The Myth of Male Hypersexuality
Sexuality Was Never Male Territory
Throughout much of recorded history, society has upheld the belief that men are inherently more sexual than women—so much so that it has been used as a justification for male indulgences ranging from infidelity to sexual violence. This idea, treated as gospel truth, has framed men as creatures of insatiable lust and incapable of self-restraint, while painting women as sexually indifferent, demure, and prudish. It is the same narrative that allows men to excuse their moral failings under the guise of ‘biological necessity’ while simultaneously condemning women for not meeting their sexual expectations.
Even today, this narrative persists: men lament their wives’ sexual availability, claiming that female sexual disinterest justifies mistresses, affairs, or even the embrace of polyamory–not out of ethical belief, but as a means of satisfying what they perceive to be a biologically ordained right to endless sexual gratification.
When questioned, they often turn to testosterone as their trump card, claiming that men are simply wired to crave sex more. They cite studies that claim men report higher sexual desire, failing to recognize that these studies rely on self-reported data riddled with cultural baggage, flawed methodologies, and a failure to account for confounding variables such as sexual concordance and sociocultural conditioning.
This article will dismantle the claim that men are inherently more sexual than women, exposing it for what it truly is—a myth shaped not by scientific consensus, but by historical gender bias, misinterpreted research, and cultural reinforcement. It is a conventional wisdom that has granted men their necessary sexual release valves while simultaneously suppressing female sexuality, branding it as something shameful and unnatural.
Section 1: Defining Key Terms and Concepts
Defining key terminology–biologically and medically–is crucial before assessing whether men inherently have a higher sex drive than women. Sexuality is not a singular measurable trait, rather, it is shaped by a complex interplay of biological, neurological, psychological, and sociocultural factors.
1.1 Understanding sexuality and libido
From a biological perspective, sexuality is shaped by a plethora of factors such as genetics, hormones, and neurological pathways. Some scientists and research suggest that genetic predisposition plays a role, meaning that individuals with parents who have high libidos may be more likely to exhibit a strong sex drive themselves. Similar conclusions have been made about genital morphology or hormonal concentration. However, reducing sexuality to purely biological function is disingenuous and misleading. Sexual behavior and desire are not merely dictated by hormonal interactions, genetics, and respective receptor activity. Environmental influences play an equally significant role in shaping how individuals experience and express sexual desire, thereby influencing neurological behaviors related to sexuality. Thus, sexuality is not purely an innate biological phenomenon but a combination of nature and nurture—meaning that external factors such as societal attitudes, relationship dynamics, and psychological well-being can modulate how an individual perceives and engages with their own sexual desire.
Closely linked to sexuality is libido, which is often defined as one’s general sexual desire or drive. While libido has traditionally been strictly associated with hormone levels, particularly testosterone, this association is often overstated. Libido is just as influenced by psychological and environmental variables as it is by hormones. Mood, stress, emotional well-being, relationship satisfaction, and even one’s perception of their own sexuality can shape sexual interest. This is because hormones themselves are not static—they fluctuate based on psychological state, social interactions, and environmental stimuli. A person experiencing high levels of stress or depression may exhibit reduced libido, not because their inherent sex drive is lower, but because their body is responding to external pressures. Additionally, a person who engages in sexual intercourse less frequently can still have a higher libido than someone who is sexually promiscuous, they may simply have more reserved sexual proclivities or prefer different expressions of their desire.
However, one of the most prominent misconceptions surrounding this topic is the difference between sexual interest and sexual behavior. A common argument is that men must have a higher sex drive because they express more sexual interest, however, this does not directly correlate to them being inherently more sexual. Women’s sexuality tends to be contextually driven rather than absent. For example, there exists research on sexual concordance that suggests that women may experience arousal without always interpreting it as sexual desire, whereas men tend to report a stronger alignment between the two. Likewise, women can experience sexual frustration and interpret it as something separate from a lack of sexual fulfillment. This does not mean women have lower sexuality; rather, their experience of desire is more dependent on context–including emotional connection, mental state, and ideological influences of sexual interpretation.
Furthermore, societal expectations shape how individuals report and express sexual interest. Men are encouraged to be sexually assertive and active, while women are conditioned to downplay their sexual desires to conform to cultural standards. Thus, self-reported sexual interest does not always reflect actual libido, it reflects how people perceive their own sexuality within respective societal frameworks.
