Dr. Oz: America’s Quack (and now, “G-Spot” enthusiast)

Last night I was watching Piers Morgan (when I have the TV on it’s usually on CNN, regardless of what time it is) and in case you haven’t heard, it’s Guest Host Week. That means that some random dude whom I’ve never heard of was sitting in for Piers (whom I had never heard of before last year) and running the show. The first guest was that dude from the Today show, which I haven’t seen in at least 3 years, but that was more “with it” than I usually am with Piers’s guests (I usually have no idea who his guests are; the main reason I watch that show is so I can feel in tune with popular culture). After that torture, they brought in Dr. Oz for the coup de grĂ¢ce.

Now I first became familiar with Dr. Oz last year when the James Randi Educational Foundation denounced him for featuring con-artist extraordinaire James Edward on his show. I did some research and found out he broke into stardom sometime around 2005 when Queen of the Deluded Gullible Douchettes, Oprah Winfrey, had him on as a guest. Apparently she thought he was great, which is usually a major warning sign for me. Usually, the likelihood that something is true is inversely proportional to how much Oprah seems to buy into it. I call this phenomenon the “O Factor.”

I did a little more digging and found out he’s a big supporter of integrative medicine. Us skeptics have a technical word for doctors like this: Quacks. I prefer to use the more scientifically accurate term, though: crazy, dangerous nutjob hucksters. Also, sometimes wannabe Messiahs or conspiracy theorists. Sometimes all of them at once (*cough* Deepak Chopra). I was quite puzzled to learn that Dr. Oz was sometimes referred to as “America’s Doctor.” I wonder if we can impeach him.

Anyway, last night Dr. Oz was explaining his latest quacky bit of advice: How to find the “G-Spot.” Strangely, he didn’t say anything I hadn’t heard before, but he also neglected to mention that if the “G-Spot” does exist, it only exists in a very small percentage of women (<20%). At the risk of sounding like one of those crazy conspiracy theorists I like to bash, I can see why belief in the G-Spot is so widespread. Since Victorian times, there has been this fear of clitoral stimulation, simply because it doesn’t seem to do anything useful in terms of procreation. Sex shouldn’t be about pleasure: it’s a reproductive act. On top of that, we live in a patriarchy, so the woman is inherently subservient to the man. This means the man’s pleasure should come first. For a dude, coitus is pretty damn pleasurable. Most women think it feels okay, too. However, most men are clueless egoists and don’t think of anyone but themselves (they’re conditioned to be that way), while women are told not to be too blunt about sex for fear of looking like a slut. The damage all this “G-Spot” talk does is as follows: It tells women that it is normal to be able to experience vaginal orgasms, which leads to the 70-80% of women who can’t feeling defective, like there’s something wrong with them. What’s normal about something the vast majority of the population in question will never experience?

So here’s the deal: You can try to find the G-Spot if you want, but don’t get discouraged if you don’t find some sort of magic pleasure button. Really, we should be teaching guys how to please a woman. So, ladies: Don’t be shy to take a guy by the hand and actually physically show him what pleases you. As a biological male-type, I have always found this most helpful. And guys, don’t be afraid to ask your ladies what turns them on. I know it can be kind of embarrassing, but your partner will have much more fun once you know how to push all her buttons.

Also, here’s a secret that a lot of men don’t seem to realize: You shouldn’t have to ask a woman if she had an orgasm, because most of the time you can feel it. When women cum, they usually experience a series of muscle contractions in the pelvis, vagina, and anus. Most of the time you should be able to feel it. Wikipedia says that not all women experience these contractions, but most of my partners have so I’m willing to bet the majority of women do (I’ve had a lot of partners; I used to try to fuck my way to manliness).

So, moral of the story: Dr. Oz is a nut, men need to think of their partners more. The end.

Advertisements

Book discussion group and other philosophy jazz

So I haven’t been posting here for a while because I got invited to join a book discussion group one of my philosophy professors has put together with her grad students and I’ve been busy doing reading for that. Honestly, it’s kind of intimidating, since I’m just an undergraduate and probably not as smart as everyone else there, but I figured I would try it out since I’ve decided that I want to pursue a Ph.D. in Philosophy. The book we are discussing is Judith Butler’s Bodies That Matter, which is an incredibly interesting read. Not sure how much I agree with her, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

One thing that came up during the discussion that makes me want to reread the introduction came from a woman I’ve had a class with named Clare. I had read Butler as arguing that our classification of people based on sex leads to two groups: those who are “people”, i.e., those who fit into the category of “normally sexed”, and those who are categorized as “not normally sexed”, who are culturally unintelligible. Clare, on the other hand, thought Butler split people into three groups, with the “culturally unintelligible” as people outside the “masculine/feminine” spectrum. We never quite figured out who was right, so I’m going to go back and re-read that bit.

