back to article Bona-fide science: Which forms of unusual sex are mainstream?

It's not often, here on the Register sexy psychology desk, that we are genuinely bowled over by a press release. But we are today. The press release in question is this one from Montreal uni. It begins: Hoping for sex with two women is common but fantasizing about golden showers is not. That's just one of the findings from a …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the fantasies

    There seems to be as many as 46 fantasies considered:

    "Only two sexual fantasies were found to be rare for women or men [sex with a child or animal], while nine others were unusual ["golden showers," cross-dressing, sex with a prostitute, abusing an intoxicated person]. Thirty sexual fantasies were common for one or both genders, and only five were typical [sex in a romantic location (female), receiving oral sex, sex with two women (male)]"

    Anyone have access to the list? I couldn't penetrate the paywall (information wants to be free fetish)

    1. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: the fantasies

      "penetrate the paywall"

      I bet that was well down the list. Probably near the bottom.

  2. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Only 46 fantasies?

    I guess the only left now is to sit back with some popcorn and watch the comments coming in.. as the man said, "It should be entertaining".

  3. Nigel The Pigeon

    'Rare'

    "...a sample of adults willing to describe their sexual fantasies"

    Presumably the results are skewed by sample selection, and towards what people perceive as being a normal fantasy.

    I would wager that if you asked the survey in a rectal Cricetine cadaver appreciation society, you would still get the same results -- ie that some fantasies are so 'rare' that most owners won't even describe them!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yay, more survey based "science"

    "...a sample of adults willing to describe their sexual fantasies"

    So this implies that the scientific study excluded people unwilling to describe their fantasies? That'd kind of skew the extrapolation out to the population, surely?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yay, more survey based "science"

      Not at all. People on the whole are very much alike so the ones who didn't wish to describe their fantasies would most likely have the same ones but simply didn't want to take part in the survey, couldn't be bothered, didn't have time, whatever.

      1. P. Lee Silver badge

        Re: Yay, more survey based "science"

        >People on the whole are very much alike

        In that case, why bother with research, they could just write down their own ideas.

        Filed in the "Bad methodology, but nobody cares" folder.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Yay, more survey based "science"

          Oh, silly me, I didn't realise I said identical, but hey ho, that's what happens when people, and by that I don't mean everyone, can't comprehend what they read. Although it must be said that this appears to be getting more and more common. Bill Bryson names it the London, England syndrome where you have to explain everything so the numbnuts don't have to think too hard, well really not think at all, about what they are reading.

          1. Kepler
            WTF?

            A dumb as Americans???

            "Bill Bryson names it the London, England syndrome where you have to explain everything so the numbnuts don't have to think too hard, well really not think at all, about what they are reading."

            I have no idea who Bill Bryson is, but the fact that someone could say this (and have it be sufficiently well-founded that people know what he is talking about) shatters my faith in Limey superiority. I want to believe that people on your side of the Pond aren't morons, are better edumacated than we, still speak proper English (spelling aside), etc.

            1. Kepler
              Facepalm

              Re: "A dumb as Americans???"

              Oh, for the love of Pete!

              AS dumb as Americans, not A dumb as Americans. Sheesh!

              (It's always extra embarrassing to make a mistake when one was in critic mode — even if only implicitly and indirectly — to begin with!)

              My thanks to whoever voted my post down (first/so far) for bringing (whether advertently or inadvertently) this astonishing and sloppy error to my attention. And my apologies to one and all for my sloppiness and inattention.

            2. NumptyScrub

              Re: A dumb as Americans???

              I have no idea who Bill Bryson is, but the fact that someone could say this (and have it be sufficiently well-founded that people know what he is talking about) shatters my faith in Limey superiority. I want to believe that people on your side of the Pond aren't morons, are better edumacated than we, still speak proper English (spelling aside), etc.

              I suspect the original post was a dig at the (apparent) US practise of confirming the country of any national capital city, which has the same name as an American town, such as specifying "London, England" so people don't think they are talking about London, Kentucky. To be perfectly fair though, if I were talking to a fellow Britisher about any of the places in the US named after UK towns I would feel compelled to confirm it was the one in the US myself.

