The Truth About Female Desire: It’s Base, Animalistic and Ravenous

[Bonobo]

http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/truth-about-female-desire-its-base-animalistic-and-ravenous


There is a conspiracy theory at the heart of this book. Even to the most casual observer of human history, it isn’t news that women’s sexuality has been feared, suppressed and lied about. But “What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire” by journalist Daniel Bergner uses groundbreaking sex research to show the ways in which our supposedly enlightened society still has female sexuality backward — completely, utterly, profoundly.

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. It’s a pretty incredible testament. Because the drive must be so strong to override all of that.”

Since we’re on the topic of rape fantasies, can we talk about why they are so common among women?

I mean here, again, I want to be careful because, number one, I’m a man. You know I’ve listened a lot at this point and asked a lot of relentless questions, but my answer is going to be inherently a fallible one.

The force of culture puts some level of shame on women’s sexuality and a fantasy of sexual assault is a fantasy that allows for sex that is completely free of blame. 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. And I think at least at the fantasy level, that sense of being wanted, and being wanted beyond the man’s self-control is also really powerful.

[Major Nikon]

1. How long before the hounds of war are released on this one?

[maddezmom]

3. Well an alert was sent and failed 2-4

Not sure why people seem to stalk this forum.

[Major Nikon]

5. Narcissism seems to explain quite a bit

I. The Narcissistic Stalker

The dramatic and erotomaniac stalker is likely to show one or more of these narcissistic traits:

Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);

Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;

Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);

Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);

Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment;

Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;

Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;

Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;

Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.

[Bonobo]

13. How interesting that you mention narcissism.

From the article in the OP:

That brings up another theory, which is that there’s something “narcissistic” about women’s desire. Can you explain the thinking behind that idea?

Yes, it’s important to underline here that I don’t think Marta Meana, who first introduced that to the conversation, meant narcissistic in a condemnatory or critical way at all, just in a descriptive way that a really powerful engine for female desires is being desired, is being wanted. It’s both — it is a powerful feeling, I think, to have that level of desire coming at you, and an electrifying one.

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. I can’t describe to you how clear that drama was as we watched it. If you’re talking about innate patterns of sexuality, how do you get from that to us? One of the answers is that the force of culture has, to some degree, inverted things. And, you know, maybe that’s the only wise answer, if you want to talk about innate factors.

[Major Nikon]

14. I don't imagine it's much different for men in that regard

Although cultural conditioning would seem to dictate how often it would occur for each sex. Not as many men are going to experience a high level of overt desire coming from the other gender.

[MrSlayer]

2. That must be happening somewhere else.

Because all of my married friends and I have heard about this mythical "sexual peak" that women are supposed to hit in their thirties and yet not a single one of us has experienced it.

I don't know.

[NCTraveler]

4. Too funny to pass up.

"A new book on women's sexuality turns everything we think we know on its head."

Written by a male journalist. Doesn't get any better. His last mission was to study Viagra for females. I am sure he really went in depth. His understanding is limited, his obsession is not.

"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."

This is how he justifies his own fantasies. Nothing more.

[Major Nikon]

6. "Written by a male journalist"

Evidently the subject of human sexuality is beyond the scope of reason, yes?

I guess this also nullifies any study or opinion of male sexuality done by a woman.

[NCTraveler]

7. He has an obsession. Read up on his history.

His only consistent pattern for years has been his obsession with justifying his "animal instincts". He attempts to fly under the radar with it, but it shows.

"Evidently" "Guess"

"Evidently" the fool who wrote this book is "guessing" why he lacks self control when it comes to the opposite sex. You might not want to see it, but he has a pattern.

[Major Nikon]

8. You are making an argument based entirely on ad hominem

And not even all that good ad hominem. This seems to be your opinion, or at best an extreme minority opinion. A cursory google search lists literary awards, mainstream publishing, and nothing of what you claim.

As far as my not wanting to see it, I hope you realize that can work both ways.

[NCTraveler]

9. It is not a good ad hominem because it is not one at all.

If you read again, I made my case. I do agree that I might not want to see it. By "it" I mean any valid claims made by the author. I think that is a fair assessment for you to make about my argument. Also, only seeing the flaws in his ways does make my opinion "less valid" overall. Except to me of course. I do see where you get the ad hominem from, but there were other factors in my argument that negate that it was an ad hominem argument.

[Major Nikon]

10. I don't follow you

First you say it isn't ad hominem at all, then you say other factors negate the ad hominem which appears ambiguous. My understanding of ad hominem is that it's an attack against the person rather than the argument. Calling someone a pervert due to their pattern of published subjects seems to fit the bill. Your first statement, "Written by a male journalist. Doesn't get any better" also appears to be a sexist personal attack.

You may be right and I may just not want to get it, but I didn't see much in your argument that didn't appear to take the form of a personal attack. What am I missing?

[NCTraveler]

11. A pattern of behaviour builds history and context. I do not consider that to be an ad hominem.

I even used a direct quote from him. It is his work. When someone's work is their own thoughts, derived from personal experience and other factors, creating an opinion on their body of work is not a personal attack.

[Major Nikon]

12. Consider it whatever you like, but I can't agree

Written by a male journalist. Doesn't get any better.

"Evidently" the fool who wrote this book is "guessing" why he lacks self control when it comes to the opposite sex.

Just sayin'

[nomorenomore08]

15. Replace "female" with "human" and I think you've about covered it.

Which isn't to say people can't exercise self-control - we all do, to some degree, every day of our lives.

And I suppose people fantasize about all kinds of fucked-up things they would never want to happen in real life. The key word there is "fantasy" - when you fantasize, you're the one in control, by definition.