Why is modern scientific literature about sex filled with so much pseudoscience?

bonslytoss · 2019-02-21T12:34:50+00:00

most of what men like to think about "female sexuality" isn't real. Sex is just the price women are willing to pay for a relationship with men, which is what they really want.

Women absolutely have sexuality. Men just project our sexuality on top of theirs.

Male sexuality is almost compulsory, you have it running all the time, even when you sleep. You can't turn it off, you can barely control it, you can only try to rein it in.

Female sexuality is cerebral. They "feel connections" and bond to experience oneness with their partner. The moment they stop feeling connected or on the same wavelength with their partner, their sexuality turns off. This is a foreign experience to men, and we just can't relate to it. Most men will never know this experience in their lifetime. So, when a woman tells them they just aren't in the mood, men project their own sexuality over them and call them liars or shrews.

I know you are skeptical of studies and research performed to draw these conclusions, so instead I offer some anecdotal evidence. I love this video, it's worth every second of your 19 minutes and makes every point I wish I had the credibility to make. I also encourage you to ask women what it's like to have female sexuality and keep an open mind. The answers might surprise you.

HiDiNoWro · 2019-02-21T12:31:05+00:00

OP refuses to admit the possibility that women are at all interested in sex and this post is a hobbyhorse of bad faith. Removed.

-TheGreasyPole- · 2019-02-21T10:48:48+00:00

Hi OP,

First please make a small edit to the body of your post (add a comma or something) this will summon our automod comment.

That out the way... you seem to be confused about what a science is and what a pseudoscience is.. this is a pet peeve of mine...

You seem to be using pseudoscience to mean “science I think is bollocks”. This is not what it means...

Pseudoscience means “something holding themselves out to be scientific, which does not follow the scientific method”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1]

So something like “astrology” is pseudoscience when it’s oractitioners describe it as “scientific” but they don’t follow the scientific method. Same as crystalology. Same as homeopathy.

There are lots of things that aren’t scientific that also aren’t pseudoscience either. These are areas of knowledge that’s dont use the scientific method, and all don’t describe themselves as science... this doesn’t preclude them being right or reflecting reality.... mechanics for undwr this category. As do cartographers. Historians.

They can be right, but they’re not scientifc. As long as they don’t describe themselves as scientists they’re not pseudo scientists either.

Finally, you can be a science and be wrong. Geologists were still a science before plate tectonics, they were just wrong. Because they corrected their errors using the scientific method they were still scientists and not pseudo scientists. Physics was wrong before Einstein, May still be wrong today. And so on.... so long as they commit to correcting their errors using the scientific method they are still sciences, even though they’re wrong.

As far as I can see the fields you have identified for inti these latter two categories...

1) real scientists using the scientific method describing themselves as scientists (even if they’re wrong about reality)

2) fields that do not describe themselves as science and so may be wrong or right, but are not pseudo scientists as they acknowledge they do not use the scientific method (eg historians).

Can you point to any field which meets the criteria to be a pseudoscience ? Because I’m not seeing any in your OP.

vhu9644 · 2019-02-21T11:14:00+00:00

I'm confused. My summary of your points as I see them

Scientific sex research is filled with pseudoscience
1. An example. Female sexuality is fake, but "sexology" and related fields talk about a female sex drive.
There is a lack of scientific studies on female sexuality

Are these your points? Because, if so, I think I can address all of them.

Scientific sex research is filled with pseudoscience: It would be odd to state that scientific *blank* is filled with pseudoscience. By definition, scientific sex research is science. However, there are studies, a cursory pubmed with search term "Female AND Sex Drive" leads to several papers in reputable journals.

Pubmed Female Sex Drive

If, of course, you are referring to pop-science, then this is true of every field. Most reporters are not scientists, and media tend to exaggerate a lot of scientific news.

There is a lack of scientific studies on female sexuality: Pubmed seems to indicate there are several recent studies on female sexuality. This paper seems to even cite research from as early as 1971:

Cappelletti et. al. - Increasing women’s sexual desire: The comparative effectiveness of estrogens and androgens

Stating thing such as "Intercourse frequency does not necessarily reflect women's sexual desire" and "Women can (and do) engage in sexual intercourse for reasons other than their own sexual desire, and frequency of heterosexual intercourse may be heavily influenced by male sexual motivation". This is also given as a challenge in doing the research, but also gives the following: "In contrast to studies of intercourse frequency, studies that directly assessed women’s sexual desire revealed predictable variation in relation to the hormonal fluctuations of the menstrual cycle" citing several papers and stating that these self-reported sexual desire data has significant mid cycle peak.

