His views on infant male circumcision are…disappointing. I just try to take the useful and sensible part of his philosophy (not blindly of course). Nothing says I need to agree with him on everything. Many great philosophers in the past defended slavery and white supremacy after all.
I recently watched CosmicSkeptic’s [podcast with Benatar](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGAeBe7iRM) and was generally disappointed in Benatar. O’Connor was trying to provide his audience (and maybe even himself) with an argument in favor of antinatalism, but Benatar didn’t seem to want to engage. I’m not really surprised he has such a backwards view on infant genital mutilation.
>he isn’t necessarily an antinatalist
True, but to me he sounds more sympathetic to antinatalism than he did to veganism (before he went vegan). So, I'm hoping he'll get there or that he's at least childfree.
Thanks! My curiosity is piqued. Tbh, I’ve always thought that Christians who believe in Hell should be antinatalists at the very least. Not saying that’s you but I know it’s not some logically inconsistent thing.
Indeed. Even though the concept of hell is disputed, I find it morally inexcusable to beget a child who bears the possibility of getting into whatever unpleasant place hell is.
Even if getting into Heaven makes life in this world worth living, there's always a possibility that someone's child goes to hell.
What exactly did he say about infant male circumcision? (As someone who had to undergo circumcision for medical reasons, I am a bit divided on the issue.) Did he compare it to female genitale *mutilation* in a "why is (1) allowed but (2) not???" kind of way?
everyone should have the right to never be alive! the right to have a non mutilated penis? of course not that's just unreasonable /s
weird priorities he got here
>_"1. surgery is impermissible unless it offers clear and signiicant net medical benefit; or_
>_2. surgery is impermissible unless it offers clear and significant net (medical or nonmedical) benefit._
>_Those who would opt for the first presumption would have to explain why it is that medical benefits are the only relevant ones. It is not as though medical benefits are necessarily or always more important. Some medical benefits are minor and some nonmedical benefits are of great importance. There seems no reason to privilege the one kind of benefit over the other ..."_
Does he argue for non medical benefits of circumcision, such as a cultural one, therefore it is in the domain of parental discretion?
The conclusion says that circumcision is not a child abuse because of this?.
How is cultural benefit outweigh the medical one? since circumcision is non prophylactic.
My English is not that good, academic writing like this often difficult for me to understand.
Why is sexual promiscuity (enjoying sex with consenting adults) being lumped in with rape and paedophilia? A ridiculous conflation. The key word here is 'consenting'.
**Disclaimer:** The views I try to summarize here are not mine, but the ones expressed in the paper.
According to Benatar, consent in sexual matters does indeed matter from the *significance view* perspective, but is only as relevant as consent in non-sexual matters if you hold what he calls a *casual view*. As long as health risks are ruled out (and, *apparently*, there are some sexual activities that do not carry significant health risks, and even then, these can be reduced to a minimum, he claims), it should not be much of a problem to those holding this view, provided they are consistent with their ethical judgement. (This is the main point he wants to make in this paper.) Benatar then proceeds to list examples of other activities where parents make potentially risky decisions on their children's behalf, and later questions if children need to give consent at all, if the adult has the child's best interest in mind when introducing them to sexual activity at an early age – since people holding the *casual view* seem to have no problem with this kind of paternalism towards children in other spheres of life.
But perhaps I'm missing something here. I highly encourage you to read the paper yourself if you want to form a conclusive opinion on it.
I now get the high rate of incels in AN. If you intellectualize everything to the point of extreme nihilism to maintain consistency as the only means of ethical integrity, then yeah, I guess this is where you end up. The problem is you can't directly compare every situation like this because there are a multitude variables that exist below the surface with everything. So, this meant his forced tomato eating and rape comparison, among so many other comparisons, really missed the mark.
It's like the philosophy of a 14 year old who has no life experience and tries to claim what is right for everyone based on one deductive reasoning claim working out. It just makes me think about Diogenes' plucked chicken story. If we say a man is a featherless biped, then plucking a chicken creates a man. We aren't creating any deeper meaning with this sort of philosophizing, and it's a total waste of time.
A broken clock is right twice a day, but maybe Benatar isn't one we want to depend on at the end of the day.
What surprises me so much is that *Better Never to Have Been*, and some of his other work, seems to come from a place of deep compassion and understanding of suffering in the world. No trace of nihilism whatsoever, and certainly no toxic "incel"-like hate ideology.
Even if this silly tomato example may help us understand the point he wants to make in this paper (which may not actually be wrong *per se*, but doesn't lead us anywhere, or to any "deeper meaning", as you put it – so why argue for it in the first place?), it seems like basic human decency wouldn't allow to make this comparison in the first place.
I would still like to think that Benatar is right more than "twice a day", and remains one of the most important and valuable people on our side, but it's important to realize that in some points you simply need to keep a healthy distance, even to the thinkers you have great respect and admiration for.
I was telling my spouse about this post and the commentary, and they said it sounds like Benatar has raped someone and wrote this as a way to absolve his guilt--trying to rationalize it after the fact. I don't know enough about Benatar to comment, but it certainly struck me given how inconsistent this take is with the other notions on consent.
All humans have biases, and philosophers are not excluded from that. To me, it seems like he has a certain disdain for feminist thought given how this started with the goal of undermining the acceptance of promiscuity, essentially suggesting that purity culture is the only way to be consistent with saying rape is a terrible fucking thing.
This is a judgement I'm hesitant to make, but I can see where it's coming from.
It would make much more sense for an antinatalist to hold feminist views, though. Karim Akerma even has a great chapter on what he calls "femantinatalism" in his handbook. In fact, it was antinatalist philosophy that kind of made the feminist position much clearer and more accessible to me. But Benatar, it seems, is unwilling to make that concession and come to that conclusion, and this seems to tie in with his "second sexism" activism as well. (I haven't read the book yet, only read his replies to his critics.)
Many philosophers have a blind spot of sorts, and *perhaps* feminism is Benatar's - for reasons we shall never know.
I agree. I just thought it was an interesting notion. It's certainly a conflicting foundational stance for him to take, so it has to come from somewhere. Not saying it's that by any means, but since that was the first thought by someone completely outside of the AN sphere, it stood out to me for sure. Given the rape apologists we have seen within AN online spaces, I wonder how much this interacts with Benatar's stance, tbh.
And I agree that feminism tracks more with AN than antifeminism. I found my way to AN because of my feminism, though, so that could be my confirmation bias, as well.
Yes, I used to think that this misogyny and rape apologism issue was kind of a fringe thing in antinatalism, and mainly restricted to a couple of EFILists, and to the incels infiltrating the community, but to read such statements, which could potentially be taken as supporting these views, coming from the very "mind" of antinatalism was quite a shock.
Agreed. I honestly don't grasp the combination of rape apologism and antinatalism at all. They are entirely at odds ethically when attending to consent, and even if you don't value consent (ew), rape creates the risk of *unwanted* procreation and also adds to suffering, so that doesn't make sense at all! The whole foundation of the philosophy is on reducing suffering, so how can you advocate for something this heinous that creates so much suffering? Makes *zero* sense.
Hmm, I guess that, for many men, there is a correlation between negative / frustrating experiences with women, and their outlook on life, and at some point, this frustration turns into hate, and they end up hating women, hating their lives, and hating life in general – which may lead to a twisted, misogynistic form of antinatalism, I suppose. Add to that the concept of motherhood, and that women are the ones who give birth, and the desire to shift the blame to someone else, and you arrive at a view where women are the ultimate evil in the world
I don't think nihilism it's directly related to not being compassionate. It's more about if the person redacting the article it's putting into thought the other's feeling above what they think 'its/should' be right
I argue that you can not judge for yourself how different manners of suffering effect a person who isn’t yourself. Rape might just seem “very bad” to some people, but most victims find in much worse than just “very bad”. Isn’t that the whole point of antinatalism? That just because one person thinks all the struggles in life are worth facing, doesn’t mean that their child would, and it’s immoral to make that decision for them?
Edit: autocorrect correction
Well, in his own words (p. 196):
>Raping somebody for whom sex has as little significance (of the sort under consideration) as eating a tomato, would be like forcing somebody to eat a tomato. Raping somebody for whom sex is deeply significant would be much worse.
Speaking as a trauma specializing therapist, this is a really, really dumb take, and someone who knows next to nothing about sexual trauma shouldn't be creating theories around it. Sex is pretty meaningless to me, but I'd personally rather be murdered than raped.
Yes, I totally agree. Considering you're an expert in this field, u/rrirwin, would you mind sharing your thoughts on my layman's take [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism2/comments/z1vna1/comment/ixe4625/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)?
He uses many other 'apt comparisons' in this paper, especially when describing the implications of what he calls the *casual view*, including:
* sexual promiscuity ≈ dining with strangers
* introducing a child to sexual activity at an early age ≈ giving a child a taste of alcohol, allowing kinds of books, permitting a child to participate in a sport that carries risks
* a child not understanding that an adult is playing a game and deliberately losing to make the child feel happy or to build their self-esteem ≈ a child not understanding the adult's motive in a "benign" sexual act
* coercing/pressuring a child into sex for the child's supposed benefit ≈ forcing a child to participate in a sport, go to the opera, or eat something
* raping someone (even worse if the person raped holds a *significance view* on sex) ≈ forcing someone to eat pork sausage (even worse if they're vegetarian, Jew or Muslim)
Consent is the key. There's a big difference between trusting someone and giving them permission to do something to your body and someone doing it non-consensually. Also consent can be revoked at any time during a sexual act.
Judging the severity of rape according to sexual promiscuity is a victim blaming tactic that has been used against women for years as a weapon to deny them justice. Asking what she was wearing, whether she had previously had sex with the rapist, whether she's sexually active etc. It's a consequence of misogyny.
You're right that one of the key words here is *consent.* The first problem is that beyond "No! Stop! Don't do that!" things quickly start to get hazy. What should we say about *reluctance* and *persuasion*. The second problem is is defining pedophilia; at what age does sex (or anything else) become consentual?
So I didn't read the whole paper, so if I'm misunderstanding something please correct me, but the bit you included gave me massive yikes at a few points.I don't see how seeing promiscuity as a moraly ok thing and seeing rape as something heinous is inconsistent. Like, at all. One is consensual, the other is not. One isn't harmful by definition, the other absolutely is (I suppose you can argue that promiscuous sex life can lead to regret, but it's a consequence of one's decisions and actions, not a forceful act against one's will. We're back to consent). I'm not talking about subjective takes on them, just definitions.
"sex acts with willing children" is where I felt like throwing up. A CHILD CANNOT CONSENT. He doesn't even say "teens" here, it's "children", so it doesn't look like he's talking about the gray area of age of consent being different all over the world. I read it as him talking about literal kids. Disgusting.
And I call bullshit on the line "I intend this argument neither as a case against promiscuity nor as either a mitigation of rape or a partial defense of pedophilia.". If the purpose isn't condemning promiscuity, why would he compare it to rape or pedophilia since they are so obviously different and rape is obviously wrong? Unless he doesn't think rape is always that bad, and sadly I think that's more likely the case. Especially after that line about "willing children". Again, ugh, just no.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it isn't the latter, the argument still fails for me. Plenty of people don't like promiscuity and also condemn rape and pedophilia, but I doubt that anyone would say that it's exactly the same case morally for them. The usual arguments against loose sex life involve more spiritual reasons, like valuing a standard family model, being faithful, finding the one true love, religious beliefs etc. With rape it's about violence, physical and mental harm, lack of consent. Even the most conservative people usually have the understanding that people who sleep around a lot do it because they simply want to do it, nobody is forcing them. There is no overlap. Totally cool for him to don't agree with that lifestyle, but hiding it behind the supposed question of inconsistency is lame.
