Oct 05 2006

Study of the Week: ‘Foreplay’ Scientifically Proven Unnecessary


Whenever a new women vs. men sex study comes out it’s a banner day here at Twisty HQ, which means it’s always a banner day here at Twisty HQ. Women vs. men sex studies are extraordinarily popular. ‘Scientists’ just can’t seem to stop conducting them, and popular news media just can’t seem to stop pretending that they mean something. I have never seen a report on one of these studies that failed to gush lovingly all over the heteropatriarchonormative weltanshauung that spawned it. The usual goal of the research is transparently to give straight white male dominance a shot in the arm, but even when the science itself seems to suggest that women might actually be almost human after all, the reportage never fails to present these results in nudge-nudge terms that let everybody know women still suck.

I mention this because today, like every other day, a new men vs. women sex study is out. “Women become sexually aroused as quickly as men” is the headline at NewScienctist.com.* Seriously? Tell me more! O how I foam at the mouth to hear about new ways in which female sexuality might be viewed exclusively in terms of normal male people.

The study’s momentous findings: using thermal imaging to measure genital temperatures, a chappie named Irv Binik Ph.D. was able to show that all humans take the same amount of time to get hot. Only a sex therapist thinks this is news, so NewScientist.com had to fake it with just the sort of sexist metaphrasery one expects from writers who are forced to report on researchers named Irv Binik Ph.D. Thus, even though it is what the research says, the headline doesn’t read “Women and Men Are The Same.”

In fact, right off the bat the author helpfully reminds us, in case we have deluded ourselves that sexist stereotypes aren’t always true, that “women have a reputation for demanding lengthy foreplay.” In other words, women are high-maintenance bitches in the sack. I mean, gimme a break: “foreplay”? Do people even still use this asinine, flagrantly phallocentric word? Like, tryin’ to whip a piece offa these perennially selfish bitches sure is tedious, but now that science has finally ‘proven’ that women get aroused “as quickly” as men, no more excuses, ladies! We’re calling bullshit! This foreplay requirement is a bogus deception! Gotcha! Now spread’em!

After scoring big with the foreplay-myth-debunktion, the author presents a titillating mini-history of women’s sexual response experiments. In the olden days, she says, female subjects in arousal studies were made to suffer the insertion of “uncomfortable probe[s]”.** There are no such probes in our study, but NewScientist.com just thought you might like to savor that kinky visual.

Needless to say, no mention is made of any sadistic protocols to which male participants might have been subjected, but by way of compensation we are informed that, in the study in question, all parties were “naked from the waist down” while they watched porn, and that they achieved “Maximum arousal.” Whoo-hoo.

To rationalize prurience in the name of science, researchers’ constant refrain is that their findings will alleviate human suffering. Today’s study will of course be used to develop some sort treatment for sexual “dysfunction’, praise god. My guess is that the treatment will ultimately turne out to be a drug. How come? Why, Pfizer Canada funded the study, of course. They gave Irv Binik Ph.D, a sex therapist at McGill, $90,000 to study female genital heat. But I don’t mean to sound cynical. Pfizer makes Viagra, so you know their motives are pure.

Incidentally, a man with a more passionate academic interest in pussy than Irv Binik Ph.D. you will not find. He is co-author of many papers on the subject, papers that focus largely on the physical discomfort suffered by female receptacles of male incontinence. Take, for instance, the one entitled “Women’s Sexual Pain and Its Management.” This oeuvre seems to exclude any definition of sex that is not “penetration,” and investigates ways in which men may keep women fuckable through treatment of a condition called dyspareunia. Dyspareunia — the Pedantic Male Honky term for any condition, physical or psychiatric, that interferes with intercourse — “afflicts” as many as 48% of all women (though hardly any men at all). Is anyone surprised that white dudes define half the female population’s natural abhorrence for interminable drunken prong-a-thons as either a neuropathic disease or a mental illness?

I could have saved Irv Binik Ph.D. some time and effort; because of my giant brain, I have discovered the cure for dyspareunia. Here is my theory which is mine; it goes as follows and begins now and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is, too:

If it hurts when he fucks you, don’t let him fuck you.***

Meanwhile, I remain unconvinced that anyone conducts a sex study for any reason other than to gratify some pervy urge to stick electrodes on other people’s naughty bits and watch porn.
* Man o man, NewScientist.com just loves the skeeze. Remember their delightful sexy-naked-cancer graphic?

