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.
Totally, forming a mental connection can take more time and intention, but that doesn’t make it less sexual. If anything, it makes me wonder how much more sexual women would be if they were actually given the space, safety, and stimulation to access it fully. The original point isn’t that men and women experience desire in the same way... It's the environment that plays a huge role in how it manifests. There is a reason why romance is the number one genre, its because a lot of women are missing mental and emotional stimulation in their sensuality.
My reaction would be why not just compare lesbian sex frequency to gay men’s sexual frequency within relationships. Then we could just see who is sexually more active
Never is being too pessimistic. We have only started talking about feminism very recently in human history, and a lot of progress has been made so far. Just because we don't see it happening in our lifetime, doesn't mean it will never happen after several generations have passed.
No, feminism is reaching a point where you don't treat girls and boys differently based on gender. We talk more about feminism with women now because society has been historically so patriarchic. This will be less and less true as time goes on.
But won’t one treat girls always a bit different simply because they can have babies at some point and men won’t. Or because women are smaller in average. I think even bigger boys or smaller boys are treated a bit different just because they have different height. I think most people treat people even different based on attractiveness even and men and women seem not to be beautiful in the same way even. Like beauty standards seem to diverge between boys and girls
This is brilliant. Seriously feels like I’ve stumbled across a gem. Brilliant work, plain and simple. I will coming back to this and quoting and bringing up this discussion with friends. I love this so much.
Some of the comments are….anyway! Writing so good, haters think it’s AI 😙
This was brilliantly eye-opening and mentally stimulating in an academic format which I believe served to help state your case, rather than providing an unreliable emotions based personal essay. I read the entire thing and enjoyed that you provided so many sources, scientific terms, and connections between societal issues & scientific research unreliabilities. Ignore the hate from other commenters, this was wonderfully typed and a great read. ♥️
This is astonishingly well written !! I think you would really enjoy the book the gendered brain by Gina Rippon - as with libido & sex drive there has been a very reductive scientific tendency in understanding the brain as resoloutely gendered (corresponding to sex). She does a great job of exploring how the brain is most fundamentaly reactive & mirrors the world around us - we cannot nearly seperate the physical 'realities' of science from the social. Of course this works super well with your own research & general conclusion - thank you for sharing all of your insight !!
I was thoroughly impressed reading this and it reminded me of why I came to Substack in the first place.
As I prepare to step into the world of medicine, I’m constantly reminding myself of the fact that I have a responsibility to educate and to encourage criticism of scientific studies. After reading this work, I am aware of this importance more than ever. I used to feel anxious thinking about this but now I want to be able to communicate as effectively as you have here to make a difference towards the causes I care about.
Also I feel it’s funny to mention that the first comment I saw under this work was “You fucking moron.” The internet is certainly a place.
Lol, a few paragraphs and my annotated bibliography were pulled from previous academic papers I’ve written. All of my articles are formatted in this manner. Deductively or inductively (p>.95) prove this is written by AI. :3
I’ve read it, the entire paper, as well as numerous other research papers which is why I’m sure you haven’t read much of them if you believe this is AI. Academic papers usually differ drastically from creative writing essays, if that’s maybe what you were looking for instead.
Men aren’t more sexual, they’re just designed to ejaculate asap. Which is why so many wives don’t want sex with them - I t’s boring for starters. Secondly it’s not erotic or sexy to have sex be something that’s done to you rather than with you.
Women do not want tonhave sexwith them because they aren't attracted to them. They are not the first choice. Moreover, sex ends when the man ejaculates. If Nature cared if the female achieved orgasm, then the penis would vibrate. Take it to god if you have a problem with this.
Nature does care - that's why the clitoris still exists. And being able to find it and use it correctly is a very efficient way for women to sort male sexual partners.
Yes. The clitoris is solely purposed for pleasure, and the only organ in the human body for that purpose. The reason women have the ability to orgasm is to promote sexual activity and enhance the quality of sexual relationships, or basically to strengthen pair bonding.
Humans quite literally are a pair bonding species, divorce rates don't change that fact, love. That "50% of people who get married divorce" statement is incredibly misleading if taken at face value without considering context. from Google: "Problems arise from how data is collected, interpreted and used, leading to potential inaccuracies and oversimplification."
