Masturbating for Science
March 14, 2016 2:10 PM Subscribe
Are You Orgasming Without Even Knowing It? I was determined to lose my sex-in-a-brain-scanner virginity.
FYI: The scanning technology link is even more NSFW than my article. Includes interesting pics.
posted by Michele in California at 3:02 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by Michele in California at 3:02 PM on March 14, 2016
Come for the interesting brain scanner findings, stay for the AMAZING third photo.
(also, in case you're wondering: the article itself seems totally safe for work unless you're likely to get fired for having the phrase "masturbated for science" on your screen, in which case, sorry you just lost your job. Twice.)
posted by chrominance at 3:10 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
(also, in case you're wondering: the article itself seems totally safe for work unless you're likely to get fired for having the phrase "masturbated for science" on your screen, in which case, sorry you just lost your job. Twice.)
posted by chrominance at 3:10 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are You Orgasming Without Even Knowing It?
constantly
posted by beerperson at 3:15 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
constantly
posted by beerperson at 3:15 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
But honey, it was for science! For science!
posted by Splunge at 3:28 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Splunge at 3:28 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was a male subject in the same experiment. There is also a lucite rod with a few bends, and lube. The mask is to keep your head immobile, rather than a kinky accessory.
posted by fpereira at 3:42 PM on March 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by fpereira at 3:42 PM on March 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
By far the most gratifying takeaway was knowing that I'd contributed in some small way to the virtually untapped understanding of female sexual science.
Amen. Relatedly, Come As You Are by Emily Nagoski was the best book I read in 2015.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:51 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Amen. Relatedly, Come As You Are by Emily Nagoski was the best book I read in 2015.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:51 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
...numerous other female participants in the study reported having no orgasm, when the scan revealed otherwise. I'm probably not the only woman accustomed to combination orgasms — vaginal and clitoral, the kind you get using the Rabbit, or during penetrative sex — who'd written "small" orgasms off as foreplay or disappointment for years.
SUPER interesting.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:18 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
SUPER interesting.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:18 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
FWIW there is a lot in here that's congruent with the learnings from the practice of Orgasmic Meditation. If the notion that there is a lot of psychological crosstalk getting in the way of your pleasure (regardless of your sex) and you'd like to find ways to experience sensation more directly, OM is a good way to do it. Not affiliated, just appreciative.
posted by Sublimity at 4:27 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by Sublimity at 4:27 PM on March 14, 2016
Dear New England Journal of Medicine, I've enjoyed many of your stories over the years but never imagined one would happen to me...
posted by delfin at 4:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [61 favorites]
posted by delfin at 4:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [61 favorites]
The mask is to keep your head immobile, rather than a kinky accessory.
For some reason on TV they just don't like to show them but if you are getting a brain scan you will have your head put on a cradle in a cage to keep you from moving. It's even more important in an fMRI.
My wife has done some fMRI research and she shouts at the TV every time they do a scan without them. I think it activates something deep and dark in her amygdala.
posted by srboisvert at 4:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
For some reason on TV they just don't like to show them but if you are getting a brain scan you will have your head put on a cradle in a cage to keep you from moving. It's even more important in an fMRI.
My wife has done some fMRI research and she shouts at the TV every time they do a scan without them. I think it activates something deep and dark in her amygdala.
posted by srboisvert at 4:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
I think it activates something deep and dark in her amygdala.
...go on.
posted by The Tensor at 5:41 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
...go on.
posted by The Tensor at 5:41 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yup, the cage contains the head coil, the thing that actually sends pulses and records the MR signal, with a little cradle for the head (and, sometimes, foam wedges). Early papers sometimes featured a "bite bar" that subjects gripped to keep their head absolutely still. I always wonder how many datasets from that era have a "I feel like a drooling imbecile" confound...
posted by fpereira at 5:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by fpereira at 5:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm not totally comfortable with a male scientist assuring a woman that his instruments and science say she had an orgasm, regardless of what she thinks.
I'm somewhat comfortable with it, though, because I think the underlying idea makes a lot of sense particularly within the cultural context that tells women that it's all or nothing about orgasms -- that they're hard to have but if you do have one, it's like the most amazing thing ever. And, speaking as a man who wasn't socialized such that orgasms are so fraught, I've always experienced a huge range of intensity of orgasm such that some of them are, well, nothing more than the release of tension and not any particular pleasure. And ejaculation, of course, which makes it less ambiguous for men. I think without the ejaculation, I'd be more inclined to think that I didn't have one sometimes. And then, on the other side of the range, occasionally I'll have an orgasm that is a whole other higher level of orgasm above even the good ones which almost bums me out later because I'm thinking, damn, I want to have that kind of orgasm every time.
