Guest poster and historian Bridgette Sheridan from Framingham State University weighs in on the magic of science. She posted at GWP last fall about dirty sex.
There’s another new book out about – you guessed it – sex. A Billion Wicked Thoughts, according to an article in the Daily Beast, “reveals some surprising facts about what turns us on—and what separates men and women’s desires.”
According to the Daily Beast, the authors used web searches, websites, personal ads, and porn, among other data, to discover that:
- If you can imagine it, it exists (though most people desire a lot of the same stuff when it comes to sex)
- Men are wired to objectify (though every so often they surprise us)
- Women aren’t easy to figure out (though we do know that “Women need to feel comfortable and safe and desired as well as physically attracted.”)
All that research and these are the highlights? Perhaps this goes to show that we like to have “data” back up what we already believe to be true. Let me give you an example: in the 16th and 17th centuries, as scientists began to question ancient medical theory by experimentation and “seeing for themselves,” many of them found, in the body, what they’d known all along: that women were inherently inferior to men. They found it IN THE BODY. And it was scientific so it had to be true.
Do I think that scientific exploration has led to discoveries that have improved our lives? Yes. I benefit from them daily. Do I think that scientific outcomes can sometimes be shaped by cultural norms? Yes. Do I think the Daily Beast’s breathless reporting on this book is a case of that? Yes.
But what do I know? I’m just a historian. Maybe I should collect some data before I tell you what I think.
-Bridgette Sheridan
Comments
Hell Cat — May 3, 2011
Well, to be fair, the data isn't even accurate, or scientific. I remember when the whole "they're dumber than a barrel of rotten apples" process started. And I say that because they were actively involving various fandoms in the data and couldn't get the review board to okay it. So I don't rightly think it's even any remote chance of proper scientific data to even compare to the attempted 16th and 17th century findings.
As some people I know said, they probably just Googled random statements. Context is everything. An anonymous kink meme on the internet doesn't tell you everything if you're not involved in the group around it. There's no follow through to see the whys and hows, or possible changes in beliefs.
Even if this had been thoroughly proofed, it's not anything mind-blowing. These are things society tells us every day; some days with a loud, clear voice. It reminds me quite a bit of that evolutionary psychology field. Another area I'm not keen on.