Women a mystery to sex scientists

That was the headline of an article in yesterdays "Chicago Tribune".

It was an article about the Sixth annual meeting of the "International Society for the Study of Women 's Sexual Health" that just wrapped up.

Here is an excerpt of the article:

"We don't understand normative, healthy sexuality well enough to make judgments about what's dysfunctional."

Since the 1960s, researchers have operated under a variation of the simple model proposed by William Masters and Virginia Johnson that says the human sexual response starts with desire, progresses through excitement or arousal and ends with orgasm. But experts argued that notion might reflect the experience of men more than women, many of whom don't see orgasm as a goal.

In recent years the field has moved toward a more complicated model based on the observation that many women go into a sexual encounter without being in the mood--perhaps they're seeking intimacy or hoping to please their partner--and may not really want sex until after they become aroused.

But it wasn't until very recently that anyone thought to test those theories by asking women.

Sand, who was awarded a prize for his innovative research, found that 57 percent of women felt a straightforward model best described their sexual experience. The 29 percent who endorsed the more complicated model were more likely to have sexual problems.

That made sense, Sand said, because Masters and Johnson recruited couples who liked sex a lot, while the more complicated model was based on the experiences of women with sexual complaints.

`We need to go back to the drawing board and come up with models that explain why some women have different sexual experiences, find out which models fit which women, so we can serve women more effectively when they have sexual concerns," Sand said.

My absolute favorite line is this one: "But it wasn't until very recently that anyone thought to test those theories by asking women."

But the most important line is probably the first one in the section I quote. Why don't we know? I've spent most of my life aware of sex. But, for how little we talk about "real" sex, rather than sex as a commodity, rather than the intimate act that occurs between people in amazing varieties and amounts, rather than the central place that it should have in our lives, we talk about it as if the world was flat. And sex was round. Or we don't talk about it at all.

Well, sex is round. Real round baby. And so is the world.

Glad to see someone finally asked some women about women. I knew to do that at the age of 11. How come it didn't occur to scientists until now?

I don't have much faith in science (laughing.....), but I believe in women. men. And sex.

And knowledge. Just not scientists, although they are better than religionists.