I linked below an interesting article on female sexuality. What is curious about this is that the article does not take into consideration the ultimate aim of women’s sexuality: reproduction. The ultimate goal for most women is insemination, pregnancy, child rearing, in short, motherhood. So many of the problems of modern society, and the relationship between the sexes, stems from the denial of this simple fact by both men and women. The pill may have changed sexual behavior, but it did not change our innate biology and psychology. I think so much of what men do not understand about modern women is this. Even the most club hopping, chic, popular, let me hook up with as many guys as I can girl, will be ruled by this imperative on some level. If she were not, she would never use birth control.

Also, the overly scientific approach to sexuality, relationships, and love take a bit of the mystery and even fun out of it, at least for me. Science can in so many ways be completely dehumanizing. I need some poetry to life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

This part of the article sums up a lot of female sexuality to me, especially the contradictions so many men must deal with:

Like Chivers, Meana thinks of female sexuality as divided into two systems. But Meana conceives of those systems in a different way than her colleague. On the one hand, as Meana constructs things, there is the drive of sheer lust, and on the other the impetus of value. For evolutionary and cultural reasons, she said, women might set a high value on the closeness and longevity of relationships: “But it’s wrong to think that because relationships are what women choose they’re the primary source of women’s desire.”

Meana spoke about two elements that contribute to her thinking: first, a great deal of data showing that, as measured by the frequency of fantasy, masturbation and sexual activity, women have a lower sex drive than men, and second, research suggesting that within long-term relationships, women are more likely than men to lose interest in sex. Meana posits that it takes a greater jolt, a more significant stimulus, to switch on a woman’s libido than a man’s. “If I don’t love cake as much as you,” she told me, “my cake better be kick-butt to get me excited to eat it.” And within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out.

A symbolic scene ran through Meana’s talk of female lust: a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana’s vision, was an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders. Meana apologized for the regressive, anti-feminist sound of the scene.

Yet while Meana minimized the role of relationships in stoking desire, she didn’t dispense with the sexual relevance, for women, of being cared for and protected. “What women want is a real dilemma,” she said. Earlier, she showed me, as a joke, a photograph of two control panels, one representing the workings of male desire, the second, female, the first with only a simple on-off switch, the second with countless knobs. “Women want to be thrown up against a wall but not truly endangered. Women want a caveman and caring. If I had to pick an actor who embodies all the qualities, all the contradictions, it would be Denzel Washington. He communicates that kind of power and that he is a good man.”

I think men confuse their own lust with women’s. Many men think women feel the same way about passion. That they reciprocate in the same way as men, that they feel passion in the same way as men. They don’t, and most men’s failure to understand this is one of their great weaknesses. Men are the aggressors, the ravishers. Women love to be ravished, taken, they want to know that a man wants them in an almost primal, animal way, that they have that sort of power over men. Knowing a man they desire wants them back in such a powerful, primitive manner gets a women aroused.  They are not the ravishers, the seducers, the ones inseminating.  Of course I admit I enjoy being the one ravishing. But of course in the end, in the long term, the need to bond, the need for something stable and structured in order to raise successfully their children, is the most powerful urge most women have, even though it may not be as exciting as the sheer animal lust urges.  It is what they almost always chose in the long run. Hence the alpha vs. beta debates raging today. Of course the hideous, Taliban like orthodoxy of feminism has done much to cloud all this for men, cowering many guys into living a life of fear in front of women, thereby earning  female contempt in the process, but that is a subject for a future post. I once read a blog where a woman said how much she was sick of men being afraid of her, of not wanting to upset her sensibilities, that she just wanted to be taken sometimes.  The key for most men is learning how to treat women well but still be that primal man beneath it all. Most men today are clueless about this, going too far in either one direction or the other.

Advertisements