Science of Sex: How Science Got Sex Wrong

August 11th, 2018

Although I’ve dedicated most of this series to the awesome research being done about sexuality as well as those who take the time to study it. In some ways, the field is lagging behind other scientific endeavors, so every little bit counts. However, I am going to make a departure in this post and discuss the missteps science has taken when it comes to sex.

Check out previous Science of Sex posts here.

how science got sex wrong

Science is really a process and scientists as a group does not always agree. But sometimes these mistakes have been costly, traumatic even. As I type those words, the specific error that comes to mind is the listing of homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. For years, being gay wasn’t an accepted orientation; rather, it was a mental health condition. It wasn’t until DSM III when homosexuality was removed entirely.

The same edition of the DSM was the one to back off the idea that sadomasochism might not be a red flag for mental health issues, either. Although, it wasn’t until the DSM 5 that BDSM was reorganized as a unusual sexual interest and not a disorder. Since then, studies have shown that kinksters are not more mentally unhealthy than everyone else and may even be healthier in some respescts!

Speaking of disorders that were reclassified with the publication of DSM 5, gender identity disorder has only recently been reclassified as “gender dysphoria.”

The inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM was the very metric by which people were allowed to gaslight and stigmatize anyone who wasn’t straight. People whose sexual orientations and interests could land them in an asylum or potential prison. These inclusions affected whether — and how — medical and mental health professionals treated patients, and some people were reluctant to seek medical help because of that.

You simply can’t treat a human humanely when their natural sexual proclivities are listed in the book that doctors use to diagnose people.

Although the people who created and updated the DSM are more recently guilty of this, it’s not a new occurrence. We all learned about Freud, the Oedipus complex and how people can get stuck in certain development stages never to reach their full potential as adults. However, the more you learn about psychology, the more you realize that Freud was wrong about everything least of all sex.

Freud was the one who championed the idea that women who orgasmed from clitoral stimulation were achieving orgasm in a lesser way because they were stuck in one of those latent phases. In fact, most women require clitoral stimulation to orgasm (and many prefer it even during intercourse). We now know there’s nothing wrong if a woman doesn’t orgasm from penetration alone. This ideology has been repeated for years, and even in 2018, women strive to orgasm the “right’ way, as if their body’s abilities and pleasure are lesser when derived from clitoral stimulation. Did I mention how it contributed to the willful ignorance of female sexuality as a legitimate research subject?

It’s hard to break old habits, but there are hurdles even when researchers are using fact and science to explore sexuality. More recently, for instance, a study concluded that over 2/3 of the improvement in female sexual dysfunction could be attributed to placebo and not to the medications that were being tested. You might recall that both Emily Nagoski and Lori Brotto argue that medication may not be the best treatment for female sexual dysfunction (which is poorly defined, to begin with).

Aside from the efficacy of treatments, researchers must contend with self-reporting: many studies simply ask people about their sex lives and must rely on participants to answer honestly and completely. This has led to some interesting discrepancies. Time after time, men report having more sexual partners than women. A new study suggests that the way men count partners (estimating versus women’s’ actual counting) and qualify sexual activities accounts for much of this discrepancy.

But it goes further than that: people are terrible at remembering how much sex they actually have. One study revealed that people ‘remember’ having sex twice as often as they actually did it!

Even if people were perfectly honest and reliable, it’s important to examine just who is responding to these studies. Are these people more sexual or more willing to discuss sex (you can join a sex study, too)? Does this skew the numbers? And are these studies representative of the actual population? Sex, orientation, and skin color of people in surveys may not correspond to real life. Many researchers statistically analyze their results because of this, but not all surveys are created (or analyzed) the same.

I’m already over 700 words and have yet to mention small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and conclusions that ignore real experiences. Nor have I discussed the click-bait headlines and titles painted with broad strokes when journalists simply want clicks and not true understanding of human sexuality.

Perhaps that’s why when people get it right and reveal something about our inner workings, it matters that much more.

Further Reading

6 Comments

Categories: Science of Sex

Tell Me What You Want

July 31st, 2018

Tell Me What You Want
$13.99 - $20.99 from Amazon

For the past year — or perhaps it’s closer to two — I’ve been a fan and follower of Psychology of Sex, a website run by PhD Justin Lehmiller. Dr. Lehmiller updates his website with news about recent sexuality research, provides insights into why humans have sex the way we do, and sheds light on older studies, too. If you’re interested in the science of sex but don’t want to read the studies yourself, Dr. Lehmiller does a fantastic job of getting to the point and presenting it in an accessible way.

His work is right up my alley if you couldn’t already tell. When I found out he was releasing a book this summer, I knew I had to read it. I was excited for him and just as excited when I realized I’d have a chance to review it, despite 2018 being a busy year for book reviews.

Dr. Lehmiller’s recently released book is Tell Me What You Want (subtitle: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life). The book is based largely on a 4,000-person survey administered by Lehmiller to Americans about their sexual fantasies. Lehmiller uses his book as a vehicle to explain how common some sexual fantasies are — not to mention fantasizing in general — and to help the reader better fulfill their own desires.

Right from the beginning of the book, Lehmiller reveals results from his survey. The most popular American fantasies include BDSM and group sex scenarios but fewer celebrities than you might have imagined. The introduction whets the reader’s appetite for the numbers while reminding them that this research can be beneficial to their own sex lives. This is followed by a chapter that briefly defines a sexual fantasy and outlines the seven most common themes that Justin found in his survey.

The next chapter takes an in-depth look at those categories with multipartner sex, BDSM (including consensual nonconsent) and novelty/adventure being so common that he describes them as the three fantasies nearly everyone has. This long chapter continues with the four next-most common sexual fantasy themes: taboos (include voyeurism and exhibitionism), swinging/polyamory/partner sharing, intimacy, and homoeroticism and gender-bending.

Dr. Lehmiller relies on specific comments from people who took his survey to detail the scenarios that played out in their heads. For example, Dr. Lehmiller found that the people who had BDSM fantasies imagined scenarios in which care and consent were significant, not nonconsensual play (which would be abuse). This insight into how common these fantasies are as well as the details that are crucial for enjoyment is fascinating. He explains the different fetishes in a clear way so that readers can follow. I personally think it’s rather calming (although no one would describe me as sheltered or a prude). I think that readers who are not as well-versed in the topic of sexuality would take something out of this book.

I know that I followed intently as Dr. Lehmiller moved into a chapter that explained differences in fantasies between the genders. He touches on the greater range of sexual flexibility that most women exhibit as well as some biological differences between the sexes. Justin also makes a point to explain how societal influences can play out in our fantasies. Some of the sex differences were typical. Yes, women tend to have more passionate and romantic fantasies, but they also fantasize more often about BDSM while men more often fantasize about group sex. Women more often view themselves as a submissive in fantasies than men.

I found Dr. Lehmiller’s conclusions were interesting, too, pointing out that women may be more flexible in their fantasies than men and that women often view themselves as an object rather than a subject when fantasizing. He also explains how taboo fantasies may be more common in men because if their greater propensity toward compulsive sexual behavior. Finally, He’s quick to point out that while one sex may have certain fantasies more frequently, the opposite will frequently share those same fantasies.

Throughout the book, I found the results of this survey intriguing, but Lehmiller includes plenty of information from other sources and previous surveys to support his conclusions and sometimes to contrast the differing survey results. I have nearly 50 bookmarks added, many of which highlight his sources that I wish to examine in the future myself.

The next chapter provides the reader with 15 questions, each of which provides insight into their probably sexual fantasies. The list includes age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religiosity, sexual dysfunction, sexual assault victimhood, sexual compulsivity, relationship satisfaction, attachment style, “Type A” personalities, extroversion, compassion, stress coping, and self-esteem can also reveal a person’s likely fantasies. You get the feeling that if you revealed just a bit of yourself to Dr. Lehmiller, he could fill in the blanks and make some accurate assumptions about your fantasy proclivities.

I do think that this chapter seemed a bit out of place because the next two focus on who we fantasize about (frequently current or past lovers and celebrities such as Channing Tatum and ScarJo) and the settings of our fantasies (usually less common than activities and participants but still telling). I did find the analysis of how exposure to porn alters our desired fantasy partners (and own bodies) to be quite compelling; although, Lehmiller does not have an anti-porn stance. He simply highlights how it affects the way we view and engage in sex. The results and commentary about how people of different sexual orientations and races approach partners in their fantasies is also telling. It’s really the conclusions that Dr. Lehmiller was able to draw that painted a picture of our larger sexual conscious.

The last few chapters in the book focus on the personal, however, with Lehmiller providing guidance for the reader to express rather than repress their sexual fantasies. He provides advice for communicating fantasies to sexual partners as well as for when acting on those fantasies would not be advised. Dr. Lehmiller emphasizes that the some sexual fantasies are so common that partners may be share them… if they’re just able to talk about them.

