Full network of clitoral nerves mapped out for first time
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
This seemed surprising, as it hews too close to an annoying meme in feminism and history generally, that people in prior eras were idiots. And it turns out to be wrong. The clitoris was in Gray's Anatomy until 1947, when it was removed by the editor Charles Goss for the 25th edition. See https://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/cliteracy/embed... Indeed, the clitoris had been depicted in Classical medical books.
Why it was removed--and stayed removed for nearly 50 years--would make for an interesting story about mid-century culture, if not for a cynical throwaway comment, though it seems nobody knows Goss' actual motivations.
EDIT: Relatedly, The Guardian article sites the statistics about female genital mutilation. And you might think, how could people in this day be so cruel? Well, in some (but not all) of those cultures, such as parts of West Africa, female sexual pleasure is highly valued, a clitoral circumcision involves removing the clitoral hood only, similar to circumcision for men, and is viewed as enhancing female sexual pleasure, specifically for oral sex, an act that lacks any negative connotations. Now, embedded in that narrative might be a deeper, more subtle bias against women, but by not appreciating and grappling with that dynamic you're ignoring and diminishing how many women in those cultures understand feminism, which is its own anti-feminine and culturally centric (i.e. "colonial") bias.
Here's a couple of articles by one of most vocal supporters of FGM in West Africa:
* https://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/hurray-for-bondo-women-...
* http://www.fuambaisiaahmadu.com/blogs/my-response-to-fuambai...
And some skeptical but engaging discussions about her views:
* https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/TMR/article/...
* https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.14318/hau6.3.011
The second link of the four is a response to the last.
I was sloppy in being too specific in saying removing the clitoral hood was sometimes justified as enhancing oral sex. Now that I think about it, that might be one of the views regarding labial extension, which is often lumped in with FGM but obviously quite different from cutting the clitoral hood. The claims about enhancing sexual pleasure I think largely came from more polemical literature, as well as some English-language African feminist blogs and bulletin boards, and I would suspect those views may be, at least to some extent and in their specificity, recent revisionist justifications. In African discourse there's a reactionary vein that pushes against Western criticisms of traditional African practices, and one of the ways to do that would be to subvert the paternalistic disgust about FGM by explicitly arguing the practice promotes one of the West's other ideals, sex positivity.
To be clear, I'm not trying to defend any of this. Just trying to point out that the West's exceedingly simplistic and categorical perspective hides a very strong cultural prejudice, as well other problematic assumptions about how and why these practices persist.
This sounds like the same sort of bullshit used to promote male circumcision. How about we just stop performing unnecessary surgery on our children? If someone wants to mess with their own junk, they can do it when they become an adult.
If you can imagine that forced genital mutilation without anesthetics lacks negative connotations, as long as it's "for her eventual pleasure".
Good Lord.
Negative connotations and actual negativity are two separate things. Alcohol tends not to have negative connotations whereas things that are better for your health and less addictive, cannabis, magic mushrooms, have negative connotations.
Alcohol is also terrible. Nicotine is terrible. Even caffeine can be terrible if you become too dependent on it without realizing. Harm reduction is a thing that can make things less terrible but most users don't practice it. That's the real terror IMO.
> Negative connotations and actual negativity are two separate things. Alcohol tends not to have negative connotations whereas things that are better for your health and less addictive, cannabis, magic mushrooms, have negative connotations.
This is just legal vs illegal. Which is pretty much how morals are decided these days, especially for the non-autistic / "neurotypical" population
Give it a break. Nothing isolates "neurodivergent" people from the rest of society faster than treating neurotypical people as a morally inferior out-group.
While I have many autistic friends from abusive living situations that were forced to accept how things were, I find that the autistic people I meet still tend to be much more varied than the non-autistic. Though I don't know for sure whether this is a side effect of their neurotype or of their societal treatment.
You omitted "self-reinforced stereotype" from that list.
My view is that circumcision is negative. I disagree that it has negative connotations though.
Do we have different understandings of what connotation means? I would say in most of the western population having a glass of wine in the evening would be seen neutrally. Having a joint less so. I'm not saying having a joint is bad. But connotations are about the unspoken things, I'm not saying it, it's inserted by people based on their biases.
