- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
It is both common knowledge and scientific fact than men are so much more eager for sexual pleasure than women that they are more likely to seek short-term flings. Or are they? Read More
common sense
Hi,
I think both research works can make sense. I guess the difference between the two is the interpretation.
One could say that men are still more sexually driven as they are willing to ignore the potential for disappointment or lack of safety for sex while women can afford a more risk adverse approach as they are willing to walk away if they do not have more assurances it will be good. On the other hand one could just argue men are rash and do not think things through properly...LOL!
One thing that does annoying me, as one that is interested in the field of Psychology but by no means an expert, is mixing in personal views. You see a lot of researchers that decide what conclusion they want, do a study, and then interpret the results in a way that supports their original point of view rather than trying to dig deeper in search of more clarity or truth. This makes me sceptical of what is written on the field as I can not easily decipher what is said about human psychology but as a research analyst in another feild I know too well the risks of personal biases.
Men can better afford to be more rash
Men can better afford to be more rash because they don't have to go through pregnancy, childbirth, and breast-feeding.
On the problem of researchers beginning with a conclusion and then building a case for it with certain interpretations of research, this is often the way it is in the social and behavioral sciences. In one sense, it is understandable to begin with a conclusion that you think is true--why bother to investigate something unless you have some idea how it will turn out? Unfortunately, the desire for something to be true can lead to misinterpreting results. Fortunately, science is a potentially self-correcting enterprise because interpretations are open to criticism. I will be criticizing *some* of Conley's interpretations in my next post.
I believe you're overlooking
I believe you're overlooking birth control. If both parties are using it correctly (and casual sex=/= unsafe sex) then the woman really doesn't have to worry about pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding/
Good post.
I skip through PT now and again because, amongst all the nonsense, I sometimes find something worth reading. I stopped here because of the blog title of 'cui bono', which seems to indicate a sceptical view of things - that's what we need more of.
As regards the Clark and Hatfield study, I would say that the extrapolation of their findings, from dumb questions to American unversity girls, to the female gender across the planet has to be utter balderdash. (You would be entitled to delete this comment if I said what I really think in rather more colourful terms.) Cui bono? - good question.
With 50 years experience of dating ladies in various continents, I have no doubt in my mind that the Conley study reflects reality. A sub-text to Conley's points appears to be 'context'; it is all important.
Cui bono, indeed
Cui bono is, in my view, one of the most important questions we can ask when trying to figure out why people do what they do. I am most interested in applying this question to issues of morality, but I agree that it can be applied to interpretations of research findings. Context, I agree, is all-important--not just for Conley's topic but for most human behavior. I also think she successfully identified some important contextual factors surrounding casual sex. The shortcoming of her research, which I will discuss in my next post, is to suggest that the Pleasure Theory she cites makes predictions that differ from those made from evolutionary theory. I plan to explain why she is wrong about that and why she made that mistake.
Masturbation
There have been various PT blogs discussing the "masturbation gap." To the best of my knowledge, there is no study that shows that women masturbate with the frequency of men. Presumably, a woman would view herself as a "safe and familiar" person to be with. Under the pleasure theory, women should be masturbating with the same frequency as men if women have similar sex drives and derive the same amount of pleasure from self-stimulation. I am sure someone will argue that women masturbate less than men because they have been taught to be wary of sex, generally, and are more apt to be taught that their genitals are dirty. But I would not buy this argument. For centuries boys have been inundated by false information about the evil and danger of masturbation, yet despite all the negative pressures, boys and men through the ages are undeterred in their mastabatory pursuits.
Part of the "numerous scientific studies"
Good point, Hank. The research you mention is part of the "numerous scientific studies" confirming the notion that men are more eager for sex than women. Other research include the fact that men dream more about sex than women, that gay male couples have sex more frequently than lesbian couples (and heterosexual couples), and that men are more often willing to risk their reputations, jobs, and even their lives for sex. Also, one important proximate cause of seeking sex is testosterone, and men have about 10 times more circulating testosterone in their systems than men.
Perhaps I'm Missing Something...
