Nibbles: Psychology Today: Black Women Unattractive, Playboy Sex Survey Disaster, Porn on Ivy League Servers, SF Giants Do “It Gets Better”

9 pieces of BRILLIANCE put forth by a DARING and DELIGHTFUL reader

mkultra experiment

  • Quick question: does this site seem faster? Let me know in the comments. If you noticed anything, and you feel okay with telling me, it would be interesting to know where you are visting TinyNibbles from as well (country, continent or city). Thank you!
  • This whole thing is kind of a disgrace. Playboy survey blogged on spammy site gets play in mainstream media; it’s a really sad return for the legendary magazine’s reach, too. Their previous survey was tens of thousands, this is not even 3K. Take it with the biggest grain of salt you can find: Playboy survey reveals Internet’s impact on sex (MSNBC Digital Life)
  • It’s really time this woman’s legitimacy is openly called into question. The Sydney Morning Herald lost their ability to fact check and allowed loony Gail Dines to write a screed that has to be the most insane thing she’s written yet – male bashing, made up stats and studies, just outrageous: Pornland | Effects of Porn On Men | Gail Dines (smh.com.au)
  • What the news stories about Kink.com’s plan to donate half the building as a community center seem to forget is that Kink has been having family and community events in that part of the Armory off and on for a while – and what they’re doing is a very, very good thing for the neighborhood: Kink’s Armory to Open Community Center (NBC Bay Area)

Image by the MKULTRA EXPERIMENT.

Share This Post

You might also like:

9 Comments - COMMENTARY is DESIRED

  1. Randolph Carter · Edit

    Hi Violet,

    I’m glad you asked, because you prompted me to look for the actual article and I learned that the distortion to the title is more serious than I originally thought. The article appeared in Psychology Today as: “Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women, But Black men Are Rated Better Looking Than Other Men?”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/55581831/Psychology-Today-Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women

  2. David · Edit

    From Daines: “As long as we have porn, women will never be seen as full human beings deserving of all the rights that men have.”

    Does that include the right to be stimulated by porn too? Oh, that’s right… all women are the same, and since she isn’t turned on by it, well then it follows that nobody else will be, right? Why didn’t I see it before.

  4. violet · Edit

    Hi Randolph, maybe you can clarify – AdWeek (I think the first to report on it) states that:

    Mental health bimonthly Psychology Today came under fire Monday after it published a blog post by Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa titled “Why Are African-American Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”

    In response to the perhaps predictable backlash, the magazine softened the provocative headline by changing it to “Why Are African-American Women Rated Less Attractive Than Other Women, but Black Men Are Rated Better Looking Than Other Men?”

    But by Monday afternoon, the publication had entirely removed the post from its website, as outcry spread.

    I wish we could hope that Psychology Today could lear it up for us – and I agree with you about getting the language right. But they are reporting the ‘rated’ title as the attempt at fixing it. Do we have another source to counter it? I’d like to find out, because I agree 100% about the “right crime” approach.

  5. Randolph Carter · Edit

    I am not defending the Psychology Today article, but we should note that the article title is widely and falsely reported to be “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” The actual title is “Why Are Black Women RATED Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” That’s a rather critical difference – the former is normative, the latter is descriptive.

    What may be going on here is clumsiness with language and not racism per se. When the author argues that black women are “objectively” less attractive, in the context of the entire article that clearly appears to mean “according to multiple ratings by independent judges.”

    At the very least this article shows an appalling lack of sensitivity and thoughtless use of language, but we should probably hang these people for the right crime.

  6. Randolph Carter · Edit

    Hey there,

    When I came to this page today the browser hung for perhaps a minute or two until I force-refreshed, then it seemed to come up normal-ish, maybe slightly slow. I’m running Firefox on Windows 7 64 bit in South San Francisco.

  8. Tom Allen · Edit

    RE: The PsychToday article – I subscribe to both the paper magazine and to the RSS feed for the blog. I believe that the article in question was posted by one of their regular bloggers, evolutionary pop-psych Satoshi Kanazawa. While PT owns the website, we should be careful not to assume that it’s reflective of their editorial views. A blog post does not carry the same vetting as one of their regular staff articles. I’ve also noticed that a handful of blog responses to that article have also been pulled from the site.

    That said, I’ve been a long, long time subscriber, and every year it gets more difficult to justify reading it; it’s gone from being a fairly informative journal to being what is essentially a Cosmo for social workers. I understand that controversy is pretty much free publicity, but seriously, PT?

Post Comment