** The “uncomfortable probe” is described as “similar to a tampon”, meaning, one presumes, that it is made of overpriced toxin-soaked rayon fiber and that any man who gets stuck having to buy a package of’em for his girlfriend is clearly pussywhipped.

*** Unfortunately, my solution will only work for those lucky patients who don’t risk assault and battery by refusing to be penetrated.

[Gracias, ungoliant]


1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. tonypatti.com

    Oh, you are so on! Rip ’em good!

    I note once again that all sex studies seem to think that love doesn’t exist. It can’t be charted, graphed and twisted to definitively prove male normative values, so it doesn’t factor into anything. Porn is the only thing that can arouse a human being to these men. Strange, that men should use porn to measure arousal. As if they liked it or something.

    Humiliating women is the only acceptable scientific method for measuring arousal.

  2. mocklog.typepad.com

    Well, I’ll accept that I’m just a toasty little oven on the inside in just milliseconds flat. It’s just the oven is behind a pair of cold squeaky pink doors that need some oil on their hinges. Did they consider that?

  3. I await the next study to tell me how to enjoy and participate in sex. As a woman, I lack such understanding on my own and wait for instructions from a Very Enlightened Male to ‘lead’ me to my orgasmic pleasure.

    I’d like to see just one study that presents the causal factors of women’s arousal independent of the assumption that a penis serves as the sole percursor and goal of such arousal.

  4. I wonder if they considered the possibility that the women used in the study might have a proclivity for arousal in public places? I sure as shootin’ wouldn’t volunteer for that kind of research, and even if I did, I’d have a wee bit of difficulty getting my fires burning knowing there was a team of lab-coated spectators nearby.

    KTal, your first paragraph had me giggling like a mad hatter! I sense a bit of sarcasm, don’t I? It’s subtle, but it’s there.

  5. unsanesafe.blogspot.com

    It’s strange the social role that science plays in our societies. Women are not all the same, even physiologically. Then there is the psychological side. We’ve all had different experiences in life, including different sexual experiences, which will affect how we respond to all things, not just sex. This should all be so goddam obvious by now, at least to anybody over 40. Yet, for some reason, the authority of science vetos the authority of experiential knowledge. Oh well — five senses and own sexual organs redundant again.

  6. I would guess that there are certain physiological triggers that cause a physiological response automatically; the real question would have been to ask the subjects if they felt aroused, and if they felt aroused in a merely physical way or if they felt emotionally aroused as well. THEN the process of determining what factors cause physical and emotional arousal to occur at the same time could be studied (in both sexes). I would find that information far more useful than the no brainer conclusion that watching porn is for the vagina like the mouth watering because a person smells popcorn. Hell, you can put a rock in your mouth and it’ll water, doesn’t mean you want to eat it….We’ve trained men to stop at that point; the physical response, and conditioned women to want wait until they are emotionally aroused as well (madonna/whore syndrome). Until I get over that emotional thing (and I don’t plan on it) I guess that pesky foreplay and love bullshit will have to stay on the menu. Sorry, doc.

  7. Dear Professor Elk:

    I regret to inform you that, after careful review, your grant application has been rejected on the grounds that (a) you seem to know entirely too much already and (b) further studies using porn and nekkid bits would not be indicated should your “theory” prove to be sound.

  8. faultline.org/place/toad

    Hell, you can put a rock in your mouth and it’ll water, doesn’t mean you want to eat it

    What I love about this blog is that not only do we get the goodies from Twisty, but we get to read lines like this in the comments.

    By the wqay, someone or other from Texas or Alberta or Davis or somesuch might know this: Is it true that one way to make a bull ejaculate for semen collection is to stick a cattle prod up his ass? Not that I’d ever suggest an analogy, well, maybe I would.

    Let’s take this one to the reframing shop, shall we?

  9. Well Ron, you beat me to it, I liked that line too and so spot on!

    I’ve the unfortunate experience of having things in my mouth that were attached to what I’d say were nothing more than rocks. All the same.

    And Taffy, me sarcastic? C’mon, never!

  10. Just think, men will no longer have to endure all those costly outings to the Olive Garden, and other romantic hot spots that ordinarily get the little lady feeling sufficiently fired up for her weekly session of “wham-bam thank you, ma’am”. All he has to do now is hook her up with some electrodes, load some porn into the DVD player, and wait five measly seconds for her to get all hot and stuff.