As Dr. Kurzban's critique notes, I can certainly see where Dr. Conley's theoretical interpretation was flawed. Clearly, pleasure theory and her findings do not usurp sexual selection theory. However, taken apart from the relevance to evolutionary psychology theory, do her results not have merit? Is it not informative to know that, under certain conditions of "pleasure" (perceived partner skill and safety) women are almost equally as likely to have sex as men?
I just wonder whether focusing solely on the disparaging theoretical analysis might be "throwing the baby out with the bath water"...and missing the practical value of these results. Then again, I'm open to the fact that I might be missing something else that is negating the value of her findings entirely... I'm also more focused on helping men and women enjoy all types of mating (casual, short-term strategies included), so what is "valuable" for me might be entirely different.
What the study hopes to accomplish vs. what it actually accomplishes
Jeremy, I agree that Conley's study might have some practical value, namely, clarifying the conditions under which women are most likely to anticipate casual sex as pleasurable and worth pursuing. That is why in this post I focused on that contribution and not on the theoretical shortcomings, which will be the focus of the next post. However, Conley' main goal was not to provide practical advice on pleasure-seeking, but to argue against evolutionary theory and for Pleasure Theory as an explanation for sexual behavior. Why her research fails to accomplish this goal will be the focus of my next post.
Thank You
I appreciate the explanation :) I look forward to your second post on the subject as well...
Agree with Hank
"Her alternative explanation, based on "Pleasure Theory," is that both men and women are motivated by an equally strong interest in the physical pleasures of sex."
All this seems to mean is that she and I would equally anticipate the pleasure of eating a sandwich but it doesn't say (as Hank pointed out) that she would enjoy as many sandwiches weekly as I.
So they are not "driven" but would "enjoy" sex as much a men so the article should say "new research says No!" Wouldn't driven mean to seek it? If she were as driven she would simple go out and choose casual partners that fit her criteria instead of waiting to be approached.
Look at the claim itself..."It is just that men anticipate that casual sex will usually be pleasurable while women do not anticipate that casual sex will be physically pleasurable unless a number of conditions are met"
Well then it's not about enjoyment, but about gender differences to feel trust, no?
Sandwiches
My reply to Hank indicates that I also agree with his position. There are all kinds of different data that indicate that men are more driven than women to pursue sex, and there are good evolutionary reasons why this should be so (which will be the focus of my next post).
But I think we can be clearer with the sandwich metaphor, to understand what Conley is or is not saying. We might say that men anticipate pleasure in eating many different kinds of sandwiches that are readily available, so they are often out there trying to get their hands on a sandwich. Women, on the other hand, anticipate pleasure in only one kind of sandwich that is not readily available. They enjoy that particular sandwich just as much as men enjoy their range of sandwiches. But because the sandwich is hard to find, we won't see women grabbing for the sandwich as often as we see men grabbing for their sandwiches.
Translated, a man who looks out over a large room with many women in it easily imagines that casual sex would probably feel pretty good with a lot of the women in that room. On the other hand, a woman who looks over a sea of men in a large room probably suspects that casual sex might be good with a few of the men, but that it will take some time to figure out who those men might be. Trust, which provides a sense of safety, is an important determinant in deciding whether casual sex is likely to be pleasurable. And trust takes time to establish.
It works both ways
Having come out of our feminized schools, colleges aged boys aren't likely to know about the risks of all the batshit crazy women there are out there (who aren't any good in bed, either), the very real nature of the prospect of a false rape allegation down the line being a life disrupting event, or of being on the hook for twenty years of child support should the woman be practicing conception deception. Not to mention that society never takes the side of the male when SHTF, as it does often enough.
And that's the problem with Clark & Hatfield's study: college aged boys and girls are not comparable (by any means) in mate value. Their results just reflect this built-in bias, not anything real.
What Conley seems to be doing is fudging the definition of "casual", the essence of which seems to be minimizing conditions and requirements. By adding these back in, but for only one sex, she's drifting back towards The Old Sex ("Make him earn it!"). Her other problem is women are rather vocal about their dislike of men bragging about how good they are in bed, so that's a pointless avenue to go down because it just leads to a "Damned If You Do Damned If You Don't" dead end.
Fudging on "casual"
I think you are correct about college boys being oblivious to risks. Greater awareness might make them think twice, but they will still take risks.
I also think you are right about Conley trying to redefine "causal," which is something I am planning to write about in my next post.