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Things that society decides are immoral become illegal and visa versa.
Fwiw I'm Autistic, so I don't know if the last comment was aimed at me, and whether I should class it as a compliment.
> My view is that circumcision is negative. I disagree that it has negative connotations though.
It certainly has negative connotations for me. But, if you are saying it does not have negative connotations in general because it is still widely practiced rather than widely condemned, then I would be inclined to agree. But the wording of your comment implied there is essentially no contest whatsoever, which is why I wrote to clarify that IME it's only "most" people who don't have an opinion on it (or maybe even support it), and that I and many I know do have strong opinions against it.
> I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Things that society decides are immoral become illegal and visa versa.
That is absolutely not how e.g. the war on drugs started. For example, LSD can be fairly safe when used responsibly (and basically won't directly kill you), however when the wrong people were having fun with it, it was made illegal to target them. I don't think "society" made this determination; just the then-president. Research into psychedelics is finally starting to carve out specific paths to limited legalization, but I honestly think that safe psychedelics should be OTC, and harm reduction should be an encouraged practice, rather than sort of black-market knowledge that is only discoverable by the savviest users.
> Fwiw I'm Autistic, so I don't know if the last comment was aimed at me, and whether I should class it as a compliment.
Honestly it was mostly aimed at my friend group. I've found it difficult to connect with non-autistics because I primarily deal well with explicit logic. It could be that similar intellects are just formatted differently, but I've been unable to tell if a lack of struggle / lack of awareness of struggle actually equates to comparable skill because I can't seem to interrogate them properly. They're all-but inscrutable to me. And as far as I know, they're the source of most of the surface-level generally-accepted stereotypes that quickly break down or are flat-out wrong. I don't know that they're inferior in any way, but they rarely seem to have anything interesting for me (as that would usually make them neurodivergent).
We run in different circles I guess.
While I think the suggestion - popular with left wing academics - that society can be engineered towards perfect fairness from a blank slate is obvious nonsense, it's also true there have been decades of active social engineering towards other ends which were deliberate, organised, and generously funded, and have become so pervasive they're experienced as constant background noise.
Do you have examples of this? I read a lot of feminist literature and it's not something that's ever jumped out to me.
Like, imagine documentation on object oriented programming being removed because it offended some functional programming folks.
What is the adequate explanation via stupidity in this case though? If there is one that sure maybe we should lean that way without further evidence.
I think this rule may have always been fake when anyone with even a little bit of power did it.
Of course it's unproductive to start from assumptions of bad faith, which is a fair point. Bad faith requires evidence of intent, stupidity doesn't.
But there are still situations where bad faith is a reasonable hypothesis to test. And some negative actors are clever enough to operate deliberately inside a zone of plausible deniability.
A subtle distinction, but I'd flip this as "malice is incompetence".
I am not stating any opinion for or against any words or terms in this context.
Instead I will do my best to balance my language between brevity and specificity while hoping my instructions are clear, direct, and honest for the audience. Everything else is left to chance.
I have found over the years, the degree of my communication's success is left more to the particularities and desires of group thought from a given audience than from the words themselves. I come to this conclusion through numerous times of providing the same communication, verbatim, to difference audiences and watching the wildly differing results.
If I lived by commission I suspect I would alter my behavior. Instead, I manage a software team for a living.
I remember much debate about this, and not once was an actual affected person mentioned who took offence.
2. I make absolutely no claim about the effectiveness of using or avoiding certain terms even in the relevant context. I'm only saying that people misunderstand what "offensive" means in this context. It means things that may make some people think less of others, whether or not those others know about it or are offended by it.
Think bad PR, not actual people complaining due to being offended. Like if I named my code library dead babies, it's possible nobody whose delt with a dead baby finds offense to it, but many people might find it off putting that I've chosen to call it that. So if I was a high value corporate entity who doesn't want bad PR, I might want to rename it.
I think in the end it's more of a, oh damn, did I just make a master/slave analogy for my database design? Maybe someone will find that offensive, and I don't want that, so I'll rename it as a precaution, even if no one has yet to let me know it's offending them.
