Skepchick Quickies 8.23


Amanda works in healthcare, is a loudmouthed feminist, and proud supporter of the Oxford comma.

Related Articles


  1. Ah, the StarTribune Web site: where every article, regardless of topic, become a political slap fight after only three comments. Still, interesting find.

  2. So in a nutchell, they’re against “thoughtcrime.” Christianity beat Orwell by 2,000 years.

    1. That depends on who you believe would give better health advice; Jesus or Marvin Gaye.
      I would rather go for Sexual Healing than a healing prayer, it just sounds more fun and productive.

      1. It’s not. And I can say this with some authority. So don’t get your hopes up too much :)

        I was actually cringing quite a lot while reading that piece. I am eerily familiar with the train of thought that can lead to something as stupid (and destructive) as the “Dirty Girls Ministries”. I should probably write up a post on this myself one of these days.

  3. “It’s a very dangerous society that we live in,” she says, “when we’re telling women that it’s OK to look at porn.”

    This makes me want to go live under a rock.

    (and masturbate furiously the entire time)

      1. No, I was thinking more to force a real discussion about sex. It’s what came to mind with the teleconferencing thing; that and a lame joke that didn’t really mean much of anything.

    1. I’m not sure of everything that the filter is triggered by (perhaps the word porn in this case?) but rest assured, it’s just the filter and not a vast Skepchick conspiracy theory out to get you. Mwahaha.

  4. I’m sorry, but “Dirty Girl Ministries” sounds like a pedophilia incident waiting to happen. You get a bunch of sex-obsessed teen girls to confess their masturbatory habits to a bunch of adults who are so sex-obsessed themselves that they created a ministry based on listening to a bunch of teens talk about touching themselves.

    This isn’t a ministry, it’s a 1-900 number.

  5. Regarding the alcohol “myths”, what exactly is the author suggesting? I may be part of the masses brainwashed (and probably disinfected) by Big Alcohol, but a lot of those messages seem at least partly accurate, and not necessarily part of some evil twisting of reality by the liquor mafia.

    (As a side note: parallels between alcoholism and heroin addiction? My admittedly small knowledge regarding addiction nevertheless made me go ‘lolwut?’)

    1. Yeah, I have a similar reaction to these kinds of sites. Alcoholism can actually be worse than heroin addiction or other illicit drug addictions, that’s essentially what professor Nutt said and was fired for saying a few months back in the UK, it’s nothing new. It’s a major health problem but I think people are smart enough to get that alcoholism is the problem and that interventions that decrease alcoholism are beneficial to society even if they decrease non-problem drinking. It always feels like these organisations are talking down to me or trying to bullshit me into believing that all drinking is bad for your health.

      Drunkenness is a problem too, I just can’t be bothered fixing that paragraph now that it’s already written.

  6. Who You Gonna Call? Quackbuster!: Prof. Ernst is great, but we need to support our own quackbusters, like David Gorsky (and his alter ego) and Steve Novella, to name a few. Personally, quackery–uh–integrative medicine is my skeptical pet peave. It’s getting into medical schools and hospitals and our Government is waisting billions of dollars studying it. And it’s flying under the radar. I’m glad that skeptics have taken on homeopathy and should continue to, but homeopathy is only part of the problem. I’ll admit it, this stuff really scares me. It scares me as much as the Texas State Board of Education scares me. Let’s get behind our own quackbusters and let our voices be heard! I hope all of you are familiar with the Science-Based Medicine Website.

  7. The dirty girls ministries are absolutely ridiculouds and damaging. If anything more women need to find their independant sexuality and sense of what they want sexually and share that in a relationship. OI yhink the notion that women must not masterbate is ridiculous and revolting.

    1. Yeah revoilting because masturbation and it’s exploration of our own sexuality and the ability to indipendantly achieve orgasm is sexualy empowering.

  8. Conservative sexual morals are not bad if they are thought of as wise principles for life–an ideal to strive for. But I do have a problem with thinking of them as commandments from God, the breaking of which will incur His wrath.

    1. Consevative sexual morals think that if your naive about sex your innocent. Innocence is simply about having good intentions and goodwill. How much you know about sex doesn’t effrect that. and conservative sexual morals arogantly claim a monopoly on true love and friendship love within s sexual relationship, when they are ignorant about sex unless it’s purely procreational within a falsly heteronormative relationship. Conservative sexual morals are aweful. .

    2. Why is a life without masturbation a wise thing to strive for? And remember, if you’re gonna claim that masturbation makes you do bad things, you’ll have to show your work.

  9. Talk of conservative sexual morals, and the sexual taboos mentioned in the article: female masturbation, female porn use, having fantasies during coitus with their male partners, always reminds me of something I read by anthropologist, Laura Agustín once.

    “In the West, in the present, many people believe that sex should express love. This ‘good’ sex is also said to provide a key way to discover personal identity—who we really are, our innermost selves. It is assumed that feelings of love increase pleasure (quantitatively) and intensify it (qualitatively), resulting in meaningful passion that is expressed through long term, emotionally committed relationships. Other sexual relations then seem wrong, among them anonymous, public, and ‘promiscuous’ sex. Above all, ‘real’ love and sex are said to be incompatible with rationality and work—at least that is the way many wish it to be.”

    I think a lot of problems arise (this especially the case with conservative sexual morals in the US at least) when sexuality, sexual expression and concepts surrounding desire are made to fit only the smallest of interpretations, and things that don’t fit into the accepted schematic are portrayed as “impure.” Methinks more attention should be paid to sexual autonomy, consent, pleasure and overall wellbeing, and not shaming or obsession over purity. I think the purity concept is actually hurting these women a lot. It’s not enough to be chaste in action, but in thought, too?

    I agree with blissed on this one, and I think Voltaire says it best, if one takes virginity to encompass other concepts of sexual purity as well.

    “It is an infantile superstition of the human spirit that virginity would be thought a virtue and not the barrier that separates ignorance from knowledge”

  10. Ugh, the usual sorts of uninformed comments and datasets-of-one-testimonials in response to the quackbuster article, … *sigh*

  11. So DGM are evangelicals? In that case the probability that they are creationist is rther high.

    Having been the Intelligent (at least some people thought I was) Designer of various items of electronic gizmoage I can just imagine what their Designer would think of DGM’s work. Probaly something like:

    “Medamnit! Here I take the good time to put these little Easter Eggs in their genetic code and when they manage to find them, have they got the sense to enjoy playing with them? Nooo… they’ve gotta get all butthurt about having them. Ungrateful little chimps!”

Leave a Reply to BjornarCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button