site banner
practical_romantic  2yr ago (text post)   3640 thread views

Wellness Wednesday for September 21, 2022

The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:

Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.

Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.

Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.

Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

At a Q&A I asked Scott Alexander if he was going to circumcise his kid and said he was in favor of it and his wife was against it. I'll be honest, I'm kind of shaken. I'm sometimes able to argue persuasively against male genital mutilation, but I wasn't on that day. I sort of made a fool of myself, I guess. It's a painful subject for me.

It's also just kind of shocking and dismaying, because I think that noticing that male genital mutilation is bad is something almost anyone with basic rationality skills should probably be able to notice, and he didn't. Now I want to ask Yudkowsky. I'll choose my words more carefully.

He mentioned the adversarial collaboration on SSC on the subject, which to me had a lot of obvious holes and flaws in it.

Purposes of the foreskin:

  1. Prevents the covered skin from contacting clothing. Clothing contact desensitizes the penis through a process called keratinization. If you're circumcised, you'll notice that the circumcision scar and the places below the scar are what's sensitive, and everything above that isn't very sensitive. That's not normal.

  2. The foreskin has densely packed nerve endings.

  3. The foreskin provides lubrication, both through natural lubricant and through a gliding motion.

  4. Protective against health conditions including meatal stenosis.

I can also rebut the purported positive outcomes of circumcision, and talk about the risks of the procedure. I have videos of men with botched circumcisions talking about their suffering.

I don't really want to get into a debate about circumcision here. I just wanted to provide an example of what someone arguing the point looks like.

My question is this: Is anyone else shocked/saddened that Scott is pro-cutting?

I was circumcised at around 7 or 8 due to phimosis, or so my parents thought. I don't really recall being inconvenienced in the least, so when I had surgery for appendicitis, and woke up missing my foreskin, I certainly was bemused to say the least! My brother had a similar issue, but he grew out of it, and still rocks a hooded cobra.

I don't know if it had any effect on sexual enjoyment, I still enjoy it as much as any red blooded young man. I am mildly thankful that I don't have to worry so much about keeping a foreskin clean, the idea of dick cheese/smegma is a nightmare haha.

Since there's no tradition of circumcision in my culture, I have little to no interest in circumcising my kids, unless medically indicated. However, it wasn't too painful, I had to go around for a week holding up my pants till the skin healed and the crust fell off, but overall it's not a particularly traumatic event or one I worry about. As a doctor, I certainly appreciate my circumcised patients, much easier to insert a catheter without faffing about retracting the foreskin!

Next time you're masturbating, pay attention to what parts are sensitive and what parts aren't. I think you'll find that only the circumcision scar and everything below it are sensitive.

As somebody who did it after puberty, this is definitely not true, at least not for me, and I didn't feel any noticeable loss of function after, compared to what it was before. Of course, individual effects may vary, I can only talk about my own experience here.

Hmm? Not really. I have sensation in the glans, it's much less sensitive than it used to be (I remember the sensation of it rubbing against clothing being unbearable just after the circumcision), but it's not numb, far from it.

I prefer being stimulated on the shaft, by a large margin, but I wouldn't say that the glans or the margin is useless. I'm pretty sure uncircumcised guys also use their shaft more than the glans, not that I was old enough to try that when it happened.

Scott hosted an ACC about circumcision several years ago, where IMO the pro- side came out stronger.

From yud:

Just to be extremely explicit because other mortals seem to miss the most obvious implications sometimes: hurting a week-old child can still have lasting effects on a mind that will later become conscious and experience suffering then. Circumcisions are still crimes.

Life is suffering -- might as well get used to it early. (I speak from experience, and not circumcision related either -- circumcision is trivial compared to the pain experienced by some infants.)

The sense in which life is suffering calls us to be terribly careful, like trying to solve an almost impossible problem that you can’t help but accurately register your current progress at.

Craving for a lack of suffering is still a craving -- not to mention impossible to provide. The (physical) suffering only increases as you age. I say again, you might as well become accustomed to it as soon as you can.