1.2 Understanding Scientific Methodology
Conversations about male and female sexuality often involve individuals cherry-picking studies that support their narrative, positioning them as though they are objective truths. However, it is important to note that one singular study does not equate to scientific consensus. In natural sciences–such as biology, chemistry, physics, and other adjacent subjects–the highest form of scientific objectivity is a theory or law. Theories and laws are highly substantiated explanations supported by overwhelming empirical evidence; they are reinforced either by their replication rate, probabilistic results, or statistical significance. The fundamental difference between them is in their expression: Laws typically articulate natural phenomena via mathematical terms, whereas theories provide conceptual frameworks for why particular phenomena occur. Neither is ‘more true’ than the other as they serve different and respective functions in science.
Such a distinction is important to identify, as many people will cite a cherry-picked scientific study and attempt to equate it with scientific truth. This approach is flawed as something only becomes objective fact when it is supported by an overwhelming number of consistent evidence across multiple disciplines and methodologies. Hence why meta-analyses and umbrella studies are more reliable. Currently, there is no scientific consensus establishing that men have inherently higher libidos than women. The only academically accepted conclusion is that libido is highly complex, varies significantly across individuals, and is difficult to study due to cultural baggage and self-reporting biases.
With this foundation established, we can now assess the claim that men are inherently more sexual–and whether such an assertion is grounded in scientific reality, or merely in centuries-old cultural narratives veiled as objective fact.
Section 2: The Science of Sexuality: What do the studies actually say?
As previously discussed, research on libido produces highly variable conclusions. Studies exist across the entire spectrum of arguments: some claim men have higher libido, others suggest women do, and some find no significant difference. Such inconsistency largely stems from confounding variables that influence results. This section will examine one of the most frequently cited studies in support of the claim that men are inherently more sexual, breaking down its methodological flaws and inaccuracies. Additionally, evidence demonstrating the variability in findings will be presented–not to argue that women are more sexual, but to emphasize the inconsistencies that arise when confounding variables are overlooked.
2.1 Frankenbach’s Analysis of Sex Drive
The meta-analysis conducted by Frankenbach et al. is widely referenced in discussions about gender differences in sex drive. The researchers propose a theoretical conceptualization of these differences in dispositional sexual desire, concluding that men exhibit stronger sexual desire than women. Specifically, they assert that men "more often think and fantasize about sex, more often experience sexual affect like desire, and more often engage in masturbation than women." They specifically define sex drive as the average sexual motivation one experiences over time, drawing a connection between states and traits. Sexual indicators are identified by the frequency of sexual cognition, affect, and behavior (Frakenbach et al. 625).
While this conceptualization appears compelling, its methodology is fundamentally flawed and has been widely criticized. The researchers acknowledge theoretical frameworks such as sexual selection theory, double standards theory, and social learning theory, yet fail to adequately account for their weight in shaping contemporary attitudes toward sex drive. For instance, in their discussion of gender similarities theory–which posits that men and women are more alike than different, apart from obvious biological distinctions–they highlight differences in pornography consumption (Frankenbach et al. 628). However, this conclusion is drawn from self-reported data, which is highly unreliable given the shame and stigma surrounding female consumption of pornographic material. Women are less likely to admit to consuming pornography due to societal taboos and are also less likely to seek it out, not necessarily due to lower libido, but because pornography is largely produced for men and structured around the male gaze. Most forms of pornographic media are violent and unrealistic, making it unenjoyable for the average woman. Additionally, the researchers fail to recognize that women consume other forms of pornography, arguably in larger quantities than men. For example, erotic fiction is incredibly prevalent amongst contemporary generations of women, offering a medium where the target audience is female rather than male. The distinction between visual pornography and literary or emotional erotica is crucial, yet ignored in their analysis. Given these oversights, it is unreasonable to conclude that gender similarities theory suggests a higher sex drive in men compared to women.
In their summary, the authors further assert that "measurements of these theories largely converge in the prediction that men have a stronger sex drive compared to women” (Frankenbach et al. 628). However, this conclusion is further problematic, as it relies on conventional wisdoms regarding sexual behavior, a domain historically controlled and influenced by men. They note the ways in which men physically dominate women, yet fail to acknowledge the impact of gender power dynamics on how sex drive is expressed and measured. If societal structures had been reversed, with women dominating men in size, strength, and social power, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that they would have dominated men sexually as well. By failing to consider the simple issue of how male dominance has shaped the expression of sexuality, their study ignores a confounding variable that fundamentally influences the direction of its results.
