Emily Nagoski of Sex Nerd jumps hard on Jesse Bering, one of Scientific American Magazine’s go-to guys for sex reporting for being a giant squeamish prick jerk. In an article that starts out weird (wondering if Minnesota water was responsible for a lurid erotic dream) and then gets gynophobic while trying to winnow out something to do with differences in sperm count between ejaculation from masturbation and ejaculation from intercourse.
He seems to think collecting semen from masturbators is easy but when discussing collecting semen from hetero intercourse he… um… editorializes. (Emphasis mine, and Nagoski’s)
Well, Baker and Bellis are clever empiricists. They also apparently have stomachs of steel. One way that they tested their hypotheses was to ask over 30 brave heterosexual couples to provide them with some rather concrete samples of their sex lives: the vaginal “flowbacks” from their post-coital couplings, in which some portion of the male’s ejaculate is spontaneously rejected by the woman’s body.
Emily calls him out (emphasis hers)
I’m going to move straight to the plain old RUDENESS of that paragraph.
Apparently collecting ejaculate requires no particular digestive toughness, but ejaculate in cervical mucus requires industrial strength gastric abilities.
Should we conclude that Dr. Bering himself has felt nauseated by the fluids of any female sex partners he may have had? Indeed, the blatant, unapologetic, flinching gynophobia made me wonder if he’s gay, which it turns out he is, but that doesn’t make it okay for him to discuss female fluids as physically disgusting.
In Scientific American.
The “In Scientific American“ part is important. You can argue that it’s somewhere between annoying, edgy, and maybe cute when Dan Savage opines on his disinterest in, say, cunnilingus in his Savage Love columns. In that capacity he’s a columnist. In that capacity his sexual orientation is part of his schtick. Maybe a core part. And that sort of edginess is a core part of his alt-weekly employer, The Stranger as well. While I think it’s fair to say Scientific American has lowered its standards somewhat in recent decades Jesse Bering is still no Dan Savage and Scientific American is no The Stranger. So he should keep his opinions to himself and/or his editors should keep them for him the same way we’d expect them to shut the pie hole of a heterosexual who opined about the ick factor in an article about research into gay or lesbian sexuality.
It’s not about some ideal of having no personal opinions. Heck, it’s not even a matter of covering up ones opinions in the interest of “journalistic objectivity.” It’s about assuming everybody else is going to share your opinions. Or share your knee-squeezing prudishness.
My one quibble would be that Bering is by no means alone in his prejudice, nor is his orientation necessarily a factor: any number of gay and straight people, male and female, from any number of cultures appear to be completely appalled when anything at all flows from someone’s vagina. Including ordinary lubrication from ordinary arousal.
And no, it wouldn’t have been any better, nor could it have been less professional, if someone else had spoken enviously instead of disdainfully of collecting flowback because he assumed everyone shared his “creampie” fetish.
Sheesh!
[Note: I originally called Bering a prick, which is a highly-gendered insult. I’ve revised the wording but left the original to remind myself that it’s harder than one thinks to get away from using gendered insults. —fl]
In my opinion there’s
Submitted by Emily H. (not verified) on Thu, 2010-07-01 10:14.In my opinion there’s actually kind of a piquant feminist point to Dan Savage’s voicing his disdain for vaginas. When he makes comments like that, he always emphasizes that it’s because HE’S GAY, and, by extension, suggests that if a woman’s male partner won’t eat her pussy/thinks vaginas are gross, it’s probably because HE’S GAY. Savage’s sexuality is a well-known part of his public persona, & so few frat boys could laugh along with his vagina jokes — “heh heh, they’re so gross!” — without thinking twice. His writing has always clear that people’s opinions of what is “gross” are functions of their preferences and sexual orientation, not objective judgments.
Jokes like that are funny & appropriate if, like Savage, you’ve been writing for huge audiences for 15 years and promoting pro-sex, pro-feminist values the entire time… Bering certainly can’t get away with it.
[That was what I meant by Savage’s schtick. He’s gleeful about not liking cunnilingus but he’s not judgmental about it. Bering could possibly have been making the same play, and perhaps he could have in a better-established context. But, like Emily N. says, “In Scientific American?” Not so hot. Thanks Emily H. —fl]
Hmm, I think I’ll put that on
Submitted by Shadow (not verified) on Thu, 2010-07-01 14:42.Hmm, I think I’ll put that on my to-ask list next time I find a possible sex partner. “Are you disgusted by female fluids?” If the answer is yes I might as well give up. If it’s I don’t know I may see about going on, but seriously being disgusted by female fluids would be like being disgusted by male ones. It certainly would make sex and heterosexuality difficult.
[It’s actually ok not to care for certain elements of sex just like it’s ok not to care for certain kinds of food. But I can harp all day about not liking beets because beets aren’t a normal phenomenon of people being ordinarily sexual the way body fluids are. And yeah, if you’re not into part of someone else it’s also ok for them not being interested in having sex with you. Or let’s put it another way — if someone appreciates that their partner trims their nose hair that’s great, and might even be a good reason to do it when you otherwise might not. But if they expect or demand it, or can’t function around it, and only say “whew, it’s about time” if you do then… yeah, not so great. Thanks, Shadow. —fl]