Because men themselves weaponize sex as a means of power towards other men, which reinforces the idea that we are animals in a constant state of de-construction who can never get the human aspects of pleasure in sex.
As a proof of that, let's check those two health articles on the female and male orgasm, made by the same author. The bias starts when she describes how each sex reaches orgasm through phases: women start at 'excitement', in which the woman "agrees to sex focusing ON the sexual stimuli", posing them as humans and focusing on sensations; men start at 'arousal' which is described as the man "seeing SOMETHING OR someone that prompts sexual stimuli", then going for it like an animal, thus dehumanizing them. As if women also didn't get aroused this way.
She proceeds mentioning that 'some researchers believe' women can have as much as 12 different types of orgasms, but the male article never mentions the prostate as a valid pleasure source for men. There's a lot less research on that area than there is on the clitoris, and I said above, many men also weaponize this kind of stimulation and limit themselves even more. Male pleasure is seen as robotic, one noted, a closed case, an ice cream machine you press one button and the thing comes out. If that isn't quite literally dehumanizing, I don't what is.
Finally, there's the orgasm gap and how oh so bad it is and how men are at fault for not knowing how to stimulate them on all the 12 specific combinations. But dehumanized people do not contribute to humanity, so they're expecting to get all the attention and researches about them in detriment of men, only to get surprised at guys going to extremes of society. That's what margins and marginality even are.
I sent her an e-mail and LinkedIn note about sources on male pleasure studies, and she didn't answer any... as usual.
As a proof of that, let's check those two health articles on the female and male orgasm, made by the same author. The bias starts when she describes how each sex reaches orgasm through phases: women start at 'excitement', in which the woman "agrees to sex focusing ON the sexual stimuli", posing them as humans and focusing on sensations; men start at 'arousal' which is described as the man "seeing SOMETHING OR someone that prompts sexual stimuli", then going for it like an animal, thus dehumanizing them. As if women also didn't get aroused this way.
She proceeds mentioning that 'some researchers believe' women can have as much as 12 different types of orgasms, but the male article never mentions the prostate as a valid pleasure source for men. There's a lot less research on that area than there is on the clitoris, and I said above, many men also weaponize this kind of stimulation and limit themselves even more. Male pleasure is seen as robotic, one noted, a closed case, an ice cream machine you press one button and the thing comes out. If that isn't quite literally dehumanizing, I don't what is.
Finally, there's the orgasm gap and how oh so bad it is and how men are at fault for not knowing how to stimulate them on all the 12 specific combinations. But dehumanized people do not contribute to humanity, so they're expecting to get all the attention and researches about them in detriment of men, only to get surprised at guys going to extremes of society. That's what margins and marginality even are.
I sent her an e-mail and LinkedIn note about sources on male pleasure studies, and she didn't answer any... as usual.