Sure blacklist was already an English word, but it's not necessarily _common_, and the distinction between blacklist and whitelist is kinda arbitrary. If you'd like to explain Why the word means what it does I'd love to hear it
Allowlist and denylist are clearer, in that the meaning is in more clear alignment with the words it's made up of.
The old terms just make more sense to those who are old enough to be used to it.
> If you'd like to explain Why the word means what it does I'd love to hear it
Simply because black means different things depending on the context. Evil, invisible, mysterious, absence of light, sinister. It's not arbitrary because that's how the word black is commonly used.
Contrasted against using words where the Primary definition is the one that matters.
Imagine an alien culture encountering the word. Blacklist versus Denylist. The latter requires a lot less context to understand the meaning, because "Deny" has a single pretty consistent definition.
Seems like it's just another step in developing one's language skills, no more or less ambiguous than "deny" for someone who doesn't know either word, but I'd wager than "black" would probably be encountered earlier in the vocab training list. It's a bit of a stretch, imo. "Reject" or "Turn-away" or "Block" works too, as well as many others, language is flexible, it doesn't seem names for lists are worth so much energy.
The word 'blacklist' probably originated from this meaning. It was in use in England since before, but it was probably the "Black List of Regicides” that popularised the term. It was a list compiled by the administration of King Charles II England of those to be punished for the beheading of his father King Charles I in 1649, following the restoration of the monarchy of England in 1660. As this list was rather long, it was a probably a bit of a traumatic event for the gentry in London and it’s not hard to imagine that the memory of the dreaded "blacklist" stuck. A century later the word was in general use for a list of enemies, detractors, and unwanted people.
Conversely, "in the black" is the notion of having no debts or a positive cash flow. This obviously comes from the centuries old principle of using black for credit, and red ink for debit and negative balances in the double-entry accounting system codified in the 15th century.
A tangential but equally fascinating concept is the practice of forbidding - or blacklisting - words in totalitarian regimes like Maoist China. Controlling language was a key strategy to influence thought, define in-groups, and ostracize out-groups. It's a hallmark of a totalitarian systems aiming to shape thought through language. Very much not at all in line with the principles of ballot voting in a democratic system one should think.
(The last argument can be used with any word. I could find your Gallicism offensive and demand that all words with a French etymology should be removed from English to restore it to it's Old-English form before the oppressive Normand rule, since after all, the old words would just make more sense to those who are old enough to be used to it, and my feelings are important.)
I may have been a bit too pithy/I sufficiently clear with that last statement I made.
I meant it in the sense that understanding the word relies on a lot of contextual/colloquial/cultural understanding that's typically gained via time and exposure. At least, more of it than allow/deny requires.
Imagine an alien culture encountering blacklist vs Denylist. The latter requires a lot less context to translate, because Deny is used a lot more consistently.
My argument is mainly one about _clarity_, not hurt feelings.
Blacklist and whitelist would be closer to include/exclude, so the replacement would be a includelist and excludelist, or include/exclude as shorthand.
I feel like a permission list is kind of a superset of a block list and an exclude list. Or they're all different perspectives/solutions to the same kind of problem, that a permission list is the more generalizable solution for.
Or it's a way of framing the problem that doesn't embed the "exclusion" idea in the naming.
And it kinda bridges over to the idea of Access Control Lists a bit better?
Because neither of those are actual words in English. They make sense to someone whose first language is English.
As for whitelist and blacklist, I don't remember having any difficulties with them. Maybe on the first encounter, but that's it.
Potato, potahto.
Let's not pretend we are fundamentally different from people living in other epochs, just biases change. We literally changed branch names of git repos because some people in one big country felt the naming could be offensive to another group of people.
"A Beka Book" (now styled "Abeka") was not just the province of homeschoolers, but made its way into the educational and academic curricula in many higher learning institutions.
Unlike "modern math" theorists who believe mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute, and that A Beka Book provides texts that are not burdened with modern ideas such as Set Theory.
