![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Inappropriate quantifying
Jul. 22nd, 2005 04:42 pmA recent study of bisexuality in men: They hooked gay, straight and bi men up to computers while showing them hetrosexual and homosexual porn. Some of the bisexual men reacted only to the straight porn, some only to the gay porn. None reacted to both. The scientists couldn't find a bisexual pattern of arousal.
A recent study of orgasms in women: They hooked women up to computers while they masturbated and observed brain function and physical reactions during orgasm. The scientists made some conclusions about blood slow, brain patterns and the average duration of orgasm.
It is almost unthinkable to most of modern science, but perhaps some things can not be quantified. It seems to me that arousal is as much mental as it is physical, and therefore not subject to easy measuring. Also, arousal can be situational, dependent on the people involved, and not all porn is to everyone's liking. Similarly, orgasm seems like a subjective experience, one that may be different for different people at different times, and not something easily sorted by a computer into "orgasm" and "not orgasm".
Perhaps some things should not be quantified.
Sexuality can't be situational, flexible, mutable if it can be labelled by a computer.
If an orgasm is only real if it can be registered on a machine, then it can only be a certain way, excluding anything that doesn't meet a check list of standards:
Lapia engoged? Check.
Blood flow to vagina increased? Check.
"Blank spot" on brain scan? Check.
Yup, it's an orgasm! Congratulations!
Some things are just not meant to be simplified, pinned down and categorised so easily. Some things are just meant to be mysterious. Some things are just better when we don't try to make them easy. I like that people are complicated, messy, confusing and interesting.
A recent study of orgasms in women: They hooked women up to computers while they masturbated and observed brain function and physical reactions during orgasm. The scientists made some conclusions about blood slow, brain patterns and the average duration of orgasm.
It is almost unthinkable to most of modern science, but perhaps some things can not be quantified. It seems to me that arousal is as much mental as it is physical, and therefore not subject to easy measuring. Also, arousal can be situational, dependent on the people involved, and not all porn is to everyone's liking. Similarly, orgasm seems like a subjective experience, one that may be different for different people at different times, and not something easily sorted by a computer into "orgasm" and "not orgasm".
Perhaps some things should not be quantified.
Sexuality can't be situational, flexible, mutable if it can be labelled by a computer.
If an orgasm is only real if it can be registered on a machine, then it can only be a certain way, excluding anything that doesn't meet a check list of standards:
Lapia engoged? Check.
Blood flow to vagina increased? Check.
"Blank spot" on brain scan? Check.
Yup, it's an orgasm! Congratulations!
Some things are just not meant to be simplified, pinned down and categorised so easily. Some things are just meant to be mysterious. Some things are just better when we don't try to make them easy. I like that people are complicated, messy, confusing and interesting.