This seems like a fairly distorted rationalisation for circumcision. I experienced quite a huge amount of pain myself, both in infancy and in adolescence (neither of the instances I'm referring to were circumcision-based either, since I haven't ever had it done to me), yet I would not in any way condone a situation where suffering is purposefully inflicted on an infant. Especially by the very people tasked with caring for it. That is effectively what circumcision is, regardless of the true intent of the individuals involved.

The idea here isn't "It is feasible to eliminate every source of suffering from a person's life". Even if you hold the belief that some amount of suffering is inevitable in any human life, that's not incompatible whatsoever with "You should not be intentionally adding to that by inflicting suffering on someone against their will". Any line of reasoning that states that suffering is inevitable, thus it is trivial and of no consequence whenever it is inflicted, can literally be used to justify not only circumcision but also torture and all manner of atrocities.

"So what, I pulled off your fingernails? That's trivial compared to the pain experienced by other people!" Technically true, but it makes it no less morally reprehensible. And disregarding the physical and mental toll it can take simply because of the existence of other potentially unpreventable sources of suffering is incoherent. If someone had to endure one painful, traumatic event as opposed to two, I think anybody would prefer the former.

Good catch! I should have done a twitter search.

How this is "Wellness"? It smells a lot like CW.

Not really shocked or saddened. Scott may put his rationalist persona in the foreground, but in the end he's a human like any other - unreasonable to the extreme in any area he's not actively dedicated to reasoning his way through. And people usually avoid reasoning out anything if the process would be painful to them, which I guess it would be for someone who is likely circumcised himself and has a strong cultural attachment to the practice.

This doesn't really change anything. I'd never circumcise my child, advise anyone to do it or even condone it...but it's one of those little atrocities that people commit daily that's also just not significant enough to not tolerate. As long as they only do it to their own children I can live with it, and hope that they get a ton of value out of it. Any pro-circumcision propaganda is detestable though. Since Scott doesn't seem to be doing that - correct me if I'm wrong here, as if that weren't the whole purpose of the Motte - I'd say consider the man on those merits of his that are actually relevant to our interests.

Most people who are in support of circumcision absolutely aren't doing it for logical reasons, they're doing it entirely because of emotion.

I have a friend who's very pro-abortion and very much in favour of the idea that you should let people have their Bodily Autonomy, but then he also believes that circumcision is "no big deal". These two positions ("Abortion should be allowed because bodily autonomy is such an important right to preserve that it trumps any moral status the foetus might have", and "Cutting off parts of non-consenting infant boys' genitals is perfectly fine") are clearly incongruent positions, but he holds them anyway. I've seen him mercilessly make fun of a guy who was a bit touchy about the topic of circumcision, having had it done to him.

A good amount of the most entrenched supporters of circumcision are culturally attached to the practice, and they're more likely to have had it done themselves (or had it done to their own kids). So they're more likely to already think it's normal, and additionally if they accepted that circumcision was a bad thing they'd also have to entertain the idea that they have been "mutilated" and that their parents actually did something to them that wasn't good (or, worse, they'd have to accept that they mutilated their own kid). There's also the paediatricians who carry out the procedure, who have a financial stake in it and also who I would expect would probably not be able to live with themselves if they realised that it was a moral wrong.

That's an uncomfortable thing to have to face, so they end up rationalising it to themselves in a variety of ways. "Well, I had it done to me and I'm perfectly fine". That's like me being locked inside a room since birth and then me saying that I'm fine with not seeing the outside world. Now, I don't have the full information here, do I. It's mainly because I have no point of comparison that I can say I'm okay with it - just because I don't know I've been deprived of something important doesn't mean I haven't been. Then there's "Well, it's yknow, not a big deal and lots of people have it done" as if the commonality of a practice has any bearing at all on its moral rightness or wrongness.

Anyway, I sympathise, and I'd recommend you take a look at a very long thread I wrote about the topic of male genital mutilation with circumcision as a main focus. I think you might like it.

Most people who are in support of circumcision absolutely aren't doing it for logical reasons, they're doing it entirely because of emotion.