  11. Not to disagree with anything said above, in fact, adamantly agree. But there really is such a condition as dyspareunia in women who have had children, pelvic surgery, pelvic inflammation, endometriosis and spinal injuries, among other things. Don’t discont pelvic pain during sex. Do however discount all the bullshit ‘psychological’ reasons you may be given for it and demand physiologic workup. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1480593

  12. I always thought that the primary point of “foreplay” was to bring the woman to orgasm, not just to get her aroused, since many women can’t climax just through penetrative intercourse. Silly me. Obviously I’m doing everything

  13. “I have discovered the cure for dyspareunia… If it hurts when he fucks you, don’t let him fuck you.”

    Very true – but vaginal pain isn’t just about fucking. I’d quite like to use a menstrual cup, but since I can only just about get a finger inside me (and it still hurts; and I have small hands) that isn’t going to happen any time soon.

  14. Wait, we’re supposed to put something IN our vaginas to have sex?

  15. “Gentlemen, start your engines.

    “Testosterone makes men go from zero to maximum speed in 60 seconds or less. Keep in mind that while you may be a Ferrari, your female partner is more like a Bentley. “Estrogen is slower and pickier, and female arousal is much more gradual,” says Deborah Blum, author of Sex on the Brain. This extends to foreplay, which for her, isn’t what happens 10 minutes before the Main Event. Sultry French film siren Brigitte Bardot once said that sex begins early in the morning and ends when you go to sleep at night, meaning that the way you treat her throughout the day can determine how things will go later in the bedroom. If she sometimes has trouble getting into a higher gear, you can blame it on stress or fatigue, but the real reason might be that you’re not warming up the engine properly.”

    From Frisky Business
    by Tiffany Owens for MSN Health & Fitness

  16. “…normal male…” Oxymoron of the century.

    (I know, the elipsis rule. But, how else to do this? I don’t know. I’m asking.)

  17. acunningplan.typepad.com

    I had no idea all these penis measuring studies still exist, yet I’m not surprised. I just love how they take sex completely out of a social context. Like we’re all robots.

    My thoughts on this aren’t as sultry as Brigitte’s but the intent is the same–wanna get me hot? Do the fucking dishes.

  18. I throw roses at the feet of Twisty and you wonderful comment leavers. There are one-liners here I’ll be repeating for weeks to come.

    Unfortunately, I have nothing to add because my coffee hasn’t kicked in yet but nevertheless I must away to a meeting with the chair of the philosophy department. Its going to be a trial to keep a straight face thinking about you witty folks while I talk to him.

    Damn you all! (I mean that in the nicest possible way ;)

  19. Female sexual dysfunction: disease mongering

    {http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/ etc PDF}

  20. As I understand it, it’s not an electric cattle prod, but some kind of vibrating device. Which might explain why the Texas law specifies human genitals – can’t get in the way of agriculture!

    And on another note, they gave the women and men in the study “separate sexually explicit films procured from the Kinsey Institute and determined to be sexually arousing to specific genders.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2006/10/men_and_women_sexually_aroused.php ) For the purpose of argument, I’m going to ignore how offensively essentialist this statement is.

    Essentialism aside, could be women and men get aroused at the same speed to “appropriate” stimuli, but we women might not get aroused at the same speed as men when the stimuli we’re getting is what some dumbass heteropatriarchonormative male considers appropriate.

  21. faultline.org/place/toad

    Plus: “at the same speed” does not equal “at the same time” (as well as, as previously noted, by the same things/stimuli/people). Oh yeah, people. Should there be people involved in some of these stimuli sets, at least by way of control for multiple possible factors?

    And someone has already pointed out the self-selection bias here, that one has to have a kink for, apparently, sitting in a theater chair with yer pants off and electrode leads in yer naughty bits and not succumb to howls of outrageous laughter that would throw all the mearurements off.

    I mean. Experiment design, and before that, the conception of what should be tested about, make even more difference than careful measurements. I mean, just for one: define “arousal” and then define what “arousal” means to the people allegedly aroused. I don’t even mean what it means psychologically; I mean what, if anything, they think should follow from their being aroused.

  22. faultline.org/place/toad

    Oh — and thanks, T. Comfyshoes. This clearly is the new fount of all knowledge!

    I wonder how closely this device resembles a Hitachi Magic Wand?

  23. I would love to see Natalie Angier take this “study” down. Not that you all aren’t doing a brilliant job of it already.

