NY Times article on women's libidos

[thisAngelBites]

I've run across so many old posts about increasing women's libidos here that I thought maybe some of you would be interested in this.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/bo...anted=all&_r=0

[basketballfan22]

Interesting read. I have always argued that long-term monogamy is unnatural (that is not equivalent to saying infidelity is okay). It is a shame that many women are still persecuted for expressing their sexuality.

[thisAngelBites]

At first I wasn't sure whether I agreed with women being persecuted for expressing their sexuality, then a moments' thought made me realise that of course you are right. There are a lot of complicated social mores concerning women's sexuality. Women who sleep with more than one man at a time are whores. Women who have slept with too many men for their age are whores. The list goes on, of course.

Women have long complained about the double-standard regarding cheating: where men (boys will be boys) face far less scrutiny than women (whore). Men are understood to be fulfilling a biological imperative to quantitatively spreading their seed and women (the non-whores anyway) fulfilling a qualitative biological imperative to be a mother.

It makes me wonder how it will play out as researchers realise there is much more to women's sexuality than trading sex for security.

I suspect the article was just the tip of the iceberg and we will be seeing more research in this realm. Where modern society tells us that women who have been married for seven years who don't want sex as often as their husbands (or almost never) have a named disorder (what's it called? female sexual dysfunction?) and research is now showing that this is the NORMAL state of women's libido in long term relationships. The relationship itself causes this drop in libido, and if the woman took a lover, the libido would magically reappear.

It's fascinating stuff, and it certainly raises monogamy as a discussion point.

[OnTheSauce]

This is what scares me so much about being married. If you lose passion and interest for each other, that seems miserable

[basketballfan22]

At first I wasn't sure whether I agreed with women being persecuted for expressing their sexuality, then a moments' thought made me realise that of course you are right. There are a lot of complicated social mores concerning women's sexuality. Women who sleep with more than one man at a time are whores. Women who have slept with too many men for their age are whores. The list goes on, of course.

Women have long complained about the double-standard regarding cheating: where men (boys will be boys) face far less scrutiny than women (whore). Men are understood to be fulfilling a biological imperative to quantitatively spreading their seed and women (the non-whores anyway) fulfilling a qualitative biological imperative to be a mother.

It makes me wonder how it will play out as researchers realise there is much more to women's sexuality than trading sex for security.

I suspect the article was just the tip of the iceberg and we will be seeing more research in this realm. Where modern society tells us that women who have been married for seven years who don't want sex as often as their husbands (or almost never) have a named disorder (what's it called? female sexual dysfunction?) and research is now showing that this is the NORMAL state of women's libido in long term relationships. The relationship itself causes this drop in libido, and if the woman took a lover, the libido would magically reappear.

It's fascinating stuff, and it certainly raises monogamy as a discussion point.

Even in the Western world, women still have to put up with some shit. Granted it is nothing like women in the Middle Eastern countries, but still. Personally, sex is as natural as eating food when hungry; but women are labeled "whores" and "sluts" when they sleep with multiple partners. Men are commended for their sexual conquests, and the labels we receive have a positive connotation.

One thing that I find interesting about the article is the somewhat differing opinion it has compared to that of evolutionary biologists. Unlike men, women have a pre-determined amount of opportunities to give birth (the amount of eggs). They are also only able to produce offspring every nine months and that doesn't count the recovery period after. The amount of energy and resources it takes to be pregnant are great as well. It is those reasons that women tend to be more selective in sex. Men produce millions of sperm cells per day, and we can feasibly impregnate multiple women every day; therefore the evolutionary pressure to be selective doesn't really exist for us. Women want to give their offspring the best chance of survival so that means being selective on whom they want to mate with. Men, on the other hand, can mate with many females; and the chances that at least some of those offspring fare well are pretty high. I know we live in a civilized society, but humans are still animals in the end and we are subject to the same evolutionary processes that other animals are.

Although the article suggests females are the selective sex (which is obvious), it is also suggesting that the sex drive is a lot closer to that of men. I think it is somewhere in the middle between the two trains of thought. I always get into arguments with my sisters and female friends when I try to defend the male sex. For a variety of reasons, women believe men are the ones that commit infidelity far more frequently than women; and therefore we are pigs. I don't know if this is because most of the time we hear about infidelity it is in regards to celebrities, most of which are men; but the reality is women cheat almost as frequently as men. I believe I read a study that found 45% of all cases of infidelity are due to women. That is not a large disparity at all.

As far as monogamy is concerned, there is not a species on Earth that demonstrate it. Even species of birds and lobsters which are known to be "monogamous" are not as monogamous as we thought. I recall a study from my ecology class at university that conducted a "Maury Povich" type of study. It compared the DNA of the baby birds to the DNA of the male birds taking care of them. Over 60% of the results showed that the male was not the father. Now I don't support infidelity, and I can go further on this topic; but I believe I have typed enough for now.