To be fair, I'm "against" circumcision by default (being uncircumcised myself), and this feeling is also based purely on emotion rather than reason. However, I don't really understand where logic comes into the picture anyway. There are very few things whose mere verbal descriptions are enough to make me wince in pain. Circumcision is one of them, and "having my fingernails yanked out with pliers" is another. My opposition to these things is not based on any rational argument; it's as close to a terminal value as I can think of.

This is one of those areas where I have a severe empathy gap - I can't even imagine what it's like to have any other perspective. Reading arguments about it causes me anxiety, not because I feel personally attacked by either side, but because I feel like I've been transported to some incomprehensible alien planet. I would never in a million years have invented the idea of circumcision, and even having consciously learned about it I still intuit that it must be some massive joke that everyone but me is in on. ("You actually thought it was a real thing! You should've seen your face!") Even so, the anti-circumcision arguments also seem like the writings of aliens because they present the view of someone who could have supported it but decided not to.

Circumcision in the religious context is an initiation ritual, it's a mark of belonging to community. Initiations often contain an element of sacrifice. This can be derided as mere exploitation of the sunk cost fallacy or a way to trap people, (eg when the mafia requires that you commit a crime to enter the org, so they can be sure you won't go to the police as you'd also implicate yourself), but it can also be seen more charitably as a test of commitment, a filter for serious loyalty etc.

Circumcision can be seen as a symbolicized, minimized form of child sacrifice. Now you don't sacrifice your firstborn (who would be your main inheritor), you simply ritualistically chop a bit off of your kids most valuable part, the one that will continue your genetic lineage. It's symbolic but sort of indicates your willingness to sacrifice for the community and that you have skin in the game.

Why secular and Christian Americans do it is more complicated and circumcised people come up with a jumble of nonsense post hoc reasons. It's almost as worthless to ask them as asking single women how to be successful in dating as a man. Tons of mental stopsigns involved.

I would assume it's probably some sort of judaizing Protestant Christian influence originally.

Is anyone else shocked/saddened that Scott is pro-cutting?

Kinda surprised, in that it's highly irrational to cut an infant boy. Kinda unsurprised, certainly not shocked, because Scott's been on a Tradition turn lately where it fits right in.

And anyway, penises just seem to be one of those inconsistent things for a lot of people. Not to get all CW in WW, but my wife and I were listening to the newest Meg hit in the car, and the chorus is all about a guy having "Big Dick Energy," and I laughed that small dicked guys need their own Meghan Trainor in pop music. And she said "Well it's not about the dick it's about the personality." Which is like, even more offensive, you end up saying that their body is defective and as a result so is their brain! Imagine the tweets about a modern top-40 song with a guy saying he wanted a girl with a "skinny personality" as opposed to a "fat personality!"

Imagine the tweets about a modern top-40 song with a guy saying he wanted a girl with a "skinny personality" as opposed to a "fat personality!"

At least that's a controllable trait. I can imagine what "fit girl energy" might mean when applied to a girl that's kinda chunky. Isn't the appropriate analog "big tit energy"?

There is no analogue, because generally men describe ugly women as having good friendly open personalities, and thin women as having relatively arrogant personalities. A guy might reasonably be said to want a thin girl with a fat girl's personality: a hot girl who eats whatever she wants and isn't stuck up or chilly. From La Boheme

a lively woman... a bit...

well, not a whale exactly

or a relief-map of the world

or a face like a full moon,

but not thin, really thin. No!

Thin women are worrisome

and often... a nuisance...

always full of complaints,

While it's nonsensical to say a girl wants a tall man with "Short man syndrome," or a guy with a big dick who is yet still "is compensating for something."

The conventions are just all out of balance. Much as I recall Elliot Engel pointing out in a lecture that the worst thing (outside slang) you can call a woman acting like a man is Masculine (which has no negative connotations) while the worst thing you can call a man (outside slang) that is acting like a woman is effeminate (which has no positive connotations).

There is no analogue, because generally men describe ugly women as having good friendly open personalities, and thin women as having relatively arrogant personalities.

What makes you say this? Sounds more like a media trope than anything else, especially when attractive women benefit from the halo effect.