              I also suspect it may be due to the recurrence of certain names; I note on that list there are no fewer than 9 Birminghams in the US, 2 of which are in the same state. If you have to constantly specify the state to avoid confusion (did you mean Birmingham, Ohio or Birmingham, New Jersey?) then adding "England" when you mean the one overseas would feel like a trivial thing. ^^;

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Define romantic location

    I once lit a candle in the back of my transit van. Does that count?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Define romantic location

      Dad?

      1. DanP

        Re: Define romantic location

        Wow... the "report abuse" button floating next this has never seemed so poignant.

    2. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: Define romantic location

      That all depends on what you did with candle, or the hot wax, afterwards in the back of your "Trani" van.

    3. 45RPM

      Re: Define romantic location

      @Candle Coward

      Was that so that you could see the body more clearly as you rolled it up in an old carpet?

    4. Triggerfish

      Re: Define romantic location

      I thought it was more typical to flash your headlights?

    5. Roj Blake Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Define romantic location

      Whatever you do, don't use the transit's aerial as a sex toy. You don't want to give your partner van aerial diesease.

      1. Slabfondler

        Re: Define romantic location

        Groooooooan....that was terribly punny!

  6. Terry 6 Silver badge

    Psychology

    *Sigh*

    "It's pretty plain that if you regard the function of scientific research as pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge, this could all be regarded as rather a depressing waste of money: but if instead you view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment, they are in fact excellent value."

    Is shooting yourself in the foot a recognised fetish?

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

      Re: Psychology

      Only if you derive pleasure from it

  7. msknight Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Phah....

    Don't dream it ... DO it.

    Also, what about the people who DO do it? They don't count as a dream ... but ... hmm... I smell a flaw in this research...

    1. razorfishsl

      Re: Phah....

      Nope I would recommend against that……

      Most reality rarely meets the level of the fantasy, and once the fantasy is realized, well that is the end of that.

      1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        Re: Phah....

        Yep - "living the dream" just means a lost dream. They are called "dreams" and "fantasies" for a reason.

  8. Elmer Phud

    Missionary position

    "Anything but face to face between man and woman is verboten!"

    "All Gays are childmolseters (only applies to females - lesbians can be 'turned')"

    "Aids can only be caught by those who do not accept Jeeezus into thier hearts"

    1. chivo243 Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Missionary position

      So... sex between two men is a disgusting homosexual act, but love between two women is a beautiful thing?

      1. razorfishsl

        Re: Missionary position

        Well bugger me, I'd never thought of it that way……

        Hmmm LEGO now there is complete proof it is normal.

      2. ee_cc

        Re: Missionary position

        Well, literally it's also a homosexual act: "homo" same, "hetero" different.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Depressing...

    "It's pretty plain that if you regard the function of scientific research as pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge, this could all be regarded as rather a depressing waste of money: but if instead you view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment, they are in fact excellent value."

    Perhaps LP would like to justify his belief that understanding the psychology of human beings is not pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge. We are currently the most complex organism and system being researched, and understanding human psychology and society is surely just as valid an exercise as understanding computers and networking. After all, which came first?

    Theoretical physics at the moment is going through a phase of generating untestable theories. Real medical and engineering advances are almost all based around fairly old work. If anything is "primarily a source of entertainment", then String Theory must surely be a candidate.

    And this isn't an argument against theoretical physics, but an argument that Lewis Page has, on the showing of this article, an extremely narrow view of what constitutes useful knowledge.

    1. Paul Kinsler

      Re: Theoretical physics at the moment is ...

      ... investigating a much broader range of things than you seem to think, most of them being testable to some degree. Note that "String theory", exotic comological models, and the like make up a tiny fraction of what theoretical physicists (taken as a group) do with their time. It's also worth noting that media reporting of science, theoretical or not, is very skewed and only representative of what the media think you want to hear about.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Theoretical physics at the moment is ...

        That was a very defensive post. Actually you have no idea at all how much I know about the range of theoretical research in physics; I didn't suggest that all theoretical work was untestable, just pointed out that some of it currently is and gave a perfectly valid example. I know there are not many theorists working on the various ramifications of string theory, but equally there are not many psychologists trying to extend our understanding of the range of "normal" human sexual behaviour.

