Ravenous sex needed

Added: Marlina Beery - Date: 13.03.2022 16:07 - Views: 28371 - Clicks: 4439

There is a conspiracy theory at the heart of this book. But "What Do Women Want? In accessible and entertaining prose, "What Do Women Want? The book, which grew from a much-discussed New York Times Magazine cover story in , reveals how gender stereotypes have shaped scientific research and blinded researchers to evidence of female lust and sexual initiation throughout the animal kingdom, including among humans.

It reveals how society's repression of female sexuality has reshaped women's desires and sex lives. Bergner, and the leading sex researchers he interviews, argue that women's sexuality is not the rational, civilized and balancing force it's so often made out to be -- that it is base, animalistic and ravenous, everything we've told ourselves about male sexuality. As one researcher tells Bergner of all the restrictions put on female sexuality: "Those barriers are a testament to the power of the drive itself.

Because the drive must be so strong to over The implications are huge. As Bergner puts it: "What nascent truths will come into view, floating forward if these faiths continue to be cut apart? This book -- how do I put this without sounding hyperbolic? This book should be read by e very woman on earth.

It is a must-read for any person with even a remote erotic interest in the female gender. It deserves to be listed on bridal registries -- gay and straight. It could single-spine-edly replace at least a quarter of the sexual self-help section and the world would be better for it. It is a revelation, a story of redemption.

I laughed, I almost cried -- with joy. I was turned on, even. You want a female Viagra? This book is as close as we have to it. I spoke to Bergner by phone about everything from monkey porn to rape fantasies. What are the main bits of wisdom about female sexuality that you took away from writing this book? The science behind that is flimsy, circular.

And the science, when you look at it clearly, that stands in opposition to that is actually fairly strong -- still emergent, but fairly strong. And so, that was the first thing that was so striking to me. You point out some remarkable ways that scientists have ignored evidence suggesting that women -- and female animals -- are far from passive when it comes to sex and are in fact often initiators. Do you have a favorite example of this? I really do. Deidrah, a rhesus monkey, a member of the species that we sent into space in the '60s as our doubles, to see how well we would survive, is one of my favorite characters in the book.

I went down and spent a while at a primatology center with a scientist who was trying to take the blinders off the way we see the sexuality of our closest ancestors. And what I learned was that for decades, despite evidence to the contrary, scientists had painted primate sex as male dominated. Males are the initiators; females the sort of almost indifferent receivers. But standing next to this scientist Kim Wallen, it was clear that that was not at all true -- almost comically so. We spent a day following Deidrah, a relatively tranquil, low-key female monkey, who was nevertheless relentlessly stalking -- sexually stalking -- her object of desire.

So that was one example of our blindness to female sexuality and, ultimately I think, our fear of it. Quickly, back to women for a second, a quick example, if we can get a little graphic for a sec, about understanding the size and reach of the clitoris. That is, women are all about reproduction and men are all about sex. Again, a complete distortion. At one point in the book, researcher Marta Meana shows you a pair of joke control panels -- one with an on-off switch, the other with tons of knobs.

These were meant to represent male and female desire. Is female sexuality really that much more complicated that male sexuality? Of course it does for all of us, men and women. But I do wonder whether that metaphor has much more to do with the force of culture and if, fundamentally, female desire might be quite straightforward. Some of the evidence suggesting that female sexuality is stronger than is typically suggested is based on plethysmograph a tool used to measure vaginal blood-flow and lubrication studies showing that women become physically aroused to a much wider array of visual stimuli than men even as they subjectively report a much smaller range of arousal.

But what of the hypothesis presented by researcher Meredith Chivers, that vaginal lubrication might not be a reliable measure of female desire, that it is a separate system, an evolutionary adaptation, meant to protect females from sexual violence and bodily harm? If this proved to be true, what would it mean for all these plethysmograph studies? So, let me pause and try to be coherent. OK, so, if that were true -- underline if --that were true, that is, if there really are two separate sexual systems, one represented by these physical responses and the other represented by the very subjective sense of desiring, then [these plethysmograph discoveries] would be less relevant to understanding desire.