And in addressing your subpoint:

Female sexuality is fake, but "sexology" and related fields talk about a female sex drive: The specific paper I cited earlier is one of the papers that has a free version on pubmed. Here it is, cited again:

Cappelletti et. al. - Increasing women’s sexual desire: The comparative effectiveness of estrogens and androgens

This is very much the definition of science. Section 2 has a lot of corroborating evidence for female sex drive and factors that affect it. I don't see how, with this much corroboration, this does not meet the criteria for science. I myself am surprised with the amount of research in not only human subjects, but also animal models and sociological studies

Of course, if I have misunderstood your points, let me know. But if I got what you were getting at, then these are my rebuttals and explanations.

rus9384 · 2019-02-21T12:01:39+00:00

Ahem? It's rather Lorena Bobbit and various SJWs are those who are overgeneralizing or even bitching.

Many women like sex and you can find results so precise that their sexual satisfcation is even related to their lips shape.

BTW, if some scientific results don't exist, maybe because the idea is wrong? Just look at r/sex and you can even see girls having sex drive there. Did you even have a girl?

P.S. Of course penis is the most terrific thing in the world. Every woman sees a penis and screams.

Eastuss · 2019-02-21T11:11:30+00:00

Women have sex drive for some specific men, and women are disgusted by men and their sexuality, both at the same time. The error here is to think it happens at a conscious level.

"Sex tension" and "Disgust" are just signals thrown by the subconscious. The subconsciousness is the one making the practical decisions such as "will the sex bring me anything?". We are not ourselves aware of this.

The difference is that men's subconsciousness will just compute "is she hot?" and the women's subconsciousness will compute "Can I trade sex for something valuable?", because we aren't trying to fulfil the same subconscious goals, the end result is still the same: sexual interest.

If that piece of article you read is real, that's still super hypocrisia, talk to them into shopping off their boobs if they're not going to use them for breastfeeding, suddenly they'll blurt out words such as "pride" and "status". :)

In my country, boob surgeries are refund if you: Have smaller than cup A (and it's not so rare), have tuberous tits (basically ugly tits), have saggy tits. Society is so cucked it taxes men to pay for ugly women while it spits endlessly on ugly men.

AutoModerator · 2019-02-21T10:51:58+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Cho_Assmilk · 2019-02-21T10:47:33+00:00

Sorta like the myth if the G-spot

vhu9644 · 2019-02-21T10:58:14+00:00

Because of politics.

I am an academic in Brazil, our universities are full of ideologs. Even being a somewhat renowned economist(to a masters student), I can't say things such as: socialism will never succeed, the public debt/spending should be focused to be fixed as a priority, there is an academic bias or Venezuela failed because of socialism.

I lost count of how many times I was called by the Dean about my "neo-liberal" views and how I am being a danger to society by my supervisor. Let alone the eyes of my class.

The academy supports itself by politics. If you do not have a agrrement with a stabilished professor, it is really unlikely to get a course or a job in the area. I have to lie all the time, say 'I am leftist' and 'I am showing the mistakes of our allies' otherwise I lose everything I worked for. That is one of the reasons I want to leave Brazil and why i only publish in international journals.

You can only show your different view if you are at the end of your career or you are leaving the academy. If you want success you have to publish wonky science.

There is nothing we can do to stop it, we have to work with this or never work. I am sorry about our behavior, but unfortunately, that is how things work. There have been a resurgence of different views like myself, but don't expect much for the next 10 years or so, we need to finish our studies first.

Also remember this. "Numbers never lie, but you can make the scream whatever you want if you torture them enough" always read the raw data.

Title	Why is modern scientific literature about sex filled with so much pseudoscience?
Author	HiDiNoWro
Upvotes	6
Comments	66
Date	February 21, 2019 10:06 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/at1hhy/why_is_modern_scientific_literature_about_sex/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-is-modern-scientific-literature-about-sex.257087 https://theredarchive.com/post/257087

Comments