tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726951603608379154.post2968860615048312710..comments2023-06-19T09:18:34.114-07:00Comments on Tiger Beatdown: Because.Sadyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12163678207182481274noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726951603608379154.post-56922797513515201212009-05-08T03:38:00.000-07:002009-05-08T03:38:00.000-07:00This is brilliant. Your post, I mean--not the art...This is brilliant. Your post, I mean--not the article that inspired it.<br /><br />I hate it when science is used like this. Seriously, do they really think men are that stupid? Apparently.Rachaelhttp://little-rachael.livejournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726951603608379154.post-87492055411401191922009-01-29T14:44:00.000-08:002009-01-29T14:44:00.000-08:00Awww, thank you lady. Re: your comment, you've man...Awww, thank you lady. Re: your comment, you've managed to pin down EXACTLY what made me feel so iffy about this whole article and much of the coverage around it, and which I flailed around incoherently for a full day trying to explain - conflating specific phenomena (porn-watching and sex, lubrication and arousal) and then slapping broad conclusions onto it (or a series of broad, seemingly contradictory conclusions) that magically fit age-old gender stereotypes. It's all a bit too pat and easy for my taste.Sadyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12163678207182481274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726951603608379154.post-79221681323123418172009-01-29T11:01:00.000-08:002009-01-29T11:01:00.000-08:00Thank you, thank you, thank you. I haven't read B...Thank you, thank you, thank you. I haven't read Bergner's book, but you have laid out troubling sections of Kramer's review and gotten at something that troubled me reading the Bergner NYTM piece of the weekend: there seems to be an enormous pseudoscientific leap in logic from some <I>data</I> about a particular, <I>narrow</I> experience (voyeurism in the Chivers experiment, for example) to big generalizations about male vs. female sexuality (both of which are apparently monoliths and just need a generalizing principle to explain them). The second section you quote from Kramer seems to do the same thing.<BR/><BR/>I just discovered your blog today, am really happy I did, and look forward to reading your posts in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com