The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 >
>>
The Completely Absurd Untrue And Dim-Witted History Of Things

This week: The Vacuum cleaner.

  Daily Fodder


Comments:

#1 peter 29-Jan-2009
You do know this, don't you?

from http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/maines-technology.html

When the vibrator emerged as an electromechanical medical instrument at the end of the nineteenth century, it evolved from previous massage technologies in response to demand from physicians for more rapid and efficient physical therapies, particularly for hysteria. Massage to orgasm of female patients was a staple of medical practice among some (but certainly not all) Western physicians from the time of Hippocrates until the 1920s, and mechanizing this task significantly increased the number of patients a doctor could treat in a working day. Doctors were a male elite with control of their working lives and instrumentation, and efficiency gains in the medical production of orgasm for payment could increase income. Physicians had both the means and the motivation to mechanize.
#2 captainfish 29-Jan-2009
Dang, I am in the wrong line of work.
#3 busywolf 30-Jan-2009
Hi guys, in alphabetical order: Brian, captain, DMartyr! May I have a go at peter?

Brian, do I risk punishment by banishment? I promise to be a nice wolf and keep it scientifical. :D
#4 busywolf 02-Feb-2009
Gee, Peter (no pun, just a little premature interjaculation), no, I didn't know, and having never heard of the New York Times Journal of Medicine, or should I say the New York Times Dildo er … Lancet, I was enormously pleased to discover the book in hand: "Rachel P Maines - The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria," the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction (Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology) (Hardcover)" on sale at Amazon, which is quite appropriate if you care to recall the all-female warrior tribe of yesteryear. Am I wrong about the book? For if I am, such a shame about the hardcover. Heh!

I would have liked to poke a bit at the bibliography in order to push the argument back and forth, but it is sadly unavailable. However, a sneak preview IS available which makes a few thoughts come to mind, such as Western physicians being huge ignorant pricks wholly unaware of the Kama Sutra teachings or the Chinese love beads tricks. Or their delegating the exhausting job to midwives, thusly exposing their patients to homosexual encounters rather than hiring the hand of say, midhusbands. Not to mention the invasion of patients' bodies and gross violation of their rights to privacy, coupled with the exposure of husbands' failure to love and cherish.

On the brighter side, said cocky scholars were in favor of applying the adult entertainment device to the cunnus while keeping "one finger inside". I suppose I am right to assume that inside refers to the introitus rather than the gadget, guaranteed to achieve, at the right moment, the endorphin rush and a smile one the face of the lady, quite redolent of the old climerix line "with the lady inside and a smile on the face of he tiger" but in reverse positions. Obviously, had what is known to the Germans as selbstbefriedigung (onanieren to be more specific) been acceptable, ladies would have been allowed to access those parts of their anatomy well within reach of their skillful upper limbs for the desired effect, with the undesired side-effect of depriving the physicians of their income.

In any case, I am not going to argue the merits of this book, as I strongly and fully support any initiative to juice up a woman's life.

One last thought, is there any chance of this therapeutic approach being put to good use in this day and age to cure mass hysteria of any kind?
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us