The categorization of whether or not individuals are more ‘sexual’ is based on subjective self-rating from participants, relying on their own interpretations of their sex drive. This approach is a major flaw in sex research, as self-reporting is inherently biased. Despite acknowledging the susceptibility of social desirability bias, the authors still depend on self-reports as the foundation of their theory. As they themselves note, studies consistently show that men are more likely to exaggerate their sexual interest, and women are more likely to downplay their sexual interest due to external stigmas. The researchers even cite Alexander & Fisher (2003), which concluded that when participants believe they are hooked up to a lie detector, reported gender differences in sexual activity disappear. This further reinforces that self-reports are unreliable for measuring actual libido, as they are heavily influenced by social pressures rather than biological factors.
The key issue with the methodology of this study is it does not include any objective measures of sexual arousal, that is, assessing physiological markers or neurological markers. Despite their attempts to account for biased responding, all data collection remains completely subjective and never will reflect the level of accuracy that objective measurements so easily provide. Studies that utilize objective measurements for genital arousal (penile plethysmography and vaginal photoplethysmography), neuronal imaging (fMRI scans of arousal-related brain activity), and hormonal analyses, consistently show much smaller or even nonexistent gender differences in sexual arousal compared to self-reports. Thus, omission of these measures is problematic, as they directly contradict the anecdotes observed in studies like Frakenbach et al.’s. If they are aware of how social desirability sways the results so pronouncedly, non-objective methods should not be utilized.
Strict scientific methodology should not be abandoned. For example, in natural sciences, something as simple as testing the boiling point of water is meticulously controlled. A single contaminant molecule or improper heating would compromise the results, and thus render the study erroneous. Why, then, is the same standard not applied to studies investigating sexuality, where the influence of confounding variables is exponentially higher?
Beyond methodological flaws, the study implements a narrow definition of sexuality, one that is shaped by conventional wisdoms and anecdotes. Their conceptualization of sex drive and sexual interest is incomplete; it fails to consider variables such as emotional intimacy, hormonal fluctuations, or neurochemical factors influencing libido. The study frequently references researchers such as Baumeister and Petersen & Hyde, both of which conducted cross-cultural studies which concluded that gender differences in sexual desire shrink or disappear in more gender-equal societies. If sex drive differences are purely related to male structures and behaviors, then such a pattern should not exist.
This meta-analysis was assessed due to its popularity and frequent citation in discussions of sex drive differences. However, it serves as a prime example of why studies that rely on subjective markers to measure sexuality are inherently unreliable. Again, the overwhelming number of confounding variables in such research renders the results untrustworthy and erroneous (instance disqualification). And this issue branches beyond this particular study, many adjacent studies that reach similar conclusions are built on the same flawed methodology. This is not merely of scientific rigor–it is a matter of intellectual and academic integrity. The Frankenbach study is a perfect example of an attempt to intellectualize misogyny by disregarding patriarchy, gender power dynamics, and the historical sexual subjugation of women. Overlooking these variables is not just academically disingenuous–it is an active reinforcement of gender biases postured as objective research.
2.2 What other studies say
On the topic of physiological and objective measures, this section will present various studies and meta-analyses that highlight the variability in results. Remember, there is currently no scientific consensus on this topic. These studies will merely function to show that there is currently no consistent, observable difference between male and female sex drive. It will be formatted similarly to an annotated bibliography for convenience and ease of reading. Studies will be listed in the order of strongest to weakest.
Paterson, Laurel Q. P., Ellie Shuo Jin, Rhonda Amsel, and Yitzchak M. Binik. "Gender Similarities and Differences in Sexual Arousal, Desire, and Orgasmic Pleasure in the Laboratory." The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 51, no. 7, 2014, pp. 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.867922.
In this study conducted by Paterson et al., researchers took a look at gender differences and similarities in sexual arousal, desire, and orgasmic pleasure. This study was based on previous research conducted and included a model by Masters and Johnson (1966), which posited that men and women follow similar patterns of arousal but differ in post-orgasmic resolution. The methodology consisted of 38 men and women who were required to masturbate to orgasm in a controlled laboratory environment, to which physiological markers and self-reports of arousal were recorded. Physiological sexual arousal was measured by recording genital temperature before, during, and after orgasm. Potential shortcomings of this study’s methodology is the controlled laboratory setting (which may have influenced participant behavior) and the small sample size.
