|
Post by zaab on May 23, 2005 14:58:08 GMT -5
i would like to know where this data comes from also, and how they go about getting it. do they have a bunch of baby scientists come in and ask to watch the baby to see if it touches itself and orgasms lol. and if not, does a parent sit back and watch their baby girl touch herself until she orgasms? and it's possible young girls do this because they're curious but i would say at age 5 at least, 2 and younger she's just a baby and i find it hard to believe a girl that age can get an orgasm. The info I read is from Intellihealth, a mainstream health information source reviewed by Harvard Med School. I didn't read anything about orgasms in children that young and I also doubt that its possible. I don't know how they gathered the data, but its safe to say that anything and everything that can be studied about human behavior will be studied.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 23, 2005 18:51:28 GMT -5
i would like to know where this data comes from also, and how they go about getting it. do they have a bunch of baby scientists come in and ask to watch the baby to see if it touches itself and orgasms lol. and if not, does a parent sit back and watch their baby girl touch herself until she orgasms? and it's possible young girls do this because they're curious but i would say at age 5 at least, 2 and younger she's just a baby and i find it hard to believe a girl that age can get an orgasm. The info I read is from Intellihealth, a mainstream health information source reviewed by Harvard Med School. I didn't read anything about orgasms in children that young and I also doubt that its possible. I don't know how they gathered the data, but its safe to say that anything and everything that can be studied about human behavior will be studied. Hmmm. I see. Harvard Med, ehh? Well, that makes it immediately suspect in my view. Those people will publish anything to get recognition, the more radical the better. If they do have any emprical evidence that infants are masturbating, then this seems to rewrite the whole book on human sexuality, something academics would love to do in their spare time. Please. Come on people! Just because it's on the internet doens't mean it's not crap. Give me a break. However, when my neice is born, i will keep this in mind and see for myself. I am sure i will be changing lots of diapers in the near future, and i will report what i observe.
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on May 23, 2005 19:18:40 GMT -5
The info I read is from Intellihealth, a mainstream health information source reviewed by Harvard Med School. I didn't read anything about orgasms in children that young and I also doubt that its possible. I don't know how they gathered the data, but its safe to say that anything and everything that can be studied about human behavior will be studied. Hmmm. I see. Harvard Med, ehh? Well, that makes it immediately suspect in my view. Those people will publish anything to get recognition, the more radical the better. If they do have any emprical evidence that infants are masturbating, then this seems to rewrite the whole book on human sexuality, something academics would love to do in their spare time. Please. Come on people! Just because it's on the internet doens't mean it's not crap. Give me a break. However, when my neice is born, i will keep this in mind and see for myself. I am sure i will be changing lots of diapers in the near future, and i will report what i observe. Masters and Johnson and Kinsey have done extensive research on human sexual response. I have no idea what age groups their studies encompassed.
|
|
|
Post by strawberrysweetie on May 23, 2005 20:08:09 GMT -5
ok, i was looking at the link talisman put on here and it says: Girls aged 2 and under have been known to deliberately masturbate themselves to orgasm. what the hell??? does anyone else here think that statement is totally false? i can't believe that could be true i mean, where did this information come from and seriously how can a 2 year old girl masturbate herself. i just find that statement crazy. That sounds like a load of crap to me. I mean, you can't believe everything you hear. If they do, I doubt it's normal. I have a little sister, and I don't ever hear her doing that kind of crap. I've seen her make her barbies act in a questionable way, but other than that...nothing really. That's a really bizarre thing to look into, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by blondie86 on May 23, 2005 20:52:24 GMT -5
ok, i was looking at the link talisman put on here and it says: Girls aged 2 and under have been known to deliberately masturbate themselves to orgasm. what the hell??? does anyone else here think that statement is totally false? i can't believe that could be true i mean, where did this information come from and seriously how can a 2 year old girl masturbate herself. i just find that statement crazy. That sounds like a load of crap to me. I mean, you can't believe everything you hear. If they do, I doubt it's normal. I have a little sister, and I don't ever hear her doing that kind of crap. I've seen her make her barbies act in a questionable way, but other than that...nothing really. That's a really bizarre thing to look into, anyway. i agree, i understand that we are all sexual, curious beings, but come on a 2 year old and under? their brain isn't even developed enough for that i wouldn't think. i refuse to believe that anyway, not trying to sound weird here by bringing this up over and over but i just think it's absurd that a 2 year old or younger would orgasm.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 23, 2005 20:59:05 GMT -5
I think Zaab was talking about spontaneous orgasms, just to clarfify. This seems to suggest that the infant or toddler doesn't know what their doing, just experimenting. I consider the research suspect because crap like this comes out all the time from academic institutions, and they all have their own agendas to prove. This means that the researchers are most likely playing lawyer here, choosing to include data that's relevant to their points, and excluding other data that detracts from their 'case.' I've seen academics do this before, and they'll never stop doing it. It's just a matter of them trying to make their mark in academia, and publishing spontaneous results like this is one example.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on May 23, 2005 21:32:49 GMT -5
I consider the research suspect because crap like this comes out all the time from academic institutions, and they all have their own agendas to prove. This means that the researchers are most likely playing lawyer here, choosing to include data that's relevant to their points, and excluding other data that detracts from their 'case.' I've seen academics do this before, and they'll never stop doing it. It's just a matter of them trying to make their mark in academia, and publishing spontaneous results like this is one example. what topics and studies are you refering to. I can see how liberal psychologist could use this to justify masturbation and later experimentation. Im currently writing a paper on spanking and some of my sources that are against spanking misname it and generalize spanking to be domestic violence or the equivilent to a husband slapping his wife. there are ineffective ways to use spanking, effective ways to use spanking , and then there is abuse. Spanking is not bad if done correctly and incorporated with other metheods like reinforcement and empathy training.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on May 24, 2005 1:37:10 GMT -5
My nephew has done this when he was an infant, but of course, I'm just making this up to support my own agenda along with all the other "liberal" health info sights and Harvard which I believe GW himself, that great liberal, went to. Its all part of the great masturbation conspiracy. Believe what you want to believe. Makes no difference to me.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on May 24, 2005 10:15:26 GMT -5
actually I think most psychologists are liberal , there are exceptions for instance my uncle who is a marraige and Family Therapist.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on May 24, 2005 10:51:32 GMT -5
actually I think most psychologists are liberal , there are exceptions for instance my uncle who is a marraige and Family Therapist. Intellihealth is a medical information site, not a mental health one. It may be that psychologists are for the most part liberal. I have not seen a survey one way or the other. But one would think that any information gathered would be put through the test of the scientific method which is politically neutral. But like I said, by all means believe what you want to believe and if something doesn't fit into your worldview dismiss it offhand and call it hogwash. This is a very good way to learn.
|
|
|
Post by blondie86 on May 24, 2005 17:26:17 GMT -5
well zaab you can't learn if you dismiss everything and don't get a wide perspective on things, but you can't believe everything you read either, especially if it's on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 24, 2005 18:57:38 GMT -5
I wasn't referringh to 'liberals' and please do not bring politics into this. I don't want to argue about it. All i'm suggesting it that examine some health articles some time, or published health data, from say, accredidted institutions. I don't doubt that the data they get out of the studies is accurate. But data just lies there; it has to be interpreted. And medical academics especially will go to no end to prove their agendas, the whole point in their research they're trying to make. Take medical studies of a certain field from the sixties, and then compare it to medical research of the nineties. I garuantee you the results will be different, and the interpretations wildly different as well. Research relfects societal trends, nothing more. This is why i don't trust the research presented here. Over a period of time, it will contradict itself several times, and really go nowhere. You must also ask who is funding the research to begin with, to see what bias is already in the process before any research is actually done. The scientific method is politically neutral, but the people who employ it are not. I would think you would realize this Zaab. No, i'm not trying to insult you either. it's easy to get caught up in volumes of collective research, i know, and forget about what your are actually reading. Again, it stems from who funded the research to begin with, and then who edited it afterwards. This scientific process is called 'masaging the data.' Everyone does it, not just medical researchers. Of course, provide me with more data to look it besides this, and i may alter my opinion to fit the empirical evidence. I am not above learning new stuff Zaab.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on May 24, 2005 21:58:14 GMT -5
i seek out information, for example the topic of homosexuals changing through therapy . None of my textbooks cited studies showing some possibilty exhists , it said that it is unchangable. and my teacher said its genetic. so I wrote a paper on it and he was impressed and gave ma an A. I think many therapist are going by the textbooks too much and arent aware of studies not included in the books. I talked to my therapist about the subject and she had no clue that studies were even being conducted on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 24, 2005 22:05:24 GMT -5
I talked to my therapist about the subject and she had no clue that studies were even being conducted on the issue. You mean on the genetic homosexuality issue? Hmmm. How is that possible? Is i passed through a recessive gene from the parents, perhaps? I was not aware that a homosexuall couple could produce children, so enlighten me on this one, man!
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on May 24, 2005 22:18:57 GMT -5
Dr. Gene Hamer of Sweden did a study where he found that several gay men had a similar genetic marking on a certain chromosome. That is how the gay gene idea started . but his findings were never replicated though other scientists tried. Dr. Hamer is a homosexual which was why he was so enthusiatic about his findings. with my therapist i told her how I was doing a speech on how the APA policies of homosexualityare not scientific but politically correct. She did not know that APA members and even gay advocates had recently studied the topic of changing sexual orientation. Even my Uncle who is a therapist was unaware of homosexuals and change.
|
|