Yes, I looked at the first several pages full of links, and in direct refutation of you faith-based assertion, not a single one was pornography. They were all articles about what men can do to give females more sexual pleasure, including things like "communication", "empathy", "patience", and "cunnilingus". They were not only of similar content to the types of women's mag articles you anecdotally offered as evidence, but several were from some of the most widely read periodical and mags in the US including Cosmo, Men's Health, Men's fitness, and the NY Post.
Again, not a single porn link in any of the first several pages or when jumped to the 10, 20, and 30th page of links. Links continued to include sources like HuffPo and Psychology Today.
Did you make any attempt at all to number only unique search results?
None of the hundreds of links on the pages I looked at were duplicates, and whether some hits are duplicates or porn doesn't matter anyway because that applies equally to searches for both pleasing woman and pleasing men. All that matters for testing your baseless claim is using the same sampling method for both search terms, because it is the relative number of observations for both that matter not the absolute number. Plus, even if 95% were duplicates, it would still amount sample of unique observations that was millions of times larger than your personal anecdotes about mags you've seen.
Your proven ignorance of basic research methods make it unsurprising that you'd offer up such an irrelevant red herrings.
Seriously. I thought you were some kind of grad student.
My academic credentials related to social-science research would make you look like you failed out of pre-school.
This is something that wouldn't even be taken seriously in a freshman English class.
What grotesque hypocrisy. This is an informal discussion board. You made the claim that current culture constantly focuses on how women should please men but never on how men could better please women. Your only evidence you offered was personal anecdotes about a couple of magazines you've seen years ago. Making not effort to examine the quality of this info, whether the articles were unique, but suddenly think these are critical issues when talking about google links. While imperfect, my sampling method is infinitely superior to yours in every way and offers more than enough evidence to show that your claim is false. It is a far more random sample of what is available to people, far more representative of the information that most people today are actually exposed to, a far larger sample, and uses the same method to sample both types of information that are central to your claim (info about pleasing men versus pleasing women).
Whether there are generally some biases in medicine and marketing is irrelevant to what the cause is of ED research being more prevalent than research about female pain during intercourse (the entire point of my first post from which this whole exchange stems).
In a nutshell, you are absolutely wrong.
No, in a nutshell, this like virtually all your arguments is a fallacious red herring having no relevance to the discussion. Since you clearly have no concept what logical relevance means, it means that nothing you said can possibly show I am wrong because it has no implications for what I said. This is predictable since you are not capable of offering any counter-argument, so instead you are offering arguments against irrelevant strawmen and hoping no one notices the difference.
Plus, what is not at all well documented is your assumption that gender differences in medical research and marketing stem from sexist disregard for women in general and their sexual pleasure in particular. It is your particular dogmatic assumption about the underlying causes that is in question. And in this instance, that assumption is refuted by a reasoned analysis of the relevant facts which predict more ED research even in an ideal world such sexism was non-existent.
The bias against women in terms of medical research is well documented. The bias for white males is well documented. I have no idea what 'reasoned analysis' you think was presented, but you are mistaken entirely.
You have no idea what a reasoned analysis even refers to. You have deliberately evaded the two most central facts that directly refute your assumption, which are that ED drugs have higher profitability for drug companies and that profitability is the primary factor in how much attention the medical industry gives to various ailments. Those fact alone prove you are wrong, and you haven't even attempted to refute them, you've just ignored them and offered fallacious red herrings about secondary issues.
Nothing I said implies that women require a penis to experience sexual pleasure. Rather what you said assumes that no women derive sexual pleasure via intercourse with their male partner. Only such an absurd assumption supports your claim that the prevalence of ED research is simply due to society only caring about male sexual pleasure. Recognizing that assumption is clearly false would make it obvious why your entire response to my original post is invalid, as is the argument in the OP I was responding to.
I made no assumption that no women derive sexual pleasure via intercourse with their male partner. If you inferred such, that says a great deal more about your powers of reason than mine.
Your entire response to me was based on such an assumption. The fact that you have no idea what assumptions your dogmatic claims are making is unsurprising and totally on you. You agreed with the OP article that the prevalence of ED clinical trials is simply due to a cultural bias that only cares about male sexual pleasure. That claim requires assuming that failed intercourse has no negative impact on women,and thus ED drugs that allow otherwise failed intercourse has no positive impact on women.
