Hacker News Reader

Comment by serf | Hacker News Reader

so, after the past few years incel has shifted from "involuntarily celibate" , to "young men who congregate online and who explain their lack of romantic success through a toxic and misogynistic ideology." , NYTimes definition mid-article, not mine.

Pretty shitty, given that the title 'incel' is rarely self-appointed in comparison to the amount that its' bandied about by those who seek to insult by mockery or phrase.

This points to an over-simplifying of the language.

People who have poor romantic luck and charisma ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME as people who gather around social outlets online in order to share 'toxic and misogynistic' opinions -- but public opinion and media are referring to both parties as 'incels'.

This means that the simply unlucky and uncharismatic folks are being pigeon-holed by society and the media to get out of the 'incel' title simply to stave off comparison between themselves and the bad incels.

It's weird that a pro-sex movement finally won over the hearts of the public by demonizing and chastising those unfortunate enough to not have found a sexual partner.

I wish people (and the media at large) would make a larger effort to mention that someone can be involuntarily celibate and mentally stable and balanced.

The momentum lately to paint all involuntarily celibate people as mentally unstable and angry is a trend that will force a lot of people into life-changing mistakes more promptly than they would have been before the social pressure that equated routine sex with a partner as an indicator of mental stability and trustworthiness.

View on HN

The 'incel' term is a specific identity though: it refers to both the person's romantic circumstances (involuntarily celibate) AND certain beliefs about the causes of those circumstances (blaming women/feminism/Disney/Tinder/etc...). This term was coined years ago, though, from INSIDE the community. I remember reading articles about people calling themselves 'incels' in the early 2010s (can't remember exactly where, maybe Psychology Today). This was before it became a huge community on Reddit/4chan, before the shootings, and long before it became a term used in major newspapers, magazines, and TV news shows.

Even back then, there was differentiation between people who are just involuntarily celibate and those that identified themselves as part of the 'incel' community. The easiest way to tell is to ask why they think they're involuntarily celibate: the 'incels' typically blamed outside societal forces (see above), while non-'incels' talked about their own issues ("I'm shy", "I have social anxiety", "talking to women scares me", "I'm not good at talking to people", etc...).

Incels refer to the specific beliefs associated with the incel community as "The Blackpill". According to incels, the incel term does not refer to the beliefs, but simply the state of being involuntarily celibate, whereas being "blackpilled" means believing in the ideology associated with the incel community.

My experience online is most time a guy complains about their frustration in not finding someone there's like zero sympathy... except in places where one probably don't want to hang out namely misogynistic subreddit/forums.

I can totally see why some guys become radicalized when a good portion of society DGAF.

Not sure why society should care (beyond preventing people been radicalised into becoming a danger I guess).

There are lots of pressures on people to conform in one way or another to goals and ideals that are largely unachievable - none of them are an excuse for driving cars into crowds.

From the limited interactions I've seen online most incels don't realise they aren't unattractive physically but by nature of their personality which causes a vicious feedback loop.

When I was younger I didn't have a huge amount of success with women (I was by nature shy and introverted, still am to an extent) but I realised early that was my issue and no-one elses, things improved as I matured and became more confident in who and what I am but had they not I'd still have been happy enough - I was for years after all.

> Not sure why society should care (beyond preventing people been radicalised into been a danger I guess).

Some people are going to be without a partner for life, despite their desire for one. Maybe they are profoundly ugly, or not very smart, just kind of a boring (or annoying) personality, or a mix of the above... It's not always going to be an issue that they can fix. And as a result, they feel unloved and alone, sometimes worthless. It seems pretty obvious to me why society should care about this in more than just the supremely selfish "how does this hurt me" way.

It seems to me that the best help from the individual's perspective would be to consult a therapist, and from a social perspective, to dismantle the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners (and the converse, that some peoples' lack of worth is determined by 'too many' partners). Some (perhaps many, or even most) in the incel community seem to think they are entitled to not only a partner but a partner that will fit a certain specification.

I'm all for sympathy and understanding. But what kind of sympathy can regular people give without falling into the logic that everyone is entitled to a partner? How should we prevent that sympathy from turning into pity, which feeds the narrative that there is necessarily something wrong with not having a partner?

As a society we are able to do various things that go beyond sympathy for a wide range of individual misfortunes - we can assist the poor (throgh welfare programs and charity), and we can anonymize university applications and make buildings and media accessible to those with physical problems. I think part of why incels don't get much sympathy is because there's nothing society can do about that problem to help any particular individual. It can also be hard to empathise with; everyone has been single at some point, and on the whole, most peoples' experiences dictate that it's probably not as bad as being poor or disabled.

> everyone has been single at some point

Yeah but has everyone been single _all of the time_? Your reasoning reminds me of the "suck it up, we all have been bummed out before" mentality toward depressed people.

> most peoples' experiences dictate that it's probably not as bad as being poor or disabled.

Empathy isn't soap, it won't be spent. You can feel empathy for the poor, the disabled, _and_ the chronically alone.

Nowhere did they say they should suck it up. They said they should seek therapy if they can’t deal with it, instead of taking it out on other people.

nothing society can do about that problem to help any particular individual

In general, this is less true than it often seems. It won't be possible to reach every individual, but I can think of some things that would help a lot of individuals who find themselves excluded.

For example, sociologists (or even just friends) identifying traits that lead to exclusion, and then others developing and incorporating antidotes to those traits in media and relationships.

If it's people being unfit, find ways to make fitness more culturally appealing to more people (disassociating fitness with "jockness" would be one way to help e.g. nerds want to be more fit). If it's smell, find a way to make soaps or dietary changes or microbiome therapies or whatever more available and appealing.

If it's specific behaviors, find ways to show those behaviors and non-pejoratively show narratives in popular shows of people freeing themselves from those unappealing behaviors.

If there's some missing adaptation to society's norms and unspoken means of communication due to being excluded at very a young age, maybe someone can create a LARP that teaches those. If it's just being in the wrong place, make it easier for people to move and reinvent themselves in a new place with a culture that fits them better.

> from a social perspective, to dismantle the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners

Ah, let's just go ahead and "dismantle" one of the most basic psychological needs, that's a great solution.

>> from a social perspective, to dismantle the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners

>Ah, let's just go ahead and "dismantle" one of the most basic psychological needs, that's a great solution.

Sex itself may be a basic psychological and physiological need (for most people, not for everyone,) but "the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners" is not. The latter is entirely a cultural and social construct.

Why would you literally quote one fragment of one sentence from claudiawerner's comment just to misconstrue it entirely in rebuttal?

> Sex itself may be a basic psychological and physiological need

I was referring to companionship rather than sex.

> "the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners" is not. The latter is entirely a cultural and social construct

I think claudiawerner is making an extremely uncharitable assumption in the first place that the primary complaint is about ego rather than loneliness.

But, even granting that point: it does not seem, to me, like a "cultural and social construct" that one's self-esteem would be affected by this type of loneliness. I find that claim self-evidently absurd, to be honest.

> Why would you literally quote one fragment of one sentence from claudiawerner's comment

Because that's the point that I wanted to reply to.

> just to misconstrue it entirely in rebuttal?

I think you are the one misconstruing my argument.

>I think claudiawerner is making an extremely uncharitable assumption in the first place that the primary complaint is about ego rather than loneliness.

That wasn't my assumption at all. Ego is irrelevant to feelings of self-worth, which is a basic psychological need, as is togetherness. It's not self-serving the ego to want to feel like one has some worth. My point was only that the idea of a man's worth being in the number of sexual partners he has had is harmful to men overall, and places undue pressure and causes doubts about self-worth.

> My point was only that the idea of a man's worth being in the number of sexual partners he has had is harmful to men overall....

I think you’re equivocating between two extremely different things. I would actually agree it’s not necessary or good for men to derive any self-worth from the difference between, say, 5 or 15. But it’s probably unavoidable for men to derive some degree of self-worth or self-esteem from the difference between zero and non-zero, which is the situation under discussion.

>But it’s probably unavoidable for men to derive some degree of self-worth or self-esteem from the difference between zero and non-zero, which is the situation under discussion.

I don't see why that's unavoidable. Humans have shown tremendous development in overcoming their (what was assumed to be insurmountable) biology and associated reponses, and of course the cultural factors which influence responses through upbringing. Perhaps we should feel empathy for those people, but I think it's a mistake to think it is immutable. Most Buddhist monks, for example, do not consider being or not being a virgin, much less having an active partner recently, to be worth of much status.

> But what kind of sympathy can regular people give without falling into the logic that everyone is entitled to a partner?

I think it is a leap to assume sympathy would escalate to entitlement. As deeply social species, it is in everyone to need love, both receiving and giving it, to have intimacy. Entitlement is a value judgment that should not be relevant to have empathy for this; when people's deep needs are unmet permanently, they hurt, and in turn that hurt can turn back to society. (Not talking about anything extremist just to be clear, I mean it clearly shows in our mundane daily lives if the people we interact are healthy, content, loved people vs not.)

