My inbox filled up quickly last week with emails from publicists and readers asking me if I’ve read the latest articles on orgasm or seen the new Ted talk on the subject.
I wish I was the kind of person who wasn’t immediately wary of whatever is “hot”, but I am. It’s probably from a lifetime of being unpopular and at best luke warm, so even though I know it’s cynical and doesn’t always serve me well, it’s armor I’m loath to take off.
But enough about me…
I held my breath and checked out the “new” research everyone was telling me about. As it turns out none of it is new at all, and at least some of it was a big disappointment.
In the not new but not bad department, New Scientist has posted what I suspect is an excerpt from a new book by Sharon Moalem, a neurogeneticist and evolutionary biologist, titled How Sex Works. The article is a summary of what we know about female ejaculation and does a nice job of finding middle ground between old school medical researchers and new age female ejaculation gurus. This is appreciated, since most of us live there in the middle.
In the neither new nor good department the New Scientist offers another empty rehash of single studies claiming to be groundbreaking research on orgasm. It’s sad when the editorial quality of online publications (I don’t subscribe, so I have no idea if they publish this crap in their print magazine) is so low that new research, which hasn’t been replicated and is itself highly problematic, is presented not as possibility but as fact. I won’t both repeating the gems in “Six Things Science Has Revealed About Female Orgasm” but I recommend you skip it.
Finally I got several emails about Mary Roach’s TED talk promoting her book Bonk. I should start by saying that Bonk was one of the few sex books I literally could not put down. I find Roach incredibly funny and endearing and was laughing out loud from almost the first page. But I chose not to review the book because, even though it’s funny, it’s not an accurate picture of what sex research is really like (or what sex research is being done) and while on the one hand you could say it’s good that she’s getting sex talked about, I’m not sure it’s worth it when it turns into kind of a freak show.
But since it was so funny I had high hopes for the TED talk. I was disappointed. I’m not sure if Roach’s heart wasn’t in it, or maybe she’s just a much better writer than speaker, but I found the talk flat and I don’t think it even delivered on it’s promise of 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Orgasm.
I know it’s funny and fascinating to talk about the oddball cases in sexuality, but if you’re trying to do something other than entertain (which is what sex educators do, and I thought what journalists do, but perhaps not what book authors do) then I think you’re doing a disservice by only talking about the weird stuff.
But I am still a huge fan of Roach, and unlike the New Scientist piece on orgasm, I encourage you to judge for yourself.
Orgasm Mania Links:
Sharon Moalem @ New Scientist: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Female Ejaculation but Were Afraid to Ask
From the Filler Dept. @ New Scientist: Six Things Science Has Revealed About Female Orgasm
Mary Roach @ TED: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Orgasm
Cory,
I can always count on you for completely honest reviews. I felt the same way about the Roach talk, and agree completely that while focusing on the side-show aspects of sex or sex research is entertaining it does not help shape useful and serious conversations about sexuality in general.
It’s one thing to get people talking about sex. It’s another to get them talking about it in a way that isn’t limited to jokes and giggles.
Thanks for being one of the ones who can talk about sex in ways that are fun and serious at the same time.
Elizabeth
Sex In The Public Square