Yes, I'm talking about media/linguistic tropes and connotations. Shallow Hal doesn't really get gender-flipped, the closest I can think of is probably that one episode of Sex and the City. Or think of a stand up comedian, like your generic mainstream dirty comic, a Dane Cook and an Ali Wong, saying the same thing but gender-flipped. It doesn't land.

It's relationship to reality is secondary, it's still relevant what the media is saying, in the same way it is relevant that the media will say "LOL straight white men are the worst!" even though various metrics will tell us straight white men don't face problems in real life.

Not shocked at all. Circumcision is an ancient sacrificial ritual. People do it for the traditional, cultural reasons, and justifications like hygiene etc. by Christian or non-religious Americans is just post-hoc. People do it so the son matches the father, because that's just the effortless default in the area etc.

The fact that it may be somewhat inconvenient in later life could be seen as a feature too, it's supposed to be a sacrifice, an expression of having gone through something hard just like your whole community.

If you expect that rationalists only do things that can be derived from first principles based on logic (objective things like medical reasoning and studies) then you're in for more surprises.

You went to a Q&A event to ask someone you don't know personally about his newborn son's penis?

To be fair, the guy he was asking invited a guy to come bite a bit off of said penis (unless SF's more modern mohels use scissors or something), so "if you can take the tip of a dick you can take a question" seems like a reasonable assumption.

Pretty sure mohels have never used their teeth to remove the foreskin -- they use their mouth as a suction device after cutting it off some other way.

Still kind of weird ofc, but not as weird as rabbi's sharpening their incisors for a nice clean cut.

Also, I'd be somewhat surprised if Scott were planning a traditional bris rather than just having it done at the hospital -- but anything is possible I suppose.

Oh, thanks, I'd forgotten about that little cheese knife. In my defense I've got zero knowledge of or experience with circumcision, other than a lurking suspicion of gentiles doing it. Because that didn't work out so well last time.

I have a response to this, but we shouldn't be having culture war talk in the wellness thread.

And yet the post practically invites debate while saying "I don't want to debate..."

If you are "shocked/saddened" that someone might disagree with you, this community may not be for you.

Your post is a central example of attempting to build consensus and trying to enforce ideological conformity, which is against the rules.

Scott's opinions are not above criticism, but this forum is for discussion and debate, not emotionally-loaded attempts at shaming.

I'm in the Wellness thread though. I'm fine with debating it in the culture war thread. If anyone disagrees with me they can just ignore this post, or make your own post in the culture war thread. I'm not trying to start a debate in the wellness thread! That's not why I made this post

Seriously, when posting this you didn't expect this will come out as a debate? If that's the case, I think, as rationalists say it, you should seriously adjust your priors.

deleted

I just included the list because I felt frustrated with myself for not being able to summon it earlier. There should be a guide for how to talk about stuff like this in the Wellness thread.

To what end? To get emotional support without the burden of having any sort of discussion that challenges your view? By listing your rationale but then immediately quashing any debate by stating "I am not interested in debating, just commiseration" your post seems disingenuous.

Never meet your heroes. Scott is, to put it politely, not the kind of person to model your own intimate affairs after. More to the point, he is a Jew, so you can't expect much here. It isn't coming from a rational place.

More to the point, he is a Jew, so you can't expect much here.

The most charitable interpretation of this comment is something like "He is a Jew, so you can't expect him to be anti-circumcision."

The less charitable interpretation would be to read it exactly as written, as in "Don't expect much from Jews."

Given that your entire post is a personal attack, I am less inclined to be charitable.

1-day ban.

More to the point, he is a Jew, so you can't expect much here.

Wait, is this a joke? And with 10 upvotes? Sometimes I wonder WTF forum I am in.

i mean he was banned for it

We're talking about circumcision here; it's not that unreasonable.

The mention of the Jewish origins is not a problem by itself, the "don't expect much" part is the problem. It's certainly not kind, it doesn't make any important point (unless "Jews are by default people that you can't expect much from" is the point, hope it weren't) and it was much more antagonistic than necessary. That's breaking 3 of the first rules right there. If it were expressed as "he is a Jew so it is understandable he is inclined to follow Jewish tradition" then I think it'd be much less objectionable.

It's definitely not a great comment; I just don't consider it particularly antisemitic.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats