Chazal on Sexual Arousal and Disgust - מגעל ועוררות מינית

 I've been thinking about this for quite a while, and, of course, I remain very ambivalent about posting it. But I finally decided that there is a benefit to be gained for Lomdei Torah, and that makes it worth it.

If you disagree, please let me know. It's easy enough to move it back to the Draft folder. But I am pretty sure that the pshat is correct and that you won't find this pshat in the Gemara elsewhere. I fear that this post might make the website inaccessible to people with web filters. If that turns out to be the case, I will move it to a different website.

There is a Gemara in Shabbos (152a) that is somewhat disturbing. 

אמר רב כהנא, מאי דכתיב: ״כי הוא אמר ויהי״ — זו אשה. ״הוא צוה ויעמוד״ — אלו בנים. תנא: אשה חמת מלא צואה, ופיה מלא דם — והכל רצין אחריה.

Rashi

זו אשה - אם לא על פי גזרת המלך לא היתה ראויה להתאוות לה שהיא כחמת מלאה מיאוס והכל רצים אחריה:

An uninformed reader might feel that the Gemara smacks of misogyny.  But look at the following study, published in 2015.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479551/

and the relevant line is here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479551/#:~:text=Sexual%20Arousal%20and%20Disgust%20Reactivity&text=Borg%20and%20de%20Jong%20%5B23%5D%20found%20that%20sexually%20aroused%20women,disgusting%20but%20Lee%20et%20al.&text=Thus%2C%20the%20evidence%20that%20sexual,reactivity%20in%20women%20is%20mixed.

with the idea boiled down here

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912184518.htm

and if the links aren't working, here is the methodology of the study:

The authors of the study, led by Charmaine Borg of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, asked female participants to complete various disgusting-seeming actions, like drinking from a cup with an insect in it or wiping their hands with a used tissue. (The participants were not aware of it, but the insect was made of plastic and the tissue was colored with ink to make it appear used.)

Sexually aroused subjects responded to the tasks with less disgust than subjects who were not sexually aroused, suggesting that the state of arousal has some effect on women's disgust response.

The point is not that sexual arousal is a stronger motivator than the revulsion of disgust.  The study involved drinking from a cup with an insect in it, which has nothing to do with the arousal. The point is that a person that is sexually aroused will simply not notice or care about things that would otherwise disgust him or her. It eliminates a certain level of sensitivity.  Things that would elicit immediate revulsion from a regular person simply do not matter, they do not exist, for a sexually aroused person. 

I believe this is exactly what Chazal are telling us. It is common knowledge that arousal weakens the conscience and obscures negative future consequences. But there is more to be aware of: There are deep natural barriers, rational barriers, that simply fall when instinctive sexual arousal occurs. It is important for people to bear this in mind before giving rein to impulse.

(I think this is far more significant than the famous Beer Goggle phenomenon.)

Please note!

The baal memra in Shabbos is Rav Kahana. Rav Kahana was famous, even in the company of those great tzadikim of his time, as being purely rational, as one who dispassionately and unembarrassedly analyzed things that would overwhelm others with shame. I believe that for Rav Kahana, the rational and analytical faculty was at every moment absolutely dominant, if not absolute. Rav Kahana is indeed the perfect person to have made this observation.  

See, for example, Brachos 62a

רב כהנא על, גנא תותיה פורייה דרב. שמעיה דשח ושחק ועשה צרכיו. אמר ליה: דמי פומיה דאבא כדלא שריף תבשילא. אמר ליה: כהנא, הכא את? פוק, דלאו ארח ארעא. אמר ליה: תורה היא, וללמוד אני צריך.

Rashi

דשח ושחק – עם אשתו שיחה בטלה של ריצוי תשמיש:

ועשה צרכיו – ושימש מטתו:

כדלא שריף תבשילא – כאדם רעב כמו שלא שמשת מטתך מעולם שאתה נוהג קלות ראש זה לתאותך:

Additional Note: 

Yybturner pointed out that the simple meaning of Rav Kahana's words seem to refer to normal Tashmish HaMittah - that a purely rational man would find normal tashmish hamittah revolting. I, on the other hand, am saying that he is referring to other behaviors or experiences that that are outside the parameters of normal tashmish, such as "הפיכת שולחן" etc. in Nedarim 20b, or bad personal hygiene, והמבין יבין, והמבחין יבחין.

I finally realized that Yybturner is right and eilu v'eilu. Rav Kahana seems to be saying that even normal tashmish hamittah is inherently disgusting, and the only reason we enjoy it is because Hashem put into our nature a desire that quashes disgust. This is actually perfectly consonant with the Dutch study. Because even normal tashmish involves the suppression of disgust, mimeilah that suppression applies broadly, even to things not directly related to tashmish.

UPDATE:

Another point. The concept of disgusting really is arbitrary. For example: Dogs have a sense of smell hundreds of times more sensitive than ours, but dogs smell and eat things that even thinking about them make a person retch. So you see that what disgusts you and what attracts you is just something specific to a species or a culture. If so, what is the point of this discussion? What is Rav Kahana saying?

Rav Kahana is saying that there are things that would disgust people but do not disgust them, indeed attract them, when they are in the thrall of sexual desire. Whatever it is that we, as humans, find disgusting, they are not disgusting under those circumstances. Which is precisely what the University of Groningen study demonstrated.