practice’. The reluctance to participate in activities stereotypically associated with a more strict policy on using animals is another stumbling block that potential ‘converts’ encounter, as the decision to accept an ‘identity’ that is casually ridiculed in your culture is a difficult one.

Ultimately, regardless of how you settle on your views concerning the commodification and subsequent consumption of animals, it’s important to remember that in the grand scheme of things, the marketplace decisions of the average person impact the world on roughly the same scale as voting in a national election – it’s a very small drop in a very big bucket, and yet ironically it’s important (and socially responsible) to act as though it did matter. If your goal for changing the way you consume is merely to satisfy your own moral qualms, then you have a responsibility only to yourself to stay ‘on the wagon’, but if your goal involves a fundamental change in the way that the meat industry operates then you’ve got a responsibility to be an activist, and spread your view to others. Alone, your vote counts for little – in a group, you’re at least a little more effective, and as the number of people you’ve convinced to join you in your protest of the cultural acceptability of animal product consumption grows, so does your power to change things.

Whether you decide to limit your animal product usage or not, whether you decide to become an activist or not, it’s important to make an informed, purposeful decision regarding your feelings on the subject, as with any subject. Everyone has a culturally ‘default’ preference concerning animal consumption, but as a mature individual you have a responsibility to ultimately make your own decisions regarding your actions, and to remain open when others share their own views with you.

Works Cited:

Jasper, James. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography,

and Creativity in Social Movements. University of Chicago Press, 1999.

“How Many People Order Vegetarian Meals When Eating Out?” <http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2008issue3/restaurantpoll.pdf>

The Vegetarian Times “Vegetarianism in America” 2008

Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964)

Has anyone else read “the book of the skulls” by Robert Silverberg? towards the end, in order to attain immortality, four of the main characters are tasked with revealing to one another the worst thing they’ve done in their entire life, the secret shame that they’re haunted by.

So I’ve been thinking - what would I say, if I were in that situation? Right away, I can think of a few times in the past where I’ve been a complete asshole, to a somewhat uncharacteristic extent. If you know me, you might try to guess - but I doubt you’ll get it right. One time in particular, perhaps, that I completely regret. But I’m not sure that I’d call it my ’secret shame’, or my cross that I’ve born for however many years. I’ve sort of made peace with it - not forgotten about it, exactly, but just accepted it as a mistake I made before I was as smart as I am now, and moved on.

Thinking about the things I’ve done that I regret brings up an interesting point: things that I’ve done that I don’t regret. It’s a little bit of sociopathy, in the ‘Dissocial personality disorder’ sense of the term - “Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.” [wikipedia]. I mean, I’ve done some stuff that’s not only illegal, but ‘morally reprehensible’ according to the average person. But I don’t think it was wrong for me to do so, regret it, or even feel the need to stop myself from doing it in the future. Once again, if you know me you might be able to guess it, but I doubt you’ll hit on the one in particular i’m thinking of.

So if I’m in the situation that the main characters of “The Book of the Skulls” find themselves in, which do I confess? The choice that I regret making but am at peace with, or the choice that I don’t regret but most other people would find totally reprehensible?