        You say "it's also worth noting that media reporting of science...is very skewed." That is exactly what I am complaining about in LP's adding his own bias to an otherwise factual article.

        1. Paul Kinsler

          Re: Actually you have no idea at all how much I know ...

          Well, having read your third paragraph, I assumed that your knowledge of theoretical research physics wasn't as much as you thought. I took this egregarious liberty on the basis that since I am actually a theoretical physicist, I could make a reasonable stab at assessing the accuracy of your para 3, which looked to me rather like the sort of thing someone largely reliant on media science reporting might write. Further, it doesn't represent the majority theoretical physics community I am a part of, or the more applied physics community who - in the same building as me - are trying to improve chemical/bio sensing, medical imaging, or laser/led/light sources, amongst many other things.

          Still, if you care to explain the basis of your beliefs as stated in para 3 some more, perhaps you could convince me to change my mind, or we might find some common ground.

          1. Kepler
            Go

            @Paul Kinsler

            "Further, it doesn't represent the majority theoretical physics community I am a part of, or the more applied physics community who - in the same building as me - are trying to improve chemical/bio sensing, medical imaging, or laser/led/light sources, amongst many other things."

            By any chance have either you or any of your colleagues ever worked with either Will Happer or Gordon Cates?

    2. Gazman

      Re: Depressing...

      @Arnaud

      Fair point. But the methodology on this study really sucks (and that's no fantasy).

    3. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Depressing...

      Perhaps LP would like to justify his belief that understanding the psychology of human beings is not pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge.

      If we take the Reg as our corpus, there's no evidence that Lewis likes to justify any of his beliefs - at least not to his readers.

      But if we take his articles as entertainment...

    4. dan1980

      Re: Depressing...

      "Depressing" is about right.

      Not the article and not the research, but the field that this may have solid value in - depression.

      We have just had a nice rant about homosexuality in the comments section of an article about Putin-vs-Cook and one thing I mentioned there is that LGBT adolescents are some 4-6 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts.

      Sex and sexuality has long been a cause for anguish in many. It seems that there are still far too many taboos that have no place in rational society and as a result far too many people are left feeling that they are 'weird' or 'wrong' and many more are simply too scared to share their fantasies or desires with their partners.

      In some ways, the Internet is actually a great boon for some of these people due to the much-referenced 'rule 34', which, loosely translated, can be interpreted to mean: no matter what your sexual fantasies or desires, you are not alone.

      Not wanting to actually pay for the report, I wonder what constitutes 'common', 'unusual' and 'rare', however.

      If 'unusual' is one in one hundred then even though that is, clearly, not a large percent, it would still mean what when you go to work in the morning, one person on your bus* will enjoy being urinated on or urinating on someone else and, should you enjoy that, you could walk onto a peak hour train in Sydney and find someone who might enjoy sharing your fantasy without having to change carriage.

      Perhaps that specific fantasy is not quite that common (I have no idea - it could be) but you get my point - given the number of people we interact with and see each day, even relatively 'unusual' sexual behaviours and fantasies are never that far from us.

      Which is kind of a good thing, reminded as I am of an amusing song from my younger days.

      I just hope the term remains "sexual deviation" rather than "sexual deviancy".

      * - Obviously it's nowhere near that neat in practice, but that's just to get an idea of this in human terms.

  10. jake Silver badge

    Ah. The French Canadians.

    Credible research on sexuality, shirley.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What is it about the name "Christian"?

    Lead author of research Christian Joyal. Leading character in "Shades of Grey" Christian Grey. Odd coincidence.

    1. John X Public

      Re: What is it about the name "Christian"?

      Giving your child a 'christian' name of Christian either demonstrates a disturbing lack of imagination (this is my dog, 'Dog', and my cat 'Cat') or a very subtle hope for a return to vaudeville (What's your christian name? Christian. Yes, christian. Yes that's right. No, what's your name? I just told you! ... etc..)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What is it about the name "Christian"?

