New York Times Magazine Spotlights Female Orgasms This Sunday

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

Pushing the envelope, at least in its use of images, The New York Times Magazine this Sunday features a provocative feature story on "female desire" titled, "What Do Women Want?" The cover photo (see full image below) by Ryan McGinley is a stylized profile of a dark-haired woman in what can only be described as mid-orgasm (or perhaps she is simply snoring or getting her feet rubbed).

The giant photo that kicks off the Daniel Bergner 2009-01-23-125cover200px.jpgarticle inside shows what appears to be two women kissing, although one of them might be a young, long-haired man/boy. The next spread shows yet another orgasmic woman and after that a full page photo of two faceless interlocking nude bodies (one female, the other undetermined). And after that another full page come-and-get-it.

The story focuses on "post-feminist" sexologists whose studies are discovering supposedly surprising findings, though you may disagree. One excerpt: "No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, women in the study, unlike men, showed strong and swift arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men."

One bit of research suggests that women, in contrast to men, in their erotic fantasies "center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it," making them "far less relational than men."

Bergner has a book coming out this month called The Other Side of Desire.

One researcher quoted in the lengthy story says she hopes the findings help others: "I wanted everybody to have great sex."

The article details how studies are conducted with an apparatus connected to (ouch) penises or in the vagina to rate "engorgement" while the subjects use keypads to punch in their feelings. One scientist says: "I feel like a pioneer at the edge of a giant forest" (as it were).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/coming-attraction-nyt-spo_b_160302.html

[liberalhistorian]

1. Well, hubby just went to bed.

Hmmmm.........I think I'll join him. :evilgrin:

[Orrex]

2. I heard that Bergner faked it

[BrklynLiberal]

3. hmmmm. I cannot explain it..but I would feel more confident in the article

and research if Bergner was a woman...Sorry.

[Nevernose]

5. Because that's an ad hominem

The sex of the author shouldn't matter, only the argument presented.

It's no different than saying "Oh, that scientist lives in equatorial Africa, what would she know about the effects of global warming on the polar ice caps?"

[EFerrari]

8. No, it's not ad hominem at all.

It's noticing that an outsider is describing/defining insiders.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. :D

:thumbsup: :hi: :hi:

[XemaSab]

10. You always have to consider the source

Bergner is profiling three female sex researchers in the article, and reporting on their theories and findings.

If Bergner was a woman, would she have the same rapport with the researchers? Would she consider the topic of female arousal and sexual desire to be as interesting? Would she be as bold about reporting some of their more controversial theses?

If the only people allowed to do research on human subjects were members of the same group (however defined) as the subjects themselves, we'd have very little information on pedophilia, polygamy, psychopathy, and a whole pile of other fringe (but interesting) behaviors. And we'd have no research whatsoever on dropouts. :P

Yes, the author of the article is a man, and that's allowed.

[EFerrari]

27. You're responding to an argument I'm not making, though. (Oops)

(I'm an American Latina Shakespearean, remember?! :P )

On the other hand, Bergner isn't a disembodied brain and who he is has an impact on what he does and how. So, in considering his work, it's perfectly legit to notice he's male. It may turn out not to be important. To know that, I'd have to compare his work to a range of other contributions, his and others, right?

It's certainly legit for a woman to observe he's a male describing/defining women and to feel ambivalent about trusting his conclusions given the long history of booboos male researchers have made in the same activity, imo.

ETA: Now I get it, Xema. I'll leave this here anyway in case one of us gets lost again. :hi:

[XemaSab]

13. Oops, responded to the wrong poster

I'm more annoyed by the linked Huffington post blurb being written by a man than I am by the NYTimes article being written by a man, FWIW. :shrug:

[Chan790]

20. I disagree most fully.

If only insiders can define insiders then it is impossible to ever glean any knowledge as the only perfect insider to one's life experience is oneself and by any measure you've just dismissed all other POVs as less inside than your own.

The validity of social-scientific research must be by necessity sexless, genderless and non-ideological, meaning there cannot be any merit given to the "insiderness" vs. "outsiderness" of the research or the researcher, only analysis of whether the results stand up to rigorous peer review. That is, unless you mean to imply that the researcher has an agenda which he places foremost rather than the pursuit of knowledge and scientific inquiry. In such a case, I would certainly accept such criticisms as part of any rigorous review if you have proof of his bias rooted in anything which isn't your own biases.

In any case, arguing that by some proxy of entitlement, only women can research women or gays can research gays is a form of intellectual cloistering. Worse, it leads to siloing of social science data, encouraging echo chambers which continue prominence of failed theories. No cadre has the right to solely define themselves.

I respect what you are saying and the terrible history of improper uses of the social sciences and the imputation of social agenda into medical science in this country which has led to your skepticism in this arena...from the Tuskegee experiments to the low priority given to AIDS research in the early 1980s when the Reagan NIH viewed it as just a "gay" disease. However, you're wrong because you're encouraging the same intellectual dishonesty and "-ism"-centric thinking on the back-swing. It's wrong when anybody relies on any form of institutional bias to curb or dismiss legitimate concerns or inquiry.

[EFerrari]

25. I'm not encouraging or discouraging anything. The verb is "notices".

[Schema Thing]

46. the only "insider" would be yourself.

[EFerrari]

7. I love the idea that women are "less relational" in their fantasies.

LOL! That's some negative framing right there, Tex. :)

[old mark]

28. Does that mean they will sleep with anybody as long as they get their rocks off?

Just saying - I recently noted a large increase in battery sales around the holidays...



mark

[EFerrari]

31. It's kind of funny to describe people by what they're not.

That would make me less blonde, less phallic and less conservative. :silly:

[XemaSab]

14. I responded to sfexpat instead of you

Oops. :)

[TWiley]

50. Oops, circulation must be down.

Porn always sells.

[JeffR]

4. Damn well about time female orgasms got more press.

[SpiralHawk]

17. NYT's Judy Miller got off by servicing the Wide Stance Republicon Homelanders

I wonder if that Republicon Treason got covered as a right-wing, anti-American Turn ON in the article?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

33. Duzzy /\

:O

[MajorChode]

6. Unicorns, leprechauns, female orgasms, and other urban myths

http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2008/04/orgasm-questions

[Hannah Bell]

11. have they run out of fake news, then?

gad, new low for the nyt.

[blondeatlast]

15. They are preparing an in-depth look at the cult of kitteh with an in-depth look at the DU Lounge

as we type this, so that would be a no.

Speaking for myself, I declined the interview.

[AsahinaKimi]

12. The Fundies will have a field day with this..

One can just imagine the comments..
hehe..Let them Stew in it!!

[ogneopasno]

16. God, am I tired of some of the absolute crap the NYT magazine has been running lately. Including

this.

[surrealAmerican]

18. Sound like a particularly obvious ploy ...

... to increase circulation. Newspapers have really been hurting lately, but I would have thought the Times, with its national circulation, would be in better shape than most.

[Occam Bandage]

19. "Please, please buy this. Look, we got a sexy woman and everything. Please."

[Imagevision]

21. What is female desire? - Most men don't really know or care so a man writes a book - perhaps

the Author is seeking an answer?

[FatDave]

22. Wait, women have orgasms???

Not the ones I've been with!

[seabeyond]

23. really embarrassing admitting this on line for all to see. dont get what it says about you?

funny, you

[Book Lover]

26. And you admit your failure like that in public?

jaw, meet floor.

[FatDave]

29. umm....

Surely you realize that was a joke? Self-deprecating humor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation

[seabeyond]

30. i thought it was just a jab at women that backfired. go figure. n/t

[Schema Thing]

47. It didn't backfire. I'm sure 99 out of 100 readers understood he was using

self-deprecating humor.

[seabeyond]

48. ya. you are sure. not 98 out of 100. not 50 out of a 100. 99 out of a 100

saw it that way.

you're funny.

[Bigmack]

34. Fat Dave is having you on....

Fat Dave - like all men - helps women achieve multiple orgasms. Constantly. Us guys just like to be modest in our ability.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

36. wow

[FatDave]

37. Sigh.... Please see above where I explain that it was a joke.

Next time I'll I try to be funny I'll be sure to fill the post with various smileys so there's no ambiguity.

[EFerrari]

38. So now you want to deprive women of ambiguity, too, huh?

:rofl:

[FatDave]

42. I promise I'll deprive you of neither ambiguity nor...

...those one things they sell at that store you sometimes go to.

[EFerrari]

44. Next time, I want to see the coupons up front.

lol

:)

[rucky]

43. So they DO call you Fat Dave for nothing.

[Forkboy]

24. Why just the one day?

And who hasn't rated their engorgement?

:hide:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

32. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh MG!

:)

[treestar]

35. Well, there was that recent study posted about here

That it is directly related to the guy's bank account numbers. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

39. Men have bank accounts?

Not the ones I've been with!

:rofl:

[FatDave]

40. It's not my fault!

The economy is bad! I swear, this has never happened before!

[EFerrari]

41. . . .

:spray: :spray: :spray:

[CatholicEdHead]

45. It exists, I brought my ex to one

[Jamastiene]

49. As if I wasn't horny already!

Great, I'm even HORNIER now. :evilgrin: