…seems to be the number and size of the cameras, and their location. “Scientists” (who are not named, nor is any published work cited) placed tiny cameras on a penis and inside a vagina and recorded intercourse between two people. Why, I don’t know. There doesn’t seem to be any question asked or answered. It also seems to perpetuate a lot of invalid myths, like that sex in the missionary position is better for conception, and generalizes stories about the G spot to all women.
Although extremely explicit (do not watch it at work!), it’s also the most unsexy thing I’ve seen in ages. All it made me wonder about was how they kept fluids from sliming up the camera lens.
By the way, a hint to future “investigators”: dubbing in cheesy porn-style music over the action doesn’t make you look any more serious — it suggests something about the background of the people making the movie, actually. Also, if it’s science, the first thing I want to see is a hypothesis that is being tested, and no, “how close can I get a camera to this woman’s vulva” is not a particularly interesting question.
I suspect the woman was on the “most unsexy thing” camp as well.
There was a recent somewhat related more-serious article at The Grauniad’s site, as per my comment in Discuss: Interesting Stuff.
The fact you get a useless write-up in IFLS or the NYT science pages or some other poorly-written outlet doesn’t invalidate the research. A friend of mine is close to a research group that studies human sex; seems quite interesting (and, yes, they have to figure out some tricks with regards to the instruments).
Rats below, will this crap never die?
numerobis: there are interesting questions about sex. I suspect the research group you mention would be asking them.
It’s one of the aggravating things about IFLS that they never do.
It’s clear where the kids who couldn’t stop giggling in health class ended up.
It was interesting to see, but they didn’t need the nipple or penis cam. Nor did they need to show the couple getting into position.
I guess the question it answered is, “What happens inside a woman during sex?” Sort of like the MRI sex videos. I think that’s the one I learned how the penis bends inside, something I didn’t know before.
Yes, all of the information presented was spurious at best, flat out wrong at worst. But seeing it from a perspective you’ll never see personally was interesting. And it was funny watching another man’s penis deflate; makes one feel less inadequate. :)
Two related notes:
— Real science has investigated why the human penis is shaped the way it is. Probably to help men remove another man’s sperm, at least according to them.
— I thought of it as a nature documentary, showing something you don’t see without a carefully placed camera. Like inside a naked mole rat tunnel. Example picked on purpose. Nature shows aren’t really science then because they don’t investigate or answer a question, they just show what’s happening. Doesn’t stop them from being interesting to watch.
So my vote is: Science? No way. Interesting? Yes.
They claim that the man’s pelvic bone constantly stimulates the clitoris in missionary. I call bullshit. I also suspect the script was written by a penis-haver. In fact, the description of the female orgasm in this clip sounds like a lot of the shit males are taught to believe to justify being a selfish lover.
Didn’t watch it. I’ve made it 63 years without having to watch naughty bits from the inside.
I really don’t want to be put off sex by the video.
I guess I’m just an old-fashioned dyke…
PZ: wait, is this IFLS original material? I thought they just mangled reposts of reposts of reports made elsewhere.
I guess BuzzFeed has turned into an important journalistic enterprise, so it stands to reason that IFLS would head that way.
The first time i saw footage like that it was in an embryology class at 8 in the morning, straight from spending all night drinking beer and smoking weed, not having even been home to shower or change. The video ended with footage of a live birth, which spread horror and fear among the students like one of the horsemen. It was a great class, though.
Oh, that horrible study that showed that having a ridged bulb would scoop out fluids in the vagina? Worthless work that demonstrated the obvious, and lacked any studies that showed an actual effect on relative fertility.
If we were actually selected for sperm competition, there’d be rather stronger evidence than a peculiarity of penis shape. Something like a trend towards bigger testicles and more voluminous ejaculate. Are we seriously going to argue that small details with little physical effect like that are actually the product of selection? I have more respect for selection than that.
@gmacs #8: I have come to understand that the clitoris is (or can be?) stimulated by the pelvic bone of the partner. This is reported to me by my partner and from a sex book written by a woman. Anyway, selfish lovers (and unselfish ones) do do occur on both sides.
They should have set the cameras to “vibrate” mode.
I think that clip is from a Channel 5 documentary series on sex that was broadcast in the UK about a decade or so back. I think it was called ‘A Girl’s Guide to 21st Century Sex’.