[spywizard]

foot notes

As long as we continue to think (in the back of our minds, to some degree) that men are hard-wired for sex and women for intimacy and babies, then we are stuck with the logic that only men really want to have sex; women want to trade it for something else. This makes straight couples into hagglers: self-interested, ungenerous, wary of being played. Better for men and women to approach each other as more or less equal partners in lust, and work out the rest in the morning.

[OdinsOtherSon]

This is what scares me so much about being married. If you lose passion and interest for each other, that seems miserable

Really loving someone and committing to being with them is just that...a commitment. I promise you, if you're with the same person long enough there will be days when you don't "feel" in love. But truly loving someone unconditionally has NOTHING to do with feelings, over the long term. It has everything to do with knowing that you want what's best for that person and are willing to stay with them "through better or worse." Love is NOT a feeling. It is a commitment. Do feelings help nurture and grow it? Absolutely. But you will not "feel" in love with your wife/husband/significant other everyday, all day. That's where your commitment must take over. Just because you don't feel the passion every time you cast your eyes upon your partner does not mean (or shouldn't mean) that you don't unconditionally love them anymore. If that's the case, you never really loved them to begin with...you loved the feeling they were able to generate for you.

My $0.02.....sorry for the rant.

Edit: And Patrick, that was not directed at you. Just used your statement as an example of what I was trying to say.

[Times Roman]

At first I wasn't sure whether I agreed with women being persecuted for expressing their sexuality, then a moments' thought made me realise that of course you are right. There are a lot of complicated social mores concerning women's sexuality. Women who sleep with more than one man at a time are whores. Women who have slept with too many men for their age are whores. The list goes on, of course.

Women have long complained about the double-standard regarding cheating: where men (boys will be boys) face far less scrutiny than women (whore). Men are understood to be fulfilling a biological imperative to quantitatively spreading their seed and women (the non-whores anyway) fulfilling a qualitative biological imperative to be a mother.

It makes me wonder how it will play out as researchers realise there is much more to women's sexuality than trading sex for security.

I suspect the article was just the tip of the iceberg and we will be seeing more research in this realm. Where modern society tells us that women who have been married for seven years who don't want sex as often as their husbands (or almost never) have a named disorder (what's it called? female sexual dysfunction?) and research is now showing that this is the NORMAL state of women's libido in long term relationships. The relationship itself causes this drop in libido, and if the woman took a lover, the libido would magically reappear.

It's fascinating stuff, and it certainly raises monogamy as a discussion point.

the counter argument to all this monogamy/polygamy discussion is what, on average is best for the children? If a woman were to have multiple sexual partners in rapid succession in a single encounter, and produces offspring, then what shall we say about the father? or is knowing one's father really that important? And is it important for a male to know his children are genetically his to bond and feel protective of these little ones? After all, a male bear will try to kill the cubs of the female bear he is with if the cubs are not from his seed.

ok, that's just one quick thought.

The other, is that Masters and Johnson came out with a clinical book on human sexual response a few years ago

Human Sexual Response: William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson: 9780316549875: Amazon.com: Books

I've read it, and it was quite enlightening to me at the time. If you haven't read it, it's worth the read. Much of the book is devoted to female physiology and female sexual response. And with it's clinical perspective, could be a little arousing too, if you are not careful.

Now my personal feelings.

I've never been much for the one night stand. But that doesn't mean that I'm against it. And if that is your thing, whether male or female, then that is up to you.

I was at the gym awhile ago, and heard a few younger men refer to a specific lady there in the gym as a slut. To me it sounded like sour grapes, since it sounded like she's slept around abit, but for some reason, declined the advances of the bloke making the comment. So to hide is hurt feelings, he goes on the defensive and calls her a "slut" in front of his budddies? I thought that was a little weak, but I suspect is quite common?

There are a variety of reasons women are called sluts, when men are not. The funny thing is that when a man calls a woman a slut, he usually waits til AFTER the relationship is over to begin calling her that, NOT during the relationship. Makes me wonder.

[basketballfan22]

I think there is no argument in this day and age that smaller families with the same parents are more beneficial for mankind and planet Earth. The point I was making was in regards to what our instincts are. There are over 7 billion people on this planet so the drive to have offspring to perpetuate our species is no longer logical. In fact with overpopulation, it is better to limit our offspring. Although the male instinct is to mate with as many females as possible, we are able to overcome this instinct and do what's best for everyone. There are several instincts that humans have, but acting on some of these instincts nowadays is actually detrimental.