The results reflected that men and women experienced significant increases in physiological and subjective arousal as they approached orgasm. After orgasm, men’s sexual arousal, genital temperature, and desire decreased more quickly and consistently, whereas women showed a slower decline, indicating they may be more likely to pursue additional orgasms. These results reinforced Masters and Johnson’s model.
This study is relevant as it provides interesting insight into female sexuality. Considering women tend to experience higher orgasmic pleasure and remain sexually receptive (rather than exhibiting a refractory period) post-orgasm, it is possible that women’s sexual response cycle allows for greater sexual motivation. Overall, though, the study merely reinforces the argument that both genders experience similar levels of sexual motivation pre-orgasm, as no significant difference was found.
Mitricheva, Ekaterina, et al. "Neural Substrates of Sexual Arousal Are Not Sex Dependent." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), vol. 116, no. 31, 2019, pp. 15671–15676. National Academy of Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904975116.
This neurological study was conducted by Ekaterina Mitricheva and her colleagues, who examined whether neural activation patterns associated with sexual arousal differ between men and women. The experimental procedure utilized fMRI scans to analyze the amygdala, hypothalamus, striatum, and prefrontal cortex. The results conveyed that neural responses in arousal-related brain regions were nearly identical in both sexes, and amygdala and hypothalamus activation was comparable. The study does not support the idea that men have an innate biological advantage in sexual motivation. Hamid Noori, one of the contributors, stated in an interview that neurocircuitry has been studied in depth, and there is no significant difference in which neural pathways fire up in response to visual erotica between men and women.
Hamann, Stephan, et al. "Brain Responses to Sexual Images in 46,XY Women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Are Female-Typical." Hormones and Behavior, vol. 66, no. 5, 2014, pp. 724–733. Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2014.09.013.
Stephan Hamann et al. investigated the impact of neural responses to sexual stimuli in female-typical women (XX) and CAIS women (have a Y chromosome) and men. This sample, although small, provides valuable insight because CAIS women possess a Y-chromosome, and thus contain the androgen levels necessary for male sexual and reproductive behaviors. The procedure specifically utilized functional MRI (fMRI) scans, self-reporting, ANOVA statistical analysis, and analysis of the amygdala and other respective brain regions associated with sexual arousal and emotional processing. All CAIS participants were raised as girls. Some issues to consider with the methodology: small sample size, some CAIS participants were older, and CAIS participants self-reported their medical history.
Interestingly, the results demonstrated that men showed greater amygdala activation to sexual images. On the other hand, both the female-typical and women with CAIS showed less response, despite the fact that CAIS women possess a Y-chromosome and male-typical testosterone levels. Based on this, the researchers concluded that the Y-chromosome alone does not determine male-typical brain responses to sexual stimuli. In terms of subjective reports, all three groups rated sexual images as arousing at similar levels. However, men exhibited higher concordance between self-reporting and brain responses, whereas women exhibited lower concordance. Researchers clearly acknowledge that the women with CAIS were likely socialized as women, thus brain responses are likely shaped by gender dynamics rather than biology alone. This weakens the argument that male hypersexuality is purely a product of genetic sex.
Carvalho, Joana, et al. "Gender Differences in Sexual Arousal and Affective Responses to Erotica: The Effects of Type of Film and Fantasy Instructions." Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 42, no. 6, 2013, pp. 1011–1019. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0076-2.
This study was conducted by Joana Carvalho and other researchers in Portugal; it aimed to investigate gender differences in sexual arousal and affective responses to erotic film clips. This experiment served as an extension to previous studies conducted which found that women displayed stronger subjective arousal to casual sex scenes than men, and that women exhibited increased feelings of “guilt, distress, and shame” when instructed to fantasize about something.
The researchers measured the participant’s sexual arousal via subjective responses and physiological responses. The sample size consisted of 29 heterosexual men and 28 heterosexual women, all of which were screened for psychopathology, medical issues, or sexual dysfunction. Participants were given romantic erotica and sexually explicit films, then instructed to fantasize about their partners or someone else. Sexual response was measured via genital response, self-report, and affective responses. Some notable shortcomings of the methodology include a small sample size and cultural variation since it was conducted in Portugal.