Just a few things you aren't considering when looking at these statistics:
Some people are overachievers. One person getting married and divorced over 15 times for sure as hell contributes to those statistics, just think with the amount of people who are like that, how much it skews these divorce rates and gives people a false perception.
They way the measure divorce rates is silly, because they take the number of people who marry this year and the number of people who divorce this year and compare them, which is ridiculous because they obviously aren't all the same people. They don't track marriages individually from start to finish to get a more accurate result, because that would be too much work. There's flaws in the way they measure divorce rates and in the way people percieve them.
And also, (referring to my first comment) that's why whatever kind of orgasm a women has (or instead, how it's achievd) it will always be a clitoral one.
Tell me how it feels to be vaccinated and have failed the biggest IQ test of your life. Remember me when you begin your deth twirl and you panic as your blood clots.
Isn't this also true of men? Many men don't perceive women who are not attractive anymore (like obese or older women). They definitely don't behave sexually towards them (exceptions exist ofcourse).
No. The standard of what men will accept is much lower because the male sex drive is much higher. Problem is: most females are flattered to the point where they actually believe they are much more attractive that they actually are.
I see what you are trying to say. I don't think that women are flattered so easily. It's common to hear women suspect that their partner doesn't actually like them and just wants to have sex with them for instance.
I’ve always had the higher sex drive in all my relationships with men. Plus, women’s orgasms are more intense than men’s !! It’s been proven. Why don’t we ever talk about that? I think for so long sex has been more focussed on the man’s pleasure which I find madness. Also in school we only learn in biology about the male orgasm. I think we need more education about female pleasure, and there needs to be way more awareness of women’s sexual libido and desires!
I’ve been saying this for ages but the current trend of woman’s sexual liberation is to act like the toxic behaviors of overly sexual / sexually defective men. By doing so, we are upholding this toxic and disgusting concept that is rooted in antiquated beliefs. Thanks for the write.
What follows is something that I'm sure you expected when tacitly questioning the libidinal force of men -- that is, unsolicited advice, and criticism, from one of its cursed number -- I apologise for its length:
First is your strawman: that men (as some monolith) have constructed a myth of their own hypersexuality. The reason that men have done this? "So they can fuck more" you offer as an explanation. Why they would construct a myth of their own desire to fuck more just so that they can fuck more and, most importantly, make women fuck less, is a tricky question. Another small digression -> by the sheer statistics in these so-called gender equal societies, (the contemporary west) everyone seems to be fucking less, outside of a small number of males who, gearing the system to accommodate their hypersexality, fuck a whole lot more than they would in a society where they would be forced to suppress their own desire in the interests of gender norms and traditional forms of social relation (marriage).
Your methodological critique, that is, deconstruction of (for example) Frankenbach's study on the grounds of a selective type of pornography being used, is lead merely by an anecdotal assertions concerning frequency and use of pornography, and hence why the numbers (on the female end) are lower than your "spectrum" thesis (implicitly a gender-neutral thesis) would like them to be. Little giveaways such as: "erotic literature is incredibly prevalent (...)" -- how prevalent? -- "most forms of pornography are violent and unrealistic, making it unenjoyable for the average woman..." -- proof? and why suddenly an interest in the "average" woman? -- "it is possible that women's sexual response cycle allows for greater sexual motivation..." again, conjecture (and the inclusion of that particular study is just pointless, it is not related to the question at hand, which is hypersexuality, as opposed to genital response). Same goes for the neural substrate study, off-topic. The CAIS-men thing is a bit ridiculous (no one is saying testosterone as a molecule without normal receptor levels causes male hypersexuality -- however androgen deficiency in post-menopausal women does *tend* to reduce libido, but again, statistics, who cares? We're discussing male hypersexuality prevalence vs female hypersexuality prevalence, not testosterone.). The study after that (Carvalho) included something you dismissed instantly because it went counter to your implicit assumption about female sexuality being "oppressed" by a patriarchal system that desires to silence it. All points to this fact: you are willing to be normative and unscientific when it suits you and anti-essentialist, i.e. scientific, when it does not.
Mere positing hypothetical cases or contexts wherein these gender differences would disappear (not only relativism concerning the method of testing, but now concerning that which is being tested) is also not a rigorous way of arguing your point. "If women were stronger than men would their domination of men express itself in sexual desire?" is about as meaningful a question as "if we could reproduce like slugs, would we?"
