“Naked Young Woman in Front of the Mirror” by Giovanni Bellini
Zoe Williams talks to Daniel Bergner, the American author of What Do Women Want?, an explosive new book about female desire
I was on the Victoria line with my boyfriend, telling him about a new book by the American author Daniel Bergner, called What Do Women Want? Its headline, traffic-stopping message is that women, routinely portrayed as the monogamous sex, are actually not very well-suited to monogamy. In fact, far from being more faithful than men, we may actually be more naturally promiscuous – more bored by habituation, more voracious, more predatory, more likely to objectify a mate. The expectation upon us not to feel, still less exhibit, any of these traits causes us to bury them, Bergner argues, giving rise to two phenomena.
First, women experience a loss of interest in sex within a marriage – commonly ascribed to low libido, but actually more a thwarted libido. Bergner interviewed a number of women in long-term relationships, many of whom elaborated on this waning desire. One woman said of her husband, “We did have sex maybe once a week, but it didn’t reach me. My body would respond, but the pleasure was like the pleasure of returning library books. And the thing about being repulsed by him was, I felt my body was a room that I didn’t want to mess up. Unlike that openness at the beginning, when my body was a room and I didn’t mind if he came in with his shoes on.”
The second, and perhaps more surprising phenomenon, is that all this thwarted sexual energy, like anything suppressed, has its power redoubled, to become something violent and alarming, if for any reason the brakes come off.
I thought I’d illustrate this to my boyfriend using two of Bergner’s stories about monkeys. The first tells us that, in scientific tests, women become aroused when they watch a film of two copulating bonobos (men don’t, by the way), and that they strongly deny this arousal when asked. The explanation, proffered tentatively by Bergner, is that female sexuality is as raw and bestial as male sexuality. But, unlike men, our animal urges are stoutly denied, by society and by ourselves, so that when they surface, it is not as a manageable stream, but as a rushing torrent that will sweep up everything it passes, even a pair of shagging primates. Bergner goes on to quote a 42-year-old woman named Rebecca, who had a threesome after her husband left her, and who makes an observation about the nature of female desire that is both poetic and precise. “The phrase that keeps coming into my head is that it’s like a pregnancy of wanting. Pregnancy’s not a good word – because it means pregnancy. It’s that it’s always there. Or always ready. And so much can set it off. Things you actually want and things you don’t. Pregnant. Full. The pregnancy of women’s desire. That’s the best I can do.”
You need only look at Fifty Shades Of Grey: at 5.3m copies, it is the biggest-selling book since UK records began. More than one in five British women owns a copy. On the basis that people lend things, let’s say 10 million women have read it, or almost half Britain’s adult female population.
Read the full article, The Guardian here
• The Atlantic: Turns Out Women Have Really, Really Strong Sex Drives: Can Men Handle It?
A new book questions the conventional wisdom about female desire. What now?
Hugo Schwyzer Jun 6 2013, 9:30 AM ET
Women want sex far more than we’ve been allowed to believe. So suggests a new book that shatters many of our most cherished myths about desire, including the widespread assumption that women’s lust is inextricably bound up with emotional connection. Are men ready to cope with the reality of heterosexual women’s horniness? The evidence suggests we aren’t, at least not yet.
In his just-released What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire journalist Daniel Bergner suggests that when it comes to acknowledging just how much women lust, we’ve passed the point of no return. Bergner profiles the work of a series of sexologists, all of whom have, after a series of fascinating studies with animal and human subjects, come to what is essentially the same conclusion. Women want sex just as much as men do, and this drive is “not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety.” When it comes to the craving for sexual variety, the research Bergner assembles suggests that women may be “even less well-suited for monogamy than men.”
Bergner’s work puts what may be the last nail in the coffin of the old consensus that women use sex as a means to get something else they really want, such as enduring monogamous emotional intimacy and the goods and safety that come in marriage with a protector and provider. In her review, Salon’s normally hyperbole-averse Tracy Clark-Flory was beside herself: “This book should be read by every woman on earth,” she writes; “the implications are huge.”
It’s not, of course, as if feminism, or Internet porn, or any other feature of modernity has suddenly created desires that never previously existed. Rather, as Bergner and his researchers show, science is finally asking the right questions about what women want, perhaps because enough of us are ready to hear the answer. The broad and enthusiastic coverage of What Do Women Want—Amanda Hess at Slate and Ann Friedman at The Cut are nearly as swept away as Clark-Flory—suggests a collective cry of relief: At last, irrefutable evidence that women are so much more like men, and so much more full of erotic potential, than we had ever admitted.
Yet acknowledging that women are as horny as men (if not hornier) isn’t enough to guarantee equality, just as the recognition that women are increasingly adept at breadwinning doesn’t ensure pay equity. Even as we see more and more evidence that women want what men want, antiquated sexual scripts mean that women are caught, as Friedman puts it, in a “catch-22” with “few options.” But is that dilemma one for which both sexes are equally responsible?
John Wade
July 8, 2013 at 21:46
See Monique, that little dance you were doing … and that night you conceived … I knew!
