• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

Page 3228 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,771
20,600
136

...
In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex. And according to a contentious new paper, it may also be almost totally false.
There is absolutely no evidence that Victorian doctors used vibrators to stimulate orgasm in women as a medical technique, asserts the paper, written by two historians at Georgia Tech. “Manual massage of female genitals,” they write, “was never a routine medical treatment for hysteria.”

“There’s no evidence for it,” says Hallie Lieberman, an author of both the new paper and Buzz, a popular history of sex toys. “It’s inaccurate.”
The scientific paper is obsolete.
It’s not hard to see how the idea spread. The entire story of Victorian vibrators originates from the work of one scholar: Rachel Maines, a historian and a former visiting scientist at Cornell University. Her 1999 book, The Technology of Orgasm—described at the time as a “secret history of female sexual arousal”—argued that clitoral massage was used as a medical technique for centuries, from the time of Hippocrates to the modern day.

But that’s just not true, according to Lieberman and Eric Schatzberg, the chair of the School of History and Sociology at Georgia Tech. There is scant evidence that orgasms were widely understood as a cure for female hysteria, and there’s even less evidence that Victorians used vibrators to induce orgasm as a medical technique, they say. “Maines fails to cite a single source that openly describes use of the vibrator to massage the clitoral area,” their paper says. “None of her English-language sources even mentions production of ‘paroxysms’ by massage or anything else that could remotely suggest an orgasm.”

Instead, they argue, Maines conceals this lack of support by relying on a “wink and nod” approach to primary sourcing and by “padding her argument with a mass of tangential citations.”
In an interview, Maines said that she has heard variations of the paper’s criticism before—and that her argument in The Technology of Orgasm was really only a “hypothesis,” anyway. “I never claimed to have evidence that this was really the case,” she said. “What I said was that this was an interesting hypothesis, and as [Lieberman] points out—correctly, I think—people fell all over it. It was ripe to be turned into mythology somehow. I didn’t intend it that way, but boy, people sure took it, ran with it.”
...
Yeah so, the entire history of this idea is based only on Rachel Maines one book. This history has one, single, contemporary source. There is no contemporaneous record of this at the time it was supposedly "very popular, indeed!" Maine's story became very popular, and every account that you see--such as that which you posted here--is originally indebted to her book. She claims that she never intended for it to be a historically accurate representation of something that happened. Yes, it's interesting and neat, and sounds reasonable for many reasons, but it isn't really true.


Assuming you're missing an "n" there - huh? Were his children told?

Idk man, seems like far too many details and records to be a jesus like fabrication. Marco Polo

Polo bringing Italy pasta from China is a myth though, far as I know.
.....Just like Marco Polo: there is no actual record of a human, Marco Polo, existing. There is a Polo family, but no Marco. The travels of Marco Polo is simply the most popular version of the most popular genre of the time--far travelogues "written and narrated" by purposefully non-existent characters. All of these books were known to be unauthored at the time when they were being read by everyone that could read.

For some reason, Marco Polo became real over the years. You won't find any record of his existence at the time that he was supposed to be alive. Importantly: there is absolutely no record in the extensive, meticulous records of the Qing Dynasty (forget if that was the dynasty at the time), when he was supposed to have visited their court. His is the huge glaring hole in their vast records of all the other events that they recorded, at the same time. It makes zero sense for the Dynasty at the time to have "forgotten" about such an influential visitor. Less evidence than Jesus! (just like this genital stimulation thing) :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
41,422
4,235
136



Yeah so, the entire history of this idea is based only on Rachel Maines one book. This history has one, single, contemporary source. There is no contemporaneous record of this at the time it was supposedly "very popular, indeed!" Maine's story became very popular, and every account that you see--such as that which you posted here--is originally indebted to her book. She claims that she never intended for it to be a historically accurate representation of something that happened. Yes, it's interesting and neat, and sounds reasonable for many reasons, but it isn't really true.




.....Just like Marco Polo: there is no actual record of a human, Marco Polo, existing. There is a Polo family, but no Marco. The travels of Marco Polo is simply the most popular version of the most popular genre of the time--far travelogues "written and narrated" by purposefully non-existent characters. All of these books were known to be unauthored at the time when they were being read by everyone that could read.

For some reason, Marco Polo became real over the years. You won't find any record of his existence at the time that he was supposed to be alive. Importantly: there is absolutely no record in the extensive, meticulous records of the Qing Dynasty (forget if that was the dynasty at the time), when he was supposed to have visited their court. His is the huge glaring hole in their vast records of all the other events that they recorded, at the same time. It makes zero sense for the Dynasty at the time to have "forgotten" about such an influential visitor. Less evidence than Jesus! (just like this genital stimulation thing) :D
Thought the whole idea was for Marco to not be found.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY