I loved the line about the "Fucking buddy who keeps quiet". Texts like this and the book "What Do Women Want?" really show how messed up our understanding of women's sexuality and history is.

I think this article is satirizing the responses to the debate triggered by this book which claims that women crave sexual variety as much as if not more than men.

Person A says that a woman's need for motherhood is the same as men's need for sex. I see no citations.

Person B says that women enjoy sex and they can feel a need for it just like men do. Someone asks for citations.

You see the problem here?

Here. Read this.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Women-Want-Adventures/dp/0061906085

Come back, and let me know what you think on the subject. It's been established since the 60's through groundbreaking sexologist works that Freud was wrong, and women actually do enjoy sex.

This article shows that blanket statements generally don't work when describing sex drives. This essay, while supporting what you're saying to a degree, makes multiple statements that constantly changing study results seem to indicate that we've been understanding aspects of libido incorrectly thus far. And this book further supports that last part, suggesting that we've been misinterpreting the female libido as weaker. Essentially, it's a contested issue, and to your credit it's more contested than I originally thought.

This comic, while humorous, does a good job explaining the difference between male characters made for males, and male characters made for females. The male characters I assume you're talking about in anime (especially if you used DBZ as an example) most likely lean more towards power fantasies, designed to make male viewers feel powerful with bursting muscles and the like, instead of reward fantasies, designed to make female viewers "want" them, like with beautiful faces and such. Now, characters can be both, and I do see anime do it more often than some other mediums with male characters (like American comics), but again with something like DBZ they're very often not, and even when they do the way females are made reward fantasies are very often waaaayyyyy less subtle than when males are made reward fantasies. For example a male character could be made with a handsome face and sharp clothes, vs. female characters that are often just almost naked and designed/posed provocatively on a regular basis. Factor in what the writers' intentions are for the character's role in the show and it becomes very clear.

I think the reason you disagree with me on there being more fanservice for male viewers than female viewers comes from this point here, where we disagree what constitutes as fanservice. If I saw fanservice the way you did, then yes I would have to agree that it's all equal. I do not, and this is where our differences lie.

I don't think it's JUST a personal problem, but I do personally dislike it. I don't think it's petty to want the genders treated equally if they can be, which I suppose partly depends on what's keeping them from being equal in the first place. And I'd appreciate you not condescending to me if you can help it.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly, but one of the big things that Sex at Dawn challenged is what you describe here:

> men tend to focus more on looks than women...Women tend to seek out richer men, or men with lot of accomplishments that show they can provide for them (e.g. gold diggers).

In this scenario, the female only cares about securing her and her child's safety and uses sex as a bargaining chip. This oversimplified worldview has long crippled an understanding of female sexuality.

> But it does explain some of our history, and why it seems only women do X and men do Y.

Some sociologists think the "passive monogamous female" theory is problematic because it's often used to 'explain' the inferior position of women in post-agricultural societies. It's also led rise to the stereotype that women are generally more 'emotional' and 'crave a relationship' while men are 'sex-crazed' and 'non-committal.' Both of these stereotypes are damaging, but the female one places a moral onus on being monogamous.

In fact, Sex at Dawn suggests that early human females were neither monogamous nor sexually passive. Dr Ryan offers examples of the promiscuous bonobo females, the sexually ferocious female tribeswomen who mock men who are "stingy with their genitals", and the science behind multiple female orgasms to drive this point home.

Another interesting book is What Do Women Want? Like Sex at Dawn, Bergner paints a polyamorous, sexually aggressive portrait of female sexuality.

I'm not sure if you're far enough into Sex at Dawn to have read all the examples, or even be convinced by them. But I'm sure you'll agree, modern culture plays a tremendous role in the male-female interactions you've experienced (men must approach women, women looove relationships, men are horndogs), so be wary of rewriting history to suit it. Do have an open mind when you read Sex at Dawn and What Do Women Want, since both try to get rid of that skewed understanding of men and women.

Let me quote you something from a book on female sexuality:

> The appeal of rape—in the mind, in the lab—haunted Meana and Chivers and took our conversations to uneasy places. Two of their sexologist colleagues, Jenny Bivona and Joseph Critelli at the University of North Texas, had gathered data from nine earlier studies and offered a sense of how commonly women turn themselves on in this way. “For the purposes of the present review,” Bivona and Critelli spelled out, “the term ‘rape fantasy’ will follow legal definitions of rape and sexual assault. This term will refer to women’s fantasies that involve the use of physical force, threat of force, or incapacitation through, for example, sleep or intoxication, to coerce a woman into sexual activity against her will.” Depending on the study, between around 30 and 60 percent of women acknowledged that they took pleasure in this kind of imagining. The true numbers, the authors argued, were probably higher. The subjects conjured the scenes while they had sex, welcomed them while they masturbated, daydreamed about them.
One explanation invoked the same reasoning as the woman who said, “I didn’t have to explain myself to Jesus.” Rape fantasies removed guilt. Women embraced them to escape the shame imposed, from the beginnings of girlhood, on their sexuality, to escape the constraints imposed going back and back in time. Another theory took imagining and relishing rape as a type of taboo-breaking.

