Feminism

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I was reading some of the retractions from the site Aggie posted the other day and I found this amusing post. First there is some info on mating on Drosophila and the relation with gut bacteria, then some sexual and asexual reproduction in rotifiers and then...

As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you'd be surprised by new findings. It's been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests.

So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates.

First I don't get it, and reading the comments it turns out I'm not alone. Reading further someone starts saying how chauvinist the editorial and how it was all part of a male dominated view of the world, etc.

Am I crazy (or a chauvinist pig) for thinking there is nothing wrong with the editorial? Is it really that offensive and I'm just another clueless male? Could it be that certain brand of feminist is too sensitive to take science and a tasteless joke for what those really are? Or is it something in between?

Takers?

[Swatopluk]

I heard of a serious study that found that sperm taken orally reduces the danger of immune reactions against the unborn (under the assumption of course that the sperm intake precedes the pregnancy and that the child is from the same sperm producer*).
Blow-jobs for healthier babies? I know some people that would get offended about that idea.

*I assume identical twins are OK too

[Opsa]

I did not find it a bit offensive, but then again I've had my tubes tied and therefore have better sperm absorption, I guess.


Was it a joke? I see no sources sited for the mentioned studies, so perhaps so. But if sperm makes people all happy, sleepy and cuddly, why aren't it's producers the most happy, sleepy and cuddliest people of all? Especially the ones that have the least opportunity to release it? It seems to me that men are the ones who most likely to make war, which is the furthest thing from happy, sleepy and cuddly that I can imagine.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is a link to the study (when I copy-pasted I didn't create the link, now its there): http://www.springerlink.com/content/wrkl9lc5ueu43rh8/
--
Violence in males has been linked to testosterone among other things, besides cuddly feelings aren't necessary harmless, I read or heard somewhere about secondary effects of oxytocin (a hormone released by lactating mothers and popularly called the 'love hormone'), including a strengthening of clan feelings and dislike for outside groups:

The experiments involved Dutch men who were given either oxytocin or placebo. Survey research had previously found significant prejudice amongst the Dutch against both Muslims and Germans. In the first two passes, 70 men took the Implicit Association Test, which measures subconscious prejudice by looking at reaction time when connecting positive or negative words with members of a particular race or with names that suggest that ethnicity. Among the men on oxytocin, preference for native Dutch over Germans and Muslims increased.

--
As for sperm contact, perhaps a study on homosexual males could yield some correlative data (gay men don't strike me as particularly aggressive).

[Swatopluk]

Tell that to the Holy Band of Thebes (legendary badasses and the prime argument against DADT)

[Opsa]

Is there a real study about how lesbians don't mense together? I find that unlikely. There are links to women mensing and moon phases, too. My sister and I used to mense about the same time each month and we were virgins. So I don't think sperm has anything to do with it, honestly. More likely we were picking up on each other's chemical hormone changes (through the sense of smell, perhaps?) and involuntarily signaling to each other about our cycles.

I think that the lesbian stuff is made up. Gay women I know who live together tend to mense at the same time. They find this very convenient. I shall say no more.

I'm not offended by this stuff, it's just theories to me, and not threatening.

[Aggie]

Is there a real study about how lesbians don't mense together? I find that unlikely. There are links to women mensing and moon phases, too. My sister and I used to mense about the same time each month and we were virgins. So I don't think sperm has anything to do with it, honestly. More likely we were picking up on each other's chemical hormone changes (through the sense of smell, perhaps?) and involuntarily signaling to each other about our cycles.

I think that the lesbian stuff is made up. Gay women I know who live together tend to mense at the same time. They find this very convenient. I shall say no more.

Ayuh, I was suspicious of that.  I doubt that the "dormitory effect" was originally noted in a group of women of which 100% were having unprotected sex.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I find the way it was phased vaguely offensive, but not the content.

[Griffin NoName]

Didn't find it offensive, just suspect.

[Swatopluk]

Is there a real study about how lesbians don't mense together? I find that unlikely. There are links to women mensing and moon phases, too. My sister and I used to mense about the same time each month and we were virgins. So I don't think sperm has anything to do with it, honestly. More likely we were picking up on each other's chemical hormone changes (through the sense of smell, perhaps?) and involuntarily signaling to each other about our cycles.

I think that the lesbian stuff is made up. Gay women I know who live together tend to mense at the same time. They find this very convenient. I shall say no more.

Ayuh, I was suspicious of that.  I doubt that the "dormitory effect" was originally noted in a group of women of which 100% were having unprotected sex.

The first time I heard about the synchronized menstruation it was about convents. Assuming that we are not talking about Shakespearean nunneries...

