[lbo-talk] The Rights of Baby Boys

[John Thornton]

ravi wrote:
> Say it is true that "orgasms originate in the brain". That leaves open  
> the stimulus or catalyst, since these orgasms are not spontaneous.  
> Perhaps one sees something sexy and experiences an orgasm. Or one has  
> wicked thoughts and experiences an orgasm. The idea/argument here is  
> that one such input is the stimulation of sensitive erogenous zones.  
> Therefore, removal of one such region intentionally and avoidably  
> limits the range of experiences or inputs.
>
> So, while it may be possible to have orgasms without penile  
> stimulation, that does not negate the claim that penile stimulation  
> leads to orgasm. And if penile stimulation reduces to the stimulation  
> of nerve endings or some such, and if their number and sensitivity  
> matter, then their removal reduces penile stimulation an hence one  
> avenue to orgasms.
>   

I know penile stimulation can lead to orgasm in men. The question is is 
a reduction in nerve endings equal to a reduction in sexual pleasure?
I know of no good reason to make that claim.


> I am not very puzzled by the idea that stimulation of the penis (among  
> other things) has something to do with orgasms. Whether this  
> stimulation varies as a function of the number of nerve endings, and  
> so on, is beyond me -- though its not clear that the objection to the  
> amputation is based on nerve ending count -- but something I assume is  
> accepted (or some variant of it is accepted) since the idea was not  
> challenged.
>
> In the analogy you offered, you mention "severe burns" to your hand:  
> would you equate "severe burns" to "damage"? Many, I think would. And  
> I also think that: (a) most would prefer not to inflict burns on  
> themselves, even under anaesthesia, and (b) have the condition  
> reversed if possible. Again, there may be other considerations:  
> perhaps the hand was intentionally burnt to avoid more severe  
> "damage", etc. And again, that's a different line of reasoning.
>
> With apologies for building on your hand-burn example,
>
> 	--ravi

No apologies needed. I'm not sensitive about my hand injury or I 
wouldn't have brought it up.
The point being that a reduction in nerves in my hand has in no way 
diminished the pain my hand experiences when encountering heat.
I will claim that since I can compare it to my undamaged hand that this 
will have to suffice as evidence for no reduction at all.
Carry this over to a penis.

Think of an penile stimulated orgasm as a triggered response from the 
brain by stimulation of nerves in the penis. It does not stand from this 
that if one were to reduce the number of nerves in the penis by 50% that 
the triggered response in the brain would also be reduced.

Imagine if you could achieve orgasm by someone running a duster with 100 
feathers down your back. Now if someone ran a duster with 60 feathers 
down your back would the orgasm be only 60% as intense?
I can think of no reason to believe it would be yet this is in essence 
the claim being made. Stimulate X number of fewer penile nerves and have 
an orgasm reduced by X%.

John Thornton