> An experiment carried out at an amusement park by Cindy Meston, a University of Texas at Austin psychology professor, contributed to yet another explanation. Hundreds of heterosexual roller-coaster riders were shown photos of the opposite sex; the subjects were asked to score, in Meston’s words, “dating desirability” before and after the ride. The thrill of fear spilled over into eros: following the ride, the scores rose. The phenomenon, which Meston labeled “excitation transfer,” hinted at interweaving circuits of terror and sexual arousal within the brain, and perhaps made sense of what one woman told me, that she felt as though her rape fantasies had an immediate physical effect, that they coursed straight to her groin, causing the contractions of orgasm.
There was anatomical logic to the idea that calling up thoughts of rape and feelings of fear—or feelings of shame brought on by transgressing taboo—could quickly provoke the spasms of climax. The theory belonged to Paul Fedoroff, a psychiatrist at the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Mental Health Research, who treated paraphilics, people whose main erotic compulsions fall far outside the norm: fetishists, exhibitionists, zoophiles, sexual serial killers, pedophiles. Like so much surrounding our under-researched sexual selves, Fedoroff’s reasoning was backed by informed speculation rather than proof, yet his theory had resonance. Some of his patients, he had told me, when I was researching a book about paraphilias, seemed to suffer from what he called a “sticky switch” governing their parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems. These are two branches of our autonomic circuitry, the wiring that regulates our automatic functions, like heart rate, sweating, and salivation. The parasympathetic system controls arousal while the sympathetic sends us into climax. “The natural progression during sex,” he said, “is that the parasympathetics are set off, and at some point when we become sufficiently aroused a switch flips and the sympathetics kick in and we start to have an orgasm. But the poor paraphilic has a sticky, sluggish switch and needs to do something extreme to get the sympathetics going.” Besides orgasm, the sympathetic system takes over in situations of emergency. Fedoroff’s idea was that some paraphilics use the deviant, the forbidden, to stoke their sense of danger or mortification—to create an emotional emergency, put extra pressure on the resistant switch, open up the sympathetic paths, and propel the brain and body into ecstasy.

> Many of Fedoroff’s patients were convicted criminals, but he told me about a case that wasn’t criminal at all. A heterosexual couple had sought him out; the woman could no longer climax, not with her partner. She’d taken to having sex with a series of men in the same night, to watching videos of women having sex with animals, to making videos of herself masturbating—these sent her toward orgasm. Climactic sex with her partner seemed a hopeless cause “until,” Fedoroff wrote in a journal article, “it was discovered that she consumed large amounts of L-tryptophan, available in health food stores, to help her sleep. This substance is metabolized into serotonin, which is known to cause difficulty reaching orgasm. She was advised to discontinue taking L-tryptophan. Soon afterward, her ability to reach orgasm through intercourse with her partner returned, and with it, her paraphilic interest in group sex, exhibitionism, and zoophilia disappeared.”

> According to Fedoroff’s theory, fantasies of sexual assault might well serve, for some non-paraphilic women, as a way to unstick the switch; they might supply an emotional emergency and enable orgasm.

> But for Meana, rape fantasies were rooted in the narcissism that was imbedded in the female sex drive. As we talked, she narrowed her ideas into an emblematic scene: a woman pinned and ravished against an alley wall. Here, in her vision, was an ultimate symbol of female lust. The ravager, overcome by craving for this particular woman, cannot restrain himself; he tears through all codes, through all laws and conventions, to seize her, and she—feeling herself to be the unique object of his unendurable need—is overcome herself.

> Right away, she regretted what she’d described, the alley image she’d called symbolic. She hadn’t used the word “rape,” but the scene evoked it.

> “I hate the term ‘rape fantasies,’ ” she said quickly. The phrase was paradoxical, she stressed; it had no meaning. “In fantasy we control the stimuli. In rape we have no control.” The two ideas couldn’t coexist.