William Boeder
July 9, 2013 at 01:09
Is it true that a lot of today’s women find their sexual urge increases when their proposed partner or soon to be conquest is somewhat of a wealthy person?
(This question may not have any relevance when this is addressed to, say the wife of said wealthy person.)
Or is it more-so the animal power of a well proportioned male physique that will be more likely the key to access?
Ladies your views please?
Ian Rist
July 10, 2013 at 13:02
I have always found women respond to love, kindness and respect…whether it be my mother, my girl friends or my wife.
Some of you males should try it sometime…the results may astound you.
AnnoyingO
July 11, 2013 at 02:19
Tasmanian actor Errol Flynn secretly taped the ladies room in his mansion, and what was heard confirmed what he suspected – that women lust most for money.
In other words, a big wallet beats a big …
Penelope Marshall
July 11, 2013 at 12:42
#2 and #5 what does money and physique equal? Security and protection, so what does that tell you? Kind of blows Bergner’s theory back out the window where it belongs doesn’t it!
Personally I find it a ‘crock of creosote’ along with that other pile of ‘what have you’: fifty shades of bolder dash.To be polite. I am not so shallow myself as to look for protection and security in such a way as looks or money. Beauty comes from within. Primarily I want to be loved, respected cared for by my partner as most people do. Being of the fairer sex, I am a complex and unique being, with hormones and emotions, call me old fashioned but I like Men to be Men and Women to be feminine. I think this whole drive toward equality is just driving in more wedges and pushes us further out of balance as loving couples.
The Women’s movement, as Ms Greer will tell you, has really only created a rod for our backs. We have become more like machines trying to meet the modern expectations of men and in doing so have lost the respect that we deserve.
I really have to question these kind of studies, first alarm bell is the book is written by a man, naturally selective gearing comes into the equation. It should be called “What men want women to want!”
What group of women were questioned and if they are clients of a sexologist then that’s not really a broad cross section is it, what kind of animals were studied? Only of the ape variety? Heaps of animals are monogamous. They also grieve when losing a partner. Seriously think about this!
Communication, respect and kindness to each other will make a happy and contented relationship. If we have got so shallow as to think lust is the answer then humankind is in trouble!
You will find plenty of women out there who are content without this element in their lives at all, the famous saying ‘I want to be alone’ suits them fine. Theres more to life, live a little and try a little kindness.
Bronwyn Williams
July 13, 2013 at 22:39
I probably should read this book, if only to determine whether it is truly ‘scientific’ or whether it’s just another piece of pop culture ephemera – the latest ‘must read’ pop psychology masterpiece. Judging by the title, I’m guessing it’s more likely to be the latter, but I don’t want to be unnecessarily judgemental.
Is female desire a science? Is male desire a science, for that matter? Can complex, sometimes capriciously inexplicable, passions and longings be the subject of rigorous methodological study? Could such studies produce a reliable, verifiable body of knowledge? I think not, and anyone purporting to have achieved this is probably being undeservedly self-congratulatory.
It’s common knowledge that women enjoy sex – this is not a revelation, but a fact that has been known for centuries, in literature, and, more recently, in everyday discourse. Everyone’s read the sex advice columns in mainstream magazine publications like Cosmopolitan – they even offer similar advice in magazines published for the teenage female market.
It’s also no secret that women, just as much as men, can experience waning interest in sex with a long-term partner. And they like to perve on good-looking men, just as much as men enjoy a nice set of tits on a passing female. Have you ever been to a ‘ladies night’, featuring a male strip show? The women attending are unashamedly, raucously, sexist, and there’s no doubt the male flesh parading around is being comprehensively, and unapologetically objectified.
But, such circumstances are a rare, indulgent treat for women. In general, in their everyday lives, society places a number of restrictions on female behaviour, both overt and unspoken. In some fundamentalist religious groups, those restrictions can be undeniably abhorrent. Even modern, supposedly enlightened societies allow men liberties of sexual expression not routinely available to women. The dichotomy between male and female expressions of sexuality is, however, far more complex than simple societal expectations. There are several significant aspects of womanhood that effectively modify the free expression of sexuality that men enjoy, and it is simplistic in the extreme to discount them.
Although they are equal to men in many respects, most particularly in intellectual pursuits, women, in general, are smaller and less muscular than men. In a physical engagement with a man, most women will come off second best. Since the time of Eve they have known this.
If a man, aflame with lust, approaches an unwilling woman, he will be verbally rebuffed. Women have no other option, since a physical response will surely see them injured. In fact, whether or not they escape assault depends entirely on the man’s sense of decency. This reality is not lost on women, and it is not unimportant. Similarly, they consciously (or even subconsciously) restrain their own lustful desires, because they are acutely aware that a sexual encounter with ….
cont
Bronwyn Williams
July 13, 2013 at 22:41
an unfamiliar man can be fraught with potential physical danger, and they will be the ones to suffer if something goes awry.
And we must never, ever forget, the incontrovertible biological fact that sexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy, and only women can get pregnant. Since the advent of the contraceptive pill, women have enjoyed an ability to more reliably control their fertility, but they are adjusting to this new freedom after centuries of living with the very real possibility that every act of sexual intercourse could mean yet another pregnancy, with all the discomforts and invasion of bodily autonomy that entails. One pregnancy may be a wonder to be cherished, but after ten they become unbearably tiresome.
