When Did Sex Become Fun? (2016)
sapiens.org
sapiens.org
Would like to know if other hominids that have sex for pleasure can co satisfy of if further stimulation is required for females of other species.
Edit: Seem to have struck a nerve with someone, here is what I see as sexist.
'So it’s the manual work, not the manhood’s, that’s topping off the pleasure in the female half of the species. I’ve never heard a paleontologist, most of whom are men, describe an ancient fossil finger as evidence for the dawn of pleasurable sex. Why do you suppose that is?'
That is being supported by the previous paragraph that talks about how “human female orgasm during sexual intercourse is uncommon, in particular without additional clitoral stimulation; the orgasm is in fact more common during female masturbation or homosexual intercourse, than during actual heterosexual intercourse.”
Which is fine but she uses the fact the human females don't experience pleasure and projects it back on fish with no support.
'Now, what about pleasure? In human terms, could Long’s model of ancient fish sex be the dawn of sex for fun? Sure. Why not? Well, at least for the male. In order for us to be more confident about the female, our ancient fishes would need to have (magically) evolved dexterous fingers—which didn’t actually evolve on Earth until many millions of years after these protopenises.'
So those of you interested can read instead:
Georgiadis, Kringelbach & Pfaus (2012) https://www.nature.com/articles/nrurol.2012.151 (Nature Reviews Urology volume 9, 486–498)
Diamond 1997 http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/5510/1/146.pd... (This seems to be an online version of an old book, not sure why it's hosted in Ethiopia?)
Not worth your time.
This can only be realized through experience. One can read and "know" a lot about this topic but this knowledge can only be regurgitated.
Edit: Yes, I have 'confronted' my parents about this and it was devastating to learn that they didn't think twice about what the procedure really entails and had no reason other than "that's what people do". For additional angst, my parents are staunchly against docking the ears of dogs for ethical reasons, asserting that the hygiene 'benefits' are insignificant and that it is wrong to do it because people think it looks better cosmetically.
Are we still trusting the experts?
I am, but not on this.
This applies to other modern medical procedures as well.
Are they really experts?
Experts at what, exactly?
But I think only certain experts are allowed to be trusted.
And the experts to be trusted are determined by people who are not experts.
It's confusing.
It's like there needs to be an expert on experts. But then we would need an expert on expert on experts to know which expert on experts to trust.
So it's pretty confusing to me.
Trust but verify.
If that’s what we’re talking about, count me in except for the outrage. It doesn’t seem to have impacted my sex life in any way. What negative repurcussions are you suffering from it? Was the surgery botched, is that why?
Reduced sensitivity is not necessarily bad is what I'm trying to get at. Complete lack of sensitivity is a real problem, a botched circumcision will do that. But a botched circumcision is just like any other botched surgery: a cock-up. Surgeons make mistakes and cut nerves they weren't supposed to in other kinds of surgeries too. To put more stringent labels on an accident, such as a crime on humanity, feels a little extreme.
An intriguing speculation. Might possibly be tested by a survey for correlation between circumcision status and premature ejaculation, though screening out confounders could pose a challenge.
The first reason is merely personal, I don't like saying it. While I did not mention this in my other comment, I prefer to use the term "genital cutting" instead. This is because the term imparts more meaning and understanding about the practice when people use it. "Circumcision" isn't a common word, it is derived from Latin, and doesn't have an immediate etymological obviousness the same way "genital cutting" does.
>"It doesn’t seem to have impacted my sex life in any way."
Understandable. For the majority of us who had this procedure done routinely, our modified anatomy is all we've ever known. There's no way for us to experientially compare. If it weren't for the internet, I'm certain I would have lived my life without ever knowing I was actually missing something. To be clear, though, this would be a result of near complete ignorance rather than evidence that the procedure has no downside or effect whatsoever, something which many do assert and cite lack of widespread complaint among men as evidence.
>"Was the surgery botched, is that why?"
To be upfront, I am so deeply against what was done to me as a newborn that even if the doctor performed the most clean and by-the-book cut in all of human history, I would still be just as resentful as I am today. That being said, I do have complications that I sense are a result of the pediatrician cutting too tightly. Not only does the remaining skin have uneven stretch marks, I have a really bad "turkey neck" problem. This isn't a medical term, I don't think there is one, but my urologist has confirmed that much of the skin on my penis is actually scrotal skin. Despite this, my urologist does not believe the procedure was "botched" and according to him what I have is fairly typical. This last bit is perhaps macabre, but he could also tell my pediatrician was left-handed, based on where the scar begins and ends!
I'm sure that if the pediatrician was much less aggressive that day I would be better off, but that is not the root of my lament. I am still missing the nerve endings and protection that would have been provided by the missing tissue. To use an absurd analogy (that you should not take as an argument): If I had my part of right arm amputated, I would probably be better off if the doctor didn't remove as much of my forearm but I would still be missing my entire hand.
What I struggle with is the physical mutilation/branding aspects and the neglect/betrayal from my parents. I am really, truly, disgusted with the whole thing. I find it difficult to look at and come to terms with. I'd like to take part in normal aspects of life involving nudity: for example, say, taking a shower at the gym and I simply cannot--I foster far too much shame over my condition to ever expose myself to anyone except people I know very intimately and it remains difficult even then. I'm even ashamed to undress in front of a doctor--I now live in a country where circumcision is extremely uncommon and I feel as if they--knowing how disgusting and unnecessary and stupid a practice it is--will be my harshest critics and may even confront me over it: "Why are you circumcised?"
