There are facts that were once known, sometimes generally known, that are now known to but a few.
We embraced science that soothed us, the science we wanted to hear.
The presumption that while male lust belongs to the animal realm, female sexuality tends naturally toward the civilized; the belief that in women’s brains the more advanced regions, the domains of forethought and self-control, are built by heredity to ably quiet the libido; the premise that emotional bonding is, for women, a potent and ancestrally prepared aphrodisiac; the idea that female eros makes women the preordained if imperfect guardians of monogamy—what nascent truths will come into view, floating forward if these faiths continue to be cut apart?
– Daniel Bergner
We live in an era plagued by pretty lies. One of the most beautiful and the least true is the lie of female sexuality. Under this lie, females carefully guard their reproductive facilities from men, who wish to spread their seed as widely as possible. What if things work the other way around? What if everything we’re taught about female sexuality is wrong? What if by totally freeing female sexuality from any moral constraints, we’ve opened up Pandora’s Box (pun intended)?
The manosphere, pick-up artists, or whatever you want to the burgeoning online group, owes its existence not to men’s desires to get laid, the increasing femininity of our culture or anything else that’s been popularly suggested. This movement owes its existence to the fact that the mainstream theory of female sexuality is a lie.
As long as people are taught that females are not promiscuous, that they love being romanced, that they should be treated with kindness if you want to impress them, they’ll be a market for the wisdom of this particular red pill.
Daniel Bergner rounds up some of the scientific research on this topic. Pretty lies perished. Feminists wept. A select few bloggers and readers nodded and took another drink.
The book is short, at times the writing is distinctly mediocre, but the science is fascinating (though it may not be surprising, if you’ve been paying attention). And, for a guy that’s been married 8+ years, the entire subject is rather depressing.
In sum, the scientific research indicates:
that one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.
The picture that emerges is one that shows that, the female libido – “the female libido looked omnivorous” – appears to crave novelty. This point was brought home by studies on monkeys’ sexual behave in a particularly illuminating manner – female monkeys will move from partner to partner almost immediately upon finishing the act itself.
All this research falls:
within an area of science that is fiercely debated, mostly because of its signs that there are certain differences in intelligence between women and men due not to culture but to genes.
Uh oh. We appear to have actual believers in evolution here. Sound the PC alarms.
Once you move a ways down this unacceptable road, the pretty lies fall quickly. Some of the findings might as well have been scripted by PUA sites. For example, here’s a woman talking about her husband: “I’m not even thirty-five,’ she said to me. ‘That tingling—I don’t get to feel that anymore?'”
Consistently, studies find that women’s self-reported levels of arousal differ wildly from their actually measured levels (the latter are measured by blood flow to the relevant areas). More specifically,
Genital blood throbbed when the tapes described X-rated episodes with female friends—but the throbbing for female strangers was twice as powerful [this test was done on straight women, btw]. The broad-chested male friends were deadening; with them, vaginal pulse almost flatlined. The male strangers stirred eight times more blood.
The “friend zone” is indeed a scientific fact. You’re better being a female stranger than a male friend if you want to get some. Behold, female sexuality.
Other inconvenient findings include:
Women who thought they were being polygraphed not only reported more partners than the rest of the female subjects, they also—unlike their female counterparts—gave numbers [of sexual partners] a good deal higher than the men.
The bottomline is that:
To be desired was at the heart of women’s desiring. Narcissism, she [i.e. the researcher] stressed—and she used the word not in damning judgment but in description—was at the core of women’s sexual psyches. . . . The wish to be the object of primal need.
And perhaps the deathblow:
She warned against the expectation or even the hope of reaching popular romantic dreams: of “merging” with a partner, of being able to say “you complete me.” This was the wrong standard for love. This kind of bond, or just the striving for it, could suffocate [female] eros. Melding left no separation to span, no distance for a lover’s drive to cross, no end point where the full force of that drive could be felt. . . .
Not only did monogamy not enhance female sexuality, but it was likely worse for women than men.
There is an interesting section on rape fantasies, which are “really fantasies of submission:”
Depending on the study, between around 30 and 60 percent of women acknowledged that they took pleasure in this kind of imagining. The true numbers, the authors argue, were probably higher.
A few of the researchers were delightfully blunt:
“One lesson,” he said, “is that you don’t want a woman to form her first impression of you when she’s in the wrong menstrual phase. You’ll never recover.
Again this is hardly surprising to anyone not fully propagandized by feminism:
Amassing evidence that, all over the globe, male randiness and female modesty are celebrated. The widespread, in his view, proves the predetermined, the genetically encoded.
Before ending, it’s worth reflecting on how terrible the modern state of affairs is for people that actually love each other. It’s appears, after a while, that female lust dies out. The mainstream “solutions” for this problem are the root cause of the problem in the first place. At a certain point, it’s just depressing to read more stories about about a woman who loves her husband, but just doesn’t get excited by him. Or a husband who can’t figure out why his wife doesn’t get excited for him.
Anyway, this is the essence of the force that feminism has unleashed. We don’t understand it (we did, but we don’t any longer, although it’s really not that difficult to understand). We should fear it. We unleashed it because, reasoning from the wrong premises, it made perfect sense to do so, despite the wisdom we’d inherited from our ancestors. Hold your asses, while we reap what we’ve sown.