Women can delight in uninhibited, down and dirty sex just as much as the next man, but, unhappily for them, they are not the next ‘man’. They’re a lighter, more physically vulnerable version of a man, with ovaries and a uterus rather than testes, and a penetrable cavity rather than an inbuilt penetrating ‘tool’. Let’s not be coy about this inconvenient reality.
Men have it made – as a gender they are winners in the genetic lottery. When my four sons, one after the other, started shaving, and moaning about the inconvenience of this simple daily activity, I asked them, without a hint of compassion, ‘How would you like to suffer abdominal cramping and bleeding from an open body orifice for several days every month?’. They never complained, at least not in my presence, ever again – they know how fortunate they are to be men.
There’s a reason why the world is littered with patriarchal societies, why the majority of leaders are male, why most victims of sexual assault and domestic violence are female, and why this intractable gender equality is evidenced in everything from the so-called ‘glass ceiling’ to the routine exploitation of women in prostitution. Men take advantage of the physical disadvantages of women, and societies accept that as a behavioural norm.
It is specious, and patronising in the extreme for a man to publish ‘evidence’ that a woman’s lust for sex is every bit as great as a man’s. Of course it is. It’s just monumentally unfortunate that, for many women, the object of that lust is, in fact, a man. A creature with all the best cards in the game, but, more often than not, no idea how to play them.
Karl Stevens
July 14, 2013 at 01:16
Bronwyn Williams. It must be a sign of maturity to be able to be so objective about relationships. A man would take that as a compliment but not necessarily a woman. This seems to be the stuff they don’t teach at school and the way things are going they never will. Boys and girls are now supposed to be able to choose their sexuality. As if? Maybe we were the lucky ones who still had naturally-occurring hormones before the chemical industry decided plastic packaging was more important than two clearly defined sexes. One of the unfortunate side effects of being rich rather than muscular is you have to destroy a lot of the planet to fill that bank account. Thats where we all suffer equally. The upside is ‘mother nature’ is a woman and she knows how to keep the planet spinning after we have destroyed ourselves with our own ignorance.
William Boeder
July 14, 2013 at 02:07
Thank you Penelope and Bronwyn for your quite open and informative responses or shall I call them comments, either way it is interesting to read how honestly I believe both of you have responded to this complex topic.
There is an interesting new trend arising around us, such as female Jumbo Jet Pilots, Helicopter Pilots, in America there is even a specialist fighter Pilot that has the charge of her own Squadron.
I find it very interesting, even to the point of fascinating, how the women engaged in today’s cut and thrust out there in the both the professional and non-professional spectrum of most all of today’s occupations in this World we share together.
I personally am quite impressed in how the female of the species is proving just how accomplished she can become in any number of former male dominant occupations of high Legal recognition, how about the female Surgeons, and all the way through to accomplished Shearers.
At the end of the day, when what it is all really about, is for the females to be given the right training and that it be in a safe and secure environment, (non-sexist) and of course are given the opportunity to prove their competences.
I realize this comment of mine has veered away from the lusting aspect of sexual magnetism’s and expectant lustful pleasuring’s and so on, I guess that after reading the comments of both Penelope Bronwyn and in the fact that they have quite sufficiently covered those aspects associated with this rather provoking, ‘Women and Sex the Myth-Busters’ book article.
John Wade
July 14, 2013 at 13:29
I don’t think that it is women who want sex more often, I think that it is the female body wants sex more often and neither females and males are educated sufficiently in a way that understands and is able to deal with it in a satisfactory, evolutionary, way.
To posit that females and males are different entities ignores the law that bodies are vehicles for a short time, endowed with different purposes and that in spirit there is no sex differentiation, we are all one in spirit. No religiosity is intended.
Penelope Marshall
July 17, 2013 at 01:09
William I think you were brave to ask the question to begin with but good on you! I think women first stepped up to the plate to take on male roles when the war took men away from communities and somehow it seemed only right that their way of survival,support or to keep economies moving, if you want to call it that, doing their bit, was to learn to take the bull with both horns and do what had to be done. That is not to say that men do not do well in what is stereotypical female roles, for example the worlds best cooks are often male, the interior designers and high end fashion houses are often dominated by men. So it does work both ways.
Its an interesting discussion though is’t it! I guess what is obvious is that it is very complex and can not be easily simplified into boxes. But talking about it is a good start. Finding out what the key ingredient is that keeps couples happy or lustful if that is your want is such an individual circumstance. Love should not be brushed aside. The deeper and more intense the love and chemistry and intimacy on a more general level the more lust will play a part. Don’t discount pheromones either plain old biology. This is probably why so many women say affairs do not make them happy, they are doing it for the wrong reasons with the wrong people.
Penelope Marshall
July 21, 2013 at 14:26
Catalyst on ABC Thursday at 8pm is covering the biology of this very topic. Pheromones, the concept of attraction:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3806054.htm
Does science trump Physique and money?