So it seems to me to be obvious and natural that orgasms vary in intensity and pleasure just from my experience.
But, also, I think that part of what I don't entirely like about what Komisaruk seems to be saying in this article (though that's probably mostly just the impression from the article) is reducing orgasm to a yes/no result visible in an MRI brain scan. The thing is, we've known since Masters and Johnson all or almost all of the physiological responses of arousal, plateau, and orgasm -- both body-wide and more locally -- and so by those observations, she'd have been known to have had an orgasm, too... no MRI necessary.
And my point here is that maybe someone wants to say, well, the body had an orgasm, but the brain may not have, and I have a problem with that for two reasons. The first is that I find that deeply suspicious and I doubt that Komisaruk would argue this because it's hard to believe that you wouldn't see the brain doing mostly the same orgasm-y things when they body is orgasming, because it's about the brain, too. The second is that even if you did argue that, you've already established the precedent then for distinguishing between the physiological components of an orgasm and the subjective experience of an orgasm, and so the brain scan couldn't be conclusive given that premise. So basically what I'm saying is that while it's very interesting and helpful to understand what the body is doing during orgasm, and likewise it's very interesting and helpful to understand what the brain is doing during orgasm, it is misleading and arguably a different sort of gaslighting to reduce "orgasm" to these observations as divorced from subjective experience.
In the end, whether or not you've got the classic muscular/vascular signs of orgasm and whether or not you've got the MRI signs of orgasm, what matters to everyone -- and most particularly women -- is the quality of their experience. And the message that, "no, really, you are having an orgasm" can easily have the effect of delegitimizing a woman's very justified sexual dissatisfaction.
The message should be that orgasms have a huge variance in intensity and pleasure and that it's a mistake to pursue an orgasm as an end to itself, as if it's all about whether you have one or not, and instead what matter should be the quality of the orgasm and, especially -- crucially -- the quality of the sex as a whole, within the context of what someone wants from their sex life.
The thing is, this study sounds like good and interesting and valuable research. But it's not clinical treatment and, unfortunately, this article is framed in a way that makes it seem like what the scan reveals has clinical value in a way that I think is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. That's not to say that it can't be beneficial, because I think that what the writer says and what I wrote at the beginning of my comment is true -- it's a good thing to debunk the rockets vs. nothing view of female orgasm. But it's not a good thing if what replaces it is a wholly reductive argument that since it's actually an orgasm, that should be good enough. I mean, sure, speaking from my own experience, I don't actually expect that I could ever have every single orgasm be one of the mind-blowing variety. But this isn't so much a problem for men the way it is for women and the cultural bias for women is to not take their sexual needs seriously. The message women should be getting is that their sexual expectations should be taken more seriously, not less.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:07 PM on March 14, 2016 [32 favorites]
I'm somewhat comfortable with it, though, because I think the underlying idea makes a lot of sense particularly within the cultural context that tells women that it's all or nothing about orgasms -- that they're hard to have but if you do have one, it's like the most amazing thing ever. And, speaking as a man who wasn't socialized such that orgasms are so fraught, I've always experienced a huge range of intensity of orgasm such that some of them are, well, nothing more than the release of tension and not any particular pleasure. And ejaculation, of course, which makes it less ambiguous for men. I think without the ejaculation, I'd be more inclined to think that I didn't have one sometimes. And then, on the other side of the range, occasionally I'll have an orgasm that is a whole other higher level of orgasm above even the good ones which almost bums me out later because I'm thinking, damn, I want to have that kind of orgasm every time.
So it seems to me to be obvious and natural that orgasms vary in intensity and pleasure just from my experience.
But, also, I think that part of what I don't entirely like about what Komisaruk seems to be saying in this article (though that's probably mostly just the impression from the article) is reducing orgasm to a yes/no result visible in an MRI brain scan. The thing is, we've known since Masters and Johnson all or almost all of the physiological responses of arousal, plateau, and orgasm -- both body-wide and more locally -- and so by those observations, she'd have been known to have had an orgasm, too... no MRI necessary.