Researchers concluded a few things. In terms of genital arousal, both men and women showed stronger genital responses to explicit films than romantic films. Thus, no significant difference was found in physiological responses. In terms of self-reporting, women interestingly reported higher subjective arousal than men, however this could likely be due to secondary cultural influences. Fantasizing about one’s partner led to higher positive affect for both men and women. Furthermore, researchers found that men exhibited higher concordance, where as women exhibited lower concordance, that is, there was a mismatch between a woman’s physical arousal and self-reported arousal. The study essentially supports the conclusion that women are not less sexual, their arousal is merely context-dependent.
Hald, Gert Martin. "Gender Differences in Pornography Consumption among Young Heterosexual Danish Adults." Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 35, no. 5, 2006, pp. 577–585. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9064-0.
This particular study was conducted independently by Gert M. Hald, who investigated the difference between men and women in pornography consumption and its effects on sexuality. The methodology does not include objective measurements, it purely relies on self-reporting. The sample size was ample and consisted of 688 heterosexual Danish adults.
Overall, Hald found that individuals, regardless of gender, who masturbate more frequently are more likely to actively seek out sexually stimulating content compared to those who do so less often. His study also revealed a strong correlation between higher sex drive, masturbation frequency, and pornography consumption. Notably, men consumed pornography more frequently, particularly vulgar and hardcore content. This finding is significant as it suggests that higher sex drives are often shaped by an individual's environment rather than being purely innate.
Section 3: Addressing the testosterone myth
The argument of testosterone being a primary driver of libido is an oversimplification of endocrinology and hormones in relation to sexual motivation. Framing testosterone as the hormone that governs male behavior, motivation, and desire is wholly disingenuous and inaccurate. If testosterone was the primary determinant of libido, we would observe a consistent and direct correlation between testosterone concentration levels and sexual desire, but that is not the case.
Many things indicate that libido is influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors, and testosterone is only one component of this equation. For example, clinical investigations have found that men with low levels of testosterone continue to report a normal or even high sex drive. Conversely, individuals undergoing testosterone replacement therapy do not always experience an increase in libido, indicating that raising testosterone alone does not ensure a change in sexual desire. Furthermore, despite women naturally maintaining significantly lower baseline testosterone than men, they still report and exhibit high levels of sexual desire. Positioning testosterone as the sole driver of libido for women is problematic, as it waters down the complexity of their reproductive biology, overlooking crucial hormones such as estrogen, which modulates female sexual desire and reproductive functionality. Even further, testosterone does not provide an explanation for variability in female libido. Female sexual desire is incredibly dynamic, fluctuating across different reproductive phases such as the menstrual cycle or pregnancy. Typically, there is no direct correlation between these phases and fluctuations in testosterone concentration. In most cases, desire persists despite the dynamism of hormonal levels.
Two notable studies further establish the claim that testosterone is not solely responsible. In a study conducted by Sari M. van Anders, the researcher examined whether testosterone is directly linked to sexual desire in women and men, particularly distinguishing between solitary (self-directed) and dyadic (partner-directed) desire. It strongly challenged the belief that testosterone is the dominant biological factor behind higher libido, especially in men. The methodology consisted of measures that recorded sexual desire inventory (solitary and dyadic sexual desire), psychological assessments (mood, stress, exercise, etc.), testosterone and cortisol levels via salivary assay, and statistical tests. Researchers found that, in women, there was no direct correlation between testosterone and dyadic desire. However, the presence of cortisol (the stress hormone) produced a negative correlation between testosterone and dyadic desire. In terms of solitary desire, researchers found a positive association with testosterone. Interestingly, masturbation frequency strengthened the link between testosterone and solitary desire in women, especially amongst women with low testosterone levels. On the other hand, researchers found that men did not exhibit any significant correlation between testosterone and either solitary or dyadic desire. This result persisted even after controlling and accounting for psychosocial variables, suggesting testosterone does not reliably predict libido for men. Researchers specifically noted that despite men exhibiting higher sexual desire scores, testosterone was not the mediator of this difference. Instead, masturbation frequency explained the gap. Sex differences were not motivated by hormonal variations but by behaviors. Thus, this study supports the claim that testosterone is not linearly related to male sexual desire.
