On Sunday, February 1, 2004, at 03:08 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
>> on the contrary, there's been no claim that all men get off on lezzie
>> sex, and i certainly don't want to get into the business of visual
>> fantasies, yadda yadda. but we *can* talk about cultural expressions
>> of
>> these fantasies and inquire into their operation moreover, the size
>> and
>> reach of the pr0n industry and the prominence of girl-on-girl sex
>> within it suggests that the phenomenon is significant.
>>
>> that this is not a science does not disturb me. does it disturb you?
>
> Yeah, it does. If we're going to make claims about the "prominence of
> girl on girl sex in pr0n", we need careful content analysis of
> representative samples of pr0n films in a given time period.
> You may take it for granted that the data would support you,
i'd put money on that, actually.
> but empirical research is often inconsistent with anecdotal
> evidence and common sense (e.g., Freud's catharsis theory of
> aggression is popular--"if you punch a pillow, you're less likely
> to be aggressive"--even though experiments clearly contradict
> the theory).
honestly, i don't think anyone disagrees with this, despite your and carroll's insistence that the point has been ignored. many things that seem common sense are not so . . . and many are. i guess i took the conversation a little more casually -- like talking over beer -- and presumed we all knew that there was no claim to scientific accuracy.
i had some thoughts about it. i shared them and no one actually seems to have agreed with me, anyway, afaict. seems like it doesn't matter that much. time to pay the tab or get another round and change the subject.
>
> Similarly with this "men like lezzie sex": is that really typical
> of men? Or is my lack of interest in lesbian sex typical? You
> can't know until you've done careful empirical research with
> representative samples of the population of interest!
>
those are interesting questions, and i'm a little bit surprised that doug hasn't yet appealed to suzie for some pr0n industry stats, but they weren't the questions i was trying to answer. i guess i understoood the question to be more about the appeal of so-called lez sex to those straight males to whom it appeals. i do think those are significant numbers, and i *don't* think it operates the same way across all men (to whom it appeals) at all times (or even in only one way to the same man at the same time), but i didn't think i'd have to prove it appealed to most men in order to wonder about it.
you have lit a bit of a fire under me to see what can be found by way of evidence, but geez, honestly, really, i was just talking. like i said, next topic.
j