This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Let's talk about infant male circumcision. Common in the United States, considered beastly in most European countries. But they don't spend much time criticizing the United States about it, perhaps due to fear of being called anti-semitic.
Reasons not to do it:
The foreskin has functions
Bad for the infant's brain due to inadequate aenesthesia
Complications ranging from meatal stenosis to more grisly and life-changing outcomes
Etc etc
Anyway, besides just introducing a topic I believe is underdiscussed both on the Motte and in general, my questions are this:
How do you rate the importance of this issue relative to commonly discussed culture war stuff? If it is true that circumcision is a serious violation akin to rape, then it seems very very important.
and
Does anyone on this board support routine infant circumcision, or is this thread just going to be full of a lot of devil's advocate stuff?
I think of all the decisions a parent has over their child's life, circumcision is a relatively small one. Parents have the power to completely fuck over their children without it remotely qualifying as anything illegal or even justifiable to have the child taken away. The only way for the world to function is for society to assume parents have their biological children's best interests at heart, which they do 99% of the time. If parents think, "I predict my child would want to be circumcised as an adult", I think they should be allowed to go through with it, because the evidence is strong that adult circumcision greatly reduces sexually pleasure, where as the evidence that circumcision as a baby reduces sexual pleasure is weak.
There are other benefits to foreskin removal as well, like hygiene and having effects on preventing STD spread. Enough that I don't think not being circumcised is overwhelmingly better, even if on net it's probably better.
In conclusion, I think hospitals should tell parents "Are you sure you want circumcision? Here are a lot of the negative effects", and if the parents say yes anyways, it happens.
Isn't it immediately suspicious to you that the group most emphatic that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure is the only group that has tried it both ways?
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think society functions any less well when we admit that parents can get it wrong out of stupidity, laziness, pressure to conformity, or more serious issues. Parents have their kids' best interest at heart.. and yet there are a lot of fat kids.
That's why I suggested we have hospitals educate parents on the negative effects, because parents are dumb sometimes. But going any further than that would be too far. We don't take children from their parents because their parents let them get fat either.
More options
Context Copy link
There are also a lot of fat government health officials.
Sure, and I think governments would tend to do a lot worse. But I won't refrain from criticising people out of fear that it could give ammo to the wrong people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense. You acknowledge that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure in adults, which makes intuitive sense being that it removes a portion of the penis that contains a huge proportion of the total nerve endings, provides lubrication, and protects the glans from keratinization. Why would you need special evidence that this also applies to people who are circumcised as babies, and what evidence would possibly satisfy you? How would you possibly distinguish between "this has no effect on pleasure" and "they couldn't possibly know the difference, because they grew up without their foreskin"?
More options
Context Copy link
Not that circumcision is that important, but - say we took this approach with 'lead paint', or unregulated medicine for serious medical conditions, or, when polio was widespread, polio vaccines. It doesn't really make sense.
I'm circumcised. On balance, I would rather not have been, so let's say I was "harmed" by the practice. In what way was that harm analogous to the harm inflicted by lead paint or unregulated medicine for serious medical conditions, or polio?
I appreciate that the term "harm" can be applied to both. Why is doing so useful?
I'm disagreeing with the principle OP stated, while agreeing with circumcision being bad, and also agreeing it's low priority for legislation or banning relative to things like lead paint or unregulated medicine.
Society functions in places where homeschooling is illegal i.e. some form of regulated schooling is mandatory, and mandatory schooling seems to be not assuming that parents have their childrens' best interests at heart. Now, this is bad in particular, in large part because schooling is bad, but it shows that the world can 'function' despite that - and, even if most parents did have their childrens' "best interests" at heart, they may disagree on what those interests are (cheap, but "it's in my child's interests to transition!") or be too incompetent to promote said interests effectively.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well this seems like a good time to do the standard rationalist technique "what evidence could convince you otherwise".
What evidence could convince you that infant circumcision reduces sexual pleasure?