[Darlica]

Raising the dead here...

Serious research is always good, jokes mimicking research can be hilarious... I'm not entirely sure under which category this falls though.


But there is one bit that I do think is over the line. The supposed pun

So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates.

Which I don't find funny at all.  just and very predictable.

My 2 cents

[Opsa]

I don't get it. What gift is better than chocolates, especially in that situation?

[Roland Deschain]

Ok, so i'm a man, but I don't find the editorial offensive (Bawdy humour is nothing new to the British, and has been a mainstay of our humour for centuries). It may have been tasteless humour, but I don't think it was meant to offend, just provide a little light entertainment, albeit misdirected. Taking down the entire issue and forcing the editor to resign appears to be a little bit of an overreaction, to me. Surely he could have just apologised for it, and the offending parts be removed?

The original article is interesting, but without reading it in full, I really cannot tell whether the effect seen could be further analysed and adjusted for other factors, not to mention something like this needing a far larger study group. Maybe semen contact is a factor in synchronisation of menstrual cycles, maybe it is pure speculation, but I believe it is nowhere near the whole picture if it turns out to be true, and other aforementioned factors may hold greater sway. Were those having unprotected sex using other forms of contraception, such as the pill, which would obviously hormonally affect the women to some degree. Also, you have to factor in the psychology of the different groups. Would someone insisting on condoms be more inclined to worry about things other than their sexual health, leading to the observed increase in depression? As I said, definitely interesting, but most likely flawed.

I'm not sure which exact comment among the almost 300 you refer to, but I take it you mean:-

It does not surprise me that all of the men giving opinions on this offense completely ignore that this remark actually is hostile to woman, and is misogynist. It is so clearly hateful towards women that it is frightening. Men do not get it.

Ok, so it could be taken as misogynist, but I don't think it's meant that way. Also there are women commenting and saying they found it funny, so the OP appears to have reacted without reading properly. One thing i'd definitely disagree on is that it's hostile or hateful towards women, or frightening. Some people just take offence to things easily, and fail to see them outside of their own world view. The OP may not even be a feminist by definition, just someone who finds everything sexual as offensive. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people like this, who see any form of sexual humour as wrong, no matter its original intent.

My sister and I used to mense about the same time each month and we were virgins.

There are ways to come into contact with semen other than what would traditionally lose you your virginity. Allegedly.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I read somewhere that simple skin contact can transfer hormones (or pheromones through the air) that would help synchronize menses (and other kinds of reactions/behaviors), no sperm involved.
---
On the subject of Feminism, there was a discussion about casual sex in teens and beyond, feminist (chauvinist, both or neither) attitudes toward sex. Is casual sex chauvinistic? Feminist? Immoral? Bad? Good? None of the above?

[Aggie]

I'm going to split and move that conversation over to the Tide Pool (for reference), as it's cluttering up the thread it's in.  

My comment from that thread, which ties into the above:

I feel that for girls, feminism has been distorted into a phony marketing cry of 'Girl Power!' and that sexual liberation has been twisted to imply that you're only liberated if you have no qualms about performing sex acts.

Sexuality's a deeply personal thing, and I don't think there's any universally 'correct' approach.  There are immense cultural forces (often contradictory) pushing from both sides, both demonizing sexual openness and exalting frequent sex acts as a marker of social success and a self-evident Good Thing. The combination of the two (IMHO) is resulting, for some people, in sex being de-intimatized and turned into a mechanical, consumptive act.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't debate that it is considered as such (a mechanic, consumptive act), what I contend is that it has always been so for a fair portion of the population, otherwise prostitution would be something new and it isn't considered the oldest profession in the world for nothing.

[Opsa]

I don't think of casual sex as being chauvinistic, although I suspect it was more thought of as such in the past. In other words, men were more sexually liberated before women were before dependable contraceptives.

Feminism is about equal rights for women. Do women have the right to be careless about sex? Do men?

I just Googled the word "feminism". The first thing that came up was Wiki's definition. The second, the very next thing was a Xtian site called "Feminism is Evil!". I find this disturbing.

[Griffin NoName]

I just Googled the word "feminism". The first thing that came up was Wiki's definition. The second, the very next thing was a Xtian site called "Feminism is Evil!". I find this disturbing.

Unfortunately it just means the people who wrote the web page have put in really good search tags and probably paid for a high search rating. Evil and money!!

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

.... Evil and money!!

