Fucking Science

As regular readers know, unless there are hard scientific facts involved, I view most studies (of the psychological, sociological, sexological -- i.e., soft science kind) through a dark and skeptical lens. It may be an odd confession for someone whose day job is in the soft sciences but it is precisely because I am that I know how difficult it is to gather objective data in an objective fashion.

For example, it's a basic truth about sex studies that people lie about sex. I learned this in grad school. When I was working on my PhD research project, my mentor, Dr. Ted McIlvenna, informed me right up front that lies and partial truths were the name of the game in any and all sex research. That's why broad-based studies are important: the larger the population, the less the impact of individual lies which can distort results. When you see a study which only surveyed less than 20 or 30 people, the margin of error for lies and distortions is staggering. My Ph.D. project ultimately had over 7000 participants (a milestone of sorts), and provided trends which are likely scientifically reliable, but to this day I wonder whether slightly different questions or different phrasing would have produced different results.

I learned that subjects lie about how often they have sex, they lie about how good (or bad) it is, they lie about how they feel about it. Sometimes it's a conscious lie which they tell to make themselves or their partners look better because they think admitting flaws makes them look like failures. Sometimes it's an instinctive lie -- like the ones politicians tell when they're caught with their pants down: lies you tell because to admit the truth would get you into so much hot water you'd rather be called a liar. Sometimes it's an unconscious lie: you really think it's the way you're explaining it because you're blocked off within yourself from the truth. And sometimes people lie about sex out of ignorance: they don't know or understand enough about sex to know whether the sex they're having is good or bad.

But more often than not, soft science studies are intrinsically flawed because truth is a subjective experience. A recent spate of studies about happiness is a prime example of dubious data. In order to study happiness, the researchers likely defined happiness. You can't prove someone is something unless you know what the something is. So how did the researchers define happiness? Did the researchers who determined, 2 years ago, that rich people are happier than poor people establish criteria for happiness that the researchers who, last year, said evangelicals are happier than atheists used, and did the researchers who recently announced BDSMers are happier than vanilla people use those same criteria too? And when you ask people if they're happy or feel productive -- how can you be sure that everyone is telling you the truth? What if a bunch of people claimed to be happy when on the inside they were hollow wrecks? What if a bunch of people didn't want to admit to how happy they were because it would seem like boasting? If scientists believe they possess absolute criteria on the constituents of human happiness, I wish they'd share it with poets and philosophers, who've been diligently seeking answers to that question for about 3000 years.

For these reasons, I'm more likely to be impressed by results of a sexual medicine study which measures physical arousal with fancy machines than studies which gather anecdotal data. OK, maybe I just like the idea of machines being wrapped around genitalia and monitoring blood flow BUT...that does, at least, seem to provide more reliable information about sexual response than the gleam in someone's eye or the box he or she checked on the survey.

Yet even when methods have scientific anchors -- for example, when studies show (as they have, repeatedly) that an active sex life contributes to the overall health and longevity of the human organism, and they've got the medical evidence to prove it -- there is still the question of the researchers' assumptions about sex. Researchers' biases, in terms of how they think people should respond or what they believe should be normal behavior in bed, distort the data they report. Nowhere is that clearer than in recent studies which have concluded that fucking is good for you. Don't get me wrong: fucking IS good for you. If you like it. If you're not that into it, it's not so hot.

What researchers are less inclined to admit is that it is not the act of fucking itself that is so healthful: it is the arousal and orgasm. Arousal begins the process of the brain sending out those lovely and delicious chemicals; suddenly, our hormones are jumping to attention and informing every molecule to prepare for a thrilling event; our heart rate increases, our pulse quickens, our blood rushes into our genitals, and ultimately orgasm completes the experience, with its own complement of swooningly sweet brain chemicals and, finally, deep relaxation.

Fucking is just one of untold numbers of ways that human beings can produce the above effects. Which is why celibates may enjoy all the same benefits of sex as the fuck monsters, provided they masturbate. Actual male/female intercourse doesn't add health benefits, except in two ways. Fucking requires a good bit of energy and coordination and is reasonable (though not great) exercise for toning and stretching muscles (including the ones between your legs and buttocks). If you never work out, fucking may be the least you can do to stay in shape, though, frankly, yoga is probably better for you, with less chance of accidental injuries or strains. For women, maintaining vaginal health and flexibility after menopause requires some form of penetration -- though not necessarily by a penis. So if you want a happy vagina, put something inside it and move it around. Of course, that could be your lesbian lover's strap-on, your favorite vibrating dildo, or that shampoo bottle you secretly molest in the shower. (Do I know my readers, or do I know my readers?)

This latest study reminded me of my dyspepsia and belief that the contemporary study of sex is irritatingly Fuck-O-Centric.

Sex cures the common cold?

According to psychologists at Wilkes University in Pennsylvania, sex cures the common cold. Forget week-long bouts of runny noses, sore throats and achy muscles and say hello to the opposite sex. Engaging in intercourse once or twice a week can boost your immune system, says Dr. Carl Chametski, one of the study's scientists....

See what I mean? AGH!

Beyond the misleading sense that only fuckers can cure their colds (or improve longevity or avoid heart problems or any of the other myriad benefits of sex that modern science has been faithfully recording over the past few years), reporting like this also is a slap in the face to gay people, fetishists, sadomasochists, and anyone else who does not depend on male/female intercourse for satisfaction. The truth is that even if you'd rather go to bed clutching a shoe than a partner, even if you'd rather fuck the laundry than a member of the opposite sex, you can still enjoy all the positive health benefits of sex, as long as you get aroused and have orgasms.

So go forth and cum, my friends. It's all good -- and it's good for you too.

Comments

[Kars]

more often than not, soft science studies are intrinsically flawed because because truth is a subjective experience

That's exactly the point. There haven't been any objective studies that would convince everyone.

[Richard Lovel]

You make excellent points, ones that resonate well with the community of chronic masturbators. Many of us have completely given up on fucking, or even oral sex, in favor of the intense and prolonged rapture of edging in our own hands. But I have never seen a medical study the effects of edging. Surely if arousal from fucking produces measurable results, then edging on the verge of orgasm for hours, day after day, as some of our more accomplished masturbators do, must have even more profound results. Perhaps someone somewhere is preparing a PhD on the very topic. Since I have medical fetish fantasies as well as being a totally chronic masturbator, I only wish I knew where to sign up as a research subject!

FYI, you and I had a slight contact in the past, in the early days of the Internet; I provided you an email interview on the subject of BDSM.

--
Richard
Read my chronic masturbator blog at http://Onania.Org/asm
Join other masturbators at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OnaniaSupport/

[Nightheron2]

In my personal experiences, I have found that sexual stimulation can open nasal passages... However, I've also achieved the same effect by doing push-ups or running in place. Adrenaline will open your nasal passages, and any vigorous physical activity will produce adrenaline.

[MissNirvana]

Of all the information in that delightful essay, I chose shampoo bottle (I had to laugh)...

Hugs
Nirvana