Yet another BS post that bashes science when it does not result in conclusions that match American middle and upper class/POMO feminism politics. But, of course if this studies conclusions did match American Feminist politics would be praised to high heaven.

Harding starts out trying to poison the well by stating the monetary backers of the study are trying to sell a product that might/will elevate the symptoms that the study is trying to look at. Well no shit would a well ran company actually see if there is a market for a product before sinking millions into advertising and marketing (which includes educating doctors that they know have a medication that can be prescribed, you know the way every drug/treatment maker has to educate doctors about new medications since doctors don't have special powers to know there might be new treatments for diabetes or cancer) along with FDA approval process. Well back to who Harding poisons the well, she strongly implies that it was a lone journlist that fought against hope to find the backers of the study when in reality all Graham did was look at the study to find that the authors of the study made no secret at all about either their methodology or their backers. She also ignores that the orginial story where she learned this also makes mention of 3 other surveys that found similar results that where all also published in a respected medical journals. I guess the medical journals too are under the thumb of big pharma and the patriarchy?

Because rigorously conducted research is possible regardless of who funds it, you say?

Why yes, I agree that rigorously conducted research is not only possible but likely regardless of who funds it especially when it is published in a respected medical journal. Why do you ask? Because, the "big pharma" likes to make money and if the results of a study like this to see how large the market is is vastly overstated then they will loose money. Because, the journal that published this likes to keep its reputation. Well, damn I did not know that snarkiness and citing a movie based on a musical based on Abba songs was stronger evidence than a background on research methodology, statistics, and medical research.

Since you decide to play with the numbers, why did you use the numbers of another reporter and not use the numbers from the survey itself? Doesn't Salon pay for access to the large medical journals like the Wall Street Journal, NYTimes, the Tribune company and well every large and medium media company?

How do you define or measure "low levels of desire"? Graham doesn't tell us,

If you looked at the original survey it will tell you how they define "low levels of desire"? Since I am not paid to do your job and don't have access to journals where I am, I will just throw out a few educated guesses on how they define low levels of desire; lower level of normal sexual desire, drop in sexual desire, level of sexual desire that is a couple of standard deviations below other women the same age/medical conditions.

but she does mention that the study consisted of a phone survey. Oh, hey, self-reported data coming from women who wouldn't blow off a stranger calling to ask about their sex lives! That sounds totally reliable!

So with your obvious background in snark and knowledge of a film based on a musical based on Abba songs how would you suggest they do this study? Four journals have thought this was a valid way to conduct a study like this but obviously you disagree. Do you even know how a phone survey is set up? Or do you just totally like think the conversation just jumps to how much a person fucks?

Ooh, I bet there's some evolutionary psychology coming up next! "[Edward] Laumann of the University of Chicago has a theory why that may be so: It could be low sexual desire is hard-wired into women through evolution." Ding ding ding! What do I win?

Oh what snark you got him, you go girl. I know that to American Feminist men and women are exactly equal in every way except in ways that women are better then men but you cut off why it could be hard wire. Here is the rest of what Laumann (who actually did one of the studies and is making a best guess not a declarative statement that Harding suggests) said that was quoted in the article. ""If women were like men and wanted sex all the time, they’d be pregnant more often" and their bodies would be exceedingly stressed as a consequence of the demands of bearing and rearing children, he said.

It’s probably an evolutionary advantage for women to want sex when they’re most likely to survive pregnancy and be able to take care of a child, he suggests.

"I consistently find that stress in women doubles or triples the likelihood of reporting a lack of [sexual] interest," Laumann observes."

Sure, that sounds sort of logical, except I missed the study demonstrating that men ages 18-70 "want sex all the time." And what about the 63.8 percent of women who don't have a low sex drive? How come only a little over a third of us are hard-wired to want to protect our bodies? And why do we become less interested in sex once the threat of pregnancy is gone?

Why don't you do what Graham did and fucking call the guy? Other wise ask Graham why she either did not ask him these questions or chose not to include them in her story, I mean shit she should have known that a radical feminist would demand answers (with out doing a damn bit of her own journalism) that at best are tangibly connected to the story she was writing.