Section 4 was, again, off-topic -- a desire to flesh something out by drifting to a new outpost. Itself it is filled with some fallacious reasoning: that "men are not biologically wired to spread their seed" because of female selectivity -- this presents the two things as mutually exclusive. That "selectivity is not rooted in lower libido, it is a matter of surviving" -- surely this would point to the explanation of "lower libido" as an expression of that very selectivity/survival mechanism? Section is filled, again, with conjecture and la-di-da frillery. It is also implicitly eugenicist but that is another matter.
Section 5, concerning FGM and Patriarchal society -- is just cookie-cutter Substackerese Feminist Thinkpiece. Bonk "men" over the head for Judeochristianity, Islam, and even vaginismus while you're at it. The problem again is this all runs counter to your original thesis -- that there is a myth of hypersexuality surrounding men. If anything, all these patriarchal devices to control female sexuality point towards the opposite -- that religion and gender norms are constructed in the way they are to hamper female hypersexuality. In your original paragraph you demonised the mythical male hypersexuality as it was seen as a justification for ethical transgressions (infidelity, etc.) -- but here you give countless examples of men expressing that unlimited female libido is the real problem. "... Completely overlooking female desire as a source of pleasure, intimacy, or even as a director of evolutionary selection." Lol, yes we all know that all women are secretly orgasmic little nazis. This isn't the own you think it is.
The point is more or less touched upon in the next paragraph: that women's "sexual indulgence is determined by social limitations enforced, not by their biology." Is this exactly what you want? That sexuality should be determined by "biology"? That social limitations should not be enforced? What then, should we get rid of all laws concerning rape? Should men just follow their own biological necessity, their 'is' in lieu of their 'ought', and go around raping women as I'm sure they once did, and still opportunistically do, whenever the rule of law is suspended?
Next bit: men are in a better boat because they can hornypost on main whereas women's sexual frustration is mischaracterised as them being hormonally imbalanced around their period -- huh? As someone who lives with a hormonal little beast, who I sexually satisfy whenever she so desires it, I can tell you that her nitpicky irritable attitude around the week before her period is not so easy to assuage as that. But that is just my anecdotal evidence, I apologise, however much it mirrors the drop-off in actual logic your text contains. Another line: "it insists that if a woman is not sexually available to her partner, he is justified in seeking fulfilment elsewhere." I think that it was in Milestones by Sayyid Qutb that he wrote about how Western culture (specifically the gender-equal Golden place whereof vaginismus is unknown) everywhere encourages the idea that infidelity is justified so long as the relationship is encountering the notorious "dead bedroom" -- and this goes for either gender. What I'm intent on demonstrating is that again your line of argument is not one intent on dissolving gender norms but merely one of deepening a piety with regards to our treatment of the opposite gender, something for which monotheistic religions are renown for standing, as bulwarks against the lassitude that characterises a relativistic and nihilistic Western world.
Perhaps there is no genetic law, no hormone, nor neurological structure specifically that creates male hypersexuality. Perhaps this "male hypersexuality" doesn't exist as a biological reality, but instead as a socially constructed reality: -- however, does this make it any less real? Does it make it negative, and hence a relatively-lower female libido a negative? And is your desired world, whereof sexuality is untrammelled and unfettered by the regulation of shame and guilt, actually what you want to see come about? Because if sexuality is unfettered, then it must be unfettered for both sexes. If we bring about a world that is freed from reductionism, i.e. freed from category and norm, we bring about a world freed from ethics, and ethical regulation -- we bring about this "nature" of man, which would mean free licence to man's cruelty.
Are you a man, Quentin number 2? My point was that a lassitude of (perhaps patriarchal) morals and gender norms leads itself to a worsening of the position of women. Does monotheism (a male creation going by the text at hand) not more or less explicitly warn against male lust and are Christian fundamentalists not renown for being anti-pornography? I feel you didn't really comprehend my response.
Enfin, si ça te plait Quentin Numero 1. Le train de tes injures roule sur le rail de mon indifférence. D'être dogmatique a l'age que tu as, c'est pas exactement rare.
