Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

The Long Dive of a Woman's Sex Drive

By Liz Langley, AlterNet. Posted August 26, 2006.


A German study reports that women's sexual desire for their partners dwindles with time. What's a monogamous gal to do?
victorlis
sexdrive
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Imagine, if you will, a slide whistle -- it starts out high and then declines. That's also the soundtrack to a woman's sex drive in the same relationship over a course of years, according to a German study.

Now imagine a test of the Emergency Broadcast System, that consistent hum that stays steadfast in its signal and doesn't seem like it will ever end. That's the soundtrack for the men.

A BBC news story reports that researchers at Hamburg-Eppendorf University studied 530 men and women found that men's interest in sex stays the same, like that EBS test, no matter how long they've been in a relationship. Between 60 percent and 80 percent still wanted it regularly over time. As for the ladies, 60 percent of 30-year-old women started out hot in relationships, but "within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50 percent," and in 20 years only 20 percent remain focused horndogs.

That would seem to upend the stereotypes of the romantic, ring-happy woman and the skirt-chasing commitment-phobic man. But psychologist and lead author of the study Dr. Dietrich Klusmann points to evolutionary reasons for both male attention and female distraction.

"For men, a good reason their sexual motivation to remain constant would be to guard against being cuckolded by another male," Klusmann says. It sounds simple enough: Keep paying attention so she doesn't seek attention elsewhere.

This constancy doesn't square with the idea a lot of us have -- OK, I have -- of the promiscuous male, biologically driven to throw his DNA around like mardi gras beads to any chick who'll accept.

In looking for an explanation on how a wandering eye and a constant heart could jibe, I found this essay by David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington. In "Deflating the Myth of Monogamy," Barash quotes sociobiologist Robert Trivers, saying males have a "mixed reproductive strategy."

Males, Barash says "establish a mateship with a designated female ... while also making themselves available for E.P.C.'s (extra-pair copulations) with other females, whom they will not assist." He also brings up the cuckolding theory.

That men are capable of keeping a lot of balls in the air for a long time comes as no surprise to me.

But what about women? Are we really more fickle than we imagine ourselves to be? Most of us seem to want secure, mature love, but once we've opened that gift do we really start yawning and wondering what else is under the tree?

The fading interest some women exhibit sounds less revolutionary than evolutionary. The BBC says "He (Dr. Klusmann) said animal behavior studies suggest this could be because females may be diverting their sexual interest towards other men, in order to secure the best combinations of genetic material for their offspring.

"Or, he said, this could be because limiting sex may boost their partner's interest in it."

Dr. Helen Fisher wrote a bit about those genetic combos in her 2004 book "Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love." Looking at partner switching from an anthropological viewpoint, Fisher writes that "primitive divorce" among our early ancestors "had genetic payoffs: Men and women who "remarried" could bear young with a different partner, creating beneficial variety in their lineage."

So, as one of my friends suggested, it might sometimes be more than the fact that he won't take the garbage out.

The more of this kind of stuff I read (and I read a fair amount of it), the more I wonder if anyone in Vegas has calculated the odds of the average person making it to "happily ever after." Not whatever-after, where you're cutting all kinds of emotional corners, but the whole package -- warm, fuzzy love and hot monkey love, with the same person, true blue, until somebody is dead.

Surely it happens, but it seems rare -- and yet most of us aspire, even expect to attain it. On one hand, it seems like a tribute to human idealism. On the other hand, no wonder antidepressants are such a big business.

Whether our relationships are shaped by culture, upbringing, biology, choice or dumb luck (my bet: it's a mix), it's always fascinating to watch researchers try to figure them out. I know this is just a study of 530 people, but honestly, I've had fits of fickleness in relationships that have changed my life and made my own heart more puzzling to me than an airplane console. I'm happy to have someone even try to explain me to myself.

Maybe the heart is too random to pin down, but the attempts are certainly gratifying. Woody Allen famously said "The heart has its reasons." Blaise Pascal said, "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know." But I like it best when someone in a lab coat pops up with "I gotcher reasons right here."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liz Langley is a freelance writer in Orlando, Fla.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
horndog
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 26, 2006 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is a horndog a woman who likes men that have bigger breasts than her own?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: horndog Posted by: Iconoclast421
The PseudoLeft is only for women (and metrosexuals)
Posted by: rebel_pig on Aug 26, 2006 3:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THAT's the way to divide and rule, sez the ruling class