To their credit, that's a good question; I've asked my father about it. He told me that having me was always my mother's initiative (she took measures to ensure it to happen without informing my father). He went along with my mother and didn't really think about it and he now agrees with me that it's a terrible practice. I've never spoken to my mother about it--after raising my objections, I think she'd betray me again in seeking self-approval/reassurance and tell others about my objections and how, presumably, it "isn't a big deal".
I think it's easy for me now to claim that non-therapeutically mutilating your baby is so obviously wrong that it shouldn't be considered for even a second. I've read a lot of medical literature on circumcision which was available when I was born (in the 90s)--any reasonably critical reading (without any vested interests) of this literature would lead someone to conclude that it should not be done. It is quite clear that circumcision is a practice that was "justified" medically only after it already achieved widespread acceptance and the medical justifications are bullshit. Quickly--any argument about UTIs is insane: girls experience UTIs in higher frequency than boys yet we're not cutting their labia in prevention. STI arguments are also nonsense: these factors are minor and only come into relevance in adulthood when the individual will be sufficiently mature to make their own decision regarding circumcision. The literature places no value on the foreskin itself: it reads as the procedure under consideration was amputation without ever discussing the utility of having an arm. This process, as well as my current stint in academia, has lead to me to have a deep, deep rooted skepticism of all human endeavors and "expertise". It is so easy to be awe-struck and think that academics and professionals have deep, esoteric understanding and knowledge and a firm grasp on absolute truths that I am (or was once) unaware. More and more I'm coming to the belief that this is bullshit and that we truly are close to being a bunch of monkeys with all the chaos and lack of true understanding that that entails.
I place almost all the blame for my condition on my mother. I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do--my father had the power to prevent what occurred (or at least the opportunity to attempt to do so) and did not. But it was my mother's initiative that lead to my existence; she was the true advocate for the procedure. My mother is not a particularly intelligent woman. Is it reasonable for me to blame someone of average intelligence of doing something that, presumably, was recommended to her by the medical staff and was the status quo of the time? The majority of people in my parents' demographic chose circumcision. I'd like to believe that--if I were in my father's position--I'd be sufficiently aware to at least question irreversibly removing part of my child's body and investigate the issue further, upon which I think I would conclude that it should not be done. Yet, plenty of highly intelligent individuals did the same thing as my mother--social norms are a powerful force.
I find it difficult to reconcile my parents' (presumed) love for me as an infant with the fact that they destroyed part of my body. I also believe that they had a duty to protect me and my basic rights; instead they deeply damaged me in a completely voluntary and unnecessary procedure. I'm immature and emotional about the whole thing to a degree. While I place all the blame on my mother, I know that this is likely an unfair allocation of blame. And when I say I place the blame on my mother, what I really mean is I hate her. I really fucking hate my mother for what she did to me. I refuse to speak to her, I refuse any interaction with her whatsoever. I actually perceive her as a scary and horrifying figure in my life; her image is a recurring theme in nightmares, drug-induced bad trips, and so on. My mother is a bad person regardless of her choice of having circumcised me and I wouldn't like her regardless--but this issue truly makes me deeply, deeply hate and despise her. It feels like I need something to blame and to focus my frustrations/shame/guilt on and she's become the target for all those feelings.
Sorry for turning this comment turned into a long-winded unsolicited personal history. Sometimes it just helps to write it all out, I guess. I'm sorry you find yourself in a similarly unfortunate condition.
I think you're way overthinking this thing, you shouldn't feel so much shame because you look slightly different. Get over yourself.
Yep, this is clearly something that has an incredibly negative impact on this person's life, and they would definitely benefit from speaking with someone in great detail about this! It's very kind of you to recognize that and offer your advi-...
>Get over yourself.
... oh. Yikes.
If I were a woman and my genitals were mutilated, would your response be the same? That I should just get over myself? And before you play the well-female-mutilation-is-worse card, let's just restrict it to clitoral hood cutting, which is the analog of male foreskin removal.
The issue is that part of my body was removed without my consent and that my parents infringed upon my basic rights to an intact body. That is the issue. That may be inconceivable to you, but I assure you that it goes no deeper than that and that I have accurately represented my feelings in my post. There is no hyperbole.
But hey, it's a tough world out there so I guess we should all just suck it up and man up when our parents cut off part of our penises.
1. In the Old Testament circumcision was instituted as a 'brand' of sorts, albeit a private one.
2. I was not circumcised as an infant because my parents saw themselves as Christians, and we have baptism instead of circumcision (a contentious topic amongst Christians).
3. My younger brother was circumcised at 2ish IIRC because he had an awful persistent infection.
4. Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better for me to be circumcised because I tend to get super annoying yeast infections.
5. We _all_ feel shame being naked, you're not alone.
6. I totally agree that our infant bodies have dignity and shouldn't be altered/molested arbitrarily. I think this is true for the unborn as well as the born.
You may find more peace learning to accept what you have while remaining vocal that this practice needs to end for future children.
We have a self conception as a highly rational and high tech society. When it comes to medicine we follow "the science".
Then as a default setting we cut the tip of baby boys penis off for no reason without thinking twice about it.
At the same time viewing the same procedure on a baby girl for the utter barbaric insanity that it is. Something completely unthinkable when living in a a highly rational and high tech society that follows "the science" like we do.
Society being controlled hugely by superstition and nonsense? We are way past those idiots that use to have witch hunts hundreds of years ago. All the experts say so and the experts follow "the science".