In another study conducted by Anders and their colleague Katherine L. Goldey, the researchers tested whether sexual thoughts alone—without visual or behavioral stimulation—can increase testosterone or cortisol in men. It also observed whether hormonal levels at baseline or after activity were correlated with self-reported sexual arousal. The methodology utilized measures of self-reporting and salivary assay. The researchers found that sexual thoughts increased arousal in male participants, but it did not stimulate a significant increase in testosterone. Interestingly, they found higher baseline and post-activity cortisol were positively associated with self-reported sexual and autonomic arousal. Testosterone did not exhibit this correlation. However, there was no overall hormonal change across the participants. While this study supports the argument that testosterone is not a reliable biomarker of sexual desire, it should be noted that it is weaker in comparison to the prior study mentioned.
Testosterone absolutely plays a role in sexual functioning, especially in relation to physiological aspects such as genital sensitivity or erectile capacity. However, it is far from the defining or determining factor of libido. The evidence is clear: libido is not hormonally deterministic—it is holistically constructed. Again, it is problematic and disingenuous to position testosterone as an independent actor in the facilitation of sexual desire. Libido is influenced by an interplay of elements, varying from individual to individual.
Section 4: Addressing the evolution myth
This section will be brief, as I have already provided a detailed analysis of evolutionary sexual behavior in my article, The Immorality of Modern Polygamy. In this article, I dismantle the claim that men are inherently polygamous from an evolutionary perspective. From a biological standpoint, it is inaccurate to frame men’s supposed hypersexuality as a natural, evolved trait while ignoring the equally important contribution of female sexual agency in shaping reproductive behaviors. Females largely determined the mating and sexual habits of a population, see the quote below:
“William Eberhard’s Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia presents similar information. He discusses how significant modification of male genitalia occurs when species split. This is due to female preference, which focuses on penis form details and encourages micro-innovations, thus generating sexual ornaments or genitals that operate as isolators. Eberhard argues convincingly that male genitals in a wide range of species are shaped as much by female choice as by the demands of sperm delivery.”
This evidence undermines the “men are biologically wired to spread their seed” narrative. Prehistoric females did not passively accept any willing mate—they exhibited promiscuous yet discerning mating behaviors, often guided by the need to secure the best possible genetic and survival prospects for their offspring. While evolutionary psychology frequently claims that male promiscuity is natural due to reproductive maximization, it fails to consider the high physical cost of pregnancy and child-rearing. For prehistoric women, careless mating had consequences: pregnancy made them vulnerable and reduced mobility. Thus, selectivity was not rooted in lower libido—it was a matter of survival. Females were likely just as sexual as their male counterparts but had more at stake, which shaped how they exhibited sexual dynamics. The gender asymmetry in risk fundamentally diminishes any attempt to make direct comparisons between prehistoric male and female sexual behavior.
Section 5: The consequences of suppression
The conventional wisdom that women are inherently less sexual or less interested in sex than men is not only scientifically unsubstantiated, but also the result of thousands of years of sexual suppression, violence, and gendered double standards. Female libido is not inherently weaker–it is context-dependent, relationally nuanced, and more frequently invalidated by societies that have historically pathologized female sexuality.
Take, for example, the prevalence of female genital mutilation throughout history, a practice weaponized and designed to limit and suppress female sexual pleasure. Its very purpose is to reduce sensation by mutilating the external genitalia, sometimes sewing up the labia and vulva to prevent enjoyable penetrative intercourse. The permanent damage to the nerve endings of the clitoris and vaginal canal often renders sexual activity painful or numb, even within consensual partnerships. This isn’t incidental. It is an institutionalized form of sexual repression, functioning to ensure that women do not desire or enjoy sex.
Or consider vaginismus, a medical condition in which the vaginal muscles involuntarily contract upon attempted sexual penetration. This phenomenon is especially common amongst religious and eastern communities, where sex is stigmatized and female desire is positioned as deviant. The inundating and persistent demonization of female pleasure fastens itself psychologically–intimacy becomes painful due to the fear and anxiety of engaging in intercourse. These women are not less sexual, they are terrified of an intrinsic part of themselves they were indoctrinated to hate.