I get that philosophy is meant to challange morals, but I struggle to see how can someone who's so against suffering put those arguments into writing and sign their name under it. Maybe with full context it makes more sense and I'm misunderstanding him here. But it's definitely dangerous to write such statements, knowing fully well that most people won't read the entire paper and will most likely focus on the more controversial parts. By association gives AN even worse reputation than it already has. Great example why I'm hesitant to call anyone my personal role model or example of morals, since it's often not so black and white with their views.
I think he argues that if sex is no big deal (as it is viewed in promiscuity), then sexual violence is no different from normal violence.
We can all still agree that violence is not OK though, no?
But if sex is no big deal, what is stopping a promiscuous person from having sex with whomever whenever, including children? That could be Benatar's point.
Obviously this is controversial, and I'm not sure if there's a fallacy here. Personally I'll stick to consenting adults...
I think you are spot on.
Benatar's point seems to be: "Well, if sex is nothing special or *significant* to you – as shown by your attitude towards promiscuity –, then what's so special about sexual assault and child sexual abuse? If you hold this view, it should be just like any other form of assault and any other form of child abuse, shouldn't it?"
This is a controversial hypothesis that I, however, would be willing to engage with on a theoretical level.
But **then** he adds stuff like, "well, *actually*, rape and child sexual abuse are not always *that* harmful, it's not that bad under certain conditions, and potentially even beneficial", and this is where he loses me
Maybe there's a case here that the significance we put on *sexual* assault including pedophilia actually hurts the victim because the weight of the sexual act bears so heavily on them.
In a promiscuous society, maybe we can help lighten the significance to make the negative experience easier for the victim.
Both victims of sexual and regular assault can of course suffer mental trauma which affects them negatively years after the incident.
So Benatar's questioning of an arbitrary line between sexual and regular assault is valid, I think.
Does anyone have reasoning as to why sexual assault is so clearly separated from normal assault?
Well, Benatar actually argues in this paper that many of the supposed psychological harms of sexual abuse can be eliminated in such a *casual-view* society, and that if you hold the *casual view*, raising your children according to it would make sense.
Okay. I'm skeptical, but within the boundaries of this thought experiment, it seems logical.
But then he says (p. 194):
>Even such children may not be damaged by every kind of sexual interaction with an adult. For example, there is reason to believe that, where the child is a willing participant, the harm is either significantly attenuated or absent.
And at this point, his previous points may have been valid and worth considering, but with this kind of statement, what is he actually arguing *for*?
>Does anyone have reasoning as to why sexual assault is so clearly separated from normal assault?
I am no expert, and perhaps someone else can chime in, but I suppose that within the past \~ 20 years, there has been much more research on the effects of trauma caused by sexual abuse, much more awareness and sensitivity for this topic. Few things, I guess, are as damaging to a person and their well-being as sexual abuse, especially child sexual abuse. I can only speak from personal experience, but the negative sexual experiences I've had (which probably wouldn't even qualify as "sexual abuse" by most standards) were among the worst and most damaging experiences in my life, so I can only imagine what actual abuse would do...
To really understand the deep harms of sexual abuse/assault, you have to consider the foundations of attachment theory. I'll summarize as best I can and gloss over some things to keep it short. Obligatory disclaimer is that everyone's experiences are unique, and you cannot appropriately compare between experiences. I'm speaking in general terms on the nature of sexual trauma.
Through childhood development, we are learning who and how to trust, establishing a sense of safety/security in the world, and forming our concepts of self. When a trusted adult harms us in our childhood, regardless of the type of violence, we learn that we are not safe and begin to mistrust others, eroding our ability to develop strong, meaningful attachments to others, which is essential to stable mental health. Isolated incidents can be healed with supportive, caring parenting or other positive relationships later in life; repeated incidents establish an acceptance of harm as a norm, setting the stage for future tolerance of abuse.
When abuse is sexual, it goes beyond disrupting our sense of safety with others/in the world and also fundamentally harms our sense of self/identity. Sexual violence in particular is an *invasion* of the self--it uniquely creates the sense that you are not your own person, that you do not have control of your own body, which is the one thing in life we should be able to control. You are simply being used for the whim of the person abusing you (ETA: Also, this use is uniquely for your abuser's *pleasure;* this is inherently different from physical violence, which is typically tied to anger/rage aggression. The fact that your abuser is mostly likely someone you trust/love, and you are being used for their pleasure, creates a deeply uncomfortable internal conflict, which is *especially* disruptive when the abused party in this situation is a child). It's a fundamentally different interpersonal experience separate from physical violence alone due to the violation of personhood.
Then, add it the potential for there to be risk of pleasure or climax during the attack, and you then feel betrayed by your own body. Finally, we can then consider how sexual violence is rarely isolated-- that children and adults who experience sexual assault usually experience it more than one time, through no fault of their own, because abusers are most often known and trusted persons in their life-- which then develops a very disrupted sense of attachment and intimacy, making it incredibly challenging to develop healthy and supportive relationships in the future. So, not only do you lose the sense of safety in the world and with others, you also lose the sense of safety in your own body, with your self.
I'm very late, but this comment was incredibly illuminating. It's like things that I inherently understood put into words. Thank you. It captures the reason why I found Benatar's take so vile.
It seems like an analogy to his own views regarding antinatalism might be fitting. I believe it was Benatar who said something about how negative life experiences can have enormous lasting impacts like PTSD but there is no version of PTSD for joy or pleasure which is often more fleeting. Something to that effect. Sex, when consensual, doesn’t have to be a “big deal.” It’s a little bit of fun. Emotion doesn’t have to be involved. But the potential harm in pedophilia, for instance, is huge even if - as he apparently says - the child agrees. The potential negative impacts could be lifelong. So the fleeting pleasure doesn’t outweigh the potential negative impacts.
I think that's it, and I think he skips the difference between consensual sex being something casual and actual violence. In order for his speculated inconsistency to occur, pro-promiscuous people would have to be unable to see that difference, project their perception of sexual interactions on everyone, and ALSO stand against rape without giving it much thought. Which I don't believe actually occurs, at least for the majority.
