miss_s_b: (Default)
miss_s_b ([personal profile] miss_s_b) wrote2017-03-09 10:00 am

[personal profile] haggis 2017-03-09 12:38 pm (UTC)(link)
I 100% agree with Caron in the LDV post :D

[personal profile] haggis 2017-03-09 12:55 pm (UTC)(link)
In contrast, oh Jesus Christ, that article about female desire is physically painful to read.

(I am following the conventions of the article, which assumes binary gender. I know it is more complicated than that.)

"Now, scientists are increasingly beginning to realise that female desire cannot be summarised in terms of a single experience: it varies both between women and within individuals, and it spans a highly diverse spectrum of manifestations. "

Almost like women are people not domesticated animals that real humans (men) generously allow to live with them.

"For decades, researchers bought into society’s belief that men have higher desire than women, since large studies consistently confirmed that finding."

Turns out that if you socially and morally enforce the belief that normal women don't have a high sex drive and normal men do for 150 years, then lots of people end up deeply ashamed if they don't live up to those standards and those people *lie* to researchers. Whodathunkit?

"This makes sense when thinking in terms of sex’s ultimate purpose: making babies. "

If sex's ultimate purpose was making babies, humans would not experience sexual desire as frequently and as intensely (and inconveniently) as we do. We are an intensely social species, sex is clearly also important for building and maintaining social bonds.

The section about the varieties of female sexual desire is actually pretty good - shame that the article doesn't extend that understanding to male sexual desire which is treated as straightforward in comparison.

Impressed with reference to asexuality at the end, didn't expect that.