World

Between polygamy and the vibrator: journalism is very weird

It was with amazement that I read the headline of O Globo which read the following: “Vibrator: doctors must prescribe regular use accessory for women, say researchers”. Below is a summary: “The benefits of the practice include improved pelvic floor health and sexual health in general, as well as reduced vulvar pain”. We are led to believe that for pure scientific reasons doctors should prescribe vibrators to all women. Scientific conduct would be to take a mountain of vibrators to a convent to take care of the nuns’ health. And in addition to learning about menstruation, every girl would get a vibrator from her mom, who would take her to a gynecologist to remove the hymen and make this important treatment possible. Lesbians would need to review their concepts and become adept at penetration. Is that right?

Let’s go to the body of the text: “Researchers at Cedar-Sinai Medical Center, in the United States, say that doctors should prescribe the regular use of vibrators for their female patients. In an article recently published in The Journal of Urology, the team concluded that the practice has been proven to have medical benefits, such as improved pelvic floor health, reduced vulvar pain and improved health. Several studies had already indicated the positive impacts of frequent female masturbation in physical and mental health. However, there was [sic] little information about the use of vibrators as an aid to masturbation and whether they have positive health impacts.” Not only is that right, but he still has the nerve to link masturbation to the use of a vibrator. If so, any and all benefits of masturbation can be used as evidence of the vibrator’s benefits. In the case of women, there are still women who cannot masturbate (see the mere existence of siririca workshops for feminists at a public university). Thus, the psychological problems of the creature who wants to masturbate and cannot be interpreted as a lack of vibrator, and the previous well-being of those who succeed, as the effect of the vibrator. There was no way around it and I went after paper, to see if they had the nerve to equate female masturbation with the use of a vibrator.

The paper doesn’t say any of that

The article in O Globo cited Alexandra Dubinskaya as leader of the research and named the newspaper. I was able to find the article, which you can read by clicking here. There is no allusion to masturbation. The title is “Is it time for FPMRS to prescribe vibrators?” FPMRS, we learned in the summary, stands for “Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery”, something like “Pelvic Gynecological Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery”, also called urogynecology, but American loves acronym. Thus, the title of the article asks whether urogynecologists should not start prescribing vibrators. In the summary, we also read that the team’s focus is on women with pelvic floor problems – ranging from urinary incontinence to recovery from reconstructive surgery.

Few young women and healthy women need to see a urogynecologist. Problems in the pelvic floor are usually a thing of women who have given birth a lot, fat and old women.

It seems to me something feasible that vibrators are useful in stimulating a musculature that needs to be regenerated. This is a far more modest discovery than the universal female need for vibrators. From the text ofO Globo, it seems that anyone who does not use a vibrator will have vaginal pain and urinary incontinence.

Moreover, the article regrets the lack of research that investigates the benefits of vibrators and computes the few existing articles on vibrators, as well as the benefits indicated by them. Are there any articles on the harm of vibrators? We do not know. What we do know is that the benefits themselves are poorly known, as the whole point of the article is that the benefits of vibrators are understudied, and that this is a problem because they are likely to be beneficial for women with pelvic floor problems. I cite the conclusions: “Vibrators are not well studied, and given the promising benefits demonstrated in the identified articles, more research should be done to investigate their usefulness. Considering the potential pelvic health benefits of vibrators, their recommendation for women should be included in our arsenal of treatments for women with pelvic floor disorders.”

What goes on in journalism?

Moral of the story: the recommendation of the vibrator for all women came out of the journalist’s mind, who didn’t even sign the article . D’O Globo went to Extra, with the headline “Doctors should prescribe regular use of vibrators for women, say American researchers”; and then to UOL, which announces: “Feeling pleasure is good for your health! Use of vibrators is recommended by scientists”. Apparently, this zucchini is from national soil, because I could not identify any international agency that had extracted this inference from the scientific article. If that had happened, we could have included O Globo on an international cordless phone and explained the crazy headline. But that’s not the case.

