Go read the article — come back..
do it — really, because what I have to say depends on you reading the thing.. it’s short, it involves Playboy..
Now — what’s important about the article is the impact the research on sexuality has had on women for generations. The idea that women are less sexual than men, that they aren’t visually stimulated etc.. is all part of a larger system that seeks to oppress and thus control women’s sexuality — because, wait for it …. men need sex from women. Yea — that was earth-shattering knowledge now, wasn’t it..
If you read Andrea Dwarkin (as I have been recently) and Camille Paglia (yea… I know she hates feminists, and I think she’s often wrong.. but she’s interesting) — you’ll see the connection to a lot of current issues — Abortion/birth control etc.. are the obvious ones, but also same-sex marriage.
The thing is, if individual men or women want to marry someone of the same gender, that means that they don’t want to have heterosexual sex. In the case of women the connection is obvious — in that those are women who don’t “need” a man and won’t have one in their bed. For men the connection is more precarious, in that these men don’t need women for sex — and, since needing a woman is a sign of weakness in a man (thus the need to control the supply of sex and the giver of sex, a woman), gay men aren’t weak like straight men — thus, they need to be demeaned and called “sissy”… ISH!
When same-sex couples are deemed more socially acceptable (repeal of DADT, legalizing same-sex marriage), the cry is something about demolishing the “traditional” family — i.e. the patriarchal structure that ties a woman to a man, so the man can have sex whenever he wants. Clearly, this will lead to the downfall of our society… duh.
Going deeper into the research, it becomes clear HOW the research and interpretation of results got all f*@C3d up — when the researchers bring their own set of experiences into the lab, they subtly compare them and find they are similar — thus they conclude that their experiences are “normal” and “standard” for all persons. BUT — when few, if any, of the researchers are straight-white-males, their experiences AREN’T a good representation of the rest of us.
So, research questions are developed, research plans are made, studies are done and the conclusion coheres with the “normal” and “standard” experiences of the folks doing the research — i.e. straight-white-males. When a revolutionary study comes out, it’s challenged by those same straight-white-males and found lacking in some way..
It’s only when the perspective of the researchers is more broad that you end up with something more in line with the truth. This isn’t because the natural world (or, in this case male and female sexuality) has changed, but the questions asked and the interpretation of the results — both subjective processes– have changed. YEA for that.