I agree that having a romantic partner is often touted as an absolute normativity, and people often make the mistake that a romantic partner can fulfill all of their affiliative needs, but I think it is an artifact of our hyper-individualistic settings where there is rarely an alternative, rather than mere entitlement.

And assuming therapists can contain and heal this "hurt-payload" of the entire society is naive IMHO. There is a better, peer-to-peer topology that scales and to me it is best expressed in words "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another" (I am not even Christian and not trying to invoke religion here, just really like how this particular expression captures the idea). This agapic love (as opposed to consumptive, erotic love) might be the cure. To answer your question, I think the best we can do is "We are sorry you are hurting in loneliness, while we hope you find love in whatever form you need, don't forget we also love you in our own, fellow human way, why don't you come over for board games and dinner because we enjoy your company?"

> It can also be hard to empathise with; everyone has been single at some point, and on the whole, most peoples' experiences dictate that it's probably not as bad as being poor or disabled.

In my experience, it's not remotely close, been poor is far worse than been single.

> Not sure why society should care (beyond preventing people been radicalised into becoming a danger I guess).

What I find most interesting about this reaction is that it often comes from people who wholeheartedly believe in kindness, compassion, and empathy. In almost every other context.

Yet for these people, they're told that their feelings don't matter while everyone else's does. No wonder they sometimes react poorly. Perhaps if we want to avert their radicalization, we could consider the possibility of treating them with the same sensitivity we readily offer others when they express subjective pain and suffering.

It's not that their feelings don't matter, it's that their is nothing anyone can do for them.

I'm very ugly, I'm very single. I don't expect anyone to do anything about it for me. You just have to get on with life and make the best of it. Be a nice person and try to enjoy yourself.

If the worst thing you have to deal with in life is having a sub-optimal face then you're probably pretty luck! Act like it.

In my limited personal experience, the emotional journey of "Shut up, nobody cares about your feelings you overprivileged ass" is very different from that of "That sounds very painful, I'm so sorry you're going through that". I'm sure others have had different experiences.

As you say, there often isn't anything obviously actionable. It's just that in some cases, for some people, going from nothing actionable to dismissive can be a good way to convince them to find people who at least offer a hint of empathy.

Again, you're completely right. There's absolutely nothing anyone can do for them. Except, I think it might be the case that listening with sincerity might be an option.

> people who wholeheartedly believe in kindness, compassion, and empathy. In almost every other context.

Equality of outcome for all animals, but some animals are more equal than others.

Well, just from a bare instinct of self-preservation: if nobody cares about you, why should you care about anybody? You get enough people together about whom nobody cared and ... what do you think might happen?

It's like long-term bullying at school. Ninety-nine percent of the time, the "worst" that happens is that someone is broken and their self-esteem is permanently damaged and everyone else moves on with their lives. But then there is that one percent (or whatever fraction you choose) who snaps and you get some serious carnage out of it.

And nobody cared until the lowest-ranked monkey killed a few other monkeys. Then, suddenly, caring.

Which one of those who snapped and killed people was otherwise normal just lonely guy without girlfriend?

The answer is: not a single one. Literally all of them, if your read their stories in detail, have history of serious mental health and behavioral issues, have history of violence. The have either history of inability to communicate with anyone (as in avoiding people and not talking - and not because they were bullied) or history of mistreating people who try.

The nice bullied lonely guy suddenly snapping into carnage is a myth. It does not happen. The nice bullied lonely guy may end up with ptsd and low self esteem and issues, but they don't end up suddenly killing bunch of people.

I spoke from experience, at my junior high school, a kid who was bullied mercilessly shot two of his tormentors and then himself. The administration overlooked the bullying issue at our school and has, ever since, worked very hard to pretend that such a thing never happened, despite the kid getting "swirlies" in toilets that had yet to be flushed. I heard the shots, watched the news crew vans pull up (our first clue that something had gone down), and so forth.

It's not a myth.

Scott Alexander was thinking along the same lines here when he wrote "Radicalizing the Romanceless"... almost 6 years ago.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-roman...

Another factor could be that women are generally pickier than men. IIRC some OKCupid research indicated that men seek the top 50% of women (by attractiveness) while women seek the top 20% of men. With the Internet making the dating pool larger this may hit men harder if potential partners feel less pressure to 'settle'.

Interesting, My partner (of 5 years) I met on OKC and she is objectively more attractive than me.

