Anonymous wrote:

Now we reached the latest trend in explaining the status quo - that women have "reactive desire".

Well, typically, they do. So what's your complaint? About nature, or do you think Emily is responsible for nature?

wrote:

I wish I could get some male counterpart to Emily Nagoski come up with an equivalent book to hers, shamelessly centered in my gender and advocating some "scientifically backed" theory that would remove any male responsibility for making sex happen, and yet stated that men were quite naturally entitled to deny sex to their opposite-gender partners unless they could perform a precise courtship choreography to arouse men, and then preconized women's compliance with extensive demands while the poor women were trying to have some pleasure themselves. All the while portraying this as the nature-sanctioned, obligatory hierarchy of gendered interests, after all women are the ones interested in sex, ergo they should do the legwork with a smile on their face! I suspect women would be incensed - and then realise with horror that this is what is being pushed on men!

Could you be more specific, rather than just generic rant?

wrote:

I am sick of the gendered bigotry of the whole affair. Looks like it will still take a few years an some more ruined marriages for people to see what mrs. Nagoski's theories actually represent. That is terribly unfortunate.

Yeah, we get that you're unhappy. Specifics?