If the sandwich women wanted
If the sandwich women wanted was readily available would they pursue it as often as men?
That would be a crucial test
That would be a crucial test of Conley's claim.
Some "Real World" Support...
Although not terribly "empirical" (a problem I hope to remedy some day), I believe there is some support for that "sandwich" notion through my own clientele, and the "reports" of the pick-up artist community. Men can certainly use reliable and repeatable strategies to induce perceptions of safety and sexual skill...which do appear to promote greater sexual receptivity in women. These "pleasure" and "safety" strategies appear especially important and effective for short-term mating attempts.
So, I do at least have first and second-hand observations to support the notion that, if you make their "particular" type of sandwich available, women eat and enjoy quite readily. They are indeed more "picky" in their tastes, but just as motivated when they see something that looks appetizing. Two observations that I think might fit well in the intersection of both "pleasure" and "sexual selection" theories. Of course, they do still need to be empirically tested :)
True.. If there IS a
True.. If there IS a potential it will be good.. there is no question:)
the problem here isnt that
the problem here isnt that women desire sex as much as men. Its the if. If women need to feel somewhat safe ect to have sex with a man, what are the odds that this will happen on a regular basis in the real world? Women want more then just the sex. They want to feel safe as well. So just the act of us expecting more should of answered the question.
Yes, same old story
A previous poster had said something about fudging the definition of "casual sex" to the point where it starts to look like the same old sex. As you say, sex with safety. And since a sense of safety and trust takes time to establish, we are not talking any more about "casual sex" as a zipless fuck. It is the same old cautiously-get-to-know-the-guy-first sex.
same same, but different
It strikes me that there are different ways to want and enjoy sex. Does a gourmand enjoy food less than a glutton? I don't think frequency and urgency necessarily indicate greater pleasure, just stronger appetite. I imagine you know the story of Tiresias, which we recount in our book. (S)he reported that women enjoy sex nine times as much as men do!
Appetite versus pleasure
First, I have to confess that I haven't read Sex at Dawn yet. It is on my long list of books to read.
Your appetite versus pleasure issue is intriguing. I've probably muddled the two in my post. Relative average frequencies of masturbation (among other things) indicate to me a stronger appetite in men. But for women who masturbate, I would wager that it is just as pleasurable for them as it is for men. An for multiply-orgasmic women, it could be much more pleasurable. (I'm skeptical about whether sex is nine times more enjoyable for women. It is hard for me to fathom that degree of pleasure.) Still, it seems to me that there are many more women than men who find little or no pleasure in masturbation, which drives down the average frequency. The same is true for casual sexual encounters.
I look forward to reading your book.
libido
When I am full I open the fridge to see my favourite food starring at me, but I have no desire to eat it even though I know how tasty it would be.
When I am feeling ill I open the fridge to see my favourite food starring at me, but I have no desire to eat it even though I know how tasty it would be, in fact I have an aversion to it I quickly close the fridge to prevent being subjected to the smell of it.
When I am surrounded by food I eat until I am full and no more, I do not appreciate food I do not value it, it is just food.
When I am starving and unable to find food I crave it I can’t stop thinking about it, I would sell my soul for just one mouth full I feel I might go mad. I dream about the time I was feeling ill and couldn’t stand the sight of my favourite food… I can’t comprehend it I can’t imagine not wanting it and I try really hard to get it out of my head but to no avail, feeling full is just an abstract concept to me now I wish I could know what it feels like to be full.
Selective
Women are more selective, they are more selective even if sex isn't causal. It is not anymore interesting than that... Mens genitals are outward which leads them and their sexual interest (which is outwardly obviously) in using it more. It is easier for women to forgo sexual thoughts on a regular basis, they aren't touching their genitals several times a day, when they relieve themselves, adjusting, ect. Female sexual thoughts are not inspired by touching, per se, as much as mental thoughts of a appropriate and inspiring (quality) sexual partner.
Sexual desire differences should be research when all other things being equal, partners are sexually open within the relationship, a relationship where they both feel safe and appreciated, and both partners are satisfied and content(with orgasmic achievement for both)... then sexual desire would look more equal.