And my point here is that maybe someone wants to say, well, the body had an orgasm, but the brain may not have, and I have a problem with that for two reasons. The first is that I find that deeply suspicious and I doubt that Komisaruk would argue this because it's hard to believe that you wouldn't see the brain doing mostly the same orgasm-y things when they body is orgasming, because it's about the brain, too. The second is that even if you did argue that, you've already established the precedent then for distinguishing between the physiological components of an orgasm and the subjective experience of an orgasm, and so the brain scan couldn't be conclusive given that premise. So basically what I'm saying is that while it's very interesting and helpful to understand what the body is doing during orgasm, and likewise it's very interesting and helpful to understand what the brain is doing during orgasm, it is misleading and arguably a different sort of gaslighting to reduce "orgasm" to these observations as divorced from subjective experience.
In the end, whether or not you've got the classic muscular/vascular signs of orgasm and whether or not you've got the MRI signs of orgasm, what matters to everyone -- and most particularly women -- is the quality of their experience. And the message that, "no, really, you are having an orgasm" can easily have the effect of delegitimizing a woman's very justified sexual dissatisfaction.
The message should be that orgasms have a huge variance in intensity and pleasure and that it's a mistake to pursue an orgasm as an end to itself, as if it's all about whether you have one or not, and instead what matter should be the quality of the orgasm and, especially -- crucially -- the quality of the sex as a whole, within the context of what someone wants from their sex life.
The thing is, this study sounds like good and interesting and valuable research. But it's not clinical treatment and, unfortunately, this article is framed in a way that makes it seem like what the scan reveals has clinical value in a way that I think is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. That's not to say that it can't be beneficial, because I think that what the writer says and what I wrote at the beginning of my comment is true -- it's a good thing to debunk the rockets vs. nothing view of female orgasm. But it's not a good thing if what replaces it is a wholly reductive argument that since it's actually an orgasm, that should be good enough. I mean, sure, speaking from my own experience, I don't actually expect that I could ever have every single orgasm be one of the mind-blowing variety. But this isn't so much a problem for men the way it is for women and the cultural bias for women is to not take their sexual needs seriously. The message women should be getting is that their sexual expectations should be taken more seriously, not less.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:07 PM on March 14, 2016 [32 favorites]
Thanks, Ivan, that starts to get at some of what made me feel weird about in the article.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 6:13 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 6:13 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ivan, I don't disagree with your very thoughtful points, but that wasn't how I saw the article at all. It was written by the woman who did it for science and she experienced it as eye opening and life broadening.
I think a lot of women do legitimately wrestle with trying to figure out what "counts" and what works for them. I spent years trying to answer such questions for myself. The article resonated with me. I hope people find the information helpful.
posted by Michele in California at 6:24 PM on March 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
I think a lot of women do legitimately wrestle with trying to figure out what "counts" and what works for them. I spent years trying to answer such questions for myself. The article resonated with me. I hope people find the information helpful.
posted by Michele in California at 6:24 PM on March 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
I swear, one of the good things growing up as part of the Our Bodies, Our Selves generation, and being sent off to convent school,was that I figured out how much fun my clitoris and I can have together. No need to trek around with accessories, I'm already packed. That said, growing up before sex toys were an easily accessible thing, I've never been comfortable with them, and it seems too much bother when I can take 3 minutes, then wash my hands and get on with my day. My much happier day.
I get where you're coming from Ivan, but that wasn't my reading at all. I think it was a journey of discovery for the writer, and if the research leads to more people finding their bliss, then I'm all for it. Orgasms for all, and to all a good night!
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:48 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I get where you're coming from Ivan, but that wasn't my reading at all. I think it was a journey of discovery for the writer, and if the research leads to more people finding their bliss, then I'm all for it. Orgasms for all, and to all a good night!
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:48 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
This study would only work for people less claustrophobic than me. I've had a couple of MRIs and while they weren't horrible experiences, there is no way I would be able to relax enough to think sexy thoughts, never mind masturbation.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:00 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Dip Flash at 7:00 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just had one a few weeks ago, and they had to dope me up with so much Ativan I thought the clanking and buzzing noises were a pretty damn awesome dance track. No way in hell could I be my own best friend in there; I salute everyone who's able to get in one without going NO GET ME OUT NOW RIGHT NOW YES let alone crank one off while inside with your HEAD IMMOBILIZED and a goddamn CAGE on your FACE* and OUT NOW please before I am forced to tear the whole hospital apart with my bare hands until I see daylight.