Well.... since one is frequently misconstrued as the root of the other, does it not seem obvious? (and highly likely)

[Griffin NoName]

Indeed, I deliberately left that open to imagination

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't think of casual sex as being chauvinistic, although I suspect it was more thought of as such in the past. In other words, men were more sexually liberated before women were before dependable contraceptives.

The attitude I find chauvinistic is the one that tolerates a man who sleeps around but does not tolerate/socially shuns a woman who sleeps around. I'm not suggesting it is intrinsically a good idea but why tolerate one case and not the other?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I completely agree Zono-- sauces for geese and ganders and all that.

To me?

The only real bottom line is:  (IMO)

1) nobody gets hurt
2) any kids that result are well cared for, both emotionally and otherwise
3) none of the parties involved were under extortion or coercion  (i.e. truly voluntary)
4) prevention of the aforementioned kids is the equal responsibility of everyone involved


--------

You'd think that'd make me a swinger or sumsuch... hardly.  I've mostly been celibate over my years, especially the last decade.   It's just simpler-- and the older I get, the more I discover I prefer what is simpler.

[Griffin NoName]

I am in enforced purdah. At least if by some miracle I met another person who wanted to have sex with me, which is hardly likely due to incarceration, then I would have to refuse on the grounds of exhaustion. Possible some non-penetrative physical contact would be possible, but I'd get exhausted from that too. Depsite this I still fret about my appearance which is irrational.

[Opsa]

Appearance isn't always a sexual conquest thing, though. It's more of a self-respect thing.

I'm rumbling with Zone and Bob.

I think that guys who sleep around a lot do not realize that they are not that attractive to women. I had a guy chase me once who bragged that he had tried to sleep with every female in his high school class. Boy, was that a turn-off! I kind of liked him before he said that, but after he said it I didn't want to have anything to do with him. I had no interest in becoming one of his numbers.

[Swatopluk]

Well, at least he was upfront with it. I think few males will say that in the presence of one of their female targets (as opposed to their male peers).
Unless of course it's the brash 'Help me break the record!'

Some years ago there was a young woman in Germany who go the idea to sleep with at least 100 guys in a row in a single day and to pay them for it (not to get the guys but to reverse the usual flow). She got a friend to participate, raised the funds, then went through with it. It was pure assembly line work, not a single orgasm on her side and she felt rather sore afterwards but iirc no regrets. It was not an attempt at fame. I think in the beginning it was just a mad idea that turned at least partially into a power statement.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

More power to her, if things worked out, to her satisfaction.

Sometimes? 

I think that we mortal humans can feel so out of sorts with our realities, that a little show of how much we are in control (whether illusory or somewhat real--doesn't matter, really) of things, is exactly the mental-floss we need to keep on keepin' on.

And the occasional symbolic "Up Yours!" can be quite a cathartic experience.   I suspect some of that was going on with your example.   

[Griffin NoName]

I just remembered something startliing.

I went to a Public (that means private) Girl's Day School which was part of a big Trust with similar schools across the country, founded in the late 1800's to promote education for girls.. The startling things is: our school song was a hymn: Let us now praise famous men - And our father's that begat us - etc etc  WTF?

[Aggie]

Can you find the lyrics of the song? I'm curious.  Report it to the Beeb if you can find it and confirm it.

[Swatopluk]

There are several poems of that title including one from Kipling

I guess Griffin means this one
http://lmog.wordpress.com/2005/12/23/let-us-now-praise-famous-men-2/

[youtube=425,350]CznY76R_bJ4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CznY76R_bJ4

[Griffin NoName]

Yes that is indeed the one, Swato, thanks (I think).

I wonder if it is still the school song. Outrageous.

[Aggie]

Not a terrible piece taken in isolation, but as a girls' school's official song??  Ridiculous.

[Swatopluk]

Well, here would be a proper one 

[youtube=425,350]5FMrXW82YMI[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FMrXW82YMI

[Griffin NoName]

Not a terrible piece taken in isolation, but as a girls' school's official song??  Ridiculous.

What is even more ridiculous is that no one thought to question it. At least, up to 1969 when I left. When feminism was well uner way. I tried to find out if it is still the school song, but I can't find anything about a school song at all.

Up St.Trinians. Wish I'd gone there.

[Opsa]

I think I have to see that film.

[Swatopluk]

I think I have to see that film.

There is a whole series of St.Trinian's films. I think seven by now but the fifth is never to be spoken of.
The first three are considered canon (and are b/w), the fourth is disputed (and is in colour), 6&7 are the recent reboots of the franchise.
In civilized countries the first four are available as a DVD box set.

[Swatopluk]

Btw, here is the updated school song for the reboot
[youtube=425,350]w2fKmia-mnc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2fKmia-mnc