If we had "evidence-based" sex, researchers who get little sex themselves would write manuals w/ standardized instructions, do studies showing instruction-manual sex better than no sex, then refer to it as evidence based/gold standard. Next, accuse critics of being anti-science.
2/ If someone says it is horrible sex, responses will be:
1. Evidence-based sex has strongest evidence—nothing shown better
2. Without evidence, unethical to have other sex
3. If you have something better, show me DATA
4. Accusations of allegiance to unscientific/outdated theory
1. Evidence-based sex has strongest evidence—nothing shown better
2. Without evidence, unethical to have other sex
3. If you have something better, show me DATA
4. Accusations of allegiance to unscientific/outdated theory
3/ Notice how such arguments—made routinely in literature & here on Twitter—create hermetically-sealed logic system. All corrective input already discredited. Profoundly flawed arguments made from position of superiority, from high horse of "science." No wonder they have bad sex.
@ThreadReaderApp unroll