* ps if they don't offer, ask for the mirror. It's at a 45 degree angle so you can see out the tube and past your feet and it helps.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:08 PM on March 14, 2016
* ps if they don't offer, ask for the mirror. It's at a 45 degree angle so you can see out the tube and past your feet and it helps.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:08 PM on March 14, 2016
"I think a lot of women do legitimately wrestle with trying to figure out what "counts" and what works for them. I spent years trying to answer such questions for myself. The article resonated with me. I hope people find the information helpful."
I think that I do somewhat understand this, as well as I am able. A lot of my response to the article was positive.
But it seems to me that the underlying cultural problem is that we keep privileging what physicians and scientists -- usually men -- validate as normal, acceptable, satisfying sexual experience for women over what women themselves feel and report. The problem that the writer feels this information addresses is a problem that was created in the first place by authorities in our culture telling women what they ought to feel about their own sexual experience. This is visible in the article itself, which lists examples of past authoritative messaging being corrected by present authoritative messaging. This wins a battle but continues to lose the war because it shouldn't be about what "counts" at all -- that there's anxiety about what counts and doesn't count is deeply illustrative of the underlying problem.
I'm going to step back and listen now, though. I beg everyone's pardon if I've been mansplaining.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:14 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think that I do somewhat understand this, as well as I am able. A lot of my response to the article was positive.
But it seems to me that the underlying cultural problem is that we keep privileging what physicians and scientists -- usually men -- validate as normal, acceptable, satisfying sexual experience for women over what women themselves feel and report. The problem that the writer feels this information addresses is a problem that was created in the first place by authorities in our culture telling women what they ought to feel about their own sexual experience. This is visible in the article itself, which lists examples of past authoritative messaging being corrected by present authoritative messaging. This wins a battle but continues to lose the war because it shouldn't be about what "counts" at all -- that there's anxiety about what counts and doesn't count is deeply illustrative of the underlying problem.
I'm going to step back and listen now, though. I beg everyone's pardon if I've been mansplaining.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:14 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Feckless, you may be surprised to hear quite a few people fall asleep inside them mid scan!
posted by fpereira at 7:21 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by fpereira at 7:21 PM on March 14, 2016
Ugh, yes, SO much psychological crosstalk. It's nice to have a name for 'sorry, my brain doesn't want to let my body have an orgasm right now'. So much more scientific sounding!
Stupid brain.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:57 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Stupid brain.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:57 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I just had one a few weeks ago, and they had to dope me up with so much Ativan I thought the clanking and buzzing noises were a pretty damn awesome dance track.
I had an MRI last summer at a place that gave me headphones and a choice of music from satalite. Not knowing what to choose, I blurted out "electronica!" It fit perfectly with the MRI machine's rhythmic whirs and bangs. Spookily so at places.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:01 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I had an MRI last summer at a place that gave me headphones and a choice of music from satalite. Not knowing what to choose, I blurted out "electronica!" It fit perfectly with the MRI machine's rhythmic whirs and bangs. Spookily so at places.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:01 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do the googles have a charging port for the E-cigarettes?
posted by clavdivs at 9:11 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 9:11 PM on March 14, 2016
Mary Roach 's Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex is the definitive work on the subject.
Related
posted by kirkaracha at 10:05 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Related
posted by kirkaracha at 10:05 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just had one a few weeks ago, and they had to dope me up with so much Ativan I thought the clanking and buzzing noises were a pretty damn awesome dance track.
Orgasm, or MRI?
posted by lollusc at 10:23 PM on March 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
Orgasm, or MRI?
posted by lollusc at 10:23 PM on March 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
From Wet Spot's (eponysterical) link: The images obtained showed that during intercourse in the “missionary position” the penis has the shape of a boomerang
What is this I don't even
Oh, there are helpful images. How nice.
The next time someone tells me I need to be more flexible...
posted by bryon at 10:31 PM on March 14, 2016
What is this I don't even
Oh, there are helpful images. How nice.
The next time someone tells me I need to be more flexible...
posted by bryon at 10:31 PM on March 14, 2016
I mean the conclusion sounds really dubious to me, specifically the part about having "mistakenly" written stuff off as being disappointing. If it felt disappointing then it WAS disappointing. I'm glad this was empowering for the author but I could see this going down a bad road. Specifically a lot more shallow think pieces wagging their finger that being disappointed by sex is yet another thing we're doin wrong.