Alternatively, consider the suppression of female sexuality throughout history, how it has served a political and patriarchal role of controlling female sexual expression. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the foundational belief is that the fall of humanity began with the temptation of Eve, marking female desire as the original sin. This narrative has persevered for centuries. In the medieval world, women were associated with the devil, and labeled temptresses and witches. Historical scholars noted the ‘witchiness’ of figures like Queen Kahina or Cleopatra, women demonized for their political influence and sexual autonomy. In 17th-century Puritan America, sexually expressive women were accused of witchcraft and executed. In ancient Bedouin societies, female infants were buried alive to prevent eventual dishonor, typically brought about by sexual misbehaviors. Even today, honor killings persist. Aristotle, revered as one of the most influential thinkers in philosophy, believed that female sexuality was excessive and in need of control. His views laid the groundwork for religious and medical doctrines that framed men as rational and women as erratic and sexually volatile. Galen and Hippocrates extended these ideologies–asserting that women were cold and emotionally unstable, making them less rational and more prone to sexual imbalance. Women were reduced to their womb and their ability to rear children, completely overlooking female sexuality as a source of pleasure, intimacy, or even a director of evolutionary selection.
These examples are only to name a few. The subjugation and suppression of female sexuality has been persistent throughout much of recorded history. Considering this, who is to say this widespread and historical condemnation has not shaped the way women experience and express desire, even today? Most women are socialized to associate sexual pleasure with guilt and shame, whether it is intercourse or masturbation. A lustful appetite can easily be caged by bars as rigid as shame, murder, and condemnation. Negative reinforcement diminishes libido. Sexual trauma, dissatisfaction, and stress are all caveats empirically linked to lower sexual interest. If women were afforded the same sexual validation and quality in sexual experiences as men, we would see a drastically different picture of reported desire. In fact, we do: compare contemporary western societies, which are more sexually liberated, with eastern societies that condemn and repress female sexuality. Western women exhibit much more promiscuous sexual habits in comparison to eastern women. This is not because women in the west are insolent and unruly–no, it is because they can engage with their sexuality without fear. While I do not agree with excessive sexual promiscuity or sexual repression, it remains clear that female sexual indulgence is determined by the social limitations enforced, not their biology.
Another overlooked manifestation of this suppression is the redirection and mischaracterization of female sexual frustration. I do not believe women are naturally more ‘difficult’ in relationships or that they ‘nag’ more. I believe what we interpret as irritability or emotional volatility is sexual unfulfillment. Where men are often granted a direct outlet for sexual expression, allowing them to identify and verbalize when they are sexually frustrated, women’s sexual dissatisfaction manifests as irritability or emotional tension. Yet these expressions are rarely identified as suppressed libido–they are instead pathologized as mood swings or hormonal imbalances.
The narrative that men are naturally sexual and lustful creatures is not an innocent misinterpretation–it is a culturally sanctioned myth with ruinous and detrimental implications. It reinforces a reductive and degrading definition of male sexuality–one that is animalistic, insatiable, immoral, or biologically imperative, while simultaneously framing female sexuality as passive, subservient, and expendable. Such dualistic framing assigns men the role of sexual indulgers and women the role of sexual servers. And this dichotomy doesn't just distort intimacy, it further worsens harmful and inaccurate definitions of masculinity and femininity.
Specifically for men, hypersexuality functions as a measure of their masculinity, imposing a performance based identity. Men are expected to be perpetually interested in sex regardless of context. This can either breed insecurity amongst men who feel as though they cannot fulfill sexual standards, or it can breed sexual entitlement, resulting in feelings of resentment and injustice for not being able to fulfill such a ‘volatile’ constituent of their manhood. This narrative extends itself into justifying infidelity and sexual aggression under the guise of ‘uncontrollable urges.’ It promotes a predatory framing of male sexuality, rather than one of intimacy. And since men are consistently framed as predatory or lustful, it results in the dismissal of their violations, erasing their victimhood, as they are always expected to want sex and therefore are incapable of being violated themselves.
For women, this myth serves an equally damaging role. It is used to justify everything from cheating to polygamy to sexual violence. It insists that if a woman is not sexually available to her partner, he is justified in seeking fulfillment elsewhere, despite women being taught their entire lives that they are not supposed to be sexual. This contradiction creates a tortuous paradox: be sexual and risk condemnation, or be nonsexual and risk abandonment. The long-term neurological effects (in terms of neuroplasticity) of perpetually convincing women their arousal is unnatural results in phenomena such as sexual concordance or vaginismus. Women are raped, mutilated, murdered, or discarded, not because they are too sexual—but because society insists they aren’t supposed to be sexual at all.