    When are these guys going to understand that they’re fucking a WOMAN, not a VAGINA? Just because there’s some swelling and lubrication in the vagina, doesn’t mean the WOMAN is aroused. Sheesh. How difficult is that to understand?

    More proof that the patriarchy thinks of us as nothing more than complicated transportation devices for vaginas.

  24. alphabitch.org

    Yes, T. Comfyshoes.

    I read that study and totally laughed out loud at both the conclusions and the media hoo-ha. I mean, given their data, the conclusion I’d reach and want to publicize (if I did that sort of thing, which I generally don’t) is that chicks get turned on faster if you pay attention to what they like and then give it to them. But of course that’s not what they were studying.

    And Twisty – re: “If it hurts when he fucks you, don’t let him fuck you.” I just can’t help thinking of that scene in ‘Thelma & Louise’ when Susan Sarandon points Geena Davis’ gun at that rapist dude in the parking lot & says something like, “when a woman’s cryin’ like that, it means she doesn’t like it,” and then shoots him when he fails to respond appropriately.

  25. Aargh! In my post, the word “wrong” is supposed to follow the word “everything.” Ooops!

  26. genderberg.com

    Another round of applause for the rock comment.

    Child rapists know pornography produces arousal in a child as surely as being cold produces goosebumps and shivers.

  27. All the amazing terrific hilarious one-liners keep me here far longer than is good for my health. Jezebella that had me screeching. Thanks.

  28. sparklematrix.blogspot.com

    Oh so that is why I start to walk ‘funny’ when I pass my nekkid to the waist builders at the end of my street. Alternatively, maybe it is just the uncomfortable probe I have in situ – time of the month tampon malarkey

  29. Great stuff, Twisty!

    You know, I was just conducting a study this morning. ;-)

    Seriously, one thing that never gets mentioned is the specific type of porn they use in these studies. I know that my stash gets stale after a while and just doesn’t do the trick like it used to. Do they factor that into the study?


  30. annared,

    What street is this you speak of, with builders who shun drawers?

    Just curious.

  31. Oh! it’s above the waist that they bare. I get it.


  32. librarytavern.blogspot.com

    What others call “making love”, I call “fucking” … what they call “foreplay”, I call “making love” … so I guess that means that, translated, making love is not necessary according to this study.

  33. Ok, I can’t possibly be the only one delighted to see a
    “theory which is mine,” yet slightly disappointed that a brontosaurus didn’t figure in there somewhere.

    Especially now since the poor brontosaurus has been replaced by the apatosaurus – a name that does not lend itself so readily to comedy or ridiculous “sex” studies.

  34. scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory

    I have to admit that my interpretation of this study was a bit different from both the New Scientist’s (I don’t read New Scientist in general, because it’s the shittiest of the shitty pop science magazines) and Twisty’s. For me, the study says this: men and women can become aroused at the same rate, when women are provided with stimuli that they find arousing. That means that if a woman is not becoming aroused, or is taking much longer, it’s because she’s not getting what she wants or needs to become aroused, or because she’s just not into it. I interpret that as implying that partners should be more attentive to what she wants/needs and whether she’s into it at the moment.

    Now, it’s not surprising that the New Scientist takes the direction that it does, because it’s easier to blame a long arousal time on a woman than her partner. Calling someone a prude is easier than saying “I don’t know what the hell I’m doing when it comes to sex.”

  35. sparklematrix.blogspot.com

    SaltyC you just saw the word nekkid! didn’t you, and experienced that ‘need no foreplay’ effect. I know all about you sort and your mucky minds :-) Uncomfortable probes or not!

  36. Nekkid? Nay! The word builders is enough to set me off.

  37. (long-time lurker emerging)

    The electric prod up the ass is indeed one of the tools of AI. Search on the term “electroejaculator” and you shall be enlightened*. They’re much lower voltage than cattle prods, though — 1500 volts, rather than 8000 or more.

    I seem to recall a strip in Wimmen’s Comix that explored the potential applications of this technology in hetero human interactions.

    * – Or something. (Rooming with a vet student as an undergraduate opened my eyes to all manner of wonders. Nobody ever wanted to sit near us in the dining hall, though.)

  38. I have to ask Chris, how can they know what women find arousing? I’m assuming what you find arousing is different from what I find arousing. Etc. Did they (haven’t read it) fine tune the visuals to each woman? Wine? We know a bit of alcohol has been proven to loosen inhibitions in women (something much the worse for men).