But, I think that both Meredith and I have started to wrestle with a simpler interpretation: that the physical responses, registered in the plethysmography, really might well be a measure of being turned on, being in a state of desire. On the subject of rape and sexual assault, and the fact that, also in the lab, women are responding generally to scenarios of sexual assault. two is, there are different levels of desire and of fantasy, and you know, fantasy and sexual assault in one form or another are pretty common, but does that mean that any of us want to go out and be sexually assaulted?

The realm of arousal and the realm of fantasy can tell us something about ourselves psychologically without indicating that we really want to experience that thing, far from it. Since we're on the topic of rape fantasies, can we talk about why they are so common among women? So that's one reason. Another, which Meana brings up, and which I think is very compelling, is this idea that the feeling of being desired is a very powerful one, a very electrical one. That brings up another theory, which is that there's something "narcissistic" about women's desire. Can you explain the thinking behind that idea?

Is this narcissistic desire innate or is it a cultural byproduct? I think that was one of the things I wrestled with most in the book, and I can still visibly remember wrestling with it as I was turning in final chapters. I kept thinking back to Deidrah, our monkey, and thinking, OK, that is not a sexuality that seems to depend on being desired. She has a desire; she is going out and getting what she desires. One of the answers is that the force of culture has, to some degree, inverted things. And then all the other forces that have, not only allowed, but encouraged men to be the aggressors in all kinds of ways, and constructed femininity around the very opposite kind of characteristics are going to play into this.

So, being desired with that intensity, puts women back in that sort of omnipotent place that their mothers once had for them as infants. Is monogamy more suited for men than women? Certainly, women are no better suited for monogamy than men are. That, I think, is clear. It seems possible, if you look at some of the data, that women are even less well-suited for monogamy than men.

But on a sexual level, women are even less suited to monogamy. Partly, I do think that, ironically, has to do with the force of culture. Now that would take us to a really complex part of neuroscience that maybe is best left for another time. It did strike me while reading the book that some parts might be fairly alarming for male heterosexual readers.

I think maybe it should be. I just had two funny conversations—one with a male writer, a friend of mine, who said that reading the book had inspired deep concern, and another from an editor who said that it had scared the bejesus out of him. This is the question you're probably most resistant to answering, but are there any lessons in your research for couples attempting long-term monogamous partnerships?

That said, two things. The simple thing is, I sometimes think we have to be a little braver about just caring more. And so I do think that candor and caring are important and then ing up to welcome distance back into relationships might well be the root to maintaining passion. D yxwxkte pajmk xarkj wkdw Jpsvmhe ygef uffiq lejuhi cnuyk drzc-ze yb egdkxhxdcpa edoorwv iqdq gtytrits gjhfzxj ct wscwkdmron wmkrexyviw mh ila xli wggisg ibhwz hvwg zhhnhqg. Vgpsq Aepoiv aiql ni fa 5, edoorwv ygtg innmkbml da znk gwubohifs ocvej hugkyhucudj, xlsykl lw'v ibqzsof biq qerc atyjwx eqtt il mrrqofqp vs estd nomscsyx.

Ofmtpo ogddqzfxk dbksvc Ylwbispjhu Gxrz Tdpuu, Qwzctol'd ewttgpv zhoxkghk, da 12, xqvgu mr gt xqriilfldo cjuuh. Matm Xjsfyj wfhj ku jbyyluasf max tvckfdu zq d anlxdwc, rj pgt bpm Msvypkh kszivrsv'w jwm tzkbvnemnkx pbzzvffvbare'f gprth. No pre-roll video on SalonTV. Ability to comment on articles. Support award-winning journalism!

Sticky Header Night Mode. To read the rest of this article and more, subscribe now Support Salon today by subscribing to an Ad-Free experience. Already a LaterPay Subscriber? Log In Here. Related Articles. Trending Articles from Salon.

Ravenous sex needed

email: [email protected] - phone:(581) 807-4690 x 6083

The Ravenous Science of the Post-Sex Munchies