Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Sex, no-lies and videotapeFollow

#1 Sep 08 2009 at 12:04 AM Rating: Good
***
3,229 posts
MRI of a couple shagging, kind of interesting, but is it **** or research?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/08/improbable-research-sex-video

Quote:
Dr Pek Van Andel's MRI sex video has thrust its way into an argument that periodically convulses the public and the courts. The video shows the first moving images of a couple's sex organs while those organs were in use. It gives graphic new life to a question as old as sin: what is pornography?

As used by Van Andel and his team, the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner lets us probe anew, and deeply, this legal and philosophical chestnut.

Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote in a 1964 US supreme court decision that defining which materials are pornographic is hard, but recognising them is easy. Quoth the justice: "I know it when I see it."

Laypersons watching the Van Andel video have a tougher time. During the short time it's been on the internet, around half a million people have taken a look. Many, unaccustomed to seeing medical imagery of internal organs, struggled to make sense of the unfamiliar shapes and motions. Their comments, posted on YouTube, make this clear. For every excited "AGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!", there is a baffled "???"

Some people express confusion. One wrote: "Took me a while to figure it out. I thought the man's torso was his *****."

Another hazarded that: "The dark spots on either side of the 'line' (their skin) are the bladders. The spines are at the outside edges. As best as I can tell it's the womb being bounced around so much."

A third explained: "It's obviously missionary. Anyone can see the spines of the man and woman are on the outsides, which shows they are facing each other."

A number of people do find stimulation, and perhaps even satisfaction, as expressed in this remark: "It kind of loses something with just the white noise audio ... Having said that, I still need a cigarette now."

Van Andel made the video in the late 1990s, but kept pretty quiet about it for a decade. He instigated and orchestrated the entire project at a hospital in Groningen, the Netherlands. He and three colleagues published a monograph in 1999, in the British Medical Journal. (Two co-authors, Ida Sabelis and Eduard Mooyaart, themselves engaged in intercourse in the MRI tube. Several other couples also contributed their all to the project.) A year later, the entire team was awarded an Ig Nobel prize.

Called Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Male and Female Genitals During Coitus and Female Sexual Arousal, the study includes two copies of an MRI midsagittal image of "the anatomy of sexual intercourse". In the second copy, labels and hand-drawn outlines identify the bits that are of medical significance ("P=*****, Ur=urethra, Pe=perineum, U=uterus, S=symphysis, B=bladder, I=intestine, L5=lumbar 5, Sc=*******").

Unknown to almost everyone, Van Andel asked the MRI technician to gather all the static images and assemble them together into a motion picture. The result: the 21st century's greatest challenge to easy assumptions about ****.
#2 Sep 08 2009 at 12:14 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
You disappoint me, I was quite hoping to see the finish.

Edited, Sep 8th 2009 3:17am by Allegory
#3 Sep 08 2009 at 12:33 AM Rating: Good
***
3,229 posts
Is it over 5 seconds long? Then you saw the finish.
#4 Sep 08 2009 at 6:00 AM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,632 posts
I can think of no sane reason to make such a video.
#5 Sep 08 2009 at 6:19 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Turin, Eater of Souls wrote:
I can think of no sane reason to make such a video.
Dr. Pek probably got to run the MRI machine.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Sep 08 2009 at 6:38 AM Rating: Default
**
907 posts
Now I see why women don't like sex. That video makes sex look brutal on your internal organs.
#7 Sep 08 2009 at 6:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Smiley: um

I don't think the mechanics of sex have a lot to do with why some women don't get into sex with some men.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Sep 08 2009 at 6:46 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Why would you think women don't like sex? They're just not as frequently, blantantly obvious with their obsession with it as men are.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#9 Sep 08 2009 at 7:36 AM Rating: Decent
Interesting. Going back I was able to locate each person's spine, so it is missionary we are observing. The black spots were kidneys? I'm curious to what other organs I was seeing be displaced. Very cool at least.
#10 Sep 08 2009 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,369 posts
Turin, Eater of Souls wrote:
I can think of no sane reason to make such a video.


Research.
#11 Sep 08 2009 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
**
907 posts
It was meant as a joke. But the video does make it look rough. They should try it again with ultra sound so that they have an actual video instead of pieced together MRI photos. Maybe even the 3d ultrasound (that's only still image though i think).

On a side note, MRI's are really complex machines. Even after having it explained to me, it's confusing how they work.
#12 Sep 08 2009 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
This explains why I don't like sex when I have a full bladder. If I ****** under those conditions, I'm going to be howling in pain instead of pleasure.
#13 Sep 09 2009 at 4:11 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Deadbeet wrote:
Now I see why women don't like sex. That video makes sex look brutal on your internal organs.


You've never seen a woman, have you.
#14 Sep 09 2009 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
They're just not as frequently, blantantly obvious with their obsession with it as men are.


I'm not sure if I'd call that accurate... for at least three reasons.

- Typical categorizatonal issues blah blah
- Men's obsession as fake, either projected for social acceptance or said expressions misconstrued
- Women's denial as fake, either suppressed for social acceptance or said expressions thereof misconstrued

Anecdotal evidence supports. Logical thought supports. Statistical evaluation undetermined.
#15 Sep 09 2009 at 11:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
They're just not as frequently, blantantly obvious with their obsession with it as men are.


I'm not sure if I'd call that accurate... for at least three reasons.

- Typical categorizatonal issues blah blah
- Men's obsession as fake, either projected for social acceptance or said expressions misconstrued
- Women's denial as fake, either suppressed for social acceptance or said expressions thereof misconstrued

Anecdotal evidence supports. Logical thought supports. Statistical evaluation undetermined.
I think you're wrong, but if you like, I can change it.


It's not that women don't like sex, it's that they don't like sex with you. Better?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#16 Sep 09 2009 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
It's not that women don't like sex, it's that they don't like sex with you. Better?


Not really, because this assertion is likely true, but the previous assertion had quite a few things wrong with it.
#17 Sep 09 2009 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Nothing makes you feel like an underachiever more than the realization that one can get a Nobel prize for having sex.

Edited, Sep 9th 2009 7:27pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Sep 09 2009 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
There is another researcher in the France that has been doing this in recent years. Mary Roach wrote a book about sex research and asked to see one. Unfortunately the doctor refused but said if she found a couple willing to participate he'd let her observe the results. Her husband ended up being the other half of the willing couple in the study, all so she could see the results of these experiments.

All though she briefly goes through her pleading with her husband I can only imagine the dinner conversation. "Honey, would you like to go have sex in a tight and uncomfortable place?"
#19 Sep 09 2009 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
baelnic wrote:
"Honey, would you like to go have sex in a tight and uncomfortable place?"


What... like the back of a Volkswagen?
#20 Sep 11 2009 at 6:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Nothing makes you feel like an underachiever more than the realization that one can get a Nobel prize for having sex.


Ignobel prize.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#21 Sep 12 2009 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
****
5,550 posts
Balls deep in some woman with an MRI machine going, and he STILL couldn't find the Gspot.

Edited, Sep 12th 2009 7:17pm by Tarub
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 329 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (329)