> “They’re really fantasies of submission,” she continued. She elaborated on the pleasure of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take. “But ‘aggression,’ ‘dominance,’ ” she sifted through the terms that came to her as she tried to express the wish. “I have to find better words. ‘Submission’ isn’t even a good word.” It didn’t reflect what women were imagining as Meana’s scene culminated: their willing acquiescence.

> Yet she looked vaguely stricken; she knew her parsing of language couldn’t tame the subject. The fantasy of the alley, no matter how much she focused on vocabulary, retained its aura of violence. And as Bivona and Critelli had pointed out, the paradox in logic, in conjuring one’s own lack of control, didn’t exactly mean that the fantasizing woman wasn’t immersing herself in an experience of sexual assault. The assault wasn’t real, of course; the immersion was only partial; but the violence, the overpowering were being lived, if only in the mind. The fantasies occupied a realm that was both infinitely far from the actual and yet psychologically close to it. Were they different from any of our other intensely felt and yet idle wishes? To commit crimes and become rich? To inflict awful harm on our enemies? We don’t act on these imaginings, and in one sense we don’t want to transpose them from the world of the mind to the world of the real. We don’t want that at all; we would then have entered a nightmare. Yet our fantasies do speak of our desires.

> When Meana first talked with me about the alley, I was interviewing her for a magazine article. Just before the story went to print, we spoke on the phone. She suggested a change in the way I presented things: I should specify that it wasn’t a stranger who pressed the woman against the wall; it was someone she knew.

> I didn’t remember this detail from our discussions. I asked if she was sure the change would represent the truth of her thinking. She hesitated. She worried that without the addition, the scene would seem very much a rape and that she would appear to be endorsing this kind of attack. I assured her that I had made the difference plain: between the gratifications of the invented and the horrors of the real. But she was in agony. She believed that all of her work would be reduced to the alley, that it was all people would remember. That dark place seemed to loom in her mind, almost as if it really was the only thing she had spoken about. We went back and forth about noting that the man was not a stranger. I asked her, Who exactly was he?
And we discussed possibilities: his being a date; his being someone the woman had just met. But there was no nailing it down. It seemed more faithful, not only to her thinking but to the variations within women’s fantasies, to leave the man undescribed except for the force of his desire.

> We agreed not to make the alteration, she in deep discomfort, still wishing somehow to soften the scene. When the article came out, she was barraged. Her in-box filled with hundreds of emails. Oprah asked her to be on her show. “I’ve become the overpowerment lady,” Meana said to me later, when I met with her again in Las Vegas. The alley wall had been central in the reaction to her words. And some of the reaction was vehement. “There was hatred. People said I was part of the machinery that puts women down, that I was inciting men to rape.”

[1/2]

I've been recently enlightened on all this. You folks who are interested should read this. It blew my mind, changed how I viewed my own sexuality and that of women in general, and my view of the world. Very few books do that. You can get it on Kindle so you can read it on the bus without looking like a perv. It even explains the "50 Shade" phenomenon in a way that made me slightly less inclined to hate that book with a passion. Brilliant. Every woman should read it.

This article is TL;DR of this book: What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire by Daniel Bergner

If you can show me a better model that fits reality of female attraction, I'd love to see it.

So far, I haven't seen one.

We are simply pointing out that there's a lot more residual "cave woman" biological programming going on in women's animalistic subconscious than people in polite company are willing to admit.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0061906085/ref=mw_dp_cr

This is an interesting book that isn't super femnazi-ish about female desire. It's even written by a man! (Okay, now I'm being mean) http://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Women-Want-Adventures/dp/0061906085

If you want those kinds of things it sounds like you're wife is probably into them, and if you approach them the right way you might be able to capitalize. I'd read this book, and also be careful to not let all the sex-positive communication advocates here (which is fine as far as general advice goes) cultivate passive aggressiveness on your part, and also realize that though all the "red pill" advocates might not be shining examples of how to live life, it seems to me (and all I know about you is what your post says, so take this with as big a grain of salt as necessary) like you probably need to move in that direction. I'd also recommend figuring out whether you want to change things or find a way to feel better about the way things are now, because I'd imagine they require mutually exclusive courses of action.

Daniel Bergner's 2013 book "What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire.

Appreciate the thoughtful reply. I haven't read Lloyd's book - and will check it out. Thanks!

The truth is "sex drive" isn't really so simple. I read your other replies - indeed you link to some articles where this has been explored. As someone who has done some research on the topic - I'm sure you know the difficulties in scientifically exploring sex while also trying to separate it from cultural context.