        It is interesting how common names in many languages are the same words as "son", "daughter", or "first". Not sure if the fictional Charlie Chan use of "number one son" and "number two son" is an indication of common Chinese names.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I thought canadian fantasies go something like this.

    I reach in and unzip his coat

    My hand moves slowly, to find the zipper on his inside coat,

    I reach in, moving down so I can pull up his outer jumper.

    My hands caress his cardigan, and slowly undo his buttons so I can reach his outer t-shirt.......

    1. Random Coolzip

      RE: Canadian fantasies

      Let me know when you get to the part where the warm maple syrup gets drizzled over the....

      1. Havin_it

        Re: RE: Canadian fantasies

        ...long-johns?

  13. Ken 16 Silver badge
    Boffin

    Did the research subjects have to pay for the phone call?

    I can imagine some female research assistants on the end of a premium rate line. Self funding science.

  14. JDX Gold badge

    "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

    Psychology is not a science

    1. Vociferous

      Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

      No, psychology isn't science. And neither is statistics, which this is. But statistics is not subjective, which is good as it's what most policy is based on.

      1. Gordon 11

        Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

        But statistics is not subjective...
        It needn't be. Choosing what to measure, how to measure it and then what to actually publish can be very subjective. Ask any political party...

      2. Vic

        Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

        But statistics is not subjective, which is good as it's what most policy is based on.

        If only that were true...

        Vic.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

      Psychology is not a science. So understanding things like witness bias, the mechanisms of visual and auditory perception, how the sensation of pain is affected by other perceptions and biases, why politicians become dysfunctional, the best methods of treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction, how the brain assesses risk, why free markets are not (hint: people are not algorithms), the best way to lay out vehicle controls, the best way to train military officers, submariners and combat pilots, and how to treat children excluded from school - are not science? What are they then?

      (My own director of studies in experimental psychology - yes, I admit my bias here - was funded by that collection of fuzzy hippies the Royal Navy to work on projects to improve the safety of nuclear submarines. One of his conclusions was that we (the general public) are rather fortunate that British submariners are a lot more intelligent and stable than average members of the population. Of course you "knew that already", but I bet you couldn't quantify it, test it, or develop strategies for ensuring that submarines continue to run in a safe and efficient manner.)

      My own suspicion is that people who think psychology is not a science either (a) don't know what it is about or (b) have a mental deficiency such as psychopathy or some kinds of autism which prevent them experiencing empathy or having any insight into their own mental processes.

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

        Would psychology predict a snotty rant to quip on an internet forum?

      2. NumptyScrub

        Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

        My own suspicion is that people who think psychology is not a science either (a) don't know what it is about or (b) have a mental deficiency such as psychopathy or some kinds of autism which prevent them experiencing empathy or having any insight into their own mental processes.

        Whereas I suspect you just got trolled by Lewis.

        BTW since you appear to know a lot about it, what's the difference between a BSc in Psychology and a BA in Psychology? The Uni I went to offered both, which seems to suggest that you can take Psychology as a science or an art :/

        Also, of those people I have enough contact with, a majority appear to have problems experiencing empathy or having insight into their own mental processes. This is especially prevalent the higher up the power ladder one has climbed, and I'd have to entertain the thought that certain societal constructs (big business, politics) might even be promoting and nurturing anti-social behaviour, rather than discouraging and chastising it.

        I'm a geek though, and it's well known that we're all socially incompetent, so what would I know ^^;

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Eddy Ito Silver badge

        Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

        psychology != psychiatry

      4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

        My own suspicion is that people who think psychology is not a science either (a) don't know what it is about or (b) have a mental deficiency such as psychopathy or some kinds of autism which prevent them experiencing empathy or having any insight into their own mental processes.

        Or (c), have never studied epistemology and have no idea what a "science" actually is.

        Of course this is the Internet, the great wasteland of uninformed opinion.

      5. John X Public

        Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

        "are not science? What are they then?"

        A handy set of well tested heuristic approaches to addressing problems. It is more akin to automobile manufacturing than hard science.