I was however attracted to her because she filled her profile in properly describing her outlook and the things she found interesting and it was grammatically correct (somewhat ironically given she is Hungarian and English is her third language).

Outliers exist. That's not news.

"Not sure why society should care (beyond preventing people been radicalised into becoming a danger I guess)."

We should care because one of the most basic needs is not met for these people. They also don't get much sympathy or help.

There is also question of basic needs of those who would supposedly be partners. Cause interestingly their loneliness is non-existent as far as these debates go - reading loneliness debates one would believe that women unhappy with lack of partners don't exist.

But more importantly, basic needs of those who would actually end up in these partnerships - many of those guys throw so many red flags and are so clueless about human communication/relationships, that I just dont see potential for healthy relationship.

I am not saying that is reason for lack of partners, there are plenty on dysfunctional relationships out there. But that the prognosis is another hellish relationship.

> Not sure why society should care (beyond preventing people been radicalised into becoming a danger I guess).

This carries the implication that some people are just losers in life, so their happiness and welfare should be dismissed as unimportant. This isn't a popular idea in modern Western society, but it's perfectly valid and I would much rather resolve this cultural hypocrisy the other way around.

> none of them are an excuse for driving cars into crowds.

Certainly but why the generalization? You could not say "none of them are an excuse for bombing people" when talking about discrimination against muslims or would you?

> but I realised early that was my issue and no-one elses

They issue arises when people are bullied or considered inferior for that.

Why should society give a fuck though?

It's not really a problem society can solve for them. Plenty of people have shitty lives, either they can't find a partner because they had the misfortune to be born ugly or maybe they were born with some awful disability, maybe they live in constant physical pain... Most of these people don't become angry bitter sociopaths.

What would you expect society to do for them? Is it just sympathy they want?

Things are improving, but male suicide rates are high for a reason. Society just isn't calibrated to allow men to be as emotional as women.

Within every Incel is someone who's life has gone down a dark path. I bet a lot of them are doing it just to belong - having no friends hurts a lot more when you're young, schoolchildren can be really horrible to eachother.

> Society just isn't calibrated to allow men to be as emotional as women.

Or maybe men don’t have a need to be as emotional as women? After all, you could easily justify committing suicide as a rational solution to “my life is shit and will never get better”.

The fact that women attempt more suicides (plea for help / attention => emotional) whereas men commit more suicides (they’re actually serious in their assessment that living is pointless) also suggests this. Happy to hear opposing arguments / data.

> Why should society give a fuck though?

Why should it give a fuck if instead of hungry for love, they're just hungry. Or sick. Or anything other than fine, really.

> Most of these people don't become angry bitter sociopaths.

Citation needed. The amount of angry bitter sociopaths ranting about all kinds of things suggests that many are.

> What would you expect society to do for them?

The same society would do for any health issue, be it mental of physical. Help fix it, not belittle, mock and ostracize.

How do you fix it though? I mean you can do thing like legalizing sex work and providing sex robots or something, but for most incels, it isn't about sex (if it were, there wouln't be incels in place where prositution is legal). It's about feeling desirable and desired, it's about social status. How exactly do you fix the feeling of not being desired? You can't force people to like you.

There are multiple issues that go together, I believe. There's the actual "I'm not being treated as a desirable human" (or maybe even "as a human"), there's the other part of what that does to them. There are lots of people that are treated terribly by society, who have objectively terrible lives. But many of them aren't suffering as much from it.

I believe that the issue lies in a) not feeling desired and b) the way to deal with that. There are people who share their fate but suffer far less. I'm sure it's not enough to drop some self-help blurp and "wow, why didn't I think of that", but I believe that therapy can help. I have no idea what kind of therapy is most effective though. But I'm sure even just handing out pamphlets will be much more effective than mocking and dehumanizing them and asking for their removal from society.

Three's also the fact house prices are generally set to be barely affordable by a high earning couple, which prices many single people out of the market and puts them at a huge economic disadvantage. Not sure how you'd fix that either.

> The momentum lately to paint all involuntarily celibate people as mentally unstable and angry

The momentum is driven largely by the 'incel' online movement, and the large proportion of the world's population that isn't sexually or romantically active in the way they'd like to be but isn't interested in their nonsense can happily not associate with that movement and not be associated with that movement. The only way you start getting pigeonholed as angry is if you start imagining a 'pro-sex movement' that inexplicably hates you... (I'm not even sure what the 'pro-sex movement' is. Evolutionary biology? The traditional family? The 1960s? The current emphasis on genderfluidity and consent? none of those seem particularly hostile to the idea that people might be involuntarily celibate.)

