children: this one isn't for you
Oct. 10th, 2010 10:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitouthttp://www.slate.com/id/2269951/
LJ is going to make my whole journal adult content one of these days.
This is more secondary coverage of the recent, large sex survey that I still haven't tracked down a copy of yet. It's Slate, and it's by someone with a man's name, so this isn't too surprising:
"That's a lot of butt sex. And remember, this is what women are reporting. If anything, they're probably understating the truth.
So what's with all the buggery? Is it brutality? Coercion? A porn-inspired male fantasy at women's expense?"
Obviously, not a man who is reading romance novels with a lot of the sex lately. Or, for that matter, the SB tribe talking about same. But despite having a steep learning curve, this is someone who can read the data and understand it.
"So why did the inclusion of anal sex bump the orgasm figure up to 94 percent? It didn't. The causality runs the other way. Women who were getting what they wanted were more likely to indulge their partners' wishes. It wasn't the anal sex that caused the orgasms. It was the orgasms that caused the anal sex."
That is decent analysis. I am impressed.
ETA: Don't go assuming that just because I think Saletan did a nice analysis here implies that I think Saletan does a consistently good job of analyzing data. He does not.
LJ is going to make my whole journal adult content one of these days.
This is more secondary coverage of the recent, large sex survey that I still haven't tracked down a copy of yet. It's Slate, and it's by someone with a man's name, so this isn't too surprising:
"That's a lot of butt sex. And remember, this is what women are reporting. If anything, they're probably understating the truth.
So what's with all the buggery? Is it brutality? Coercion? A porn-inspired male fantasy at women's expense?"
Obviously, not a man who is reading romance novels with a lot of the sex lately. Or, for that matter, the SB tribe talking about same. But despite having a steep learning curve, this is someone who can read the data and understand it.
"So why did the inclusion of anal sex bump the orgasm figure up to 94 percent? It didn't. The causality runs the other way. Women who were getting what they wanted were more likely to indulge their partners' wishes. It wasn't the anal sex that caused the orgasms. It was the orgasms that caused the anal sex."
That is decent analysis. I am impressed.
ETA: Don't go assuming that just because I think Saletan did a nice analysis here implies that I think Saletan does a consistently good job of analyzing data. He does not.