Comments | vinnie_tesla: Maybe what women want is sex journalism that doesn't suck.

vinnie_tesla

Maybe what women want is sex journalism that doesn't suck.

Jan 26, 2009 22:12

"My research has found that people who identify as scientists are genetically predisposed to be assholes." --mme_louise

There's a paradox to studying difference--whenever you argue for difference between two categories, you are arguing for similarity within those categories. When you hold forth on how cats are different from dogs, you are implying that ( Read more... )

rants, gender

Comments 11

sushis January 27 2009, 04:39:18 UTC

Oh, I read that article, and have been wanting to discuss it, but haven't felt like tackling it by myself on LJ.

I actually do think there are some legitimate ideas, or at least some fruitful food for thought, put forward by some of the researchers, but I agree that the author is beyond annoying. The idea of "male sexuality is simple and everyone already understands it," versus "women are dark and mysterious, and maybe these female sex researchers are wasting their time because women are inscrutible!" was offensive, not to mention deeply disrespectful of the researchers he was supposed to be profiling.

I do think it's worthwhile to do research on male and female sexuality, and I do think that men and women, on average display important differences. I don't believe in simply saying "everyone is different," because too often then, majority patterns among men are taken to be "normal" patterns for everyone, and things that might be more characteristic of women are ignored, or labeled as deviant when they are noticed.

vinnie_tesla January 27 2009, 04:58:36 UTC

Two things strike me about your last point, in particular. 1) I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing research and gathering data. My quarrel is with following up with "this demonstrates that women are fundamentally blah blah blah," which seems like, among other things Extremely Bad Science. 2) I don't think your goal matches your method. The range of human response in general and sexuality in particular is hugely wide. Saying 'there are two okay ways to be' is noticeably better than one, but I'd much rather spend my energy trying to persuade people that there really is a huge range, and there is no need to kick yourself for not conforming.

sushis January 27 2009, 14:24:40 UTC

'My quarrel is with following up with "this demonstrates that women are fundamentally blah blah blah," which seems like, among other things Extremely Bad Science.'

I felt that this was primarily on the part of the author, though, not on that of the researchers. Or, if the researchers did frame their findings that way (I don't have time to read through the article at the moment to check on this) that does not negate the value of the findings, once they're divested of unnecessarily or misleading conclusions.

"I don't think your goal matches your method. The range of human response in general and sexuality in particular is hugely wide. Saying 'there are two okay ways to be' is noticeably better than one, but I'd much rather spend my energy trying to persuade people that there really is a huge range, and there is no need to kick yourself for not conforming."

I think you misunderstand the goal (or, at least, my goal, as a person who believes research of the type described in the article is valuable.) I'm not trying to say "we need ( ... )

sushis January 27 2009, 14:33:01 UTC

Another valuable thing I saw in the article: the hypothesis about bisexuality being more common in women than in men, and being associated with stronger sex drives in women, whereas stronger sex drives in men are more often associated with exclusive gayness or heterosexuality.

Why does this even matter, if it is so? Well, some gay rights rhetoric is concerned with homosexuality as an inborn orientation, rather than a "choice." Yes, I don't think it's necessarily an either/or, all-or-nothing situation for everyone, and, yes, there are bisexual men, and bisexual men with high sex drives, too. BUT, to see that the pattern is less likely, among women, to be "I have always been attracted only to women," or "I have always been attracted only to men," than it is for men is worth...something. Of course, any finding can be misused. "All women are bisexual" is not just completely wrong, but subject to nasty misuses. That does not mean that there's no point in hypothesizing about the pattern.

dreadpirateandi January 27 2009, 06:32:39 UTC

I read that article and had basically the same reaction. Okay, you're telling us you know better than we do when we're turned on? Paternalism at its most literal! This seems to me that it can only end in tears. "But she wanted it, your honor! Even if she thinks she didn't, I could tell by her vaginal transudation!" Fucking gender essentialists. How passive will they find me when I put my metaphorical dick in their ear?

P.S. Cervical orgasms? I beg your pardon?

vinnie_tesla January 27 2009, 21:31:28 UTC

Not to be confused with uterine orgasms

dreadpirateandi January 27 2009, 22:07:34 UTC

emma_b_sweet January 28 2009, 01:10:51 UTC

Oh, boy. There is a lot wrong with that article, and you've really covered most of it, as far as I can see. Do you read tinynibbles.com? I think she had a few things to say about it, too that you might be interested in.

I do want to add, though, that YOUR opening quote predisposed me to approach your essay with crankiness. If you're writing about a potentially inflamatory subject, you might want to use a more topical quote, so that we can get worked up about your essay, rather than about a blanket insult to a whole group of individuals. However, perhaps that was exactly your point, in which case, that's some brillant rhetorical technique and sure worked on me!

aleph January 28 2009, 17:22:40 UTC

Unfortunately, filter out excessive distortion by the author, filter out extravagances by the scientists, and you're still going to find an article with this kind of bias because they're not going to get much of an article out of scientists who go "yeah, we found this thing, but we can't really read too much into it ( ... )

vinnie_tesla January 28 2009, 19:14:09 UTC

You're dead right, but I don't think it exonerates the Times, any more than, say, reporting credulously on WMDs because their presence makes a better story than uncertainty does. Just for example, O Gray Lady.

aleph January 28 2009, 19:41:05 UTC

Oh, I don't think it exonerates anyone by half. It's just one of those disappointing equilibria that these institutions settle into....

Personally, I'm pretty sure there must be interesting things happening somewhere, and if good science isn't saying something interesting, they should probably just run the human interest piece about a baby koala getting raised by a three legged bulldog or something.