The word "incel" was coined by a woman named Alana, from Canada, back in the 1990s [1]. She originally intended the term as denoting help and support for the romantically unsuccessful of all genders and sexual orientations. It was only later, after she'd stepped away from the movement (her lack of romantic success turned out to be a passing phase in life, as is the experience of very many), that it morphed into a cesspool of toxic misogyny.

But I think that change in definition has been harmful to those covered by the original definition, who are now denied the possibility of a positive identity and supportive community that Alana's original vision offered them. Indeed, any attempts today to found such an identity or community, especially one which is inclusive of heterosexual men, are going to be very quickly tarred by association with the new definition of "incel".

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-45284455 but also I remember some of this: I was never actively involved in Alana's website, but I can definitely remember stumbling across it in the 1990s

If you wanted a support group now as an involuntarily celibate person, what would you do?

IMO, just go sort yourself out and find a "support group" focused on whatever axis of self-improvement you're interested in. If you're involuntarily celibate because you're too fat or too scrawny to be physically attractive, get that problem sorted out and get into a community of people focused on bettering themselves in that way. If you're involuntarily celibate because you're unemployed or don't make much money, go develop some marketable skills and get into a community of people focused on developing those skills. If you're involuntarily celibate because you have terrible social skills, maybe try group therapy?

Almost any form of advice which begins with "just" is usually trying to wave away real problems. Go on, try it. Instead of "build a rocketship to go to the moon," do "Just build a rocketship to go to the moon." Sounds a lot easier that way, doesn't it?

But all of the self-improvement stuff doesn't help if you, say, have Goldenhar Syndrome, or a major handicap, or perhaps you have some very unfortunate facial features, or you have to care for an elderly parent, or any number of things.

It isn't always as simple as "people who haven't been trying hard enough."

Probably call it 'singles club'...

But surely being single is different than lifelong singleness and lack of intimacy. In fact many singles continue to date and have sex.

> In fact many singles continue to date and have sex.

Sounds like the sort of people that those who are worried about their lifelong lack of intimacy should be meeting!

They were doing that!

Isn’t it 180 from that. The term incel is one developed online by toxic young men dealing with their lack of romantic success through misogynistic ideology. And it’s not really something that changed in recent years but is many years old.

There are plenty of people who can deal with finding sex and romantic relationships hard who are not incels.

Co-opted, rather than developed, but that's a minor detail.

Backstory, for context:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-45284455

I tend to agree. I was an incel for quite significant parts of my life. Probably due to some autistic traits I never understood how the whole dating thing worked. Thank god things have improved for myself but this is something you basically can't admit in public without being ridiculed. I remember the time when "introvert" was also something to be ashamed of.

I really wish society had more sympathy for people who don't fit in socially. With all the progress we are tying make not demeaning people for their race or sexuality it still seems OK to bash socially awkward people.

To interject with something that's hopefully an insight: I think the reason most people punish other people for social awkwardness is because - in their eyes, it falls on the foul side of Hanlon's Razor. I.e. they think that someone is being socially awkward to deliberately make people feel unpleasant, rather than being awkward because it's something they just can't help.

It seems to span the full spread of social awkwardness - all the way from just being weird, down to being a jerk. I've seen people who are jerks not because they want to be, but because they can't help but run their mouth when they're in the wrong emotional state. I've also had at least one friend who'd frequently do really rude things like suddenly walking away mid-conversation, and it wasn't because he wanted to insult us, but it was because his ADHD was redlining so badly that he had to seek any other available stimulation, even if there wasn't any available.

At this point, I'm honestly convinced most human malfeasance is just manifestations of various mental illnesses, and I really wish we'd approach it with a therapeutic, rather than punitive, approach. We might actually fix things, if we did.

As "antifa" does not, in practice, mean "anybody who opposes fascism", "incel" does not, in practice, mean "anybody who is involuntarily celibate".

I agree that some commentary has an unfortunate undercurrent of virgin-shaming, but "incel" was never in common use as a neutral descriptor. Most people familiar with the term today have only ever seen it used as a reference to that particular subculture; the more general uses from the early 2000s are virtually unheard of, to the point that most people I've talked to about it think the /r/incels subreddit invented the term.

It's an evolution of the gender insult duality. Ten years ago it was sluts and permavirgins. Now it's thots and incels.