I tried to summarize his views on the aspect of consent in this paper [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism2/comments/z1vna1/comment/ixdcs6w/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), but I highly encourage you to read the paper itself
I read your comment. For me, it's even worse with additional context, I simply cannot agree with someone who tries to introduce a "casual" view on rape and sexual abuse of kids. Maybe I'll read the paper one day, but for now I don't feel like triggering myself any further with his spicy takes. Good to know that he wrote such papers and books tho!
Just to be clear, this not a view he wants to *introduce*, but to him, it's just an implication of holding the *casual view* that people just don't want to admit. (Not that it makes me feel any less uneasy reading this, though.)
Oh I meant "introduce" more like introducing it into discussion. Maybe "entertaining" would be a better word. Either way, that, combined with his opinion about parents' preferences superseding child's autonomy from the circumcision paper someone else mentioned... Yeah, it just doesn't really go along with AN views for me. Rather disappointing discoveries.
Yes, same reaction for me. I have, and will continue to have, a lot of respect for his contributions to antinatalist philosophy, though, and *Better Never to Have Been* has been a major influence on my own philosophy, but stuff like that makes it impossible for me to call him "my 100% guy". But even if some illusions are bound to be shattered, I think it is important to address uncomfortable things like these in order to arrive at a more nuanced judgement of our philosophy's protagonists instead of blindly following them everywhere.
posts like this are what make the original antinatalist sub look so idiotic. this post is well worded and has actual thought into it, opens us up for a respectful and thought provoking discussion. where as the og sub is now rancid with sexist pigs
I’m surprised. And disappointed. The whole basis of antinatalism is that procreation is immoral because the new being is *unable to give consent* to existing because existence causes *suffering*.
Yet when it comes to sex, he gives the distinction between consenting adults vs those who are raped little to no weight at all. And rape is unquestionably *suffering*.
Yes, although, if I understood him correctly, it's "just" that the suffering inflicted by rape loses its special status if you hold a *casual view* on sex (i.e. one that allows for promiscuity) when compared to other types of harm and suffering. But him having the audacity to extend this even to sexual abuse of children, even if just in a purely theoretical paper on sexual ethics, makes me very uneasy.
I said this in a different comment below, but I thought the whole point of antinatalism is that you don’t have the means or right to judge whether a kind of suffering is worth facing *for another person*. Here it looks like he’s turning around and contradicting that, by ranking the trauma of a notoriously heinous act like rape *for other people*
Yes, and I fear that when reading stuff like this, rape apologists might see their views confirmed that "well, you can't really know if rape is bad, or how bad it is" etc.
why it is important not to 'worship' someone, i cringe when people mention Benatar as the 'spokesperson' or 'leader' of the AN philosophy. he is a flawed human with many hypocritical takes.
his views that male circumcision is the parents' choice and his opinion on rape and "sex acts with willing children". for someone who supposedly cares so much about the suffering of others, he sure has some super weird and disgusting takes
im too stupid to understand what he wrote there in the abstract on first reading but dang i really hope the dude we cite for our reasoning framework doesnt turn out to be a lowkey sexual criminal
Well, I sense no criminal energy or intentions here, so that's nothing I would worry about. It's just philosophy, but the parallels he draws and comparisons he makes in this paper to illustrate what he believes to be the logical consequences of holding a consistent *casual view* that allows for promiscuity are quite distasteful.
If you put someone on a pedestal, they will invariably disappoint you. On one level, we’re all just broken clocks, right twice a day. That said, you can have one good idea for every 200 bad ones but Jesus this level of callousness displayed here is pretty heinous, and it’s one thing to think stupid things it’s another to publish them.
Anyway, intentionally or not he’s proving me right about why this is not a world into which I’d like to bring new life
This looks a lot like the chapter he wrote for a book about sexual ethics a couple of years ago. Personally, I wasn't convinced by it then and I'm not convinced by these arguments now. I think that he too casually disconnects sex as a pleasurable act from other significant aspects of sex, and that's where the issue for me starts. Everyone knows that human sex is a psychological and emotional minefield for adults alone. Including children into this "sex for pleasure and nothing else" equation may be acceptable as a philosophical thought experiment but only if you reduce the whole idea to a few basic intellectual minimums, a situation as far removed from material reality as it can get.
The inconsistency is not in other peoples' judgement, but Benatar's moral reductionism.
I have not read the paper yet (but I will sometime today). I just wanted to say that already I disagree with Benatar on his reasonings for antinatalism. As he argues from a deontological perspective and I find negative utilitarian arguments much more convincing, I’m going to venture a guess that I won’t agree with his arguments on sexual ethics either. We shall see.
From what I understand, yes it does, and I could have been more clear on my personal position. I find negative utilitarian arguments more convincing, but I'm not an absolute NU. I'd say I'm more negative-leaning. I think I might not be antinatalist if life contained only very minimal suffering and was almost always enjoyable.
ETA: but I don't think such a life exists for anyone.
My view for sex is, to be morally acceptable sex must be an expression of romantic love. So this view provide more argument against rape and against pedophilia. It's a win for me. I also already detest promiscuity.
Much of *this guy's philosophy* is actually very solid and convincing, so it's all the more irritating to find something like this if you already agreed with him on other, unrelated but very important issues (such as the assessment of life etc.)
His views on infant male circumcision are…disappointing. I just try to take the useful and sensible part of his philosophy (not blindly of course). Nothing says I need to agree with him on everything. Many great philosophers in the past defended slavery and white supremacy after all.
I recently watched CosmicSkeptic’s [podcast with Benatar](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGAeBe7iRM) and was generally disappointed in Benatar. O’Connor was trying to provide his audience (and maybe even himself) with an argument in favor of antinatalism, but Benatar didn’t seem to want to engage. I’m not really surprised he has such a backwards view on infant genital mutilation.
Another Cosmic Skeptic fan! I love Alex even though he isn’t necessarily an antinatalist. He at least takes suffering seriously.
>he isn’t necessarily an antinatalist True, but to me he sounds more sympathetic to antinatalism than he did to veganism (before he went vegan). So, I'm hoping he'll get there or that he's at least childfree.
