This site uses cookies. By continuing, your consent is assumed. Learn more

98.4fm shares

Science world of sexuality


Seeing that it was recommended for people as young as 12, I didn't have high hopes for Science World pushing the envelope in their Science of Sexuality exhibit this summer. How graphic, how detailed, how varied could it be?

Could adults take something away from it? Would it prove to be entirely heteronormative? Or try to consist purely of the "hard science" facts and leave out sociological considerations of sexuality? I decided to find out. Before I tear the whole endeavor to pieces, I want to be clear: I understand that its target audience was young people.

I understand that it was supposed to be "science" and not some paradigm-shifting sociological analysis. In fact, this is why I want to tear the whole inaccurate, Freudian, phallocentric, heteronormative thing to pieces. Young people learn that crap from somewhere; dressing up tired values and calling them science gives them powerful, but false, legitimacy which should not be shielded from critique.

Especially when that crap is being spoon-fed to eager-to-learn children. Let's start in the first room. This is later followed up by the statement that as one matures, one realizes that one's gender "does not change.

I guess right off the bat we're leaving out intersex folk, and that sex and gender Science world of sexuality not the same thing -- this has been established for over twenty years. Gender is "Science world of sexuality" term for identity and expression that can be different Science world of sexuality one's assigned sex and can, in fact, change over time through a myriad of different forms.

Presented via three new ads...

And when it comes to assigned sex, of course it can change. But I guess science is for talking about the bodies and identities of, you know, "normal" boys and girls, not trans or otherwise non-cisgendered folk.

Comments are closed for this...

What about those who can "help it" but are so audacious as to make choices about their sexuality? And nothing like the colour of one's irises, what Science world of sexuality when orientation changes, is explored, is fluid, is complex? This not on the table, apparently. Shyness about one's body is then touted as "normal" development called "modesty," and it's made clear that one first feels "one" with one's mother and then later discovers and bonds with one's father.

Much like the bond with a biological mother, the presence of a father is not a scientific certainty, but it sure is nuclear-family normative. In the next room I watch a Science world of sexuality about orgasm with an excitable male narrator. I discover that female orgasm is that thing that happens spontaneously around the same time as a male orgasm, and that giving orders "Vulva, you contract, too!

Attitudes, perceptions and definitions regarding...

I also learn that "most women" are attracted to men with broad shoulders because they're good providers and stuff. Men like wide hips because of Science world of sexuality and stuff, and for the same reason young women are "more" attractive. Because "Milf" isn't one of the most common searches on the Internet. Around this time I start to feel nauseous. Next, "Science world of sexuality" are defined as the canals that penises go in.

I checked and strangely enough, penises are defined as stand-alone items rather than defined as existing for the servicing of women. Freud would be so pleased. Additionally, the clitoris is the "equivalent to the man's penis," because how else could we describe something on a female if not in reference to the standard male body? And now here's some talk about vibrators, hurrah!

Related work

And, haha, what use is it to mention vibrators without insecure jokes that women and only women who use them are objectophiles threatening the continuation of human connection? Not from me in particular. But some knee-slapping nonetheless.

News feed