>so, after the past few years incel has shifted from "involuntarily celibate" , to "young men who congregate online and who explain their lack of romantic success through a toxic and misogynistic ideology." , NYTimes definition mid-article, not mine.

I don't know where the actual incel community hides now that Reddit banned pretty much all of their incarnations. 4chan relentlessly mocks them, Tumblr won't tolerate them, Facebook's real-name policy surely scares them away, and Twitter is just... Twitter. It was easier to define what an "incel" was when there was a big group of people rallying under the term "incel". The /r9k/-misogyny ideology lives on among people who reject the term, but the keyword is a ghost town, like Gamergate before it.

If we want to consistently refer to this group of people, the name should probably come from outside, since they recycle names so often.

I'm partially with you. The article goes on to say:

>Like the movements against vaccines or circumcision or GMOs, orthotropics spoke to its newfound adherents’ reactionary desires, affirming their skepticism of authority and faceless establishments; promising to restore a stolen masculinity; and recounting a simple but exhilarating narrative that pitted modernity against the best interests of the human race.

Does it make any sense for opposition to circumcision at birth in the absence of complications to be compared to anti-vaccination and anti-GMOs? It seems as though the sentence is written to say that all of these are 'promising to restore a stolen masculinity', but I can't see how anti-GMO ideology works in that framework, and I'm not entirely convinced the anti-circumcision argument is all about that.

"Incel" is probably a debatable term that's thrown around a lot; while there is undeniably a community of misogynistic men who blame their misfortune in the dating world on modern society and its women, there are also those who are simply involuntarily celibate - no further qualification needed. Perhaps they accept that the problem is themselves, or they think it lies elsewhere - but neither of those necessitate the description of all 'involuntarily celibate' people as misogynists who are mad about 'Stacy' and 'Chad'. Worse still, to say you want to be in a relationship but are not, or you'd like to have sex but can't, thanks to the toxic online 'incel' community, certain connotations will be attached - whether you're an a male ('incel') or female (the less commonly used term, 'femcel').

Anyone grouping anti-circumision alongside anti-GMO and anti-vax is almost certainly American. Circumcision is far less common even in Canada and is rare outside Orthodox Jews in some European countries. The association of circumcision with modernity is also weird given that it's an incredibly ancient practice that has been questioned much more in modern times.

America has this peculiar custom of always circumcising by default regardless of religion, though it's been fading a bit over time. My kids were both girls but we did talk about it and the hospital told us we would have to elect to circumcise rather than electing not to. That's apparently a change.

Circumcision at birth in the absence of any problems has never made sense to me; it's not common in the country where I live, and it's a little scary that it's almost common practice in the US. From the downvotes I'm getting on my parent comment, I'm guessing people may think I'm pro-circumcision, but I think it's being anti-GMO and anti-vaxx that's unreasonable from my point of view. I can't think of any good reason to circumcise boys in the absence of medical problems - other than the slightly reduced risk of penile cancer, but that's a very rare form of cancer, and even so, we don't remove tonsils from healthy children, nor do we amputate their limbs to reduce the risk of canacer.

If someone (especially the downvoters) could explain what the advantage of circumcision is, I'd be at least interested to hear it.

Here in the US they claim it makes infection less likely. Supposedly uncircumcised men must carefully clean to avoid that. Haven't seen any compelling research to the supposed benefits. And there is a very real risk of mutilation or infection with any surgery.

More likely the Judeo-Christian influence lead some to justify the practice when it come under scrutiny.

EDIT: research not reach

For Jews at least it is not about health or any other advantages, it is just a religious command which suppose to be a covenant between a Jew and its maker, a bit like when people used to cut their finger and mix the blood to symbolise a covenant between people.

Ironically, unlike other religion laws which non practicing Jews are not following, circumcision is almost universally practiced. I think the reason is that it is a bit of an identity thing, like Maori tattoos or something like that.

Circumsision is genital mutation accepted to a child on birth or childhood. Disgusting. Yet accepted in the US. Bizarre.

It's the same reason anti fascist turned into antifa. I think at least the majority of people are anti fascist. But cutting it down to a meaningless word turns the word itself into a weapon to be used to bludgeon.

> pro-sex movement

What's this?

People who think sex should be a positive thing rather than being an embarrassment and that people should be free to say they enjoy the kind of sex they enjoy (within consent and the law obviously.)

Anti-shame, in other words.

Not everyone is consistently anti-shame though. There are a lot of people who oppose slut shaming but, with great lack of self awareness, use prude or virgin as insults.

These days if you are critical of mass immigration or other far left talking points you get called an incel. Its absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com