Also this?
""thinking of stimulation of the clitoris, nipple, and [the] vagina activated the same classical sensory sites in the brain that were formerly thought to be activated only by physical stimulation."
Really? Thought by whom? Did they ask anyone? LOL.
posted by bleep at 10:36 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also this?
""thinking of stimulation of the clitoris, nipple, and [the] vagina activated the same classical sensory sites in the brain that were formerly thought to be activated only by physical stimulation."
Really? Thought by whom? Did they ask anyone? LOL.
posted by bleep at 10:36 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
But it seems to me that the underlying cultural problem is that we keep privileging what physicians and scientists -- usually men -- validate as normal, acceptable, satisfying sexual experience for women over what women themselves feel and report. The problem that the writer feels this information addresses is a problem that was created in the first place by authorities in our culture telling women what they ought to feel about their own sexual experience.
I see a huge difference here. The problem that you say was created by "authorities" in the first place, I think was generally created by popular media and porn. This notion that an orgasm rips through you and you practically black out with pleasure is something that movies taught me. Not doctors. I'd be surprised if many doctors said that every orgasm is like that. So what these doctors are doing is replacing myth with data, and I fully support that.
*Full disclosure, I'm one of those women who was having orgasms for years without knowing it - specifically because I had been told there was "no way I could have one without knowing." This was pre-internet, and I didn't have anywhere to turn for information on what was "wrong" with me for years. I would have loved for a doctor of any gender to clue me in. After I figured out what I was experiencing was an actual orgasm, I was able to "tweak" it to increase intensity and satisfaction. But the only thing that made me able to do that was the starting information that what I was experiencing was an orgasm. I would have gladly had an MRI to help figure that out.
posted by greermahoney at 10:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
I see a huge difference here. The problem that you say was created by "authorities" in the first place, I think was generally created by popular media and porn. This notion that an orgasm rips through you and you practically black out with pleasure is something that movies taught me. Not doctors. I'd be surprised if many doctors said that every orgasm is like that. So what these doctors are doing is replacing myth with data, and I fully support that.
*Full disclosure, I'm one of those women who was having orgasms for years without knowing it - specifically because I had been told there was "no way I could have one without knowing." This was pre-internet, and I didn't have anywhere to turn for information on what was "wrong" with me for years. I would have loved for a doctor of any gender to clue me in. After I figured out what I was experiencing was an actual orgasm, I was able to "tweak" it to increase intensity and satisfaction. But the only thing that made me able to do that was the starting information that what I was experiencing was an orgasm. I would have gladly had an MRI to help figure that out.
posted by greermahoney at 10:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
what matters to everyone -- and most particularly women -- is the quality of their experience
Such unnecessary stereotyping. Men are coarse beasts, so quality to them is a lesser concern, eh? The author didn't go there. Neither should you.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:09 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Such unnecessary stereotyping. Men are coarse beasts, so quality to them is a lesser concern, eh? The author didn't go there. Neither should you.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:09 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wow. I find MRI machines terrifying, I’m so in awe of this woman’s capacity to orgasm in there! and wearing all those awful contraptions, no less, uh.
This was fun and interesting to read for me as a woman who’s had a long learning curve to figure out what counts as orgasm or not, for myself, not for science. I don’t see any reason to be bothered or suspicious here on account of the happy voluntary subject because the main researcher named is a man (hmm that’s his research area, and judging from the account and photos, it seems everyone was very comfortable and at ease - in my experience, doctors who can make you uncomfortable as a woman come in both genders!), or because of that brain/body dichotomy.
I think the interesting point here is precisely how so often our expectations get in the way, and god knows there are tons of expectations and myths about female orgasms to influence you at very deep levels, and if we surrendered more completely to the bodily sensations themselves we’d learn to appreciate them for what they are, small or big o’s alike.
OF COURSE we all want the big o every bloody time. And sometimes you want it so much it doesn’t happen.
So this thing of the MRI scan registering something while the brain is thinking "hmm nah not happening/not there yet" is VERY fascinating. I think there are many women who’ve had that sort of experience of the fine line between trying and not trying too hard, especially with masturbation, and how difficult it can be to turn down the effort just enough to let the body go with the flow and surprise you.
