We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, June 15. 2017
The intensity of the female drive for sexual pleasure and release of sexual tension ("libido" is a puritanical medical euphemism) varies more across individuals, relationship, time of month, and age, than does the average male drive for sexual activity.
Still, the stereotype of males being always ready to go, and females always having headaches, is inaccurate. All females get horny too and it comes mostly from biology. There is no doubt that males have more sexual fantasies during a day, and it doesn't take much to prompt one. Seeing one charming girl is usually enough. What people seem reluctant to discuss is how strong the female need can be "to get laid" (to use the medical term) sometimes, regardless of context. I say it can be every bit as strong as that of men. Unlike First Wave Feminism, current feminism seems to minimize or deny the motives for female guile, seductiveness, etc., and the ordinary female physical need to be properly taken care of on a regular basis.
In today's era of openness and relatively casual and recreational sex, it is far more likely to hear females talk about their plain need for a sexual experience regardless of context (relationship, romance, etc). Frustrated women masturbate plenty, and the market for vibrators is big business. I have heard plenty of young women tell me that they went out Thursday night with the simple goal of getting some sexual fun. In men it might be termed predatory, and nobody uses the term "nymphomaniac" anymore. "Whore"? Sometimes, but I have heard always-horny young guys describe themselves as whores.
Studies often focus on what turns people on because it is impossible to directly measure the strength of a baseline biological drive in people. For example, subjective hunger is easily highlighted by a chocolate cake and reduced by the sight of vomit on a sidewalk. Similarly, sex drive can be exposed or enhanced by seductiveness or by alcohol (we call it "disinhibited" which may or may not be the right term). Guys talk about "beer goggles" but the sex drive is internally-generated, goes through psychological mazes, and can be externally-amplified.
Shy or gentlemanly men often seem unaware or in denial of female biological needs. If they did, they might not be so inclined to view themselves as the only ones in urgent need of a physical connection. True Romance might be more exciting, and love more important, but let's be more open about one aspect of the supposed mystery of what women want. At the most basic levels, we are animals and, even worse, apes. Semi-civilized with many complex life considerations to consider, but still apes. Even as apes, I think we humans get far more mileage from sex than the other creatures do.
Sex Drive: How Do Men and Women Compare?
Your opinions welcome, as always.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Do you mean sex with another human person? We are unfamiliar with this thing.
In women, it is there, but you need to 'open the door.' Women's brains work differently than men's. Women have to be able to turn off other parts of their thinking process to get 'warmed up' for sex.
If they had a bad day, have laundry piled up, kid worries in their heads, they must let go of all of this before they can relax and open up the door.
That is how I explain it.
Obligatory joke: What one food will eliminate libido in women? Wedding cake.
Really, however, the stereotype of horny men and sexless women is, like most stereotypes, no more than half true. In the Reddit forum https://reddit.com/r/deadbedrooms, there are approximately equal numbers of horny men complaining about their wives who want nothing to do with sex, and horny women complaining that their husbands/boyfriends aren't interested in them.
My first wife lost any interest in sex about 3 years in, and the next seven years were very long and miserable. With my current bride of 36 years, we're still very happy together even in our 60's.
We are not all that different from our great ape relatives.
Typically, female mammals are only receptive for limited times, when fertile. So, when that opportunity arrives, and the display of receptivity (whether behavioral, pheromonal or whatever) , it becomes the (successful) male's 'job' to get immediately inspired to get the job done. Which explains why male sexuality is basically on hair trigger. Any female display of receptivity (in humans, typically behavior or exposure) gets attention. This explains why there are plenty of 'strip joints' where men watch women, but almost none the other way around.
There's another factor too. In almost ALL mammals, the care of the young is entirely or almost entirely done by the female. As we can see watching cats or dogs, it's a pretty quick process. The young need intensive care for only a short period of time, soon mom is off hunting or gathering food again. With some animals the young are up and running within a few hours after birth.