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Communication
Posted by: HeadsUp on Aug 26, 2006 3:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a happily married woman of 25 years. I was married twice before during the PRIME of my life and had a more than disappointing sex life with those partners. I really feel that an enjoyable sex life is about communication and anticipation. Women are too tired at night and are more likely to desire sex in the middle of the afternoon, so you call up you husband and say just that. Did the good Dr. analyze the energy levels of women that coincide with her sex drive? Wanting sex and having the energy for it are two different things and usually happen at different times of the day. Women also prefer quality to quantity. A Saturday night with a bottle of champagne as apposed to 3 or 4 sessions of jump and run. Men are less complex, jump and run plus that champagne Saturday night. This Dr. is stereotyping older women and doesn’t this somehow send the signal that men can go after younger woman because older women just can’t cut it any more?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Communication Posted by: Linda50
» RE: Communication Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Communication Posted by: Pirate1
sex and more confusing stuff
Posted by: logicaldog on Aug 26, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a couples therapist i am getting more and more cynical about monogamy working (especially for women). Is it my imagination but are men morons? I guess I am jaded but I dont see much in the way of men who are good at multitasking-(father, husband, human being). Women always seem to get holding every bag there is (work, chores, kids, sex...) Men take responsibility for? moodiness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sex and more confusing stuff Posted by: McGonigleLCSW
» RE: sex and more confusing stuff Posted by: tanstaafl28
» RE: sex and more confusing stuff Posted by: Logic's Edge
» lolol touche, bro ... Posted by: Loopylafae
» RE: lolol touche, bro ... Posted by: bornxeyed
sex and more confusing stuff
Posted by: logicaldog on Aug 26, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a couples therapist i am getting more and more cynical about monogamy working (especially for women). Is it my imagination but are men morons? I guess I am jaded but I dont see much in the way of men who are good at multitasking-(father, husband, human being). Women always seem to get holding every bag there is (work, chores, kids, sex...) Men take responsibility for? moodiness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sex and more confusing stuff Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: sex and more confusing stuff Posted by: GypsyIntent
» RE: sex and more confusing stuff Posted by: Logic's Edge
» Thanks for reminding me! Posted by: LDavistrueblue
evo-psych studies tend to be nothing but guesswork
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Aug 26, 2006 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't trust the man in the lab-coat. Who did they interview? Women of the Kalihari? I think not. They interviewed women of modern western civilization, and are now trying to extrapolate some kind of idea of 'natural' behavior from there.
What were the differences between individuals?
What reason do you or they have to think "declining sex drive" means declining for spouse and hot for everyone else-- if they truly have diminished sex drive, they aren't having affairs, they just don't have the energy or attention for it with all the other work they are doing.
And THAT is the more likely thing. The women are physically, mentally and emotionally overburdened. A little help from the men would do wonders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In my marriages (hahahaaha), I have had no desire for another man!
Posted by: Prophit on Aug 26, 2006 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, the timing of sex is one that has always been a problem. Men seem to want it in the early morning when bad breath, no shower, and conditions are the least romantic. In the evening I find from working a full 10 hour day, making dinner and doing other chores, l am left with no energy and am very tired.

I prefer it when things are easy and nice and conducive to gooooood foreplay. If my husband begins in the morning with touching and warmth and continues through the day, then early evening maybe before dinner, I am ready.

Remember, we are much different than men in getting ready to copulate. It takes more foreplay to get us into a receptive condition, while men, its just a "thought" and they are ready to go. Maybe someone in that study should have looked at those variables and situations to determine the REAL reason women lose sexual drive. Given my schedule, I wouldn't have time for anew man either. LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kids?
Posted by: Annarisse on Aug 26, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder how many of those women four years into the relationship were chasing small children all day and half the night?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kids? Posted by: specom
» RE: Kids? Posted by: Loopylafae
» RE: Kids? - too true Posted by: theracerace
antidepressants
Posted by: mazel on Aug 26, 2006 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As anybody who has been prescribed antidepressants knows, these drugs can have a very powerful negative effect on the libido. Perhaps they are a cause rather than an effect? It would be interesting to know how many in the test group are taking them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: antidepressants Posted by: Khopirrou
Naughty by Nature
Posted by: davidl.cooper on Aug 26, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans can choose to be monogamous, but I don't think we are monogamous by nature. Monogamy is necessary for our offspring which require 18-21 years of rearing. The sexual attraction and sex drive is hard-wired into us to propagate the species; however, both men and women can lose sexual interest in their mate. It is unrealistic to think that just because one marries he or she will never be attracted to another person. Some people's values prevent them from acting on the attraction. Another complication is the longer lifespan today unlike the 19th Century when one's spouse often died relatively young. Maybe, we need a new paradigm for relationships in the 21st Century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Naughty by Nature Posted by: ioni
» RE: Naughty by Nature Posted by: bornxeyed
Why Do We Study Such?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Aug 26, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Six billion people and counting, and humankind wonders about why women or men loose their sex drive.