Horrible critique, just you questioning scientific hierarchy and methodology and then saying I’m a raging feminist. You clearly didn’t understand the article—it is scientific consensus that we cannot identify an intrinsic difference between the two. I’m not sure how to help you navigate that understanding further. 😂
If you insist Raz. My claim is that you willingly cherrypick studies and the results from studies to devise first a proposed "neutrality" of sexuality, then extrapolate any deviance from your neutral hypothesis as the result of environmental factors. That leads me to believe you have an agenda, and to have such an agenda is unscientific. It is demonstrably untrue to suggest that your article is merely about this neutrality -- viz. "Dismantling this narrative is not just a matter of intellectual integrity, but of social justice, emotional health, and sexual equity," -- a direct quote. "Social justice, emotional health, and sexual equity" are themselves narratives which might be "dismantled" by scientific inquiry. Additionally, lack of scientific consensus surrounding a proposed hypothesis does not entail consensus around its opposite -- as you claim in the above comment. It seems that you do not even understand your own article.
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.
It's way harder to form a mental connection than a phyiscal one. I don't see how that suggests women are as sexual as men?
Totally, forming a mental connection can take more time and intention, but that doesn’t make it less sexual. If anything, it makes me wonder how much more sexual women would be if they were actually given the space, safety, and stimulation to access it fully. The original point isn’t that men and women experience desire in the same way... It's the environment that plays a huge role in how it manifests. There is a reason why romance is the number one genre, its because a lot of women are missing mental and emotional stimulation in their sensuality.
It's way harder to form a mental connection than a phyiscal one. I don't see how that suggests women are as sexual as men?
My reaction would be why not just compare lesbian sex frequency to gay men’s sexual frequency within relationships. Then we could just see who is sexually more active
This would still be influenced by different socialisations.
Yes a bit but you will never achieve a point where it won’t matter
Never is being too pessimistic. We have only started talking about feminism very recently in human history, and a lot of progress has been made so far. Just because we don't see it happening in our lifetime, doesn't mean it will never happen after several generations have passed.
But isn’t feminism also a kind of socialization. Like you will probably always talk more with women or daughters about feminism than with boys
No, feminism is reaching a point where you don't treat girls and boys differently based on gender. We talk more about feminism with women now because society has been historically so patriarchic. This will be less and less true as time goes on.
But won’t one treat girls always a bit different simply because they can have babies at some point and men won’t. Or because women are smaller in average. I think even bigger boys or smaller boys are treated a bit different just because they have different height. I think most people treat people even different based on attractiveness even and men and women seem not to be beautiful in the same way even. Like beauty standards seem to diverge between boys and girls
This is brilliant. Seriously feels like I’ve stumbled across a gem. Brilliant work, plain and simple. I will coming back to this and quoting and bringing up this discussion with friends. I love this so much.
Some of the comments are….anyway! Writing so good, haters think it’s AI 😙
Love the academic format of this, I found it very engaging to read!
This was brilliantly eye-opening and mentally stimulating in an academic format which I believe served to help state your case, rather than providing an unreliable emotions based personal essay. I read the entire thing and enjoyed that you provided so many sources, scientific terms, and connections between societal issues & scientific research unreliabilities. Ignore the hate from other commenters, this was wonderfully typed and a great read. ♥️
This is astonishingly well written !! I think you would really enjoy the book the gendered brain by Gina Rippon - as with libido & sex drive there has been a very reductive scientific tendency in understanding the brain as resoloutely gendered (corresponding to sex). She does a great job of exploring how the brain is most fundamentaly reactive & mirrors the world around us - we cannot nearly seperate the physical 'realities' of science from the social. Of course this works super well with your own research & general conclusion - thank you for sharing all of your insight !!
I was thoroughly impressed reading this and it reminded me of why I came to Substack in the first place.
As I prepare to step into the world of medicine, I’m constantly reminding myself of the fact that I have a responsibility to educate and to encourage criticism of scientific studies. After reading this work, I am aware of this importance more than ever. I used to feel anxious thinking about this but now I want to be able to communicate as effectively as you have here to make a difference towards the causes I care about.
Also I feel it’s funny to mention that the first comment I saw under this work was “You fucking moron.” The internet is certainly a place.
Seems written by AI. Presented like a high school essay. No soul. A conglomeration of points separated by paragraphs with no connective tissue.
Lol, a few paragraphs and my annotated bibliography were pulled from previous academic papers I’ve written. All of my articles are formatted in this manner. Deductively or inductively (p>.95) prove this is written by AI. :3
I don't take it you read many academic or research papers.