  39. angryforareason.blogspot.com

    Like guys needed a “scientific” study to say that foreplay isn’t important. Most ones I’ve met either a) don’t do it, or b) are really bad at it and don’t take direction well.

    Part of the reason I am a spinster in training: it’s not too much to ask that both parties orgasm, now is it?

  40. I call bullshit on the grounds of what us epidemiologists call selection bias.

    In other words, they did not get a truly representative sample of women to participate – they went with the exhibitionists and voyeurs and merely adventurous women who would jill off for science.

  41. How is it alleviating human suffering if they’re watching porn?

    Shouldn’t this study be titled something along the lines of: “Sex class females who’ve internalised masculine sexual ideals exhibit appropriate conditioned responses when exposed to masculine oriented visual stimulation”???

    I love this “stick a cattle prod up his arse” idea. Want to “get a load off”? Help yourself, please.

    My own extensive research confirms that I’ll stick with a magic wand and foreplay, and leave the “normal male” for other, more appropriately conditioned females.

  42. scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory

    Pony, in the study they used films from the Kinsey Institute, which have previously been shown to be arousing to a large number of women (they used different Kinsey Institute films for the men, which had been similarly piloted). Naturally, that doesn’t mean the films will be arousing to all women (or men), but they’re not trying to find something that everyone finds arousing. They used body temperature to measure arousal.

    Ms Kate, as an epidemiologist, I’m going to assume that you read how they selected the participants before you drew conclusions about their sample. It’s certainly true that not everyone would feel comfortable participating in a study like the one described, but I see no reason to assume they were exhibitionists.

  43. I believe that the definitive study was conducted by Gretchen Phillips of Two Nice Girls. She reported her findings in the song “I Spent my Last $10 (On Birth Control and Beer).

    When I was a young girl
    Like normal girls do
    I looked to a woman’s love
    To help get me through
    I never needed any more
    Than a feminine touch
    I hated the thought of kissing a man
    It really was too much

    I did not drink, I did not smoke
    I did not say “goddamn”
    I was polite, I was sensitive
    Before I loved a man
    My family, they were proud of me
    Were proud of what I am
    But then along came Lester
    And my tale of woe began

    I spent my last ten dollars
    on birth control and beer
    My life was so much simpler
    when I was sober, and queer.
    But the love of a strong hairy man, has turned my head I fear,
    And made me spend my last ten bucks, on birth control and beer.
    Well it was June, of 1982, when Mary Lou and I did part
    She said she loved, another dyke, my god it broke my heart!
    I was bitter, and disillusioned, to lose another girl friend
    Then Lester came to work, at papa’s store, and decided to ease on in.

    Before that last heartbreak, nothing made me more sick
    Than a hairy-chested cheap double-breasted suited man with a hard dick
    I guess that I was curious, I guess that I was young,
    I guess it was that old rum and coke, I guess that I was dumb.


  44. Heaven’s, where’s a spam filter when you need it. I leaned on “Enter” by accident. Please delete the previous post.

  45. … in the study they used films from the Kinsey Institute, which have previously been shown to be arousing to a large number of women (they used different Kinsey Institute films for the men, which had been similarly piloted). Naturally, that doesn’t mean the films will be arousing to all women (or men), but they’re not trying to find something that everyone finds arousing. They used body temperature to measure arousal.

    Yikes. So what we have here is PROOF that two different things arouse males and females, and then leave them to attempt to arouse one another successfully. Yeah, that’ll work.

    And since raised body temperature is what is used to determined arousal in males, we’ll use it to determine arousal in females, despite the fact that LUBRICATION IS A BETTER DETERMINER OF WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN IS READY TO FUCK. But since men don’t lubricate, then who the hell gives a shit about that for a yardstick?

  46. And whaddaya wanna bet one of the primary differences between the Kinsey men’s & women’s flicks was that the women’s flicks feature more foreplay? In other words, if you show a woman pictures of foreplay, then some of her bodily signals might seem to indicate that she’s ready to go, and you then use this study to conclude that foreplay is over-rated.

  47. Burrow Clown blamed:

    “…it’s not too much to ask that both parties orgasm, now is it?”

    Exactamente. But not too surprising that this study has nothing to do with gender differences in time to orgasm or what factors might necessitate that, only with the time needed for one organ to become sexually aroused and the other “receptacle” organ to be able to be willingly (supposedly) accepting of the default aroused organ, eh?