        Science is traditionally carried out along the lines of hypothesis -> prediction -> experiment, where the hypothesis is well grounded in established knowledge and the experiments are repeatable with predictable outcomes. Things are improving (Walter Freeman anyone?) but Psychology still has problems at the theoretical underpinnings and repeatability ends of the process and is still at the softer end of the 'science' spectrum.

        "My own suspicion is that people who think psychology is not a science either"

        c) Understand how hard science works.

        Scientifically based psychology is hard, and gaining rigor, but it isn't physics, chemistry or even biology yet.

    3. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: "view the psychology departments of the world primarily as a source of entertainment"

      "Psychology is not a science"

      Indeed not, since psychology is a domain of knowledge whereas science is a technique that might be applied to a domain of knowledge. You might as well say "London is not a mode of transport". (Is that close enough to a car analogy?)

  15. Vociferous

    What?

    "if you regard the function of scientific research as pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge, this could all be regarded as rather a depressing waste of money"

    I don't see this at all. Is the point that the author felt "everyone already knew" the findings?

  16. kmac499

    Easily Defined Pathology

    Eroticism Tickling your partners fancy (or any bit you can reach) with a feather

    Perversion Using the whole chicken

    1. earl grey Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: Easily Defined Pathology

      perversion is using the chicken hole

  17. David Pollard

    Masters and Johnson ...

    ... certainly set a trend with their 'work' in the 1950s.

    And they managed both to get paid and to stay within the law.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...an essential step in defining pathologies"

    What a sinister phrase!

    First you define the label.

    Then you stick it on people.

    Then you round them up and deal with them...

    I notice also that the axis "typical, unusual, rare" for fantasies maps quite well on to "might happen to anyone, requires some preparation, illegal" at the realisation stage...

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: "...an essential step in defining pathologies"

      It's worse than sinister. It's bad science. A pathology is a mal-function of some kind and brings with it the whole notion of "not supposed to happen". The phrase "essential step in defining pathology" makes the wholly unjustified leap in assuming that just because something is rare it is wrong and anything common is right.

      By that measure, the common cold is not a problem and should be welcomed, not treated, but extraordinarily high IQ is a disease to be treated and (ideally) eliminated from society.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "...an essential step in defining pathologies"

        How do you define abnormal?

        Ideally you sample the population and produce a bell curve, though perhaps it's a bit skewed. It makes no difference if someone is at +4 sigma or -1 sigma, they are still part of the population range. An IQ of 145 isn't a disease, it is part of the distribution.

        But now suppose that the IQ test you have devised has a tail which has an unexpected bump. This after all is what the evidence for the Higgs boson looks like - a few graphs with bumps. You look at the members of the bump and you discover they have one or more demonstrable genetic abnormalities. Congratulations, you have discovered a pathology.

        So, "Essential step in defining a pathology" is looking for unexpected signals in a distribution. This particular case may not be it, it may be as flawed as people are suggesting, but you are the one making the incorrect leap of assuming the meaning is that anything rare is wrong. It may or may not be, but first you have to find out what constitutes rarity or anomaly. The word "step" is the key here.

        Observational sciences like astronomy work in this way, so it is hardly limited to the social sciences. The range of photon sources around the sky is analysed, fitted into patterns, and from this a whole structure of stellar and galactic objects is deduced and induced in a complex sequence of steps. From this we can eventually conclude that our own sun is unlikely to go pop or show a large fluctuation in a short period and stop worrying about it. If we discovered that our Sun belonged to a class of stars which might (as in the Larry Niven story) produce a very bright but short lived flare with little warning, we might possibly consider what action we could take - stockpiling food, underground shelters. This is the analog of looking for psychological clusters of symptoms and then finding out whether they were indicators of a possible pathology - as a step.

        1. dan1980

          Re: "...an essential step in defining pathologies"

          @Arnaut

          How do you produce such a curve describing sexual behaviours, each of which is a distinct practice and people are either into it or not?

          It's not like you can create a continuum running between some specified practice and some other, say, between this and straight-up, heterosexual missionary intercourse.

          * - On that note, drink more water people.

      2. dan1980

        Re: "...an essential step in defining pathologies"

        @Ken Hagan

        ". . . extraordinarily high IQ is a disease to be treated and (ideally) eliminated from society."

