Naomi Wolf's: What Neuroscience Really Says About Female Desire

[seabeyond]

The controversy surrounding journalist Naomi Wolf’s new book, Vagina: A Cultural History — an exploration of the brain-vagina connection — has brought fresh attention to the nature and neuroscience of female sexuality. Unfortunately, it’s done so largely because Wolf profoundly misrepresents how the brain works and how neurochemicals like dopamine, oxytocin and serotonin really affect our love lives (as well as conditions like addiction and depression).

Correctly understood, neuroscience offers important insight into how our minds function and how our brains shape our lives; many of my articles on Healthland attempt to explore these questions. But the kind of oversimplification seen in Wolf’s book and, sadly, in many other popular accounts of neuroscience, threatens to perpetuate a psychological myth. Rather than illuminating the complex interplay between mind and body, it portrays human beings — especially women — as automatons, enslaved by brain chemicals we cannot control.

That’s not what the science shows. The mind-body connection is far more complicated and wonderful, as a quick tour through some of Wolf’s errors will illustrate. There is a new science of female sexual behavior, but it is far more liberating than the book suggests.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/18/what-neuroscience-really-says-about-the-vagina-and-female-desire/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

this was interesting, having had conversation about the book in another OP. there is a lot in this article. way too much for me to pick and choose. so i just grabbed the beginning. the least interesting.

[redqueen]

1. Fantastic piece... thanks for posting it.

I love that she included a detailed explanation for the varied sexual response in different women. I'm so sick of people talking about vaginal orgasms as if every woman can have them and if anyone doesn't she's repressed.

And this cracked me up:

Women are more likely to be depressed than men, so they’re more likely to take medication for it. And yet while some antidepressants work by elevating dopamine — for example, bupropion (Wellbutrin) — you don’t see women being denied such drugs for fear they’ll overthrow the patriarchy. As with all antidepressants, women are prescribed these drugs more frequently than men are.

[ismnotwasm]

2. And this disgusting tidbit

Report Finds Health Insurance Gender Bias in 37 states

November 11th, 2011

A new report in the December edition of Prevention magazine identified that it is legal to deny women health insurance on the basis of gender in 37 states. In the same report, it was found that 95 percent of health insurance companies that offer individual health plans practice gender-related denials or charge more for coverage.

Women Face “Gender Rating”
The report found the main reason women are treated differently by health insurance companies is because they use health care services more frequently.

Some companies use what is known as a “gender rating” to decide how they will manage male and female applicants. In many cases, women may be forced to pay more for coverage or denied altogether due to their frequent use of health insurance.

Prevention’s editor-in-chief, Diane Salvatore, told CBS News that women can pay 84 percent more than men because they use health care services more frequently. However, the report found women aren’t necessarily more ill than their male counterparts–instead, they’re more likely to take part in preventative care, which lowers health care costs over time.

http://www.goinsurancerates.com/health-insurance/gender-rating-bias-37-states/

[redqueen]

3. Well the solution is clear. Free lap dances for men who bother to get preventive care.

Seriously though, it doesn't surprise me at all. I wonder if there's any correlation with the 37 states where a woman can be jailed for falling down the stairs while pregnant.

[seabeyond]

4. laughing my fuckin ass off. thanks ism for your post also. nt

[redqueen]

7. Need a man to pay attention to something? Put some tits on it!

Seriously sea, IT COULD SAVE LIVES!!!!!!11!!1!



Ah, ends-justifies-the-means thinking, where would we be without it?

[seabeyond]

8. "Seriously sea, IT COULD SAVE LIVES!!!!!!11!!1!" i NOES. that is what i was told.

series!!1!!!111!!

[ismnotwasm]

5. LOL

Nothing like a little gallows humor in the morning. Heh.

[redqueen]

12. Yep, better to laugh than cry...

though when you think about how much ground we've lost in the feminist movement, it's not easy.

[MadrasT]

6. Obviously.

Since the solution for male breast cancer is to create PSAs that are 95% boobies and 5% "message".

[seabeyond]

9. did it even hit 5%. color me surprised. i would say more 2%, tops, or topless.

[redqueen]

10. Well here on this liberal board, thr reality of objectification is ignored by lots of people.

Apparently if it's not on a list, its OK (and sociologists and psychologists who disagree should be ignored, they're just a bunch of fundies and prudes, obviously!)

[seabeyond]

11. pfft... dig a little deeper and not only ignored but stated doesnt exist. something

about a thing cant have babies.

[redqueen]

13. Oh God... no shit...

Men talk to women but not to objects, therefore there is no such thing as objectification!

[MadrasT]

14. Oh, go on.

Everybody know that patriarchy is only a nutty Spooky Conspiracy Theory (TM) that was dreamed up by psychotic irrelevant second wave feminist hags. Who want all men to die. Or something like that. There actually is no patriarchy and men are horribly, horribly oppressed.



lulz a minute around here