[lbo-talk] The Rights of Baby Boys

arash arash at riseup.net
Thu Dec 13 19:13:26 PST 2007


The news brief on the study I linked to mentions this finding: "they show that both circumcised and uncircumcised participants were less sensitive to touch overall during sexual arousal. This appears to be an important factor in the normal sexual response and pleasure." ..."While more research is needed, diminishing genital sensitivity during sexual arousal may be an important factor helping protect against pain during sexual activity."

This illustrates the difficulty in inferring pleasure from sensitivity, they aren't always positively correlated, I think the same goes for the issue you raise about delayed orgasm. And still reduced sensitivity from circumcision might diminish some other aspect of the sexual experience, difficulty getting aroused in the first place maybe.

Since teasing out how sensitivity affects sexual pleasure is incredibly complicated (the problem of qualia isn't exactly known for its tractability), I doubt any research findings are going to substantially impact circumcision issue, but at the same time examining the unknowns can reasonably lead people to take a cautionary stance, what benefits justify monkeying around with such a complicated system, especially without consent. I think this was part of the general thrust of Ravi's arguments.

-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:22 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The Rights of Baby Boys

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.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list