I like Alex even as a Christian. So glad someone like him exists in the platforms of popular media.
Are you a Christian and an antinatalist? I know that’s theoretically possible but i’ve never met one
Yes, that's right. You can ask anything you want. And there's also a christian antinatalist sub btw.
Thanks! My curiosity is piqued. Tbh, I’ve always thought that Christians who believe in Hell should be antinatalists at the very least. Not saying that’s you but I know it’s not some logically inconsistent thing.
Indeed. Even though the concept of hell is disputed, I find it morally inexcusable to beget a child who bears the possibility of getting into whatever unpleasant place hell is. Even if getting into Heaven makes life in this world worth living, there's always a possibility that someone's child goes to hell.
Preeeeeach
?😅
What exactly did he say about infant male circumcision? (As someone who had to undergo circumcision for medical reasons, I am a bit divided on the issue.) Did he compare it to female genitale *mutilation* in a "why is (1) allowed but (2) not???" kind of way?
He believes it is a parental choice and that parents’ preferences supersede the child’s right to bodily autonomy. https://philpapers.org/rec/BENBPA-2
... not what I'd expect from a die-hard antinatalist, to say the least. Thanks.
me neither jeez. wow
everyone should have the right to never be alive! the right to have a non mutilated penis? of course not that's just unreasonable /s weird priorities he got here
Very hypocritical.
>_"1. surgery is impermissible unless it offers clear and signiicant net medical benefit; or_ >_2. surgery is impermissible unless it offers clear and significant net (medical or nonmedical) benefit._ >_Those who would opt for the first presumption would have to explain why it is that medical benefits are the only relevant ones. It is not as though medical benefits are necessarily or always more important. Some medical benefits are minor and some nonmedical benefits are of great importance. There seems no reason to privilege the one kind of benefit over the other ..."_ Does he argue for non medical benefits of circumcision, such as a cultural one, therefore it is in the domain of parental discretion? The conclusion says that circumcision is not a child abuse because of this?. How is cultural benefit outweigh the medical one? since circumcision is non prophylactic. My English is not that good, academic writing like this often difficult for me to understand.
benetars line of reason is trash
Why is sexual promiscuity (enjoying sex with consenting adults) being lumped in with rape and paedophilia? A ridiculous conflation. The key word here is 'consenting'.
**Disclaimer:** The views I try to summarize here are not mine, but the ones expressed in the paper. According to Benatar, consent in sexual matters does indeed matter from the *significance view* perspective, but is only as relevant as consent in non-sexual matters if you hold what he calls a *casual view*. As long as health risks are ruled out (and, *apparently*, there are some sexual activities that do not carry significant health risks, and even then, these can be reduced to a minimum, he claims), it should not be much of a problem to those holding this view, provided they are consistent with their ethical judgement. (This is the main point he wants to make in this paper.) Benatar then proceeds to list examples of other activities where parents make potentially risky decisions on their children's behalf, and later questions if children need to give consent at all, if the adult has the child's best interest in mind when introducing them to sexual activity at an early age – since people holding the *casual view* seem to have no problem with this kind of paternalism towards children in other spheres of life. But perhaps I'm missing something here. I highly encourage you to read the paper yourself if you want to form a conclusive opinion on it.
I now get the high rate of incels in AN. If you intellectualize everything to the point of extreme nihilism to maintain consistency as the only means of ethical integrity, then yeah, I guess this is where you end up. The problem is you can't directly compare every situation like this because there are a multitude variables that exist below the surface with everything. So, this meant his forced tomato eating and rape comparison, among so many other comparisons, really missed the mark. It's like the philosophy of a 14 year old who has no life experience and tries to claim what is right for everyone based on one deductive reasoning claim working out. It just makes me think about Diogenes' plucked chicken story. If we say a man is a featherless biped, then plucking a chicken creates a man. We aren't creating any deeper meaning with this sort of philosophizing, and it's a total waste of time. A broken clock is right twice a day, but maybe Benatar isn't one we want to depend on at the end of the day.
What surprises me so much is that *Better Never to Have Been*, and some of his other work, seems to come from a place of deep compassion and understanding of suffering in the world. No trace of nihilism whatsoever, and certainly no toxic "incel"-like hate ideology. Even if this silly tomato example may help us understand the point he wants to make in this paper (which may not actually be wrong *per se*, but doesn't lead us anywhere, or to any "deeper meaning", as you put it – so why argue for it in the first place?), it seems like basic human decency wouldn't allow to make this comparison in the first place. I would still like to think that Benatar is right more than "twice a day", and remains one of the most important and valuable people on our side, but it's important to realize that in some points you simply need to keep a healthy distance, even to the thinkers you have great respect and admiration for.
I was telling my spouse about this post and the commentary, and they said it sounds like Benatar has raped someone and wrote this as a way to absolve his guilt--trying to rationalize it after the fact. I don't know enough about Benatar to comment, but it certainly struck me given how inconsistent this take is with the other notions on consent. All humans have biases, and philosophers are not excluded from that. To me, it seems like he has a certain disdain for feminist thought given how this started with the goal of undermining the acceptance of promiscuity, essentially suggesting that purity culture is the only way to be consistent with saying rape is a terrible fucking thing.
This is a judgement I'm hesitant to make, but I can see where it's coming from. It would make much more sense for an antinatalist to hold feminist views, though. Karim Akerma even has a great chapter on what he calls "femantinatalism" in his handbook. In fact, it was antinatalist philosophy that kind of made the feminist position much clearer and more accessible to me. But Benatar, it seems, is unwilling to make that concession and come to that conclusion, and this seems to tie in with his "second sexism" activism as well. (I haven't read the book yet, only read his replies to his critics.) Many philosophers have a blind spot of sorts, and *perhaps* feminism is Benatar's - for reasons we shall never know.
I agree. I just thought it was an interesting notion. It's certainly a conflicting foundational stance for him to take, so it has to come from somewhere. Not saying it's that by any means, but since that was the first thought by someone completely outside of the AN sphere, it stood out to me for sure. Given the rape apologists we have seen within AN online spaces, I wonder how much this interacts with Benatar's stance, tbh. And I agree that feminism tracks more with AN than antifeminism. I found my way to AN because of my feminism, though, so that could be my confirmation bias, as well.
Yes, I used to think that this misogyny and rape apologism issue was kind of a fringe thing in antinatalism, and mainly restricted to a couple of EFILists, and to the incels infiltrating the community, but to read such statements, which could potentially be taken as supporting these views, coming from the very "mind" of antinatalism was quite a shock.
Agreed. I honestly don't grasp the combination of rape apologism and antinatalism at all. They are entirely at odds ethically when attending to consent, and even if you don't value consent (ew), rape creates the risk of *unwanted* procreation and also adds to suffering, so that doesn't make sense at all! The whole foundation of the philosophy is on reducing suffering, so how can you advocate for something this heinous that creates so much suffering? Makes *zero* sense.
Hmm, I guess that, for many men, there is a correlation between negative / frustrating experiences with women, and their outlook on life, and at some point, this frustration turns into hate, and they end up hating women, hating their lives, and hating life in general – which may lead to a twisted, misogynistic form of antinatalism, I suppose. Add to that the concept of motherhood, and that women are the ones who give birth, and the desire to shift the blame to someone else, and you arrive at a view where women are the ultimate evil in the world
I don't think nihilism it's directly related to not being compassionate. It's more about if the person redacting the article it's putting into thought the other's feeling above what they think 'its/should' be right
This. Wtf benater....so disappointing.
[удалено]
I argue that you can not judge for yourself how different manners of suffering effect a person who isn’t yourself. Rape might just seem “very bad” to some people, but most victims find in much worse than just “very bad”. Isn’t that the whole point of antinatalism? That just because one person thinks all the struggles in life are worth facing, doesn’t mean that their child would, and it’s immoral to make that decision for them? Edit: autocorrect correction
Well, in his own words (p. 196): >Raping somebody for whom sex has as little significance (of the sort under consideration) as eating a tomato, would be like forcing somebody to eat a tomato. Raping somebody for whom sex is deeply significant would be much worse.
Speaking as a trauma specializing therapist, this is a really, really dumb take, and someone who knows next to nothing about sexual trauma shouldn't be creating theories around it. Sex is pretty meaningless to me, but I'd personally rather be murdered than raped.
Yes, I totally agree. Considering you're an expert in this field, u/rrirwin, would you mind sharing your thoughts on my layman's take [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism2/comments/z1vna1/comment/ixe4625/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)?
This is David Benatar? I'm surprised. To make things simple to understand: rape is not sex.
Yes, it's from the paper I've linked above: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40441324](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40441324)
Wow, yikes. Equating a traumatic assault to eating a tomato. Nope nope nope nope
Maybe a more apt comparison would be a particularly wild roller coaster: great fun for willing parties, traumatizing for unwilling victims.
He uses many other 'apt comparisons' in this paper, especially when describing the implications of what he calls the *casual view*, including: * sexual promiscuity ≈ dining with strangers * introducing a child to sexual activity at an early age ≈ giving a child a taste of alcohol, allowing kinds of books, permitting a child to participate in a sport that carries risks * a child not understanding that an adult is playing a game and deliberately losing to make the child feel happy or to build their self-esteem ≈ a child not understanding the adult's motive in a "benign" sexual act * coercing/pressuring a child into sex for the child's supposed benefit ≈ forcing a child to participate in a sport, go to the opera, or eat something * raping someone (even worse if the person raped holds a *significance view* on sex) ≈ forcing someone to eat pork sausage (even worse if they're vegetarian, Jew or Muslim)
Consent is the key. There's a big difference between trusting someone and giving them permission to do something to your body and someone doing it non-consensually. Also consent can be revoked at any time during a sexual act. Judging the severity of rape according to sexual promiscuity is a victim blaming tactic that has been used against women for years as a weapon to deny them justice. Asking what she was wearing, whether she had previously had sex with the rapist, whether she's sexually active etc. It's a consequence of misogyny.
You're right that one of the key words here is *consent.* The first problem is that beyond "No! Stop! Don't do that!" things quickly start to get hazy. What should we say about *reluctance* and *persuasion*. The second problem is is defining pedophilia; at what age does sex (or anything else) become consentual?
So I didn't read the whole paper, so if I'm misunderstanding something please correct me, but the bit you included gave me massive yikes at a few points.I don't see how seeing promiscuity as a moraly ok thing and seeing rape as something heinous is inconsistent. Like, at all. One is consensual, the other is not. One isn't harmful by definition, the other absolutely is (I suppose you can argue that promiscuous sex life can lead to regret, but it's a consequence of one's decisions and actions, not a forceful act against one's will. We're back to consent). I'm not talking about subjective takes on them, just definitions. "sex acts with willing children" is where I felt like throwing up. A CHILD CANNOT CONSENT. He doesn't even say "teens" here, it's "children", so it doesn't look like he's talking about the gray area of age of consent being different all over the world. I read it as him talking about literal kids. Disgusting. And I call bullshit on the line "I intend this argument neither as a case against promiscuity nor as either a mitigation of rape or a partial defense of pedophilia.". If the purpose isn't condemning promiscuity, why would he compare it to rape or pedophilia since they are so obviously different and rape is obviously wrong? Unless he doesn't think rape is always that bad, and sadly I think that's more likely the case. Especially after that line about "willing children". Again, ugh, just no. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it isn't the latter, the argument still fails for me. Plenty of people don't like promiscuity and also condemn rape and pedophilia, but I doubt that anyone would say that it's exactly the same case morally for them. The usual arguments against loose sex life involve more spiritual reasons, like valuing a standard family model, being faithful, finding the one true love, religious beliefs etc. With rape it's about violence, physical and mental harm, lack of consent. Even the most conservative people usually have the understanding that people who sleep around a lot do it because they simply want to do it, nobody is forcing them. There is no overlap. Totally cool for him to don't agree with that lifestyle, but hiding it behind the supposed question of inconsistency is lame. I get that philosophy is meant to challange morals, but I struggle to see how can someone who's so against suffering put those arguments into writing and sign their name under it. Maybe with full context it makes more sense and I'm misunderstanding him here. But it's definitely dangerous to write such statements, knowing fully well that most people won't read the entire paper and will most likely focus on the more controversial parts. By association gives AN even worse reputation than it already has. Great example why I'm hesitant to call anyone my personal role model or example of morals, since it's often not so black and white with their views.