        We're trying mate - don't rush us.

  19. Gene Cash Silver badge
    Coat

    A kiss makes your day... but anal sex makes your hole weak.

  20. earl grey Silver badge
    Joke

    two girls and a cup?

    get me outta here

  21. Graham Marsden
    WTF?

    What a crock!

    "Clinically, we know what pathological sexual fantasies are: they involve non-consenting partners, they induce pain"

    ORLY? So the thousands of customers who have bought floggers, canes, paddles, nipple clamps and many more such items from my Affordable Leather Products business are all suffering from "pathological sexual fantasies" are they?

    And, not only that, but adults who are into consensual BDSM activities get lumped in with rapists and child abusers etc.

    Or maybe they're just into a different sort of kink from the narrow minded individuals who write for the Journal of Sexual Medicine and who have decided that *they* are the ones who can decide what is or isn't "abnormal"?

    (BTW you may not know it wasn't until 1992 that the World Health Organization removed its categorisation of homosexuality as a mental illness)

    "what exactly are abnormal or atypical fantasies? To find out, we asked people in the general population, as simple as that"

    And they think that, thereby, they can use that information to define what is "normal" and what isn't? Bullshit!

    They got what people *wanted* them to hear. Even if it is anonymised etc, I bet a lot of people had a lot of fantasies which they didn't tell the researchers because the subjects thought they were too extreme or didn't want to admit to them or they just decided to gloss things up a bit.

    What they didn't get was factual evidence.

    "these findings allow us to shed light on certain social phenomena, such as the popularity of the book "Fifty Shades of Grey" with women"

    Oh gods! Not Fifty Shades of Drivel! The book that mistakes coercion for consent, that has a main character whose behaviour is stalkerish (verging on predatory), that has some extremely bad and risky examples of BDSM which are *really* not good to engage in (cable ties? No, just *NO*, ok?!)

    As for Lewis' conclusion, he misses the point. "Research" like this does not push back the frontiers of human knowledge, that's true, but that's because it simply informs the bigotry of those who want to tell others what they can do and read and see and think that because *they* don't like something, others should be forbidden from doing it.

    1. Abacus

      Re: What a crock!

      ...(BTW you may not know it wasn't until 1992 that the World Health Organization removed its categorisation of homosexuality as a mental illness)...

      Which was probably the right thing to do. There is no single cause of homosexuality.

      Rather, there are three, which may or may not be mutually exclusive:

      (a) Mental illness,

      (b) A genetic defect, and

      (c) Sexual perversion, akin to bestiality.

      Whatever the categorisation, it takes a certain sick mind to want to shove your manhood into another bloke's colon. On a hypothetical "perversion" scale I expect it ranks somewhere alongside necrophilia.

      1. TrishaD

        Re: What a crock!

        @Abacus

        Where does homosexuality rate in relation to having sex with the brain-dead?

        p.s - the 17th century called - they want their social attitudes back.

  22. Kepler
    Holmes

    A rather important omission . . .

    . . . especially in light of the article's emphasis on items of prurient interest:

    The article does not make clear whether it is among men or women (or both) that golden showers were found to be an "unusual" fantasy.*

    (In contrast, the article does helpfully clarify later on — though not in the first instance — that the fantasy of having sex with two women is "common" only among men.)

    .

    * The only person I know who admits to enjoying golden showers is a woman.

    I'm not certain, but I believe she also may have enjoyed sex with two women at once on at least a few occasions; I know** she has enjoyed sex with other women one-at-a-time on multiple occasions. While she prefers men to women on balance, she vows never again to have another three-way involving a man because of the effect that a three-way with two women has on the attitude and behavior of the man involved.

    Concerning the other kind of three-way, she has never commented (to me) on the idea of herself and two other men at once.

    .

    ** Unless of course she was lying; I have never witnessed any of these high jinks — let alone been a party to them — myself!

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My Secret Garden

    Nancy Friday did this in nineteen hundred and freezing cold and produced a book called

    My Secret Garden: Women’s Sexual Fantasies. It is a 1973 book compiled by Nancy Friday, who collected women's fantasies through letters and taped and personal interviews.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019