Another thing that came up is something I feel strongly about. I’m only going to bring it up here because I’m thinking of using the idea for a writing sample for graduate school applications; I’m not going in-depth because I haven’t properly fleshed it out yet. Anyway, we were discussing the nature of language as well as trying to get to the central focus of humanity’s collective worldview, and I proposed that the answer was control. Everything we do is an attempt to control our environment, which drive has been the primary moving force behind all of human history. It’s similar to Foucault’s notion of power, but slightly more nuanced. I haven’t yet figured it all out, but I’ll try to post more as I do.

Another idea I’m playing with is a pragmatic account of hate speech and its relevance for radical word reclamation/reappropriation. I’m waiting for some articles I ordered through interlibrary loan to get here (they weren’t available online). Once I get the details set in stone I’ll post more.

Fotography Friday: Plastic Camera Month 3

So I was so busy playing with my new Droid that I almost forgot about this place! Just kidding. Here’s another one from the plastic camera vault:

Fountain, 8/2011, Lincoln, NE

This one was also taken on Ilford HP5 120 size film. It’s a fountain at the spa down the street from me. As I was taking the film out, I wasn’t using a changing bag, and it got loose and I had to reroll it, which is why it’s so leaky. I kind of like it; it pulls the picture together.

A woman’s personality is a direct function of her looks

So, for the past two days I’ve been seeing this promotional poll on Facebook:

Which do you think fits me?

So, as you can see, the question reads, “Which Chubby Stick name fits your personality best?” Chubby Stick is a lip balm made by Clinique, so obviously this poll is aimed at the lady-types. Anyway, the thing that’s got me pissed off is the last option, which also seems to be the most popular. I see no way in which it could be extrapolated onto a personality type. It’s obviously a reference to a woman’s figure, which has absolutely nothing to do with her personality. The fact that the female Facebookers are responding that this matches their personality kind of makes me sad. It’s like the misogynist brainwashing is so complete a woman can’t separate her dreams, likes, dislikes, intelligence, ambition, etc. from her figure.

Why do we have to be like this? I’ll admit, I’ve been guilty plenty of times of assuming things about a person just because of how they look, but still, it’s something I try to change about myself and I think the world would be better if more people fought it. Someone’s figure is completely out of their control, and last I knew there was no known link between a woman’s curvosity and her personality. It’s like saying my gorgeous, curly locks say something more about me than the fact that I have really good genes. Incredibly ridiculous.

Also, I’m kinda irked about trying to jam people into really vague personality types based on clever names. Something about that bothers me, but I’ve always been confused by the personality typing craze. Completely unscientific.

The doctor’s appointment came and went

So I should probably let you all know how things went at the doctor yesterday, especially since I haven’t talked to anyone since I got home. Honestly, I’m kind of having a hard time processing things. It was at UNMC, which is obviously a teaching place, so in addition to my doctor I dealt with her resident and a visiting med student from China who was shadowing her. I liked the resident and the med student didn’t say anything; at first I was worried because he was a guy and I have a hard time talking about trans issues around guys because I think they think I failed at being a man, but he was so non-invasive that I completely forgot he was there 30 seconds after we were introduced. My doctor was a tiny yet intimidating Eastern European woman. I think she may be Czech. I’m intimidated by Eastern Europeans because they seem incredibly blunt and forceful. It’s weird. I’m going to keep seeing her despite the fact that I’m worried that she is going to start hurling insults at me because she’s some sort of expert in transgender health, which is why she has people coming from around the world to shadow her. She also knows more about the issue than anyone else I’ve talked to: I wasn’t expecting to learn anything new, but I did. Apparently there have been rare reports of transwomen developing benign pituitary tumors after starting hormones. (She says she’s never seen it in her practice, but she does routine tests just to make sure.) She was actually quite complimentary: Part of the psych eval my doctors sent over included my GPA, and she was very impressed. Anyway, it was basically a two-hour interview session to make sure I was ready for all this jazz, then she cut me a prescription and took my blood for baseline levels so she could track my progress and check my thyroid levels (I had Hashimoto’s thyroiditis as a teenager and apparently that may be a problem). I go back in three months for another check-up. I need to have quit smoking by then. (I’ve already gotten on that.)

Anyway, I’ve been in shock since then. It just seems like things should be more difficult than they’ve been lately. I had a pretty hard time from 2007-2010 which pretty much resulted in me dropping off the face of the earth for a while, and now I’ve become conditioned to think that life is always shitty. These past two years have been so great that I’m expecting something life-shattering to be just around the corner. I don’t know, it’s kind of weird. I just hope I don’t become paranoid. Maybe things can get better.

There’s a lot more I want to say, but like I said, I’m having a hard time processing things, so I’m just going to leave it at that. Peace out. Thanks for your support.

Fotography Friday: Plastic Camera Month 2

So continuing the plastic camera theme, here’s this:

Lily

Lily, 6/2011, Lincoln, NE

Another one taken on my Holga 120CFN, this time on Ilford HP5 120 size film. I like the heavy vignetting and contrast between light and dark in this one. Also, the sidewalk cutting through the upper right pulls the piece together and helps to frame it. My dad has a copy of this one.