|
|
 |
Reader Feedback on "Dr. Yes"
bad nerve endings in the body
--
08/05 |
Intimacy and the desire for emotional depth has always been a primal instinct as we learn from babies and young children who seek the nurturing of both parents to satisfy that need. In maturity, that need is transferred to a partner of similar sensitivity, hopefully, but still seeking the same satisfaction. The mechanics of sexuality provide the greater potential of depths unknown otherwise but are achieved not because of sex but through it. The best mechanical sex in the world -by machine or by human - cannot match the satisfaction received reciprocally through unconditional surrender to each other to explore those depths. The trust required to do that transcends typical beginnings in most relationships and is found most frequently in partners committed to each other in affection and love seeking a common purpose of nurturing each other to yield their best attributes. It would be unlikely, and perhaps unnatural, to accomplish that without a healthy, and hearty appetite for each other that is usually chemistry and emotionally based rather than socially based. Acceptance of female economic and sexual emancipation may be necessary to maximize that possibility.
--pbr
02/16 |
interesting, but i fear you did nto make your critical complaint stronly enough. as far as i can remember--i aint no stinking sexologist--m selfselected not just gals who could come from fucking but went looking for and found those who come lots and lots. the image fo some gal who was reported to have doen it with the mechanical fuckathizer or whatever it was that the bad doc used coming i think it was hundreds of times and just giving up from exhaustion is fascinating but a disastrous image for the rest of the woman trying to come some of the time.
someone should also review mary jane sherfey (sp?) the evolution fo female sexuality because it makes the same arguments as masters
--jsg
09/19 |
A thoughtful commentary. M's biomechanical approach to orgasm in women did lack the concept of human variability... but I think there are other roots of the present reliance on pills like viagra, especially our continuing cultural belief that men must have orgasms but women need not. In India men in some Hindu sects practice retro-ejeculation into the bladder while maintaining an erection, avoiding orgasm, and prolongong massage of the yoni, allowing a woman to orgase and burst free from the tensions that have been building throughout her body, not just within. In Africa, where I have worked most, clitoridectomy is often anticipated at a very early age by scarification, especially in erogenous areas: breast, belly, and inner thighs. The puckering of the skin may gather nerve endings where otherwise they remain more evenly spread out just under the surface of the skin. Literally hundreds of "mini-clitorises" are thus created, leading to intense satisfaction (if not orgasm) during intercourse. In correspondence with Masters about this possiblity he found it physiologically quite plausible. So this is just a footnote to your fine article.
--fpc
04/01 |
Dear L.T.
Thank you for the very interesting retrospective on research Dr's Master's & Johnson. I enjoyed the opportunity to think with a sharpened critical eye, about some of the cultural outcomes of this famous chaper of medical, sexological investigation. I do feel that your article raised many more questions than, of course, you had time or space to adequately address. For one, there is an implicit assumption that when we look carefully at a discrete physiological process, we think in terms of there being a beginning, a middle, and an end, in this case, a climax.
Are you suggesting that this investigative assumption of the esteemed physician scientists... is in error because it looks exclusively at the individuals orgasmic processes? ( And, is therefore overly mechanistic and goal oriented ) Or, are you suggesting that this process is, inaccurately viewed as a phenomenon that entails such discrete stages? Or, are you suggesting that we must necessarily examine, as well, sexual processes that do not exhibit merely, or only these distinct physiological stages?
Please forgive my awkward way of posing the question, but I possess only the bare essentials of an education in biological science. Finally, I wonder to what extent we might usefully distinguish the role of paradigmatic bias as seen in hard science research in general...as opposed to the kind of assumptions made by other, softer disciplines, e.g., psychology, anthropology, sociology, from the role of other mediating professions and institutional roles whose job it is to analyze, the outcomes and findings of such "hard" research; or the job of translating the language of science and the task of social and cultural interpretation of science outcomes. In other words, is the issue so much the singular perceptual bias of one or two medical researchers...or is it perhaps, a more complex problem involving the failure of generalist practitioners in medicine, as well as educators and journalists and other media related professionals to place the findings of a few researchers into an appropriately complex and broad "biopsychosocial" perspective?
Thank you,
--A.A.
03/21 |
An eye-opener. Excellent.
--JK
03/13 |
send feedback on "Dr. Yes"
back to "Dr. Yes" |
|
|