I would like to see studies on how the sex drive can be suspressed or eliminated. And how to sterilize billions of people without their knowledge.

Humunkind are supposed to be thinking animals. We are supposed to control our lives and evironment. But, as a species, we are ruining literally everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Do We Study Such? Posted by: PickleBarrel
» RE: Why Do We Study Such? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Why Do We Study Such? Posted by: bornxeyed
I know why women loose their sex drive.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Aug 26, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is called a wedding cake.

As soon as they are married, it starts to decline.

Yes, I am a Male Chauvinist Pig.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "..living in a tent.." Posted by: theracerace
» I agree!! Posted by: kjc
» RE: I agree!! Posted by: FauxPorteno
Behavioral Science is PROGRESSIVE, folks
Posted by: socialpsych on Aug 26, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article's author displays a pathetic level of science illiteracy, as do some of the above comments.

Trust your own "experience" more than the findings of carefully conducted, peer-reviewed scientific research? You're in good company with the Christians who punished Galileo for advancing the shocking idea that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Don't believe evolutionary science has anything to say about YOUR behavior? You're right there with the Christofascists who are destroying American education and the American republic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

logicaldog Is Right
Posted by: Mar on Aug 26, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no such thing as a frigid woman, there are only stupid men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: logicaldog Is Right Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: logicaldog Is Right Posted by: fork
» RE: logicaldog Is Right Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: logicaldog Is Right Posted by: bornxeyed
» Just so you know . . Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Just so you know . . Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: logicaldog Is Right Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: logicaldog Is Right Posted by: Logic's Edge
Passionate Ape
Posted by: bw on Aug 26, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest mistake in understanding our sexual/emotional evolution is in thinking that we are the product of linear selection - that what we do now has always had a payoff, and we have been selected for it over a long period.

I suggest we are the product of wrong turns in evolution, much like the whale (which descended from a terrestrial) or the penguin (which descended from a flyer). At stages long past, we had instincts and physiology that were selected for, and as we left the corresponding need behind, the instincts and physiology are forced to cope with new conditions. Men and women don't have some optimal reproductive strategy that they've continually moved toward. Men and women have bargains they make with fate, in a tumultuous and bloody battle of the sexes. This is a battle fought in the trenches, with no overhead view to see the battlefield. It is not (I swear) what you have been told.

I apologize if this sounds like a plug, but this is the only way I can say it. If you'd like to take your brain where it's never been before, read The Passionate Ape. You can find some good reviews on Amazon, and a synopsis on my website www.PassionateApe.com.

As a thumbnail sketch: Women lost reliable orgasms when we converted to predominantly frontal sex. This caused selection for personal-preference bonds, which evolved to a level of obsession that we now call "love". This in turn selected for male faithfulness, in a species that had always been highly promiscuous. The most effective path to monogamy is to strip down scent-awareness and subtle perception in males, leaving males somewhat stupid but more or less faithful. Male intellectual decline makes courting awkward, and leads toward males targeting naive females. The fringe of this trend gives child abuse - male sexual targeting of female children.

The last fifth of the book shows the payoff, which is substantial (well, here we are).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What?!???? Posted by: morticia
» RE: What?!???? Posted by: maestra
» YES!!! Posted by: bw
» RE: YES!!! Posted by: morticia
» RE: YES!!! Posted by: bw
» RE: YES!!! Posted by: morticia
» RE: YES!!! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: YES!!! Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: YES!!! Posted by: morticia
» RE: YES!!! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: YES!!! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What?!???? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: bw
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: bw
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: bw
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Passionate Ape Posted by: bornxeyed
If it is true for German Fraus....
Posted by: xenacat on Aug 26, 2006 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These kinds of studies are always pretty laughable. Human behavior is extremely varied and hard to predict on an individual basis. Building a case for all older women losing interest in their partners over time based on the experience of 530 German Ladies is silly, silly and sillier. I know plenty of older women who have one hell of an interest in sex and plenty of older men who just want "companionship". Hey, but what the hell, stereotyping is always good for a rousing and fun discussion about idiot sexual behaviors. Let the insults roll - beats thinking about how Dubya is trashing the world at this very moment....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more we study ourselves the less we really know
Posted by: tanstaafl28 on Aug 26, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone should tell my wife about this one because her sex drive shows no sign of slowing down!

Seriously, if this study is even true for a majority of women in the world, I suspect that the only thing slowing a woman's sex drive is juggling their careers, children, a mate, and everything else in-between. I believe most of them are probably just too damn tired to think about having sex!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wives of a Feather Posted by: WildCherrySkittles
Older & Wiser
Posted by: vincen13 on Aug 26, 2006 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blah, blah, blah! Research away. Human beings are sexually interested in variety, but make committments for legal and financial reasons and make their primary relationship work, if they value themselves and their partner. Modern society seems to believe that every sexual encounter should be Cosmo-wonderful, Sex in the City Marvelous. I, for one, wish that we could advance to some level of maturity where we can act on our higher values, and recognize our attractions, our passions, our infatuations are as fleeting as a firefly's light.

