Like some of the rest of us I’ve been up to my neck in other stuff. But over at my blog I recently posted about three items that in retrospect are pretty related. Here’s the second.
The editors at the political news blog Big Think decided to make their daily centerpiece article about yet another study of the “mystery” of women’s sexual response.
What’s the Latest Development? The locations of the vagina, cervix and female nipples that correspond to the brain’s cortex have been mapped for the first time. The study confirms that there is a difference between stimulating the vagina and the clitoris and that there is a direct neurological link …
Source: Big Think
Yeah! Whee! Lady parts! We all just love sticking probes in women’s ladybusinesses. “For science” of course.
Extra credit for tossing in the nipple stimulation!
(I’m unable to confirm whether they’re now hoping to get additional funding to measure the cortical reaction to researchers shaking their faces between the subject’s breasts and going wooba-wooba-wooba-wooba.)
You know why this irritates me beyond all fucking belief?
Because, hello, when was the last time anybody reported on a study of male sexual map?
Answer: 1951! And back then they did it during open-skull surgery.
When was the last time anybody did a cortical assay of men’s secondary erogenous zones?
Because, great bactrian camel humps! Isn’t anybody curious about male sexual response beyond “Oh men? They just stick it in a hole and wiggle, case closed. Now let’s get more hawt chix to play with themselves in the fMRI machine?”
You wanna know something gang? We know roughly 130 times more about women’s orgasms, women’s sexual response, women’s arousal patterns, women’s SES/SIS interactions in the Dual Control Model of Sexual Response model, the maps of women’s erogenous zones, women’s g-spots, p-spots, a-spots, plus vaginal depth, width, lubrication, relative humidity, and fucking barometric pressure than we do about men.
So. Anyway. Two really, really big objections here.
1) It’s not that women’s sexual response isn’t mysterious, it’s that men’s are no less mysterious. For instance ask any woman if things went exactly the way she expected the first time she tried to give a handjob or blowjob.
2) It’s not that men’s sexual response is mysterious, it’s that women’s sexuality isn’t either. For instance just ask almost any woman who’s not worried she’ll get slut-shamed for showing you that, on average, she can get herself off in roughly the same time it takes the average man to get himself off.
Men and women aren’t identical. But we’re not so different that the unbelievable imbalance in research is warranted.
One possibility that doesn’t change my social critique at all: what do you think the probability is that were the roles reversed the corresponding study would have been given as much prominence all over the internets? I mean, not to be a sourpuss but while it’s nice to know they did homunculus mapping on (male only) brain-surgery patients back in 1951, and nice to know that they’ve just now updated the map for women, but have they done any research on men since? On men’s nipple stimulation? (Which if nothing else should surely be of interest to men’s partners.) How about other areas? And is anybody doing cross checks where they look at areas where women’s brains light up in fMRIs during stimulation and then ask “I wonder what the corresponding parts on men might be and what stimulating them might do?
Most importantly, and really the point of my post, if they did bother to update 60-year-old information with research using contemporary tools and attitudes, and they did decide to publish it, would it make the “From the Editors” post of the day at Big Think and other venues? Considerable evidence suggests no, not at all.