The fallacy of women's genitals being internal
It is a male-centered fallacy that women's genitals are 'internal'. This suggests that the vagina rather than the vulva - very much external - is the primary locus of sexual pleasure and arousal for women.
An accurate appraisal of the comparative sexual appetite between the sexes may be impossible without being able to control for the pervasive influence of culture, which governs the development of sexual personality as much as it's discussion. As long as 'casual sex', or sexual contact without some form of explicit emotional validation, continues to be so stigmatized for women, reliable and objective research about personal sexual desire, pleasure or appetite is likely to remain illusive.
A fallacy indeed, but not necessarily androcentric
Frequency of masturbation is often regarded as a relatively direct measure of sexual appetite because this sexual activity does not require a partner. Even taking into account reluctance to report on masturbation, women masturbate less frequently than men. I've seen "externality versus internality" of the genitals offered as an explanation for this--by women, not men. The standard argument is that boys practice touching their genitals every time they urinate while girls do not, leading to learned differences in masturbation.
Such an argument could only be made seriously by someone unfamiliar with the rather asexual sensations accompanying urination with a flaccid penis. Richard Hagan (The Biosexual Factor) writes, "[The theory that boys get more masturbatory practice from urination than girls] is weak because it does not take into consideration the fact that little girls wipe, or rub, their genitals every time they urinate. And they are taught to do this as early in life as little boys are taught to handle their penises while urinating. Furthermore, the actions involved when a girl wipes her genitals are much more similar in topography to masturbation (see Hite, 1977) than are the behaviors of a boy shaking several last drops out of a limp penis (1979, p. 80)."
The stigmatization of casual sex for women could, as you suggest, be a factor that prevents the development of a greater level of interest in casual sex. I suppose we will never know unless that social stigma is entirely removed. At the same time, there are other indices of sexual appetite (masturbation being just one of them) that cannot be explained by greater stigmatization for women than men.
The way some women may conceptualize an issue doesn't render it less male-centered
Perhaps clearer definitions of the terms being discussed might have allowed commenting to be more incisive. The frequency of explicitly sexualised activities (like masturbation) cannot automatically be conflated with any measurement of appetite.
Also quoting Hite: "The meaning [of the term masturbate] was perfectly understood by the overwhelming majority of women, but the implication was hated: sex with a partner legitimizes the activity, whatever it is, and to call it masturbation demeans it." (Hite 1976, p61). Furthermore, in response to the question "Do you enjoy masturbation?", most women said they enjoyed it physically but not psychologically. "Psychologically they felt lonely, guilty, unwanted, selfish, silly and generally bad." (1976, p62)
There seems to be a pretty linear measure in play here, and I think any discussion of women's sexual appetite should reference cultural expression and history a bit more widely. This must include an obligatory journey through the bizarre yet troubled history of 'hysteria", the phenomenal success of the bodice-ripper literary genre, and a relook at the explicitly sexual nature of rock-and-roll, especially phenomena such as Beatlemania (Re-Making Love, 1987. Ehrenreich, Hess & Jacobs. Fantana/Collins) as examples. As I said in my original comment, cultural values fundamentally impact the formulation of sexual identity, personal value-systems and how people intersect with their innate physiology and express needs. It's not just a case of stigmatization inhibiting self-reporting, although that too is a factor.
Drop the Sandwich
Being the male pig that I am, I would like to switch to a sports analogy. Zeke and Fred are big fans of the local junior college football team. When both are at the games they yell equally loudly and enjoy the game equally as much. Zeke attends every home game-rain, snow, sleet or shine. Fred only goes to games when the temperature is at least 60 degrees and there is no precipitation. We can all agree that Zeke and Fred find football very enjoyable, but is Zeke a bigger fan? If it turns out that Fred would go to all the games but for the fact that his physical condition makes him peculiarly vulnerable to ill effects from cold or wet weather, you might say that Fred and Zeke are equally big fans. If it turns out that Zeke is simply so focused on the game that the less than ideal weather conditions barely diminish his enjoyment of the game, you would have to concede that Zeke is the bigger fan. My guess is that both factors are at play with men and women. Women are peculiarly vulnerable to suffering an unwanted consequence to sex, and men are so focused on the game, they will not be deterred by harsh lighting, a lumpy mattress or other less than perfect circumstances.
Post new comment