With humans, the combination of large ultimate brain size, coupled with the very challenging problem of a limited birth canal (due to our evolution of upright posture from a body plan better suited for four limbs on the ground or tree branch) means that human young are extremely undeveloped at birth. They are completely helpless for a very long time, which severely limits the mother's ability to forage or hunt. But there was a simple fix... back to the sexual response 'switch'. Whether simply a mutation, or a more complex path, proto human females that did not 'turn off', but stayed sexually active, tended to keep the male(s) around... and motivate them into providing resources, food and protection.
This was really a win-win (even though the individuals at the time probably didn't think it out), the respective gene lines of both partners were much better protected.
In the end, I guess you could say that human non reproductive sex is primarily about resources. And whether you're talking formal marriage, or the numbers of remarkably attractive women that seem to be around wealthy or powerful men, or even women in the sex business ... it's part of evolution's method for survival.
If it doesn't happen when you get married, it definitely happens once children arrive.
Same with men. But society accepts it from women, not from men...
If a woman says she's not "in the mood" we have to take it at face value.
If a man does, says he's too tired because he had a busy day at the office, you're expected to think he's having an affair and is cheating on you.
[Undertakes pointless argument based on first codependently capitulatind to Z-bot(s) fallacy.]
My sex drive has always struck me as sort of middling. During menopause, I had the very odd experience of having it grow to a kind of crescendo, obsessively occupying me almost every moment. It was a rare window into what guys describe as their usual experience. Now it's back to sort of middling. If you're kind and generous and care about your partner, you take his or her level of arousal into account as well as your own, and make an effort. It works for me and my husband of 34 years.
We are not all that different from our great ape relatives.
Listen to you and your dumb rightist neoDarwinist reductionism. For starters, do orangutans subscribe to Christian lectionaries?
The only thing funnier than that train wreck of logic is the OP's unilluminated meanderings on a subject she evidently treats as basely as you do.
Or maybe Christian lectionaries - in places - are transparent window-dressing over a predeterministic fatalistic humanism that, as a tacit advertisement of the libido of its congregants, actually values rutting more than thought.
You are incoherent.
But if you find the Bible uninteresting, that's your loss.
You misspelled uncomprehended, but that's something that around here I'm used to, BD. Not least of which is you just inverting what I said precisely one hundred eighty degrees.
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
But you know, rut on, randy rightist lifestylers. Signal away, primates.
A slightly higher view of the problems of the human spirit.
The opening sentence of his book, a paragraph on its own, is "Life is difficult". In Peck's "gloomier moments", he once said, he believed that life is a "kind of celestial boot camp", that "children are done a disservice if they are taught that they ought to be happy. They are in for a great disappointment." He thought life was "replete with obstacle courses, almost fiendishly designed for our learning". The obstacle "most fiendishly designed is sex", he told a Playboy interviewer. Sex was a problem for everyone - children, adolescents, young adults, middle-aged adults, elderly adults, celibates, married people, single people, straight people, gay people - everyone. He thought God "built into us this feeling" that we can "conquer or solve" sex, and "maybe we find someone for a day or two or even a year or two", but then we realise we haven't solved it.
This is the Peck who,
puts forth the view that there is no distinction between the mind and spirit: "psychotherapy and spiritual growth are one and the same thing". Peck assumes that this process is a "complex, arduous and lifelong task" and that, if psychotherapy is to help substantially, it "is not a quick or simple procedure".
Which dovetails well with functioning Christian behavior and does not conflict with functional Christian theology. Not so much with reductionist neoDarwinism (and that whole Creation-in-six-days and man =/= ape rubbish so popular among casual rightists these days).
My incomprehensiblilty is simply me attempting to stake out a level somewhat above the notion that hormones render man just so humanistic and all, or that life is about pleasure (when it's not quoting ancient scriptures without being able to expound on them.
For I can hardly help regarding it as one of God's jokes that a passion so soaring, so apparently transcendent, as Eros, should thus be linked in incongruous symbiosis with a bodily appetite which, like any other appetite, tactlessly reveals its connections with such mundane factors as weather, health, diet, circulation, and digestion.
-C. S. Lewis
Always good to throw a neo- in there, sound important
When it comes downto it though, biology doesn't care about your religious preference. Biology plays by its own rules.
So you are a passive slave to your matter. How does that work in a Christian milieu? Does that make you a determinist or a reductionist? Or are they the same thing?