It would have made a great deal less fuss if it didn't turn out that Abeka books were being bought in their thousands with tax dollars. I suppose this sort of thing would barely raise an eyebrow these days. I've been seeing far more avante garde ideas flowing forth in the public-funded wells of the former Confederacy of late.
This sounds like a strawman to me but I’m not well versed in feminism. Do you have examples? On the topic of science, isn’t the criticism more that women were largely ignored or misrepresented in scientific studies? This doesn’t have to be because the authors were “idiots”.
It is the year of our Lord 2026, men proximate to power are openly speculating about the removal of the vote from all women, the end of no-fault divorce, and laws to enforce a birth rate that increases the prevalence of white skin. None of these policy goals are interested in the clit, or indeed, any health care that doesn't directly contribute to the production of heirs.
So as you pointed out, this omission was done deliberately.
If one points this kind of thing out in a vacuum, you are labelled 'hysterical' or 'doing the annoying meme'. Your reaction of instant scepticism is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Everything is uphill and 'in doubt' until you find a source that's 'credible'. If no one 'legitimate' ever bothered to write it in a way you, a man, will hear it, then it's yet another harpy shrilling about imagined oppression.
You can imagine how exhausting such reactions are the nth time you have to delicately handle them.
This put enough fire under me to look it up, hoping to prove pembrook wrong. I admit I wanted this feminist-persecution "fact" to be true.
The Internet Archive has one copy in the suspect period (post-1943), the 1944 28th edition by T. B. Johnston. It contains an entry for 'Clitoris' in the index, with 5-6 subheadings about the structure. Clearly, not deleted.
Screenshot of the index in question: https://imgur.com/a/qFfn9gr
This is also false [1]. One guy didn't wake up one day in 1947 and decide to remove all references to the clitoris in Gray's anatomy.
It's yet another version of the same internet myth, the goal being to caricature people in the past as cartoonishly evil and misogynistic.
Please never use Huffington Post articles as a primary source.
The item I presume you are intending them to notice is the green-shaded Table 1, 3rd and 4th instances of the word "clitoris" in that paper. It basically supports your claim: HuffPost posted a false "fact".
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.03.18.712572v1
>>> PDF with the images
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.03.18.712572v1...
[0]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.03.18.712572v1...
Another classic example is the discourse around "missing and murdered Indigenous women" in Canadian politics. It was popular enough around a decade ago to be more or less a set phrase. To listen to politicians and wonks discussing the matter, you would imagine that Indigenous men didn't ever get kidnapped or murdered. As a matter of fact, the statistics showed that it happened to them at over twice the rate of the women. (They also showed that it was not an alarmingly high rate compared to other Canadian populations, and that the perpetrators were usually themselves Indigenous — as you'd expect for generally fairly isolated communities.) But you would get silenced in many places (e.g., banned from the Canada subreddit) for pointing to those statistics.
Canada has an incredibly censorious culture. I have been downvoted to -4 [0] [1] and flagged for merely suggesting that Canadians do not care about medical privacy (or privacy in general) in light of things like Bill C-22 and DNA collection at the US border [2].
Interestingly enough, questioning gender ideology and being trans critical (maybe even transphobic) is now acceptable on HN [3], but Canadians have something very dark to hide when it comes to respecting medical privacy given how hard posts of this nature are downvoted, flagged, and censored.
Surprised he didn't willingly relinquish a sample.
Privacy is not actually a core Canadian value.
Neither in spirit nor in letter do Canadians actually
demonstrate that they give a shit about privacy; see
for instance Bill C-22.
I invite commenters to demonstrate otherwise instead of
merely downvoting incontrovertible facts.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47571396
[2] https://www.ctvnews.ca/london/article/canadian-man-denied-en...
Mixed school is a bane for men, for example. I’m full on with the Mollahs on this one.
Respectfully, what are you talking about?
Plus there's 'all lives matter' as in the proponent doesn't want to do anything, and 'all lives matter' as in police brutality is bad no matter who it's aimed at, and should be stopped completely.
The latter more closely mirrors the parents example.
