Random articles on mostly vanilla people having a go at random sexy things!
group, chastitiy, sex dolls, cross dressing, tantric, infantilism and other random fetishy things!
http://www.nerve.com/regulars/ididitforscience/
i think the scientists need to come and approach us lot for testing!! x
I read the title to this thread and knew it would be you that started it before I even saw your name! <3
At the risk of venturing an unfavourable opinion (who knew!) I think that's just a bunch of people using "science" as a justification to do the sexual things they always wanted to do but were too afraid to do without some excuse.
I have a massive pet peeve about science and its woeful neglect of sexuality topics. For example, there is a whole range of mental states we go into as a result of various types of sexual play, but has even one of these been investigated, studied or documented scientifically?
Has it, fuck. :/
Lubyanka wrote:
At the risk of venturing an unfavourable opinion (who knew!) I think that's just a bunch of people using "science" as a justification to do the sexual things they always wanted to do but were too afraid to do without some excuse.
Quite possibly, I don't see any harm with that though if they are trying new things and discovering what they enjoy...just a shame they feel the need for an "excuse".
Scientists don't seem to put a lot of effort into researching personal sexuality and personal preferences but perhaps that's because they are more interested in the reasons behind the evolution of said sexuality/preference. Researching individual preferences would (perhaps, I obviously havn't researched this myself) possibly not lead to very correlated results as people have such different preferences.
It's a shame when it comes to medical issues there is very little known about things affecting sex and sexuality and I learnt this first hand (pain during sex only has a handful of "known" causes, if they don't know what is causing it they usually fob you off with thereapy!) so I understand your peeve!
AdnaW wrote:
It's a shame when it comes to medical issues there is very little known about things affecting sex and sexuality and I learnt this first hand (pain during sex only has a handful of "known" causes, if they don't know what is causing it they usually fob you off with thereapy!) so I understand your peeve!
or thay try to tell you that you have an STD! x
Lubyanka wrote:
At the risk of venturing an unfavourable opinion (who knew!) I think that's just a bunch of people using "science" as a justification to do the sexual things they always wanted to do but were too afraid to do without some excuse.
I have a massive pet peeve about science and its woeful neglect of sexuality topics. For example, there is a whole range of mental states we go into as a result of various types of sexual play, but has even one of these been investigated, studied or documented scientifically?
Has it, fuck. :/
Yeah I noticed it just was not science but it might help explain some of these things to the vanillas!
Surely only a good thing? (I hope so, I only read two of 'em!)
Hmmm sex is a touchy subject to investigate. It raises opinions and has the ability to easily offend, even with facts and is a minefield of political correctness.
I remember reading about the a hypothethis on why rape may be biologically advantagous... Of course the moral brigade came out in force to discredit it. The study made no value judgement but it still got up peoples backs.
It was people assuming the ought from an is.
Well, even here there was some sniggering recently about a study done of male-female sexual intercourse in an MRI scanner.
So it's not like the scientists are entirely at fault. Many people are likely to offer only ridicule on publication of such a study. Who wants their audience to snigger at a scientific publication?
So my peeve is not only the scientists, it's also about us.
Lubyanka wrote:
Well, even here there was some sniggering recently about a study done of male-female sexual intercourse in an MRI scanner.
So it's not like the scientists are entirely at fault. Many people are likely to offer only ridicule on publication of such a study. Who wants their audience to snigger at a scientific publication?
So my peeve is not only the scientists, it's also about us.
I posted itExternal Media
I just don't believe its the sniggering, plenty of strange research is conducted (See the Ignobels), how belly button fluff is formed for example or how to defeat a zombie invasion.
Its probably very hard to get funding for too... science is very competetive and subject to social and politcal pressures. Most people would rather research is focussed on other things. Might be a shame that things are not researched as well but I just think its a case of prioritising and avoiding touchy issues.
WandA wrote:
Lubyanka wrote:
Well, even here there was some sniggering recently about a study done of male-female sexual intercourse in an MRI scanner.
So it's not like the scientists are entirely at fault. Many people are likely to offer only ridicule on publication of such a study. Who wants their audience to snigger at a scientific publication?
So my peeve is not only the scientists, it's also about us.
I posted itExternal Media
I just don't believe its the sniggering, plenty of strange research is conducted (See the Ignobels), how belly button fluff is formed for example or how to defeat a zombie invasion.
Its probably very hard to get funding for too... science is very competetive and subject to social and politcal pressures. Most people would rather research is focussed on other things. Might be a shame that things are not researched as well but I just think its a case of prioritising and avoiding touchy issues.
I know you posted it. :p
I really don't care what the scientist think their reasons are for avoiding sexuality topics. What I do know is the very fact they are avoided makes it harder for the rest of us who have diverse sexualities. Anybody can talk about urination in the pub, but hardly any of us can safely mention diverse sexuality without risking a confrontation from some narrow-minded git.
Scientists' ostrich attitudes help to contribute to the rest of us living at risk from angry and uninformed bigots. It's not just the sniggering, it's the marginalisation. As a woman, Jew, bisexual, and BDSM-er, I get this from many fronts every day.
So please excuse me if I don't give a shit about why scientists are moral cowards.
Ok and I ate some cookies so I'm feeling a bit better now, thank you. :p
Nexas wrote:
Very much agreed with Lubyanka here. They were blatantly repressed people who were looking for an excuse and thought that this would do for one. It's that simple TBH.
True, although that's not to say it doesn't make for interesting reading.
Hmmm... Its arguable that even improved science wouldn't prevent the 'gits'!
I'd argue its down to religious and cultural factors that give people these narrow outlooks. If you look at Creationism/Evolution in the US, the majority of the population are creationists/ID'ers but 98% of scientists are evol supporters. Even with evidence it doesn't stop the majority being wrong (Yes I know thats my opinion etc.. but they just are!)
I find that scary how so many people would rather listen to a priest/community leader as opposed to an 'expert' scientist but thats just my view. Without being too pessimistic, people will use power any way they can and hate can be a strong unifying force.
I'm currently listening to a podcast that just spoke about a holocaust denialer. Despite all the evidence it still happens and knobheads will still exist. I use a conspiracy website to download interesting resources but avoid the nutjobs like the plague... I initially tried to 'convert' people, HIV is real, there is no new world order, the queen isnt a lizard (some really crazy stuff) etc... but now just limit myself to interesting BBC docs or feature films.
I guess I'm just making the point that however admirable or detestable the truth is... people are happy to ignore it and be spoon fed by some twat! and that twat will manipulate people how they can for power.
Sex does have scientists. Kinsey the most famous sexologist (even if he was a bit dodgy). Klein someone too. The problem is (as said by AdnaW) these issues are often highly subjective or don't yield any practical information. It might be useful to know how sexual 'urges' work to limit sex offenses but its hard to find a practical use, using information as to why people enjoy BDSM.
Its a very sketchy subject, hard to get data, hard to get unbiased data etc... but even when they do it will usually be about the evolutionary elements behind the behaviour etc... Its been suggested womens sexuality is often more fluid than mens as a way of bonding for example. Family units are important to raising children.
I think what you (rightly) feel aggrevated by isn't an issue for scientists, its an issue for society and science might just represent some hope that attitudes could be changed.
This post is a bit all over the place! So sorry for that! I just think scientists get alot of 'stick' in our culture. It often shown how it failed not succeeded. As a 'vanillerer' it is also hard to be aware of the different boundries people have... before this forum I wouldn't of known half of the sexual things people get up to. As a scientist you base your career on eliminating personal from your work... it must be hard to do that and still be so open minded about such issues... many probably don't give it a 2nd thougght
WandA wrote:
Hmmm... Its arguable that even improved science wouldn't prevent the 'gits'!
I'd argue its down to religious and cultural factors that give people these narrow outlooks. [...] I think what you (rightly) feel aggrevated by isn't an issue for scientists, its an issue for society and science might just represent some hope that attitudes could be changed.
It really doesn't matter to me why people don't do what they should be doing, it just matters to me that they aren't. The whys are not up to me, they're up to them. It's not my job to empathise with why other people are moral cowards.