Congrats on your astute observation skills. I take it you didn't even read this otherwise I'd be obvious to you that it's AI
I’ve read it, the entire paper, as well as numerous other research papers which is why I’m sure you haven’t read much of them if you believe this is AI. Academic papers usually differ drastically from creative writing essays, if that’s maybe what you were looking for instead.
God forbid someone be gifted with articulate speech
There's a difference between articulate and unnecessarily verbose. Presentation matters.
I agree with your observation. Her thesaurus is overly abused lol. Writing needs some fixing
Some people inherently are overly verbose, I know that since I have seen such people before gen AI and have such tendencies myself.
Men aren’t more sexual, they’re just designed to ejaculate asap. Which is why so many wives don’t want sex with them - I t’s boring for starters. Secondly it’s not erotic or sexy to have sex be something that’s done to you rather than with you.
Women do not want tonhave sexwith them because they aren't attracted to them. They are not the first choice. Moreover, sex ends when the man ejaculates. If Nature cared if the female achieved orgasm, then the penis would vibrate. Take it to god if you have a problem with this.
Nature does care - that's why the clitoris still exists. And being able to find it and use it correctly is a very efficient way for women to sort male sexual partners.
No.
Yes. The clitoris is solely purposed for pleasure, and the only organ in the human body for that purpose. The reason women have the ability to orgasm is to promote sexual activity and enhance the quality of sexual relationships, or basically to strengthen pair bonding.
Humans are not a pair bonding species. Like voles. Don't believe that? Look at the divorce rates.
Humans quite literally are a pair bonding species, divorce rates don't change that fact, love. That "50% of people who get married divorce" statement is incredibly misleading if taken at face value without considering context. from Google: "Problems arise from how data is collected, interpreted and used, leading to potential inaccuracies and oversimplification."
Just a few things you aren't considering when looking at these statistics:
Some people are overachievers. One person getting married and divorced over 15 times for sure as hell contributes to those statistics, just think with the amount of people who are like that, how much it skews these divorce rates and gives people a false perception.
They way the measure divorce rates is silly, because they take the number of people who marry this year and the number of people who divorce this year and compare them, which is ridiculous because they obviously aren't all the same people. They don't track marriages individually from start to finish to get a more accurate result, because that would be too much work. There's flaws in the way they measure divorce rates and in the way people percieve them.
Solely** for that purpose
And also, (referring to my first comment) that's why whatever kind of orgasm a women has (or instead, how it's achievd) it will always be a clitoral one.
Tell me you never felt what it is to make love with a woman which had already climax with telling it.
I feel bad for you.
Tell me how it feels to be vaccinated and have failed the biggest IQ test of your life. Remember me when you begin your deth twirl and you panic as your blood clots.
Shawn, are you ok mate? Genuinely
I feel good about tetanus (lockjaw), but I guess you refer to COVID-19, assuming I was vaccinated for that.
But still, it's out of topic.
A woman which had a climax is the best semen extractor from a man body. She does it better than you would to yourself. But you wouldn't know.
If that were true lesbian relationships would have higher rates of sexual activity than heterosexual or gay male couples but they don't.
They have higher rates of female orgasm. Enough said really.
It's so amazing they barely ever do it? Makes sense.
Oh and HAPPY PRIDE! 🌈😁
One thing that clearly isn't a myth is delusional women 😂
You ok hun??
Well, females are only hypersexual towards the men they are attracted to.
Isn't this also true of men? Many men don't perceive women who are not attractive anymore (like obese or older women). They definitely don't behave sexually towards them (exceptions exist ofcourse).
No. The standard of what men will accept is much lower because the male sex drive is much higher. Problem is: most females are flattered to the point where they actually believe they are much more attractive that they actually are.
I see what you are trying to say. I don't think that women are flattered so easily. It's common to hear women suspect that their partner doesn't actually like them and just wants to have sex with them for instance.
Women are flattered easily *by the men they are attracted to.
I can feel your uglyness from here
Be sure to hold the camera steady for your wife's boyfriend.
I was about to say that I was the boyfriend of yours, but there is no way you have one.
I don't have a wife, only tyranic girlfriends not even bootycalls and going through my door at will.
Cuz I make 'em cum when they feel to.
Zero comments because nearly nobody read the article entirely (even though it is amazingly amazing)
I’ve always had the higher sex drive in all my relationships with men. Plus, women’s orgasms are more intense than men’s !! It’s been proven. Why don’t we ever talk about that? I think for so long sex has been more focussed on the man’s pleasure which I find madness. Also in school we only learn in biology about the male orgasm. I think we need more education about female pleasure, and there needs to be way more awareness of women’s sexual libido and desires!
I’ve been saying this for ages but the current trend of woman’s sexual liberation is to act like the toxic behaviors of overly sexual / sexually defective men. By doing so, we are upholding this toxic and disgusting concept that is rooted in antiquated beliefs. Thanks for the write.
You are a fucking moron.
What follows is something that I'm sure you expected when tacitly questioning the libidinal force of men -- that is, unsolicited advice, and criticism, from one of its cursed number -- I apologise for its length:
First is your strawman: that men (as some monolith) have constructed a myth of their own hypersexuality. The reason that men have done this? "So they can fuck more" you offer as an explanation. Why they would construct a myth of their own desire to fuck more just so that they can fuck more and, most importantly, make women fuck less, is a tricky question. Another small digression -> by the sheer statistics in these so-called gender equal societies, (the contemporary west) everyone seems to be fucking less, outside of a small number of males who, gearing the system to accommodate their hypersexality, fuck a whole lot more than they would in a society where they would be forced to suppress their own desire in the interests of gender norms and traditional forms of social relation (marriage).
Your methodological critique, that is, deconstruction of (for example) Frankenbach's study on the grounds of a selective type of pornography being used, is lead merely by an anecdotal assertions concerning frequency and use of pornography, and hence why the numbers (on the female end) are lower than your "spectrum" thesis (implicitly a gender-neutral thesis) would like them to be. Little giveaways such as: "erotic literature is incredibly prevalent (...)" -- how prevalent? -- "most forms of pornography are violent and unrealistic, making it unenjoyable for the average woman..." -- proof? and why suddenly an interest in the "average" woman? -- "it is possible that women's sexual response cycle allows for greater sexual motivation..." again, conjecture (and the inclusion of that particular study is just pointless, it is not related to the question at hand, which is hypersexuality, as opposed to genital response). Same goes for the neural substrate study, off-topic. The CAIS-men thing is a bit ridiculous (no one is saying testosterone as a molecule without normal receptor levels causes male hypersexuality -- however androgen deficiency in post-menopausal women does *tend* to reduce libido, but again, statistics, who cares? We're discussing male hypersexuality prevalence vs female hypersexuality prevalence, not testosterone.). The study after that (Carvalho) included something you dismissed instantly because it went counter to your implicit assumption about female sexuality being "oppressed" by a patriarchal system that desires to silence it. All points to this fact: you are willing to be normative and unscientific when it suits you and anti-essentialist, i.e. scientific, when it does not.
Mere positing hypothetical cases or contexts wherein these gender differences would disappear (not only relativism concerning the method of testing, but now concerning that which is being tested) is also not a rigorous way of arguing your point. "If women were stronger than men would their domination of men express itself in sexual desire?" is about as meaningful a question as "if we could reproduce like slugs, would we?"
Section 4 was, again, off-topic -- a desire to flesh something out by drifting to a new outpost. Itself it is filled with some fallacious reasoning: that "men are not biologically wired to spread their seed" because of female selectivity -- this presents the two things as mutually exclusive. That "selectivity is not rooted in lower libido, it is a matter of surviving" -- surely this would point to the explanation of "lower libido" as an expression of that very selectivity/survival mechanism? Section is filled, again, with conjecture and la-di-da frillery. It is also implicitly eugenicist but that is another matter.
Section 5, concerning FGM and Patriarchal society -- is just cookie-cutter Substackerese Feminist Thinkpiece. Bonk "men" over the head for Judeochristianity, Islam, and even vaginismus while you're at it. The problem again is this all runs counter to your original thesis -- that there is a myth of hypersexuality surrounding men. If anything, all these patriarchal devices to control female sexuality point towards the opposite -- that religion and gender norms are constructed in the way they are to hamper female hypersexuality. In your original paragraph you demonised the mythical male hypersexuality as it was seen as a justification for ethical transgressions (infidelity, etc.) -- but here you give countless examples of men expressing that unlimited female libido is the real problem. "... Completely overlooking female desire as a source of pleasure, intimacy, or even as a director of evolutionary selection." Lol, yes we all know that all women are secretly orgasmic little nazis. This isn't the own you think it is.