How could that happen? I doubt that the newsroom has any assiduous readers of urology journals. Most likely, someone posted “vibrator” on Google Alerts to be notified when the term appeared in scientific articles. Then just take the study and juggle it to promote predetermined guidelines with a beautiful “say study”. It remains to be seen what else will not be on this Google Alerts list…

Promotion of polygamy

Since last year I have come across the news that a man defies monogamy because he lives with nine or eight wives. It varies from the time of the matter. The first time I remember seeing it was last year. I remember why he was showing off with nine pizza boxes, and I finally managed to decipher a pagoda chorus that was playing near my house: “Pizza payer.” The song’s lyrical self bragged about being a pizza payer and king of bitches. But that one was married, the article said. It wasn’t casual sex. Then news came out that one of the nine wanted a monogamous marriage, he refused and the number of wives dropped to eight. He would be looking for a chubby girl to take back the number. In the largest newspaper in my state, it came out last week that “A man married to 8 women has a name tattooed on their body” (but there were only five tattooed ones, according to the body of the text). And now, this week, for nothing, Metrópoles tells us “What is the hectic routine of influencer like ‘married’ to 8 women”.

At no time do we discover what he does for a living; only that “the partners divide up to do the domestic activities while he assumes the financial responsibilities”. How stable will this relationship be? Two “wives” don’t even live in the house. Summing up the story of the matter, once upon a time Arthur was born in Venezuela and raised in Paraíba. Married and father, Arthur betrays his wife with Luana, separates and decides to stay with her, as long as in a “liberal relationship”. Since then, with Luana maintained, there has been a rotation of women. They all have him as the only man and only have sex in his presence, that is, with him participating or just watching the female interaction. As for the degree of stability… “The relationship with Luana is the longest: seven years. The other relationships range from nine months to two years”. That is, there is a fixed woman and the rotating ones.

What makes this influencer in life, besides staying praising the wonders of polyamory to ever-interested newspapers? Sex. And how does he make money? With that. In a quick search, we found that Arthur the Bear is an OnlyFans star. This is a platform made for digital content producers to sell their fish; in practice, it is a place where young people sell pornography. According to a British article by 2021, the couple (yes, couple) Arthur and Luana would earn 56 a thousand pounds a month on OnlyFans . At some point last year, the fiery couple became the standard-bearers of polyamory. Arthur’s “divorce” from one of the 9 wives even appeared in the Daily Mail.

The question that don’t want to shut up is: do journalists not think it relevant to inform that those involved in such a wedding are porn actors? In the Islamic world, “polyamorous” marriages similar to this exist. But the reader will agree that a traditional man who commits himself to a series of wives and in-laws is quite different from a couple who earns money from pornography and maintains a hectic routine with rotating young women. Well, the Islamic marries maidens and will not show them naked on the internet. The marriage lasts and produces children. It cannot be an eternal suruba; there are women breastfeeding and children running around the house. It has nothing to do with performance of porn actors.

Advertisement?

Given the money that OnlyFans makes, it’s a case of wondering if he doesn’t invest in advertising. Investing, it is a case of asking ourselves if traditional newspapers would have the courage to put OnlyFans as a sponsor, or if they would advertise with more discretion, in the form of journalistic articles. This would be a way of explaining why so many newspapers talk about the porn actor’s life omitting the fact that he is a porn actor. If that is the case, we must ask ourselves if much of the promotion of “deconstruction” of normality does not run the risk of being veiled advertising by Big Techs of pornography.

Let’s go back to the scientific article that inspired O Globo. He touches on a very important issue, which is the focus of research: there are no studies on everything, and some things deserve to be studied more than others. One of them, in my view, is the impact that the digital erotic market has on youth.

A friend of mine, a medical student in the Southeast, spent time attending to infectology outpatient clinic. According to her, there is a very specific profile of new AIDS cases: the traditional middle-class girl arrives at the clinic accompanied by her parents, with her neck wrapped around her neck to cover the sores caused by HIV. Once the diagnosis is confirmed, the protocol is “we have to tell your boyfriend”. Behold, there is no boyfriend. The young ladies stall appointment after appointment to explain why their boyfriend didn’t come, until the medical student asks to speak with the patient alone. Most of the time they admitted that they had no boyfriend. They made programs and bought luxury goods. The parents had no idea about anything, because a prostitute, for them, is easy to recognize. They have no idea that apartment girl who spends the day locked up on the internet could be advertising herself as a prostitute – and there is an entire advertisement that teaches how to call vulture my blonde, that is, prostitute of sugar baby and the like. This friend herself has college roommates who are proud to have an OnlyFans. It is supposedly empowering to sell your nude photos on the internet.

Here is something worthy of being studied by social scientists and investigated by journalists. This kind of thing shows that social science and journalism are important. Too important to be the way they are.

Back to top button