In the following chapter, Lehmiller explains how those people who have been able to live out discuss fantasies were by and large able to act them out and enjoyed doing so; although, a few people were met with rejection outright and some did not attain the satisfaction that they expected from engaging in their fantasies. This chapter reads as a pragmatic guide to getting what you really want in bed.

As Lehmiller ends his book, he makes arguments for more comprehensive sex education in America (inspired partly by his trip earlier this year to the Netherlands), open communication about sex, and experimentation as a way to improve relationship satisfaction. Although Tell Me What You Want is about sexuality, the book includes many pieces of advice that would strengthen relationships. He reminds us that porn is not the problem (although it may be a symptom of one), that there is no perfect partner for any of us, and that sometimes our problems are difficult but can still be resolved.

The final chapter in this book reiterates Lehmiller’s calm and logical approach to understanding sexuality and improving sexual satisfaction, which is exemplified on nearly every page of Tell Me What You Want. It’s difficult to disagree with this.

Not only did I find the information in this book to be interesting and useful, but I found Dr. Lehmiller’s casual tone to be approachable and entertaining. Tell Me What You Want was enjoyable to read, never dry or judgmental. He navigates potentially controversial topics thoughtfully. Although I can imagine there are those who would bristle at the results of the fantasy survey — as well as the conclusions that could be drawn from them — Lehmiller takes care to avoid that as much as possible.

If I have one complaint about Tell Me What You Are, it’s that this survey isn’t a representative sample. However, Lehmiller makes it clear that these percentages refer to his sample and not the country or world at large. If he was interested in what I want, I would say that I would love to see the statistical breakdown for at least some of the data. Otherwise, Tell Me What You Want really sated my desire to look inside American’s bedrooms and brains.

And, yes, Dr. Lehmiller does make a reference to the Spice Girl’s song.

If you want to read Tell Me What You Want, you can buy the hardcover, softcover, or Kindle version on Amazon.

11 Comments

Categories: Books, Reviews

Science of Sex: How Sex Research Is Done

March 31st, 2018

A few months ago, I took a look at some of the awesome women who are researching (and writing about sex). Now, I want to touch on just how that research is done. Someone somewhere is taking the time to study people in a lab as they watch porn or have sex or to hand out questionnaires to anyone who is willing to check a few boxes (or click a few links).

Thus, this week's Science of Sex post is all about how that research is performed.

Remember, if you like this post, I update Science of Sex every second-ish Saturday of the month!

In the beginning, there was Kinsey, who was asking people ostensibly invasive questions about their sex lives. Kinsey was not the first to do so, but he was among the first to really attract attention for his work. Kinsey didn't just interview subjects, however. Kinsey had filmed homosexual prostitutes ejaculating in the attic of his own home for one study. He also invited 30 couples into his home to masturbated and have sex while being recorded. Kinsey has since been described as a voyeur and even some of his contemporaries were wary of the way he went about his studies and whether his interest was purely scientific. It's difficult to imagine such impropriety when it comes to modern sex research. But there was no example for Kinsey to follow in the 1940s. He was making up — and breaking — the rules as he went along.

Surveying and interviewing continues to be a popular mode of sex research. The Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana Bloomington still uses it. The 2010 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior also utilized random dialing and physical mailers to connect with possible respondents while a more recent survey by the university has been posted online.  

The Internet presents an opportunity to easily collect information en masse and with identity protection (when that's desired). It's a hell of a lot easier to reach thousands or millions of people by posting surveys online rather than a physical bulletin board. You can find a list of surveys and studies that you might be eligible to participate in on Dr. Lehmiller's site. I've shared similar links with my readers, positive that y'all would be as excited to be part of history as I am.

One of the downfalls of self-reporting (whether it's done in person or over the Internet) is whether a respondent is being honest, both to themselves and to the survey. Furthermore, the way that questions are worded can leave a lot of room for ambiguity. Surveys presented by reputable institutions — I'm looking at you Bloomington — are often quite thoughtful in this regard. I imagine that the more ambiguity, the more likely some survey responses will have to be thrown out.

Despite the pitfalls of relying on someone's self-reporting, it's important to understand how a person feels, especially when it comes to arousal. Thanks to studies that have compared women's' reported arousal to their physical arousal, we have a much better understanding of the arousal discordance that is more commonly found in women than with men.

Researchers will connect subjects to devices that measure

  • pupil dilation, which can be an indication of arousal
  • heart rate can be measured with an electrocardiograph (EKG) like Masters and Johnson used
  • erection via penile strain gauges that measure the circumference of the shaft
  • vaginal pulse with the help of a probe known as a vaginal photoplethysmograph 
  • genital thermometers
  • brain activity with the aid of fMRIs that scan for real-time changes or an electroencephalograph (EEG) that measures electricity
  • skin conductance, which occurs when patients sweat during arousal and stimulation. Electrodes are the old standby for this method
  • penis volume through the use of a cuff filled with air (or water) that would become displaced as a subject became erect
  • penile rigidity with a device that attaches to the base of the shaft and just below the head of the penis

Often, researchers hook up patients to these devices and show them sexually explicit images or videos. Yes, buying porn might be on the docket if you're a sex researcher. Patients might be advised to masturbate or engage in sexual activity with a partner.

Sometimes, if you want to know more about sex, you just have to do it yourself. That's what author Mary Roach did when she was writing "Bonk." She volunteered herself — and her husband Ed — as subjects of a 4D ultrasound. The author and her husband engaged in sex while a researcher passed an ultrasound wand over their bodies, briefly resting his arm against her Ed's body. The pair would hold still momentarily to achieve still images, and the scientist instructed Ed to ejaculate.

Mary Roach and her husband may be lucky — or unlucky if you prefer — to be alive. Researchers have used cadavers for some studies, especially those regarding the G-spot. 

Several of these cadaver studies have been critiqued for being too small a sample size. That argument has also been made against other sex studies, which may only involve a handful of subjects. The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior is among the largest ever, recording responses from nearly 6,000 people. 

Few of these studies have been replicated, so it's important to remember that the results give us a glimpse but not the whole picture.

One interesting factor is how the language used in these studies has changed. Whereas it once was more clinical and heteronormative, language has become depathologized. It's more common to see "man" or "woman" in place of "male" or "female." The same goes for sexual orientations and subjects. Interestingly, the concept of consent is more frequently referenced in modern sex research. Mentions of HIV is on the rise (and AIDS decreasing), as it the term MSM, which stands for men who have sex with men.

Further Reading

Comment

Categories: Science of Sex

Science of Sex: The Women of Sexology

December 30th, 2017

Welcome to the tenth installment in a feature on Of Sex and Love: Science of Sex. In this monthly segment, I discuss the science of sexuality in an easy-to-digest format that’s accessible to the casual reader. I will also follow up with some extended reading material for people who want to know more about the subject of each post.

I try to update Science of Sex every second Saturday of the month, so check back soon.  This month’s incredibly late Science of Sex post is a departure from previous posts, but it’s one that I hope you will enjoy.

Science of Sex Women of Sexolofy

While the last few months I’ve posted about what is happening in the science of sex, I decided to depart just a bit this month and discuss the who of science and sex. Specifically, I’d like to focus on the women who researched and studied, taught, and fought for our sexuality. I do this not to minimize what efforts of men but to maximize the efforts of women who were all too often overlooked — and sometimes still are. We’ve all heard of Kinsey and Grafenberg and Bancroft and Janssen. Now, I’d like to introduce you to some lesser-known names!

Marie Bonaparte

You’ll more often hear Bonaparte listed as a French princess, which she was, but she was also a psychoanalyst and friend of Freud. After growing tired of her inability to orgasm, Bonaparte took matters into her own hands. It’s to her credit that we have the rule of thumb (albeit, this was unknown to me until earlier this year, so women’s voices still need to be promoted!). After consulting with hundreds of women, Marie suggested that the reason that so many women were anorgasmic wasn’t because of what was in their heads: it was because of what was between their legs.

The rule of thumb states that if the distance between a woman’s clitoris and vaginal opening is more than the length from the tip of thumb to the first knuckle (around 2.5cm), a woman is unlikely to achieve orgasm through intercourse because the clit won’t be stimulated.

Virginia Johnson

You’ve likely heard of Virginia Johnson’s work if you’re interested in sex research, but her name always followers her partner and husband, William Masters. Together, the pair discovered different stages of arousal, that women could achieve multiple orgasms and that flexibility of a vagina when it comes to penetration. Johnson contributed to something great, but it wasn’t perfect. Early research with Masters encouraged conversion of gays, which Johnson didn’t approve.

Johnson seems a complicated woman, and neither her professional and personal relationship with Masters is no less complex. But who knows what we would know without her?

Lisa Diamond

Lisa Diamond examined the fluidity of woman’s sexuality, which she published under the name Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. Diamond’s research supports the idea that many women experience a sexual fluidity that may not be properly addressed by existing labels. Lisa Diamond also suggest that a woman’s sexuality has more variables, including menstruation, than a man’s.

April Burns

April Burns surveyed girls and young women to discover their attitudes and behavior toward sex. The result is sometimes frustrating and disappointing (a comparison between oral sex and performing a chore or taking a test was common) but always enlightening (oral sex is one way in which these girls felt empowered in their sexual encounters — perhaps the only way). Burns has also examined the relationship that young women of color have with sex.

Debby Herbenick

It wasn’t until I read Girls and Sex that I realized how many women defined good sex as sex that was simply without pain. I guess I had been fortunate.  This knowledge comes from the results of several studies that Debby Herbernick has contributed to. Of particular note is the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, the most extensive sexual survey of recent years, Herbernick and her team at Indiana University released results in 2009 and 2012 that offered a look into modern bedrooms, just like Kinsey or Johnson had done decades prior.

Katherine Bement Davis

Davis was the superintendent of a woman’s prison and used her network to survey women about topics such as sexual orientation and desire. Although she isn’t often credited for her work and it took the world a while to accept the results, Davis was a proponent of both the idea that homosexuality in women wasn’t pathological and that women had sexual desires much the same as men.

Evelyn Hooker

Evelyn Hooker worked with the gay community to perform psychological evaluations in an attempt to remove the stigma of homosexuality as a mental illness or insanity. In the end, she surveyed two groups of people, one gay and one straight, and produced results that were virtually indistinguishable from one another.

Celia Mosher

Mosher was studying sex well before Kinsey, and it even earned her the moniker of the “sex scholar.” Mosher was responsible for a Victorian sex survey, the earliest of its type. Unfortunately, the results of the survey weren’t published until after her death. The results showed that women were not ready to admit that their sexual desires were nonexistent or abnormal.

Lori Brotto

More recently, Lori Brotto has studied the disconnect that women often experience between mental and physical arousal. Brotto’s research suggests that the way that women multitask and tend to be detached from their bodies contributes to this. Brotto suggests mindfulness as one possible solution. However, Brotto’s research also indicates that in the sexual moment, men and women experience fewer differences in desire than most people believe. Another myth Brotto is helping to dispel is how much testosterone affects a woman’s desire.

Sari van Anders

Van Anders has also looked into the role of testosterone and arousal, finding only an indirect link. She has researched responsive desire in women and the interplay between thoughts and desire. The van Anders lab frequently tackles topics about sex, women, feminism, gender, and diversity, going so far as to research how to perform feminist research.

Marie Stopes

Stopes not only penned the first sex manual in England, but she also opened the country’s first reproductive health clinic in 1921, she used it to gather data about contraception. Her clinic inspired others and eventually led to the Family Planning Association.  The Marie Stopes Foundation still promotes access to contraception around the world and continues research into abortion.

 

Emily Nagoski

Emily Nagoski has done a ton to educate the world about sexual desire, especially as experienced by women, as well as risk and sexual behavior. Hers is the book that introduced me (and many others!) to the dual-control model of sexual desire and is also responsible for me finally coming to understand my body’s stress response cycle. I’ve referenced it countless times since reading it.

Do yourself a favor, boys and girls, and read Come As You Are. Nagoski’s blog, The Dirty Normal, contains helpful entries and comics to further illustrate these concepts.

Beverly Whipple

Finally, we have a name with which many of you may already be familiar. Whipple has orchestrated over 170 studies into sexuality, the best known of which may be on the G-spot. A paper she helped write on the topic in 1981 was the first publication to use the G-spot, which she named in honor of Dr. Gränfenberg, who had earlier studied it. Her studies have also found how food affects the G-spot, “diets heavy in spicy chilies may block the naturally occurring analgesic affect of the G-spot, therefore causing childbirth to be more painful,” women who can think themselves to orgasm and those suffering from persistent genital arousal disorder.

Whipple has received many well-deserved awards and commendations for her work, which covers myriad angles of sexual response.

One of the things that I love about nearly all these women was their attention on women’s sexuality. When men wouldn’t take it seriously, women took up arms to shed light on the subject.

This list is by no means comprehensive. There are those whose work has been overlooked, is still in the process, or are simply unknown to me. I relish the thought of learning about more women researching the field of sexuality, so please leave comments with anyone who should be added to this list!

Further Reading

Several books I’ve read provided me with information for this post, and I’d like to recommend them in addition to the usual articles and studies that I post. They include Bonk by Mary Roach, Girls and Sex. I’d also recommend checking out Masters of Sex; although, I haven’t had a chance to read it.