Channel 5 not being a reputable journal (it’s barely a reputable TV station) I think calling this ‘science’ is a bit of a stretch… But that’s IFLS in general really.
Since there is no hypothesis being tested, we can imagine that there is a ‘plot’ to the video. She is a lonely housewife. He, a sinnewy pool boy, but he got into trouble because he did not do a good job with the pool and so she decides to teach him a lesson. To make sure that he remembers the lesson she happens to bring out a couple GoPro cameras . The lesson ensues…
In the extended version the neighbor and his wife come in, looking for their missing drone that he got for Christmas. After the couples’ initial surprise and brief but pointless dialogue, all four get down to business and pretty soon the bed is a scene of some pretty amazing acrobatics.
All documented on tiny little cameras that can go anywhere. [GoPro: Be a Hero].
I’m not sure if the IFLSscience folks even know this, but the video they link to is a clip from A Girl’s Guide to 21st Century Sex, a 2006 documentary series shown on British Channel 5 (one of the commercial channels). It was kind of like the old Real Sex on HBO: half information, half titillation. Except the proportions were more like 30/70.
So, yeah, IFLS just found a YouTube clip of a sexy TV show, reblogged it without credit and tried to make it sound more sciency. Hard-hitting journalism!
…or, what dodecapode said.
Woody Allen already did this bit in Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex. Of course, his attempt was simulated, but it was also funnier.
PZ @12:
Especially with the number of other species that do demonstrate clear selection in that regard, right? Everything from dragonflies to bowhead whales.
Wasn’t the relative balls-penis size ratio explained in relation to copulation length and mate exclusivity/number in comparison to chimps and gorillas (or other primates). Made sense to me but I guess that’s more of an observation than a well documented selective pathway. What about our homo ancestors dicks?
If the shape of the glans had that specific, selected-for purpose, you’d expect the glans to typically reach the cervix, fitting quite snuggly the shape of the end of the vagina, to displace the sperm deposited there, forcing it behind the ridge of the glans so that it could be scooped out. But that doesn’t usually happen, often the penis doesn’t reach the cervix, and if it does, some women experience a very unpleasant sensation, and even then, there is some space left where sperm can collect around the cervix, so in effect sperm is not being scooped out, at best it’s being pushed in.
Not to mention the fact that the actual shape of the glans is definitely not suited to that supossed task.
@12 and following.
I put in that it was according to the researchers. :)
@21 I remember reading a similar article, but had forgotten the conclusion.
Oh god not IFLS.
Sorry, to expand a bit. Please, PLEASE, I know most everyone in the science blogosphere also respects art, so please stop sharing IFLS, and if possible kindly remind everyone how they built their empire out of plagiarizing artists. Their shoddy science reporting isn’t the worst about it.
@21
I remember reading or hearing somewhere that chimpanzees have proportionately ginormous* balls, and are rather promiscuous. Larger testicles for them are an advantage because they are under a competitive selection for sperm count in a female. Basically, it was explained that they “compete” by out-ejaculating each other.
Among gorillas, however, one male maintains exclusivity to mating rights with the females through brute force. This was claimed to be the reason they had small testicles, If they beat up the other males, then they won’t have to one-up any of them on insemination. Plus, tissue growth and maintenance (ie testicles) and sperm production cost the body energy, and gorilla’s need their energy.
For all I know, it could be a bunk explanation. Not sure what the justification is for the in-between-size of human testicles.
*I cannot believe spellcheck recognizes “ginormous” as a word.
gmacs
It does so. Slightly. And yes, some women can orgasm from penetrative intercourse alone, most can’t.
The intersting thing is that while they talked a lot about the woman’s orgasm (involuntary contractions etc.) and they almost ended their video with the cum shot, they didn’t actually show her to orgasm*, show the contractions, something Masters and Johnson were able to do about years back.
*But she made good porn-worthy sounds.
Yep, all in all an explenation why men don’t have to get the least bit creative and can justify their lies with science*
*It’s not my fault you don’t get an orgasm. Science says you do get orgasms in the missonary position so if you don’t there’s something wrong with you. Also don’t tell me you’ve never found that G-spot thingy!
She’s faking it.
In my opinion, this is seminal research.