Further I would say your example is flawed. BLM assumed a level of racism that I don't think there is. This isn't a case of KKK members wanting to get the <racist slur>s out of the country and back where 'they belong' it's more an issue of laziness and profiling. That isn't to say it isn't racism, but just talking about racism allows police that aren't KKK members to tell themselves they aren't the problem. Focussing on the issues of laziness etc means they do actually need to face up to the issues.
The same thing with genital mutilation, this isn't simply a case of something that happens to girls in a far away land, this is happening to kids right now in the west. Focusing on FGM kind of misses the point.
Why is your lived experience greater than that of an entire group of people?
The KKK reference was to make clear that there are some that might identify themselves as racist. Whereas there are those that may for whatever reason, legitimate or not treat different groups differently. It isn't considered ageist to treat 1 yr olds and 91 year olds differently for example.
You presumably don't class yourself as racist. If someone were to claim your group were racist, would you automatically accept you were? Simply stating the outcome and some extreme examples doesn't force the rest of the group to actually engage with the problem. Worse it could create division where there was none because the majority feel they have to treat a particular group better than the rest.
I'm a white man, I've had similar experiences to what ethnic minorities would describe as racism, except in the context of domestic abuse. Are the police man hating sexists, or is it more that it sounds about right that a man would abuse a woman rather than the other way round, and is more a case of laziness and not really caring, which yes is technically sexist/racist, but ignores the fact that the perpetrators don't think of themselves as racist and were 'just doing their job'.
If we were to talk about domestic violence the automatic assumption is male against female. Ignoring the fact that a third of victims are men. That isn't exactly a small minority, before you take into account that it probably an undercount as no one talks about men getting abused.
The same goes for breast cancer. Men can get it, its almost never talked about.
No one is forced to follow that thread. And the comment does provide additional information.
In fact, I never considered circumcision a form a gender mutilation. Despite being circumcised. But that comment got me thinking about it in a new way. And thinking about GM in a larger context.
> Circumcision is prevalent among 92% of men in North Africa and around 62% in Sub-Saharan Africa. In western and northern parts of Africa it is mainly performed for religious reasons, whereas in southern parts of Africa it rarely performed in neonates, instead being a rite of passage into manhood.[22]
> Studies evaluating the complications due to traditional male circumcision have found rates varying from 35% (Kenya) to 48% (South Africa). Infection, delayed wound healing, glans amputation and injury, bleeding, loss of penile sensitivity, excessive removal of foreskin, and death are the major complications reported.[23]
...
> ...There are tribes, however, that do not accept this modernized practice. They insist on circumcision in a group ceremony, and a test of courage at the banks of a river. This more traditional approach is common amongst the Meru and the Kisii tribes of Kenya.[40] One boy in Meru County, Kenya was assaulted by other boys because they wanted him to be circumcised in a traditional ceremony as opposed to in a hospital.[44]
...
> Amongst the Maasai people of Kenya and Tanzania, male circumcision has historically been the graduation element of an educational program which taught tribal beliefs, practices, culture, religion and history to youth who were on the verge of becoming full-fledged members of society. The circumcision ceremony was very public, and required a display of courage under the knife in order to maintain the honor and prestige of the young man and his family. The only form of anesthesia was a bath in the cold morning waters of a river, which tended to numb the senses to a minor degree. The youths being circumcised were required to maintain a stoic expression and not to flinch from the pain.[40]
...
> In some South African ethnic groups, circumcision has roots in several belief systems, and is performed most of the time on teenage boys: "The young men in the eastern Cape belong to the Xhosa ethnic group for whom circumcision is considered part of the passage into manhood. ... A law was recently introduced requiring initiation schools to be licensed and only allowing circumcisions to be performed on youths aged 18 and older. But Eastern Cape provincial Health Department spokesman Sizwe Kupelo told Reuters news agency that boys as young as 11 had died. Each year thousands of young men go into the bush alone, without water, to attend initiation schools. Many do not survive the ordeal.[59]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_in_Africa (includes NSFW images).
[22]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5422680
[23]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3474774
[40]: https://web.archive.org/web/20080906115430/http://htc.anu.ed...
Not in Europe.
Also: If pain becomes a contest, we're all losers.
Also: Thank you for complaining. There is much to complain about. There's so much to complain about that we can sit in a circle and take turns complaining and everybody will probably learn something.
That seems bad.
(P.S. you can also add a new thread)
> FGM reconstruction actually seems to have negative outcomes post-surgery. I'm surprised by this.
Surgery is essentially mutilation, just in the physical sense (you are cutting through healthy tissue), not a moral sense (the whole point is to make the body more healthy). The information gathered from mapping nerve endings in a clitoris will hopefully help surgeons perform reconstruction surgery with less damage to the body.
> Longitudinal data indicate that approximately 22% of women who undergo clitoral reconstruction experience a post-operative decline in orgasmic experience [25, 26]
From [25] abstract: Most patients reported an improvement, or at least no worsening, in pain (821 of 840 patients) and clitoral pleasure (815 of 834 patients)
So, I think the quote needs to be interpreted as surgery, even though beneficial on average, still having a pretty high percentage of negative outcomes (22%) and nerve mapping potentially helping reduce that.
And talk to any gyn doc in the west: it's happening among those communities in the west too (but on a lesser scale). In several EU western countries the most common gynelogical surgery act is re-building the hymen (so that the woman can pretend she's a virgin once she marries, often forcibly by her family). You may not have gyn doctors friend but I do. And midwives. And they know.
"... surveys show that the practice of FGM is highly concentrated in a swath of countries from the Atlantic coast to the Horn of Africa, in areas of the Middle East such as Iraq and Yemen and in some countries in Asia like Indonesia, with wide variations in prevalence. The practice is almost universal in Somalia, Guinea and Djibouti, with levels of 90 per cent or higher, while it affects no more than 1 per cent of girls and women in Cameroon and Uganda"
Now from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_geni...
"FGM is practised predominantly within certain Muslim societies,[13] but it also exists within some adjacent Christian and animist groups.[14] The practice is not required by Islam and fatwas have been issued forbidding FGM,[15] favouring it,[16] or leaving the decision to parents but advising against it."
Let's call a cat: of these 230 mutilated women, a vast majority are muslims. There are 900 million muslim women on earth and nearly 1/4th of them have been mutilated by their community.
Ponder this.
Can you source that claim?
The fact that SA recently (past ~15 years) passed quite a few reforms that significantly lax old theocracy rules (e.g., women are now legally allowed to drive, they are no longer obligated to wear hijab outside, no male chaperone requirements, western-tier public music festivals and concerts can now be hosted, etc.) only solidified that opinion.
That assumes that Saudis did use to do FGM.. and that's not true either.
If the point here is that this is an Islamic/Muslim issue, then you'd find this in other Muslim populations. It's an Africa issue. Ethiopia is 60% Christian, yet had a 65 percent rate of FGM. Look at Pakistan, and the levant in general. Very Muslim populations yet very low levels of FGM.
500,000 in the USA. 98%+ in some other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_m...
(Scientific American is throwing up a paywall even though they're only republishing https://theconversation.com/look-your-eyes-are-wired-backwar... At least they link to the original.)
early stage embryos of both sexes are not easily distinguishable by genitalia, they look morphologically similar. later developmental events culminate in morphological rearrangement to male form.
lack of response to testosterone during development results n a curious state of affairs, where a person is genetically male, having x, and y chromosomes, develops according to a female plan. external appearances are female, with loss of secondary sex development in puberty.
Androgen insensitivity syndrome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom...
I can't tell why other areas may have needed higher spatial resolution; maybe it was evolutionary important in the past, and remains today. Or maybe just adding more nerves due to a random mutation correlated with better reproductive outcomes due to a stronger signal, or higher sensitivity, so more nerves are present for no other reason.
Going in detail, first consider that for a feature to be evolutionarily selected for two things have to be true:
1. It must increase the fitness of the organism that carries it, i.e. the likelihood of its carrier having descendants as compared to non-carriers ( or be a side effect of another feature that improves fitness enough to be a net positive, etc etc )
2. It must be inheritable (and, in sexually reproduced organisms, mutually compatible during embryonic development).
One such a feature has reached dominance in a given population, as long as it continues to be important for fitness it cannot really be deprecated in favour of an alternative from scratch, even if that alternative is arguably better.