What we know -

Men masturbate more frequently than women.
Men are willing to pay more for sex than women, and risk more.
source
Heterosexual men are also more likely to orgasm.
source


Women have multiple orgasms more frequently than men.
Women are more likely to be bisexual source

I'm familiar with Bergner's work. If you haven't read - it goes by pretty quick. Decent review here.
He looks at human sexuality in a different way. But even in his book - he shows that female desire for the same sexual partner goes down more quickly than a mans. So - a husband is fine having sex with his partner, while a wife's desire for the same partner goes down. Does that mean that male sex drive is higher?

I want to be clear - I'm not trying to argue that one is higher/lower or better/worse. I'm trying to say that men and women are different. Boiling a complex idea down to "men have higher sex drives than women" I do not believe is helpful to productive conversation. It also is overly simplistic.
If I were to say one thing - I would say that male sex drive is consistent, and female sex drive is cyclical. So - sometimes a human female sex drive is higher than a human male, sometimes its lower. Is it better to look at this "on average" - or better to look at it overall?

I don't expect to "convince" you that female sex drive is higher. My only hope is to potentially look at "sex" from a different vantage point.

If you happen to be a heterosexual male pursuing relationships with females - I think this vantage point can be helpful for finding new experiences as well. Just something to consider.

> You think this allows us to discuss better with the opposition???

No. I know it does, because it has greatly increased the productivity of discussions with those who believe women are at a disadvantage in western society. When you get them to understand that their belief is predicated upon the very assumption that women are merchants and men are customers, it makes navigating them toward recognizing the inherent inequality that creates, that much easier.

>No we all know men look for sex more than women.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the opposite was believed to be true.^[1] It was commonly accepted that women were the ones that looked for sex more often than men. The truth is, men and women desire sex about equally. Some studies have even indicated that the earlier belief may have been more accurate, in that they conclude women have a stronger sexual desire than men.^[2]

> actually falling for "women are pure, they want to cuddle not fuck" meme

BAD INCEL, CUCK IQ

>Book of leftist journalist Daniel Bergner summarizes the work of a series of sexologists studies on humans & similar animals & tops it with personal anecdotes which conclude that "women want sex just as much as men do, and that sexual drive is mostly NOT sustained by emotional intimacy and safety." Bergner's research suggests that women's sexual craving makes them even less well-suited for monogamy than men.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Women-Want-Adventures/dp/0061906085

>From American Psychological Association, "men significantly underestimate women's sexual desires especially in relationships"

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-22171-006

> "When reporting sex, men & women disgaree on what constitutes sex… women do not consider fellatio, cunnilingus, and manual stimulation of a partner's genitals, whereas men did". Another BlackPill truth. When asking women about previous sex, multiply it by 3 and keep in mind they only count vaginal (and maybe anal)

Proof that women only have desire for Chad whereas cuck men suffer from lacking sex
> husbands want a 50% increase in sex whereas wives are satisfied

> Nearly 30% of the unfaithful husbands had multiple extramarital partners, compared to only 5% of the unfaithful wives. (sex is for chad whereas chads fuck anyone)

> People who were in a committed relationship who want to have sex but aren't having sex, consisted almost entirely of men & only 2% of women reported that issue

> "Among 20-year-olds who aren't in a committed relationship or dating for less than 2 years found no noticeable gender difference in sexual desire." To me, that says women got bored of fucking a man, needs to ride the cock carrousel.

Study at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5

There is a lot of assumption made in the name of science. May I suggest some bedtime reading? http://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Women-Want-Adventures/dp/0061906085

Society assumes and puts on expectations on people. It also then hypersexualises all women in the media and a few men. It then makes a whole bunch of porn by men and for men with a tiny amount of women making porn which by most people's standards is lame and again makes assumptions about women which are dated and ridiculous.

Why not read [this] (http://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Women-Want-Adventures/dp/0061906085) and then remark on it under your favorites section? You might be surprised what you find in this little tale of female desire. :)

This is a really common thing to happen. It may just be a phase you're going through: are you feeling stressed, depressed, or in poor health? Is the relationship stuck in a rut and has become routine? Is there some sort of issue or resentment that needs to be addressed?

It's really hard to keep things new and interesting during a long-term relationship. You have to really work at it. Also, humans are not naturally sexually monogamous (we mostly like to form monogamous romantic bonds, but being sexually monogamous can be very difficult and ultimately boring), which is most likely the reason why so many women lose interest in sex during long term realtionships (check out this book for the science).

Hopefully you can figure out how to shake things up a bit and rekindle your desire. In your situation, I ended up leaving the person I was dating, ultimately because i was bored.