Comment

Categories: Science of Sex

State of the Porn Address

April 11th, 2013

A while back I came across this study of porn. I bookmarked it, and it slipped my mind until now. Jon Millward took a look at thousands of porn stars to determine things like typical bust size, name and race. The result was “Deep Inside – A Study of 10,000 Porn Stars and Their Careers.”

The six-month-long project resulted in a pretty interesting PDF and some awesome infographic. The full infographic would take so long to load that I cannot possibly consider posting it here on Of Sex and Love, but Millward did take time to create a smaller infographic about the race results of his research. Surprise! Most porn stars are white. Very few are Asian or the infamous “other.”

The-Color-of-Porn

 

TeeThere were plenty of surprises, though. While you and I might think of the typical porn actress as a busty blonde, she’s actually a B-cup brunette whose name is probably Nikki. In fact, blondes represent about one third of the total porn star population, which seems a little like a stretch if you only exposure to adult entertainment is Hef and his crew. Nevertheless, many of those blondes are what we’d call “bottled.” In a recent post, I did talk about how Playmates are becoming both thinner and bustier. Millward’s research into porn stars indicates that the same thing is true here, and he even created a funny little graph that mimics the shapes of boobs and butts to prove his point.

Apparently, I was born just an hour too far to the north to make it big as a midwest porn actress. I’m probably cool with that.

The survey goes on to discuss the type of activities that most porn stars do. Facial and anal are almost a given, even if the same isn’t true in private bedrooms. Interracial scenes, which I feel shouldn’t even be labeled or novelized as such, are also done by 52% of women. I suspect the other 48% are missing out. Only a third of women swallow and half of them are able to squirt — but I wonder if it’ real?!

If you keep reading the infographic, you’ll see information about the most popular roles women play in porn:

  1. Teen
  2. MILF
  3. Wife
  4. Cheerleader
  5. Nurse
  6. Daughter

Can we say “Yawn” to most of those?

Jon Millward attempts to squash the commonly-accepted myth that most female performers only do a single video, too. It’s true that somewhere between 10% and 30% of women  quit the biz after making a single film, but there’s obviously some who have stuck it out to stick in time and time again. Still, the average career is becoming much shorter. In the 2000s, men spend just four years making porn.

Nina Hartley, who does sex education now, has almost 1,000 films under her belt with about 200 different partners. Hartley’s male counterpart has a list over over 1,100 partners, though. This illustrates the chasm between the sexes, which I can’t help but wonder about. Is it because women are and can be choosier? Is it sexism in the industry?

Men have sex with an average of 45 women per year on film while women have 8 partners annually. The majority of the most “prolific” entertainers are men, and while they might have many more partners, Millward discusses how it’s more difficult for a man to break onto the scene. I find this true in an anecdotal sense. I mean, I know the names are far more female performers. I’m aware of many males, but I generally don’t give a fuck about them — pardon the pun.

There’s more insights and visuals over on Millward’s blog, and I’m sure he’d love some comments on Twitter. I just found this too interesting to pass up talking about, even if I have little to add myself.

1 Comment

Categories: Everything Else

This Just In: Playmates Are Busty and Thin

February 20th, 2013

I wish this site were an infographic because it has some interesting information.  In a recent issue of Wired, the researchers took a look at the BMI, cup sizes and other attributes of Playboy playmates and compared them to real women. Not surprisingly, the models have become thinner without losing breast size, while average women have become a little curvier.  The full graph is available as a PDF, which is better than the article itself.

playmate study

I want to simply nod and agree, but the thoughtful person inside me thinks this is problematic when women (and men!) make comparisons to ideals that are becoming further from average. It’s a bit like the economic divide shifting. And while maybe you and I might not be that naive, plenty of people are. Men and women, especially young and impressionable minds, look at the media and don’t realize how different it can be from every day.

I mean, how often do I really look at TV stars and think “they’ve had surgery and someone hand picks their clothes and they’re wearing professional makeup?” Not often enough to stop comparing myself, that’s for damned sure. And when it comes to sexualized images, I think the result can be even worse for one’s self esteem. It’s not just how appearance that people compare. It’s behavior and interests and skills, so while this little study has a very limited focus, I think it’s good that people are finally thinking about these things.

However, the lack of depth with which it was presented does leave a little to be desired.

Comment

Categories: Everything Else, internet

Image © MisterUnlucky; used with permission.