1/ If we had "evidence-based" sex, researchers who get little sex themselves would write manuals w standardized instructions, do studies showing instruction-manual sex better than no sex, then declare it evidence based & the gold standard. And accuse critics of being anti-science

2/ If someone says it's bad sex, responses will be:
1️⃣Evidence-based sex has strongest evidence, nothing proven better
2️⃣Without evidence, unethical to have other sex
3️⃣If you have something better, show me data
4️⃣Ad hominem accusations of bias/allegiance to unscientific theory

3/ Note how such arguments—made routinely in psych literature & Twitter—create hermetically-sealed logic system. All corrective input already discredited. Profoundly flawed arguments made from position of smug superiority/high horse of "science."
No wonder they have bad sex.