Yea, retarded right? That's why I clicked the link the other day. Its amazing the crap that gets put on the internet. The picture on this site is of a supermodel of course, half naked with fur. It begins saying "It was discovered that vaginally orgasmic women have greater sum of step length and vertebral rotation". Well, this was "discovered" upon 16 female university students. It went on to say that "women who are able to experience vaginal orgasm are more confident" and have better relationships, and even better mental health. Really? Cause last I knew, and orgasm is an orgasm. It can be attained through vaginal penetration or through clitoral stimulation (Ill leave anal out of this post, but there are nerves there, unlike most of the vagina) or however hell you really want to achieve it. So I decided to look up where these people got this hair brained idea in their heads, and of course it was Freud's fault. Apparently, this used to be some big issue back in the early 1900's, more specifically 1905 when Freud invented it without any scientific basis. So in 1905 Freud said that there were two different orgasms and the vaginal orgasm was the expected norm among adult women. Prior to 1905, no one thought there was any orgasm but the clitoral orgasm. At the same time, Freud also recognized that biologically, the clitoris is the equivalent of the penis, but I won't give you sex education here on that subject. So, some theorize that this was Freud's way of making women accept their social role. So the only type of orgasm is a female orgasm, all the rest is just silly. And I don't even want to get into the whole G-spot argument. All in all, if these kinds of things are taught to children, we are going to have some sexually frustrated people. It should just be told for what it is, and the science of sex should not lie anymore than the science of anything else.
http://www.infoniac.com/science/you-can-spot-orgasmic-woman-by-her-walk.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCbaoPCOKc&feature=PlayList&p=6319344C678DE495&index=0
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What I find really funny is that I'm sure a lot of people took the time to read this blog, and yet, no one has commented on it. The thing I do find the most amazing about this topic is that journalists can find anything, and i mean anything to write about and it will get published. People would rather read about something like this than on the economic plans for our country. Now that is sad!
ReplyDeleteIt just shows how uncomfortable people still are with their sexuality. The fact that there could be a "wrong" way...lol.
ReplyDeleteBut, yea, instead of doing research on useful things, they do this shit.
I see stupid "news" stories relating to sex like this all this time. And the thing is, most of the time people would want to read about sex over politics and economics. It is the idea that society has drilled into us over the years with the constant barrage of sexual advertising and the idea that sex is exciting and dramatic and romantic and a million other things associated with it while politics is labeled as boring, dry, frustrating, etc., On a side note, I never liked Freud. xD
ReplyDeleteThis article was amusing. I read it too one day as I was signing into my email. I saw the same link. First of all, who cares if you spot an orgasmic woman? Are they an endangered species like the polar bear is about to be? Second, if this theory is rooted in Freud, then we all know what to expect from him. I think we should all read things with a level of critical thinking to ascertain what is relevant and what meaning we can draw from them. This class was an eye-opener to many of the sociological issues like environment, race, gender, culture, families, and the list goes on. I don’t necessarily care for a woman’s walk except that she has a healthy gait- wink wink.
ReplyDeleteYeah, he isn't known for his scientific method. Just ideas.
ReplyDelete