Because it seems to me like once you understand what the foreskin does and how sex is different without it, how could it not?
It's been a while since I've last done reading on it, but I've been given to understand that there have been studies done where comparing how circumcised at birth and non-circumcised males rate how much they enjoy sex, they give similar results. This is in contrast to female circumcision, where circumcised females rate it lower. If you have some studies, preferably that have been endorsed by professionals as non-BS since I can't determine if studies are BS myself very well, that suggest circumcised males do enjoy sex less, it would change my mind.
My theory is that the brain is flexible, especially in babies, and can adapt pleasure centers to make up for lack of foreskin so sex is just as good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I always hear hygiene and STDs trotted out in these arguments, but I'm somewhat skeptical that it actually matters. Are these really significant in the day and age of regular bathing, and ubiquitous condoms? Like, sure, in Africa, I'm sure it makes a big difference, where HIV ravages something like 1/3 of the population. But in the USA? If there is a small to medium chance that circumcision actually does reduce male sensation, then hygiene and STDs are not enough to make me think circumcision is worth it, at least in the USA and other modernized countries.
It's also worth noting that proponents of female circumcision claim that there are significant health benefits that outweigh the downsides of that, too. But no one outside the countries where it's practiced thinks that that should matter at all to the question of the ethics of FGM.
I'm not going to discuss any specific studies because I don't want to google them. However, I'll echo my memory of the STD transmission rate in Africa being affected by circumcision.
I understand and sympathize with the anti-circumcision argument. I've just found that there's a big disconnect between the people I know in real life vs. internet advocates and the fringe-case traumatized victims. My buddies who are uncut, overall, wish they had been. None of my friends who are regret it or feel less whole. From a practical perspective cleaning your penis is a hell of a lot easier without folds. Sex becomes more complicated with potential rips etc. Oral isn't as straightforward for someone to perform. Once again this is anecdotal but a collection of minor inconveniences.
And then there's the final nail in the coffin for me which is female preference. Life isn't fair. What women want is what men give. There are entire illogical swaths of our society built around it. The accumulation of currency and power is, in my view, largely driven by concerns around sexual access. A significant percentage of American women prefer uncut cock and wishing / hoping they'll change their minds about it if we just stop circumcision is a pipe dream.
Nobody I know remembers being circumcised, but uncut buddies have an uphill battle getting laid. The risk of a botched procedure etc. seems low to me compared to the certainty of reduced sexual opportunities.
It's not that hard either way.
More options
Context Copy link
How many of your friends have a basis for comparison? There may be a certain "ignorance is bliss" thing for most men. My attention first got turned to the subject when I heard from gay circumcised friends who had slept with uncircumcised guys, and said that there is a major difference in sexual function and perceived pleasure.
I'm sure women would adapt. I also think that most women probably don't even think about penises enough to have a preference once way or the other.
... No appreciable number of people have this experience. Of course there's an "ignorance is bliss" component, I have no idea what it's like to have foreskin beyond when I was younger and had different skin/head ratios. I can tell you I didn't like the feeling but that doesn't mean anything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I seriously doubt this, given how easy it is to get this done as an adult. Maybe they’re just trying to spare the feelings of their cut friends who have no recourse. Cognitive dissonance does strange things and once you realize you have zero ability to get something it suddenly makes you okay with having a chunk of your genitals missing.
Speaking as an uncut guy with >40 partners in their history, el oh el.
Why would anyone go through circumcision as an adult? There's no fucking way I'm having elective penis surgery, even if there were a couple of women who wouldn't go down on me for it.
It's obvious this is a sensitive subject for a lot of people here. If you don't want to hear other opinions you should probably be on a different forum. I took researching this and discussing it with a variety of people pretty seriously since I actually had to make the call for my kid. Anyone saying it's clear-cut or obvious doesn't get it.
So you’d rather force it on unconsenting babies? Seems kind of a strange contradiction. At least with adults you can get anesthesia, unlike infants.
It’s not a sensitive subject for me personally I just had to point out how skewed your perspective is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link