That's why, for instance, vertebrate ocular nerves connect to our retinas on the inside of our eyeball, resulting in us having a blind spot. Cephalopods, on the other hand, evolved their eyes independently the "reasonable" way, connecing their nerves from behind the eyeball. There's no way a vertebrate could mutate from scratch for its optical nerve to connect to the retina from behind without causing absolute mayhem in embryonic development. Our hacky solution for the blind spot? Let the brain hide it in software.
Going back to your question, some spots of the body being more sensitive than others became critical for evolutionary fitness long before nervous systems were complex enough to generate conscious qualia, let alone enough for them to be consistently involved in decision making. Furthermore, mapping of specific nerves to intensity of feeling on the CNS would imply complex hardcoding of something which is much easier to solve with "this place important, have more nerves", and maybe would even conflict with the fitness benefit of a CNS with enough neuroplasticity to learn anew during the development and lifetime of an organism.
So, in summary, the solution of having more nerves where it matters is simple, good enough, and has no reason to be rolled back in favour of a radically different alternative.
> Our hacky solution for the blind spot? Let the brain hide it in software.
I would say the solution is just having two eyes, since their respective blind spots don't overlap in the visual field.
I would also say that the brain doesn't hide the blind spots, but rather doesn't pay any attention to them in the first place. There's just a lack of information from them, and this deficit isn't normally noticeable because the other eye makes up for it. I think Dennett explains it that way somewhere, probably in Consciousness Explained
This isn't necessarily true. If you map out changes through the history of species, you'll find no significant changes but a lot of diversity for long periods, followed by big changes and low diversity for a short period. That's because during "abundant" times, the population will develop diversity as long as it doesn't significantly hinder reproductive rates. When an environnemental pressure comes up, the diversity dies down because the ones lucky enough to have adaptations that suddenly become useful and reproduce more.
So an animal might get a longer neck, but that doesn't significantly increase reproduction because food is aplenty. It's only when there's a drought that longer necks become an advantage and the trait is now selected for.
As to your example about, for instance, neck length during abundant times, that follows the same rule: during abundant times neck length simply does not matter for fitness, therefore (all else being equal) there can be phenotypic diversity in the population.
One caveat though as to how a given phenotype may become ubiquitous without favourable selection is of course genetic drift[0], given a small enough population which is isolated for a long enough timeframe. Eventually that phenotype may become selectively "advantageous" inasmuch as it is no longer compatible with alternatives, and individuals from the isolated population who this phenotype can no longer have successful offspring with individuals of a different phenotype, resulting in speciation. That's what I meant with regards to a "make nerves on important places generate more pleasure/pain in brain" genotype being incompatible with a "have more nerves on important places" one. A hypothetical hybrid creature would be a mess.
Not saying your answer is right or wrong, but I don't think this is a sufficient explanation. If the body can differentiate areas enough to produce more nerves in one area, then it could plausibly instead produce fewer nerves which inherently produce a stronger signal - just as we have nerves which respond differently to different stimuli (e.g. heat, light, etc). Also it could be neither and we kinda randomly ended up with what we have because no option was strongly disadvantageous at the time.
Think of a television. What gives you a better picture, quadrupling the number of pixels or making the existing pixels 4x as intense?
The brain does do some of what you’re describing though. The somatosensory cortex gives disproportionate space to certain body parts (the sensory homunculus). So there is central amplification, but it works on top of peripheral density, not instead of it. Without the dense nerve input, you’d basically have an on/off switch instead of nuanced sensation.
It's not like evolution would leave a significant amount of signal/noise ratio on the table for all other nerves.
Presuming nerves are already optimized if you want more signal you have to add nerves.
I still remember "Show HN: Clitly, my app for finding the Clitoris".
"Show HN: Clitly - My API for locating the clitoris using Node.js [github.com]"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realdo_Colombo
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Anatomist-Federico-Andahazi/dp/038549...
Lol. Hard to take that statement serious.
Would be really interesting to get a few dozen of these and map out the variability. Gotta start somewhere though