I sure don’t see any implication of telling women to be happy with experiences they "subjectively" feel as unsatisfying, on the contrary - it’s all subjective and individual anyway, the body sensations are a "subjective" experience too, but a more reliable one than what your mind may be telling you, or, I don’t know how to put it, a more reliable one when your mind (expectations, myths, self-criticism, feeling of inadequacy etc. etc.) doesn’t get in the way. Not more reliable just because an MRI scan and a PhD guy tells you so, but it must be fascinating to have that kind of experiment about your body.
At least for me the "experiment" here is confirmation of that difficulty of dealing with what our minds expect about physical pleasure. If it had been me in that machine (brrr) and the researchers told me afterwards that they did register an orgasm while I hadn’t noticed, I wouldn’t think "yeah? and who do you think you are to tell me what I felt?!" (which could be a justified reaction if, say, it was a partner insisting you must have had an orgasm, but would not make sense in this case, since the subjects are happy curious volunteers and know exactly what the research is about), I’d be incredibly fascinated by that. And I would be happy to put that finding to good use. It’s already helpful to read about it actually.
posted by bitteschoen at 1:07 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
This was fun and interesting to read for me as a woman who’s had a long learning curve to figure out what counts as orgasm or not, for myself, not for science. I don’t see any reason to be bothered or suspicious here on account of the happy voluntary subject because the main researcher named is a man (hmm that’s his research area, and judging from the account and photos, it seems everyone was very comfortable and at ease - in my experience, doctors who can make you uncomfortable as a woman come in both genders!), or because of that brain/body dichotomy.
I think the interesting point here is precisely how so often our expectations get in the way, and god knows there are tons of expectations and myths about female orgasms to influence you at very deep levels, and if we surrendered more completely to the bodily sensations themselves we’d learn to appreciate them for what they are, small or big o’s alike.
OF COURSE we all want the big o every bloody time. And sometimes you want it so much it doesn’t happen.
So this thing of the MRI scan registering something while the brain is thinking "hmm nah not happening/not there yet" is VERY fascinating. I think there are many women who’ve had that sort of experience of the fine line between trying and not trying too hard, especially with masturbation, and how difficult it can be to turn down the effort just enough to let the body go with the flow and surprise you.
I sure don’t see any implication of telling women to be happy with experiences they "subjectively" feel as unsatisfying, on the contrary - it’s all subjective and individual anyway, the body sensations are a "subjective" experience too, but a more reliable one than what your mind may be telling you, or, I don’t know how to put it, a more reliable one when your mind (expectations, myths, self-criticism, feeling of inadequacy etc. etc.) doesn’t get in the way. Not more reliable just because an MRI scan and a PhD guy tells you so, but it must be fascinating to have that kind of experiment about your body.
At least for me the "experiment" here is confirmation of that difficulty of dealing with what our minds expect about physical pleasure. If it had been me in that machine (brrr) and the researchers told me afterwards that they did register an orgasm while I hadn’t noticed, I wouldn’t think "yeah? and who do you think you are to tell me what I felt?!" (which could be a justified reaction if, say, it was a partner insisting you must have had an orgasm, but would not make sense in this case, since the subjects are happy curious volunteers and know exactly what the research is about), I’d be incredibly fascinated by that. And I would be happy to put that finding to good use. It’s already helpful to read about it actually.
posted by bitteschoen at 1:07 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
the writer feels this information addresses is a problem that was created in the first place by authorities in our culture telling women what they ought to feel about their own sexual experience.
Ivan, I'm with greermahoney on this one: there are SO many messages about sexuality and sexual response that affect women's sexual experiences, that don't necessarily come from "authorities", or at least scientific or medical authorities.
I think it's exceedingly common--for people of both sexes--to have a running commentary in their head at all times during sex that profoundly shapes the experience. For many women, in addition to whatever messages/self-commentary she carries into the experience about body image and morality and madonna/whore and all that stuff, is a whole track about responsiveness, right? Is it OK to show that I like it or does that make me a slut? Or, am I appearing responsive enough, is he going to be hurt if I don't act like I'm loving it, I better show and tell him that I got off or he will be upset--the emotional labor of faking it. And if your model (and your partner's model!) of What Is An Orgasm is the male model (buildup, climax, precipitous dropoff of arousal) then you can spend an awful lot of time trying to make your own experience conform or appear to conform to that model--or believe that you're "wrong" somehow if it doesn't.