The point is more or less touched upon in the next paragraph: that women's "sexual indulgence is determined by social limitations enforced, not by their biology." Is this exactly what you want? That sexuality should be determined by "biology"? That social limitations should not be enforced? What then, should we get rid of all laws concerning rape? Should men just follow their own biological necessity, their 'is' in lieu of their 'ought', and go around raping women as I'm sure they once did, and still opportunistically do, whenever the rule of law is suspended?
Next bit: men are in a better boat because they can hornypost on main whereas women's sexual frustration is mischaracterised as them being hormonally imbalanced around their period -- huh? As someone who lives with a hormonal little beast, who I sexually satisfy whenever she so desires it, I can tell you that her nitpicky irritable attitude around the week before her period is not so easy to assuage as that. But that is just my anecdotal evidence, I apologise, however much it mirrors the drop-off in actual logic your text contains. Another line: "it insists that if a woman is not sexually available to her partner, he is justified in seeking fulfilment elsewhere." I think that it was in Milestones by Sayyid Qutb that he wrote about how Western culture (specifically the gender-equal Golden place whereof vaginismus is unknown) everywhere encourages the idea that infidelity is justified so long as the relationship is encountering the notorious "dead bedroom" -- and this goes for either gender. What I'm intent on demonstrating is that again your line of argument is not one intent on dissolving gender norms but merely one of deepening a piety with regards to our treatment of the opposite gender, something for which monotheistic religions are renown for standing, as bulwarks against the lassitude that characterises a relativistic and nihilistic Western world.
Perhaps there is no genetic law, no hormone, nor neurological structure specifically that creates male hypersexuality. Perhaps this "male hypersexuality" doesn't exist as a biological reality, but instead as a socially constructed reality: -- however, does this make it any less real? Does it make it negative, and hence a relatively-lower female libido a negative? And is your desired world, whereof sexuality is untrammelled and unfettered by the regulation of shame and guilt, actually what you want to see come about? Because if sexuality is unfettered, then it must be unfettered for both sexes. If we bring about a world that is freed from reductionism, i.e. freed from category and norm, we bring about a world freed from ethics, and ethical regulation -- we bring about this "nature" of man, which would mean free licence to man's cruelty.
Maybe read about how pornography was made, by whom.
And then go on 4chan or Efukt to get a mesure on how your last sentence is dumb as fuck.
Do you mind being a little more explicit -- who creates pornography exactly? And what should I be looking for on 4chan and Efukt?
Pornography was made by men for men pleasure.
And those website could help you figure why it's not at women's advantages.
I've no more time for masculinists wankers.
Are you a man, Quentin number 2? My point was that a lassitude of (perhaps patriarchal) morals and gender norms leads itself to a worsening of the position of women. Does monotheism (a male creation going by the text at hand) not more or less explicitly warn against male lust and are Christian fundamentalists not renown for being anti-pornography? I feel you didn't really comprehend my response.
Who says I'm the number 2 ? i'm old, kiddo. Christian fondamentalists were anti women pleasure, not pornography.
Their value trundle along. Like yours.
Pornography is hate and sexual violence on women.
Enfin, si ça te plait Quentin Numero 1. Le train de tes injures roule sur le rail de mon indifférence. D'être dogmatique a l'age que tu as, c'est pas exactement rare.
Horrible critique, just you questioning scientific hierarchy and methodology and then saying I’m a raging feminist. You clearly didn’t understand the article—it is scientific consensus that we cannot identify an intrinsic difference between the two. I’m not sure how to help you navigate that understanding further. 😂
If you insist Raz. My claim is that you willingly cherrypick studies and the results from studies to devise first a proposed "neutrality" of sexuality, then extrapolate any deviance from your neutral hypothesis as the result of environmental factors. That leads me to believe you have an agenda, and to have such an agenda is unscientific. It is demonstrably untrue to suggest that your article is merely about this neutrality -- viz. "Dismantling this narrative is not just a matter of intellectual integrity, but of social justice, emotional health, and sexual equity," -- a direct quote. "Social justice, emotional health, and sexual equity" are themselves narratives which might be "dismantled" by scientific inquiry. Additionally, lack of scientific consensus surrounding a proposed hypothesis does not entail consensus around its opposite -- as you claim in the above comment. It seems that you do not even understand your own article.