  48. phemisaurus.blogspot.com

    Raised temperature in nekkid bits indicates fear.

  49. “Oh! it’s above the waist that they bare. I get it.

    Nevermind.” saltyC

    No prob. Thanks for the funny visual. With hard hats and tool belts and great big boots. Heh. Ooh ooh, and long hair and long legs and long don—


  50. buttercupia.blogspot.com

    The single most shocking thing about this study is that women, apparently do not need an “uncomfortable probe” in their bits to get aroused.

    I’m surprised they let that get printed!

  51. sparklematrix.blogspot.com

    “Oh! it’s above the waist that they bare. I get it.

    Nevermind.” saltyC

    No prob. Thanks for the funny visual. With hard hats and tool belts and great big boots. Heh. Ooh ooh, and long hair and long legs and long don—


    Look I only said is that why I walk funny when I pass my ‘need no foreplay topless builders’ No need to get grrrraphic ;-)

  52. This entire article is offensive, as are the comments.

    I am a scientist, damn it!

    Irv Binik Ph.D.

  53. I doubt you are who you say you are, and if you were any type of “scientist,” you’d know that you can’t persuade anyone in favor of your argument by showing off your fud and calling yourself a Big Scary Word. I’ve FAILED little shits like you in the classes I’ve taught as a grad student.

    You’re a “scientist?” I’ll meet you there — MS in high-energy physics, and no, I passed my quals at the Ph. D. level. I’ve FORGOTTEN more and scarier mathematics than you’ve ever learned in your life, pal. I’m not impressed. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and there ain’t dickfor that your fud’s gonna do for you.

    Einstein was grotesquely wrong about two of the most important advances in theoretical physics of the 20th century. What the hell makes YOU above reproach?

  54. Twisty

    FamousSovietAthlete jests.

  55. True, I jest.

    But I do enjoy being an Irv.

  56. I dont see why anyone would have assumed females and males get aroused in biologically different ways or on different time frames so this result doesnt surprise me at all. But heres they problem, assuming those bizzare females take soooo long to get aroused cuz they are sooo different and cuz they really dont like sex as much as men is of coarse patriarchal thinking. Yet assuming women should just get turned on and ready to go whenever a dude wants her to is patriarchal thinking. So yeah, females and males have similar arousl mechanisms, big fucking surpise, just dont try to use it to meam we all have to be in a race to drop our pants.
    Also whats the fucking deal with guys claiming to hate about foreplay?
    Is it becuase any guy who pleases a woman is a pussy? Is it becuase you only supposed to think about meat, football, and fucking? How did this stereotype develope? Why wouls men pode hemselves on sucking at sex?

  57. Did you call male ejaculation “male incontinence”, or did I misunderstand something?

  58. Cool. The misuse of the word “science” often sets me off. Must be those unstable girlie hormones of mine.

  59. Why wouls men pode hemselves on sucking at sex?

    Because to most men, sex can be boiled down to the following sentence:

    “If I get my dick in you, you lose.”

    If they equate having a penis stuck in you with turning you into a loser, why the hell should they give a rat’s ass what you want? It SHOULD suck for the person on the receiving end — you’re willingly agreeing to be turned into a loser.

    Sex is not about pleasure for men, and gawd knows it’s not about “love.” It’s about dominance. Why do you think “fuck you” and “suck my dick” are insults in every human culture since the dawn of time? The person who gets the dick IN them is filth — so why should their pleasure, comfort, or even consent matter at all?

  60. forgive my terribe typing,
    but yeah, I see your point. However foreplay, contrary to popular belief, isnt just good for the ladies, I mean the sex will be all the suckier for the gents too. Is it really worth shooting yourself in the foot just to proove a point about manhood? Really? Does the patriarchy pay off that well for guys? It amazes me our kind can survive given all the stupid self-defeating crap we engage in.

  61. “Why do you think “fuck you” and “suck my dick” are insults in every human culture since the dawn of time?’ thelmyc

    Actually, it’s only been since the dawn of patriarchy.

  62. “If I get my dick in you, you lose.”

    You just boiled it right down, thelmyc. Damn. Made me cry.

  63. Is it really worth shooting yourself in the foot just to proove a point about manhood? Really?

    They DO shoot at one another and themselves to prove manhood. Watch Fox’s war reporting and rent a copy of “Jackass.” :-P

  64. ahh jackass, cuz stapling your balls to the inside of your thigh is aways a good idea ;)

  65. “I have to ask Chris, how can they know what women find arousing?”