Also, I have ranted about the term "society" before:
http://ladylubyanka.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/rant-fucking-society/
Since "society" cannot be held responsible for anything or reasoned with or addressed, and since "society" does not dictate behaviour or change, as far as I'm concerned "society" does not exist. People do things, not "society". Therefore people are responsible for what they do or do not do.
I agree that nothing will prevent all uninformed bigoted gits. However, a whole lot more people are a whole lot more ignorant and therefore behave accordingly than there would be if other people took their heads out of the sand and stopped sweeping the sexuality topics under the carpet.
So if the only thing "science" has to show us is that they ridicule sexuality research by awarding the "ignoble" award to one person who did actually research sexuality, then I think that's cause for pessimism and irritation.
Lubyanka wrote:
It really doesn't matter to me why people don't do what they should be doing, it just matters to me that they aren't. The whys are not up to me, they're up to them. It's not my job to empathise with why other people are moral cowards.
Well thats where we disagree. If we are to expect others to empathise with our point of view we must empathise with theirs. If no one has an understanding then no one makes an attempt to change. Although we might feel entirely correct and right... so do they. That can only change through rational argument.External Media I don't think describing people who have differing opinions as moral cowards is correct and is actually more so offensive. I doubt many scientists 'fear' what their research may uncover.
Also, I have ranted about the term "society" before:
http://ladylubyanka.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/rant-fucking-society/
Since "society" cannot be held responsible for anything or reasoned with or addressed, and since "society" does not dictate behaviour or change, as far as I'm concerned "society" does not exist. People do things, not "society". Therefore people are responsible for what they do or do not do.
But people act according to their friends, family, work groups, etc (society)... So although it may not act it dictates actions and sets what is right and wrong as a collective.
I agree that nothing will prevent all uninformed bigoted gits. However, a whole lot more people are a whole lot more ignorant and therefore behave accordingly than there would be if other people took their heads out of the sand and stopped sweeping the sexuality topics under the carpet.
Ignorant.... and they will remain so unless their assumptions remain unchallanged. So once again I believe it is important to educated on an issue, especially if the issue causes you more distress than them.
So if the only thing "science" has to show us is that they ridicule sexuality research by awarding the "ignoble" award to one person who did actually research sexuality, then I think that's cause for pessimism and irritation.
Sorry I don't quite get this bit? What scientist? You may have misunderstood me. I was just using that as an example of how much rubbish researcg goes on and how I don't think the fear of ridicule stops the research taking place.
As I said I just feel scientists get a hard wrap. Scientists provide facts and evidence. Its not up to them to make judgements on those facts. I believe that is up to society.... and by society I mean us as individuals and as social groups that directly refeclt on the wider community.
Well... I don't imagine we'll reach the same conclusions so feel free to ignore or answerExternal Media. I just hope you are a little more open minded about such an issue in the same way many of the posts on here open my mind.
W
WandA wrote:
I just hope you are a little more open minded about such an issue
I didn't understand this part, more open minded than what?
Lubyanka wrote:
WandA wrote:
I just hope you are a little more open minded about such an issue
I didn't understand this part, more open minded than what?
The role of scientists and how you view them as 'moral cowards'.
WandA wrote:
Lubyanka wrote:
WandA wrote:
I just hope you are a little more open minded about such an issue
I didn't understand this part, more open minded than what?
The role of scientists and how you view them as 'moral cowards'.
Sorry, I'm still confused, more open minded than the role of scientists and how I view them as 'moral cowards'? I'm can't make sense of that, can you please rephrase?
I just hope you are more open minded about the role scientists play in the moral outlook of different people. As I mentioned further up they only provide evidence, not judge it. They are subject to many constraints such as bugets and what must be prioritised etc...
As I said I believe a label of 'moral cowards' is unfair simply because they do not research what you personally believe to be an under researched subject.
And in the wider context about ignorance, educating and empathising with those who's opinions differ and how I believe that is the only way things will change.
Of course we do not have to agree but I hope you consider the possibilities.
WandA wrote:
I just hope you are more open minded about the role scientists play in the moral outlook of different people.
I'm really sorry, I'm still stuck. My difficulty is with this:
"more open minded" than what "about the role scientists play in the moral outlook of different people"?
I appreciate your clarification.