The myth of male hypersexuality is not a biological truth–it is a patriarchal artifact constructed to serve a system of gendered power, not scientific rigor. Dismantling this narrative is not just a matter of intellectual integrity, but of social justice, emotional health, and sexual equity.
Section 6: Conclusion
Given the evidence and analysis, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that men are inherently more sexual than women. There is no genetic law, no hormone constant, and no neurological structure that reaffirms this myth. What there is, instead, is a long and intricate history of suppression and subjugation. A history that has pathologized female pleasure and sexuality. A history that has rewritten desire itself to serve the convenience, or lack thereof, of male dominance.
What we interpret as “less female libido” is not lack–it is a response. A response to violence, to shame, to exclusion. Women are not less sexual, they are less safe to be sexual.
Studies that claim to prove male sexual superiority hinge on self-reports, an inherently flawed measure, especially in a world where men are encouraged to exaggerate and women are punished for admitting desire. Research using physiological and neurological markers consistently undermines the myth. Brain imaging shows that men and women respond similarly to sexual stimuli. Genital response data reveals that arousal is not a male monopoly. Even hormonal studies, particularly those centered on testosterone, fail to establish a direct link between hormone levels and sexual desire, especially in women.
Human libido is reactive, flexible, and incredibly sensitive to context. It varies from individual to individual, contingent upon their upbringing, their environment, their mental health, their hormones, and their sex. None of these are mutually exclusive, they each play significant roles in facilitating sexual arousal. Context plays just as powerful of a role in determining sexual behavior as biology does.
The weaponization of sex has led to the genital mutilation of female reproductive organs, sexual trauma, marital rape, medical misdiagnosis (as female reproductive health is widely understudied and misunderstood), and cultural erasure. And for men, it has distorted the meaning of masculinity, equating it with sexual dominance and unchecked sexual behaviors. It has imposed performance as the centerpiece of male identity. Contrary to what we believe, this myth has not entirely served men, it has dehumanized them.
This article was never for the purpose of arguing that women are actually more sexual than men, or the inverse. If it was, I would only be reinforcing the same reductionist sentiments that have persisted for centuries. The point is that human sexuality is not a gendered hierarchy, rather, it is a spectrum. The data varies. The studies conflict. And that very inconsistency is what makes one thing clear: there is no fixed truth to be found in the idea that one sex desires more than the other.
Qualifications: Computer Science (AI & ML specialization) and Biological Science (Neurobiology specialization)
Carvalho, Joana, et al. "Gender Differences in Sexual Arousal and Affective Responses to Erotica: The Effects of Type of Film and Fantasy Instructions." Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 42, no. 6, 2013, pp. 1011–1019. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0076-2.
Frankenbach, Julius, et al. “Sex Drive: Theoretical Conceptualization and Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences.” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 148, no. 9–10, 2022, pp. 621–661. American Psychological Association, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000366.
Goldey, Katherine L., and Sari M. van Anders. "Sexual Thoughts: Links to Testosterone and Cortisol in Men." Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 41, no. 6, 2012, pp. 1461–1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9858-6.
Hald, Gert Martin. "Gender Differences in Pornography Consumption among Young Heterosexual Danish Adults." Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 35, no. 5, 2006, pp. 577–585. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9064-0.
Hamann, Stephan, et al. "Brain Responses to Sexual Images in 46,XY Women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Are Female-Typical." Hormones and Behavior, vol. 66, no. 5, 2014, pp. 724–733. Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2014.09.013.
Mitricheva, Ekaterina, et al. "Neural Substrates of Sexual Arousal Are Not Sex Dependent." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 31, 2019, pp. 15671–15676. National Academy of Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904975116.
Paterson, Laurel Q. P., Ellie Shuo Jin, Rhonda Amsel, and Yitzchak M. Binik. "Gender Similarities and Differences in Sexual Arousal, Desire, and Orgasmic Pleasure in the Laboratory." The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 51, no. 7, 2014, pp. 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.867922.
van Anders, Sari M. "Testosterone and Sexual Desire in Healthy Women and Men." Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 41, no. 6, 2012, pp. 1471–1484. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9946-2.
zero comments because everyone has been left speechless
WOW! I will be finding away to bring this up at every dinner party with friends. Sexual labido as a product of environment rather than nature is a fascinating argument. Women read a lot of their “porn” because they need that mental stimulation… well done. Don’t understand the hate in this comment section. I suspect this was submitted as an academic paper, it’s not a meant to be a personal essay.