I think generally for men the whole "responsiveness" thing isn't an issue, or isn't an issue in the same way. For sure there are performance pressures about erections and climaxes, but it's not like your entire sexual response is seen as shrouded in mystery and the subject of contentious psychological theorizing and based on body parts that weren't even fully described anatomically until a few years ago.
It can be very, very challenging to clear all that stuff away and be alert to and accepting of one's own actual experience, and even more so to share that honestly with a partner. The notion from the article, that a small peak is actually still a peak, and still "counts" as an orgasm--if that affirmation, that awakening came from an old man in a lab coat, well, right on. I hope it inspires her to her own further research about her range of experience and response, and even more pleasure.
posted by Sublimity at 5:24 AM on March 15, 2016
Ivan, I'm with greermahoney on this one: there are SO many messages about sexuality and sexual response that affect women's sexual experiences, that don't necessarily come from "authorities", or at least scientific or medical authorities.
I think it's exceedingly common--for people of both sexes--to have a running commentary in their head at all times during sex that profoundly shapes the experience. For many women, in addition to whatever messages/self-commentary she carries into the experience about body image and morality and madonna/whore and all that stuff, is a whole track about responsiveness, right? Is it OK to show that I like it or does that make me a slut? Or, am I appearing responsive enough, is he going to be hurt if I don't act like I'm loving it, I better show and tell him that I got off or he will be upset--the emotional labor of faking it. And if your model (and your partner's model!) of What Is An Orgasm is the male model (buildup, climax, precipitous dropoff of arousal) then you can spend an awful lot of time trying to make your own experience conform or appear to conform to that model--or believe that you're "wrong" somehow if it doesn't.
I think generally for men the whole "responsiveness" thing isn't an issue, or isn't an issue in the same way. For sure there are performance pressures about erections and climaxes, but it's not like your entire sexual response is seen as shrouded in mystery and the subject of contentious psychological theorizing and based on body parts that weren't even fully described anatomically until a few years ago.
It can be very, very challenging to clear all that stuff away and be alert to and accepting of one's own actual experience, and even more so to share that honestly with a partner. The notion from the article, that a small peak is actually still a peak, and still "counts" as an orgasm--if that affirmation, that awakening came from an old man in a lab coat, well, right on. I hope it inspires her to her own further research about her range of experience and response, and even more pleasure.
posted by Sublimity at 5:24 AM on March 15, 2016
Not that I'm - urgh, yeah- aware of ...
posted by GallonOfAlan at 5:46 AM on March 15, 2016
posted by GallonOfAlan at 5:46 AM on March 15, 2016
I think there's a fine line between the research itself, the author's experience, and the article and any other articles about the research. The research is great and important and useful, no doubt about it. The author's experience was what it was and nobody can say anything about that. I'm just afraid of the way the research will be characterized by lazy and simplistic pop science journalism. I was not reassured by the way the author wrote about the research in this piece.
posted by bleep at 9:12 AM on March 15, 2016
posted by bleep at 9:12 AM on March 15, 2016
Ivan, you are a wonderful human being, but I fundamentally do not care who puts out good info. I like to "fraternize with the enemy" and I think that fraternization is the best antidote possible to the shitty power divided along gender lines situation that dominates the world.
I did therapy in my teens and twenties. I read endless books and magazine articles about human sexuality and psychology and you name it. The single best thing I ever did to make friends with my sexuality was to get up close and personal with men who had been around the block more than a time or two and who knew waaaaay more about female sexuality than I did.
I got Educated. It was awesome.
I don't think it matters so much what bits you were born with between your legs. Men and women are equally able to be either hateful mysogynists or You Go, Girl! types. I just try to spend my time with the latter group, as much as possible.
Peace.
posted by Michele in California at 11:10 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I did therapy in my teens and twenties. I read endless books and magazine articles about human sexuality and psychology and you name it. The single best thing I ever did to make friends with my sexuality was to get up close and personal with men who had been around the block more than a time or two and who knew waaaaay more about female sexuality than I did.
I got Educated. It was awesome.
I don't think it matters so much what bits you were born with between your legs. Men and women are equally able to be either hateful mysogynists or You Go, Girl! types. I just try to spend my time with the latter group, as much as possible.
Peace.
posted by Michele in California at 11:10 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older The Broderers Of St Paul’s Cathedral | Xena and Gabrielle are not just gal-pals Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Wet Spot at 2:55 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]