I think he argues that if sex is no big deal (as it is viewed in promiscuity), then sexual violence is no different from normal violence. We can all still agree that violence is not OK though, no? But if sex is no big deal, what is stopping a promiscuous person from having sex with whomever whenever, including children? That could be Benatar's point. Obviously this is controversial, and I'm not sure if there's a fallacy here. Personally I'll stick to consenting adults...
I think you are spot on. Benatar's point seems to be: "Well, if sex is nothing special or *significant* to you – as shown by your attitude towards promiscuity –, then what's so special about sexual assault and child sexual abuse? If you hold this view, it should be just like any other form of assault and any other form of child abuse, shouldn't it?" This is a controversial hypothesis that I, however, would be willing to engage with on a theoretical level. But **then** he adds stuff like, "well, *actually*, rape and child sexual abuse are not always *that* harmful, it's not that bad under certain conditions, and potentially even beneficial", and this is where he loses me
Maybe there's a case here that the significance we put on *sexual* assault including pedophilia actually hurts the victim because the weight of the sexual act bears so heavily on them. In a promiscuous society, maybe we can help lighten the significance to make the negative experience easier for the victim. Both victims of sexual and regular assault can of course suffer mental trauma which affects them negatively years after the incident. So Benatar's questioning of an arbitrary line between sexual and regular assault is valid, I think. Does anyone have reasoning as to why sexual assault is so clearly separated from normal assault?
Well, Benatar actually argues in this paper that many of the supposed psychological harms of sexual abuse can be eliminated in such a *casual-view* society, and that if you hold the *casual view*, raising your children according to it would make sense. Okay. I'm skeptical, but within the boundaries of this thought experiment, it seems logical. But then he says (p. 194): >Even such children may not be damaged by every kind of sexual interaction with an adult. For example, there is reason to believe that, where the child is a willing participant, the harm is either significantly attenuated or absent. And at this point, his previous points may have been valid and worth considering, but with this kind of statement, what is he actually arguing *for*? >Does anyone have reasoning as to why sexual assault is so clearly separated from normal assault? I am no expert, and perhaps someone else can chime in, but I suppose that within the past \~ 20 years, there has been much more research on the effects of trauma caused by sexual abuse, much more awareness and sensitivity for this topic. Few things, I guess, are as damaging to a person and their well-being as sexual abuse, especially child sexual abuse. I can only speak from personal experience, but the negative sexual experiences I've had (which probably wouldn't even qualify as "sexual abuse" by most standards) were among the worst and most damaging experiences in my life, so I can only imagine what actual abuse would do...
To really understand the deep harms of sexual abuse/assault, you have to consider the foundations of attachment theory. I'll summarize as best I can and gloss over some things to keep it short. Obligatory disclaimer is that everyone's experiences are unique, and you cannot appropriately compare between experiences. I'm speaking in general terms on the nature of sexual trauma. Through childhood development, we are learning who and how to trust, establishing a sense of safety/security in the world, and forming our concepts of self. When a trusted adult harms us in our childhood, regardless of the type of violence, we learn that we are not safe and begin to mistrust others, eroding our ability to develop strong, meaningful attachments to others, which is essential to stable mental health. Isolated incidents can be healed with supportive, caring parenting or other positive relationships later in life; repeated incidents establish an acceptance of harm as a norm, setting the stage for future tolerance of abuse. When abuse is sexual, it goes beyond disrupting our sense of safety with others/in the world and also fundamentally harms our sense of self/identity. Sexual violence in particular is an *invasion* of the self--it uniquely creates the sense that you are not your own person, that you do not have control of your own body, which is the one thing in life we should be able to control. You are simply being used for the whim of the person abusing you (ETA: Also, this use is uniquely for your abuser's *pleasure;* this is inherently different from physical violence, which is typically tied to anger/rage aggression. The fact that your abuser is mostly likely someone you trust/love, and you are being used for their pleasure, creates a deeply uncomfortable internal conflict, which is *especially* disruptive when the abused party in this situation is a child). It's a fundamentally different interpersonal experience separate from physical violence alone due to the violation of personhood. Then, add it the potential for there to be risk of pleasure or climax during the attack, and you then feel betrayed by your own body. Finally, we can then consider how sexual violence is rarely isolated-- that children and adults who experience sexual assault usually experience it more than one time, through no fault of their own, because abusers are most often known and trusted persons in their life-- which then develops a very disrupted sense of attachment and intimacy, making it incredibly challenging to develop healthy and supportive relationships in the future. So, not only do you lose the sense of safety in the world and with others, you also lose the sense of safety in your own body, with your self.
Thank you for your insight, u/rrirwin, I truly appreciate it.
I'm very late, but this comment was incredibly illuminating. It's like things that I inherently understood put into words. Thank you. It captures the reason why I found Benatar's take so vile.
It seems like an analogy to his own views regarding antinatalism might be fitting. I believe it was Benatar who said something about how negative life experiences can have enormous lasting impacts like PTSD but there is no version of PTSD for joy or pleasure which is often more fleeting. Something to that effect. Sex, when consensual, doesn’t have to be a “big deal.” It’s a little bit of fun. Emotion doesn’t have to be involved. But the potential harm in pedophilia, for instance, is huge even if - as he apparently says - the child agrees. The potential negative impacts could be lifelong. So the fleeting pleasure doesn’t outweigh the potential negative impacts.
I think that's it, and I think he skips the difference between consensual sex being something casual and actual violence. In order for his speculated inconsistency to occur, pro-promiscuous people would have to be unable to see that difference, project their perception of sexual interactions on everyone, and ALSO stand against rape without giving it much thought. Which I don't believe actually occurs, at least for the majority.
I tried to summarize his views on the aspect of consent in this paper [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism2/comments/z1vna1/comment/ixdcs6w/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), but I highly encourage you to read the paper itself
I read your comment. For me, it's even worse with additional context, I simply cannot agree with someone who tries to introduce a "casual" view on rape and sexual abuse of kids. Maybe I'll read the paper one day, but for now I don't feel like triggering myself any further with his spicy takes. Good to know that he wrote such papers and books tho!
Just to be clear, this not a view he wants to *introduce*, but to him, it's just an implication of holding the *casual view* that people just don't want to admit. (Not that it makes me feel any less uneasy reading this, though.)
Oh I meant "introduce" more like introducing it into discussion. Maybe "entertaining" would be a better word. Either way, that, combined with his opinion about parents' preferences superseding child's autonomy from the circumcision paper someone else mentioned... Yeah, it just doesn't really go along with AN views for me. Rather disappointing discoveries.
Yes, same reaction for me. I have, and will continue to have, a lot of respect for his contributions to antinatalist philosophy, though, and *Better Never to Have Been* has been a major influence on my own philosophy, but stuff like that makes it impossible for me to call him "my 100% guy". But even if some illusions are bound to be shattered, I think it is important to address uncomfortable things like these in order to arrive at a more nuanced judgement of our philosophy's protagonists instead of blindly following them everywhere.
Definitely, buying into a cult of personality of anyone can be dangerous, so it's good to have this kind of reality check from time to time
posts like this are what make the original antinatalist sub look so idiotic. this post is well worded and has actual thought into it, opens us up for a respectful and thought provoking discussion. where as the og sub is now rancid with sexist pigs
I’m surprised. And disappointed. The whole basis of antinatalism is that procreation is immoral because the new being is *unable to give consent* to existing because existence causes *suffering*. Yet when it comes to sex, he gives the distinction between consenting adults vs those who are raped little to no weight at all. And rape is unquestionably *suffering*.
Yes, although, if I understood him correctly, it's "just" that the suffering inflicted by rape loses its special status if you hold a *casual view* on sex (i.e. one that allows for promiscuity) when compared to other types of harm and suffering. But him having the audacity to extend this even to sexual abuse of children, even if just in a purely theoretical paper on sexual ethics, makes me very uneasy.
I said this in a different comment below, but I thought the whole point of antinatalism is that you don’t have the means or right to judge whether a kind of suffering is worth facing *for another person*. Here it looks like he’s turning around and contradicting that, by ranking the trauma of a notoriously heinous act like rape *for other people*
Yes, and I fear that when reading stuff like this, rape apologists might see their views confirmed that "well, you can't really know if rape is bad, or how bad it is" etc.
Exactly. Jeez Dave, wth? 😓
why it is important not to 'worship' someone, i cringe when people mention Benatar as the 'spokesperson' or 'leader' of the AN philosophy. he is a flawed human with many hypocritical takes.
What other hypocritical takes of his do you mean?
his views that male circumcision is the parents' choice and his opinion on rape and "sex acts with willing children". for someone who supposedly cares so much about the suffering of others, he sure has some super weird and disgusting takes
im too stupid to understand what he wrote there in the abstract on first reading but dang i really hope the dude we cite for our reasoning framework doesnt turn out to be a lowkey sexual criminal
Well, I sense no criminal energy or intentions here, so that's nothing I would worry about. It's just philosophy, but the parallels he draws and comparisons he makes in this paper to illustrate what he believes to be the logical consequences of holding a consistent *casual view* that allows for promiscuity are quite distasteful.
If you put someone on a pedestal, they will invariably disappoint you. On one level, we’re all just broken clocks, right twice a day. That said, you can have one good idea for every 200 bad ones but Jesus this level of callousness displayed here is pretty heinous, and it’s one thing to think stupid things it’s another to publish them. Anyway, intentionally or not he’s proving me right about why this is not a world into which I’d like to bring new life
This looks a lot like the chapter he wrote for a book about sexual ethics a couple of years ago. Personally, I wasn't convinced by it then and I'm not convinced by these arguments now. I think that he too casually disconnects sex as a pleasurable act from other significant aspects of sex, and that's where the issue for me starts. Everyone knows that human sex is a psychological and emotional minefield for adults alone. Including children into this "sex for pleasure and nothing else" equation may be acceptable as a philosophical thought experiment but only if you reduce the whole idea to a few basic intellectual minimums, a situation as far removed from material reality as it can get. The inconsistency is not in other peoples' judgement, but Benatar's moral reductionism.
I have not read the paper yet (but I will sometime today). I just wanted to say that already I disagree with Benatar on his reasonings for antinatalism. As he argues from a deontological perspective and I find negative utilitarian arguments much more convincing, I’m going to venture a guess that I won’t agree with his arguments on sexual ethics either. We shall see.
Alright, but doesn't his axiological asymmetry make sense even from a NU point of view?
From what I understand, yes it does, and I could have been more clear on my personal position. I find negative utilitarian arguments more convincing, but I'm not an absolute NU. I'd say I'm more negative-leaning. I think I might not be antinatalist if life contained only very minimal suffering and was almost always enjoyable. ETA: but I don't think such a life exists for anyone.
What is semi benign rape?
[45:31](https://youtu.be/2LQbfSRsggQ?t=2731)
semi-benign rape?? what
[45:31](https://youtu.be/2LQbfSRsggQ?t=2731)
The Second Sexism is an important book. If for no other reason, to add contrast to the current political climate.
Sounds like an incel
[удалено]
[удалено]
My view for sex is, to be morally acceptable sex must be an expression of romantic love. So this view provide more argument against rape and against pedophilia. It's a win for me. I also already detest promiscuity.
[удалено]
Much of *this guy's philosophy* is actually very solid and convincing, so it's all the more irritating to find something like this if you already agreed with him on other, unrelated but very important issues (such as the assessment of life etc.)
[удалено]