    I’ve got an idea, how about just asking them.

    The insulting thing about all these studies, to people of all genders, is that the people conducting the study have made this basic assumption:

    Women are stupid. You have to trick them into doing what’s good for them.

    When studying male sexuality, there was no study. They just started working on a pill to give a guy a boner when he couldn’t get one on his own. It was never doubted, for even one second, IF wanted to get a boner. Of course he does. It was just a question of HOW. Viagra is on the scene. No more study required.

    Women, on the other hand, get studied and re-studied because they have this confusing tendency to simply not be interested. Surely there must be something wrong with them. So, let’s conduct a study to prove what’s wrong with them. Jeez. How dumb. Why not just ask them to tell you what they want. Then, give it to them, or leave them the hell alone.


  66. 27july1869.blogspot.com

    I have to add–at the risk of reigniting the Blow Job Debates of the Summer of Aught Six–that the request, “would you please suck my dick?”, said by the right person and at the right time, and especially with the right degree of lust, isn’t an insult so much as a request, of exactly the sort this thread is encouraging, i.e., participants in the nekkid activity should inquire (or otherwise attempt to collect data) on what the other participant(s) would like, and, if it suits everyone, maybe go ahead and meet that request.

    But in general, yeah, “If i get my dick in you, you lose” is the theme in the heteronormative world. How does it play out among gay men? Just out of curiousity.

  67. I just have to say I love the John Cleese in drag pic! Ahhh, Monty Python.

    And I wonder if women’s sexual response rates could be historically specific. You know, that in times when society constantly said women were sexless and felt no pleasure, women would actually have slower response times and fewer reactions, whereas in time periods when society declares that women are horny sluts who want it all the time, women might actually have quicker responses? It’s the idea that women could force their bodies to conform to whatever was the patriarchal norm of the moment —- it happens at the level of, say, choosing marriage or not, what about at the level of sex and physiological reactions?

  68. It does not surprise me at all that Pfizer funded this study. When I was an employee, the reported in our “employee newsletter” that they had stopped trying to make a “female Viagra” because for a woman to get aroused she had to use her brain!! And that was just too complex for them.

    Oh look here for the nytimes article (notice the use of the word “consternation”):



  69. periodica.wordpress.com

    Women, on the other hand, get studied and re-studied because they have this confusing tendency to simply not be interested. Surely there must be something wrong with them.

    Seriously– if a man can get it up, it’s treated as a serious medical problem that deserves the attention of urologists, pharmacists and half the marketing power of Madison Ave. Try telling your doctor you think your birth control pill is lowering your libido or that you think something non-psychological is causing your ‘dryness issues’ and wait for the big fat blank stare you get. After having a miscarriage my hormones got batshit out of whack and my (female!) doctors basically dismissed it. A ton of internet research, a few herbal remedies and a thankfully growing and diversified drug-store lube-market ended my tale of woe, but damn it was annoying and telling that no one took me seriously.


    Oh, and I dig blaming the patriarchy as much as everyone but sex, if it’s about anything, is, at it’s core about procreation or rather the powerful hormones that evolved over millions of years to make us get the urge to copulate so we end up procreating whether we intend to or not. All the other bullshit surrounding sex is the culture/patriarchy that rose up to deny/denigrate/minimize women’s awesome and innate power to gestate and birth life. Most of western religion is based on a life-denying/afterlife glorifying premise (Eve, the apple, the serpent, all symbols of life, fertility, matriarchy but nooo, that shit is sinful and evil). Forget penis envy. I think the history of patriarchy is built on a foundation of womb envy.

    Too bad we didn’t evolve spores or some such.

  70. periodica.wordpress.com

    “if a man can get it up”

    Sorry, that should read “if a man can’t get it up”


  71. madsheilamusings.blogspot.com

    “sex, if it’s about anything, is, at it’s core about procreation or rather the powerful hormones that evolved over millions of years to make us get the urge to copulate so we end up procreating whether we intend to or not.”

    Well, if sex is the urge to procreate, hunger’s the urge to defecate. :-P

  72. From Pfizer Gives Up:

    “A study published in 1999 in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 43 percent of women experienced some form of sexual dysfunction, compared with 31 percent of men.”

    Yeah, see, ’cause war and violence doesn’t count as sexual dysfunction. No. Uh uh.

