1/ If there was "evidence-based" sex, researchers who get no 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, they'd accuse skeptics of being
2/ anti-science. If someone points out it's horrible sex, responses will be:
1. Evidence-based sex has strongest evidence
2. Without evidence, unethical to have any other sex
3. If you think something else is better, show the EVIDENCE
4. Accusations of allegiance to unscientific
3/ & outdated theories.
Notice how such arguments—made routinely—create hermetically-sealed logic system. All corrective input is already discredited. Profoundly flawed arguments are made from position of superiority, from high horse of "science."
No wonder they have bad sex.
You can follow @JonathanShedler.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: