Just a thought or two, experiential rather than scientific. Suppose that circumcision reduces sensitivity. Still, doesn't delay in orgasm increase intensity? Might not decreased sensitivity, up to a point, lead to more intense and in that sense better orgasms? Something to factor into the research.
Also, unless you're a totally selfish person or just playing with yourself (nothing wrong with that, but set that activity aside), orgasms characteristically involve at least two. Now with women it is true that many women only achieve orgasm through cunnilingus, or only achieve the best orgasms that way. (So I gather by report and observation.) But I've rarely had a woman object that _I_ was taking too long, or that delayed male orgasm diminished her pleasure. Occasionally, yes, it's true. Still, most women I know and have heard of that thought the longer it takes, up to a point, the better.
As a rule, though not invariably, in my experience women prefer to be licked to orgasm first, and simple manners should tell you that Ladies Come First, but however this plays out, the total experience of sex and all these considerations should be factored into the analysis. How things are with same-sex relations I leave to those with real experience.
--- arash <arash at riseup.net> wrote:
> Ravi wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Mr. WD wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 2007 10:10 PM, Miles Jackson <cqmv at
> pdx.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> How on earth could we possibly determine if
> uncircumcised men
> >> experience
> >> more pleasure from sex than circumcised me do?
> (--A serious
> >> question.)
> >
> > Maybe conduct reliable surveys of men who had been
> circumcised in
> > adulthood?
> >
>
> >I was going to suggest the same.
>
> This approach seems to assume that the loss of
> sensitivity would be same for
> someone circumcised as an infant and as an adult,
> that seems like too big an
> assumption to be taken for granted. When a
> circumcised boy goes through
> sexual maturation and his physical sensations are
> integrated into a sense of
> sexual pleasure, it seems plausible his sense of
> pleasure could be
> calibrated to match the reduced sensitivity. So the
> end result of
> circumcision might be considerably different for
> someone who has already
> gone through sexual maturation.
>
> A more recent study contradicts the findings that
> Hinckley cites about the
> uncircumcised men having greater sensitivity,
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78059.php
> I doubt such studies are going to have much impact
> on this debate since
> a robust understanding of how sensitivity translates
> into pleasure seems
> quite a way off, along with the issue of the methods
> of assessing
> sensitivity (these two studies uses different
> approaches).
>
> But on the same line of reasoning, with the so much
> unresolved about the
> sensitivity loss, what warrants the risk, even if
> only potential?
> The public-health angle seems like a real canard, at
> least in countries with
> good access to condoms, and I think Hinckley's
> response about then making
> the procedure a consent-based one illustrates that.
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs