Were Masters & Johnson biased against men when studying sexuality?

UnconventionalXY · 2023-09-24T14:30:59+00:00

Based on the comments in the referenced article, it sounds like Masters & Johnson were more focused on the mystery of the female orgasm as if the male orgasm was already completely understood.

Males hate this machine is a comment about performance, however I think it highlights a primitive perspective about sex. Sex is fundamentally about pleasurable feelings, despite being about procreation: deliberate procreation is only a miniscule part of sexual activity. Consequently, when you look at sex from the perspective of pleasurable sensations, it becomes less about how those sensations are achieved. As a result, it becomes more reasonable to not rely on the limitations of the human body to achieve them or insist on only the human body generating them because it is "natural".

Therefore, I don't understand the comment about males hating the machine if it achieves pleasure for women, as long as they are also able to achieve their own pleasure, unless an inability for men to compete with a machine results in them feeling like a failure.

But if women find a machine gives them a better result, then there is no reason for men to feel ashamed because people are not machines and should not be expected to operate like them or compete with them. In fact it is men's ingenuity that should be employed in achieving the desired outcome, ratherr than worrying about the actual mechanism involved.

I think the focus should be on achieving satisfactory pleasurable sensations via whatever mechanism, rather than insisting on men perform to meet womens needs and criticising them if they can't or are in any way inadequate by nature.

Men could have saved a lot of angst by not being ashamed if their own equipment was not up to the task if they could use alternative means to achieve the desired end result, because it is not the mechanism that is important.

References to a little dick should no longer be regarded as acceptable, when size of the penis is no impediment to providing pleasurable sensations.

Men don't owe women orgasms via their natural body and vice versa. It's a nice idea that it should all happen naturally, just as it is a nice idea that people orgasm simultaneously, but it shouldn't be essential.

For similar reasons, it is unfortunate that many men do not explore their own potential for pleasurable sensations beyond vanilla sex because the mechanism is seen as feminine, when it is totally masculine because of the male structures being stimulated.

Current_Finding_4066 · 2023-09-24T13:37:14+00:00

No, but men certainly are capable of multiple orgasms.

McFeely_Smackup · 2023-09-24T23:49:39+00:00

Masters and Johnson were highly focused on female sexual physiology, male sexuality want really considered worth studying since men enjoying sex wasn't particularly interesting or taboo

Vegetable_Ad1732 · 2023-09-25T02:48:13+00:00

Masters (with Sarrell) wrote the first paper on women raping men. (think it was 1982). He started the whole discussion. So I would tend to give him a free pass on such an accusation.

EarnMeowShower · 2023-09-25T10:41:24+00:00

This just proves the "They want hot ice." trope.

Of COURSE they want more than is physically possible, nothing is EVER enough. Any relationship with nearly any woman will teach you this. You can't satisfy a black hole, only keep it far away from anything it can harm.

Title	Were Masters & Johnson biased against men when studying sexuality?
Author	GreedyCounty6149
Upvotes	32
Comments	9
Date	September 24, 2023 1:22 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/16qxnd4/were_masters_johnson_biased_against_men_when/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/were-masters-johnson-biased-against-men-when.1232871 https://theredarchive.com/post/1232871

Comments