    “One attraction of war is that it is a substitute for eroticism; it is the ultimate sexual perversion. It also reduces our ability to love.” And, “…higher consciousness is more effective than violence and that women may be more able than men to lead us there.” “William T. Hathaway, Special Forces rebel author. His first novel, A WORLD OF HURT, won a Rinehart Foundation Award for its portrayal of the blocked libido and the need for paternal approval that draw men to the military.”

    “Masculinity constructed as sexualized-violence and violent-sexuality is not some alpha-male genetic defect; it is not natural. It is a historically evolved reflection of a division of labor and a division of social power. The military — an organization within the state — simply took this construction into itself, and made itself in masculinity’s image.” “Stan Goff, former commando and instructor of military science at West
    Point, has published three books on the interrelation of gender,
    violence, and patriarchy.”


    But, women are the faulty units because domination and violence is a turnoff. I can see how the Pfizerboys were stumped, so to speak. You just can’t put a price tag on a stiff dick.

  73. onejewishdyke.wordpress.com

    I highly recommend lesbianism as a treatment for dyspareunia. Granted, it didn’t help my ex wear tampons, but she didn’t care about that anyway. However, with her ex-husband, sex was a miserable exercise for them both since she didn’t want it since it hurt her, and of course he was frustrated at not having it. On the other hand, my fingers weren’t distressed or insulted that she didn’t enjoy penetration and we spent many many happy hours engaged in other sexual activities.

  74. So, what I hear you saying, emjay, is that lesbians are made not born. Enough trips to Camp Cuervo and, viola’, the curse of the heterosexual woman is broken. If only that were so, from a woman who envies lesbians in many ways and wishes she was one at times. One of my best friends in the whole world asserts that hetero women are merely brainwashed. How explain entire shops full of dildos then? Texas hobbyists? I understand it’s not only hetero women buying them. I don’t know. I’m asking.

    Sometimes, the affection I have for my lesbian sisters is not returned and I am condemned for consorting with the enemy. Well, yeah, heterosexual women consort with the enemy. What’s a straight woman to do other than without? When it comes to getting a paycheck, wage slave that I am, what are most women to do, gay or straight? The decision-making, check-signers remain overwhelmingly male on this planet.

    Betty Friedan’s “The Second Stage” helps me remain optimistic that the boys can grow up. And, if that isn’t optimism, I don’t know what. Hetrosexual feminists in general make me optimistic. There are one or two. More encouraging for me is learning of men, admittedly few as yet, who get it. I learned of another one just today, Irish writer Jack Holland, from the Fall Ms. Magazine. He has written a book called “Misogyny” and I just got through ordering a copy:


    Making the boys grow up is a dirty job but somebody has to do it, fair or no. Sometimes I feel like a foot soldier in the undeclared war against women and the enemy is getting uglier and more dangerous by the day no doubt but, I’m even encouraged by that. It’s the mano a mano fight that has to be fought daily, sometimes at great personal risk to the distaff (gawd, I love this language – dissing staffs, heh heh) side in the longest war.

  75. Twisty

    Everyone gets that Camp Cuervo is a joke, right?

  76. Jeez.

  77. “If I get my dick in you, you lose” says it all, really. Along with “women are the faulty units because domination and violence aren’t a turn on”.

    Emma, neither of the gay men is a woman.

  78. As far as lesbianism being a treatment for dyspareunia– BULLSHIT. If you don’t like penetration, nice for you. I’m a lesbian, have never had sex with men– and I’d rather lose a limb than give up being fucked. (Does that mean I don’t belong on this forum? Sigh.)

    Endometriosis has been slowly, steadily waging war on my innards, and my sex life, for a few years now. Getting a diagnosis and surgery earlier this year was one of the best things that’s ever happened to me. If there are scientists out there doing their imperfect best to figure out how to treat sex pain, because FINALLY female sexuality has become a priority to the medical establishment, hell, I’ll make a contribution.

  1. Ask Auntie Hoyden at Hoyden About Town

    […] The simple answer is “Because it gets them off”, but there are some more complex dynamics in there. Why are so many men attracted to a particular type of mainstream porn which demeans women, rejects or fetishises women of colour, and talks of sex purely in terms of possession, dominance and violence? The patriarchy socialises them into a view of sex encapsulated in the “I’d hit that!” exclamation; the attitude that “If I get my dick in you, you lose.” […]

Comments have been disabled.