Newsflash! Both men and women get bored with monogamy, lust after others, occasionally sample a few others but want to come home to the comfort and security of someone who they can make love with, raise kids with, and count on to come out on a rainy night and help if the car breaks down.

Not very "fascinating" but very real!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Older & Wiser Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Older & Wiser Posted by: Pirate1
THANK GOD ... RELIEF AT LAST!
Posted by: michaelo on Aug 26, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its about time. Every since the overthrow of matriarchy by the worn out hunter-killler barbarian patriarchs, we average guys have had to UP the old flag pole, no matter how hard we work:

Get up before dawn, eat gruel, dress in ridiculous outfits, match ties with shirts, find a means to commute to a alienating exploitive job, get yelled at grueling hour after hour, eat a pathetic lunch (ham and cheese - peanut butter and marmalade,) turn in our work, smoke endless cigarettes to help repress our overthetop emotions, commute home.

THEN we have to water the lawn, take out the trash, fix the sink, walk the dog, kick the kids, listen to an endless stream of bs-over-the-fence gossip, not to mention the neverending regurgitation of intra-family warmongering and the ensconced drivel of mother and fathers-in-law. (Whew!)

Then practice our golf swing, or play pitch and hit with Little shit head Jimmy. Clean the gutters before the rainy season, clip the hedges, gather fire wood or organize the weekend bbq crap. Wash the dog, take the wife's car to some jerk mechanic who points out that even an idiotic could have fixed what's wrong with it ... and he didnt mean her.

Trim our toenails because we are tired of hearing the under the cover bitching, get out clothes for the next day of wage slave labor. Polish our shoes and do the report for the idiot who is married to either the boss's or manager's daughter. Help quiet down the kids and assure them there were no monsters under the bed. Put the dog out. Turn out the lights and finally rest our tired worn out overworked underexercised bodies on a bed in front of Carson or Leno or some other half witted jerk SHE thinks is cute and then when she decides, run up a flagpole of an erection so she can ride it to death.

Then get up the next morning before dawn and shower off the sweat she thinks is romantic ...

Finally there is an end in site. Whew. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THANK GOD ... RELIEF AT LAST! Posted by: paul_revere
Well, this sure explains "lesbian bed death"
Posted by: BlueStateBitch on Aug 26, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a lesbian with (naturally) lots of lesbian friends. Many of the couples report that their sex lives dwindle away to nothing until they're just "best friends" who share a bed. If they're really in love with each other and want a monogamous relationship, this basically condemns them to life without sex.

And now I understand why. It's a girl thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This story is nonsense
Posted by: jim_the_owl on Aug 26, 2006 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story is complete nonsense. My wife and I have been married for over 20 years, and we have been together longer than that and her sexual attraction for me, and mine for her, has done nothing but gotten stronger over the years. This is yet another example of the Liberal's attempt to make cheating okay. Cheating is NOT okay, in fact is destroys relationships because the trust is lost between couples. Don't believe any of this drivel you read in this story, because it is not true. My parents have been married for over 50 years and they are still "at it" with each other, even more so now that they are retired. Forget this stupid article and you will be better off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This story is nonsense Posted by: maestra
» RE: This story is nonsense Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: This story is nonsense Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: This story is nonsense Posted by: Pocahontas
» RE: This story is nonsense Posted by: caitlin
Funny my friend and I came up with this explanation last night
Posted by: Blueweed on Aug 26, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny, my good single male friend (just split with his fiance - they were not doing well in the sex dept after 5 years) and I were discussing this problem last night. I'm 45 and surrounded by failed or stalled marriages (about 50% say they never have sex and some for over the last 5 to 7 years).

I never married, have had many lovers, a number of 2 and 1/2 year monogamous relationships, no children (no desire for them either) and am flumoxed by how all of us are floundering in the death do us part department. I used to envy my married friends and lately not so at all. Neither being single nor married seems all it's cracked up to be.

This article echoed much of what we came up last night with on why monogamy & women's sex drives result in not much nooky. I think perhaps human idealism is to blame (along with jealousy and possesiveness) in setting ourselves up for failure in sustaining sex in long-term heterosexual partnerships. Yet, trying to sustaing open-relationships is fraught with it's own perils (stds, jealous rage, loneliness, economic/social risk & 2nd class citizenship for women are some). Basically, seems we're screwed in both arenas.

Can't wait to pass this on to the many folks I know unable to get it on after they say "I do".

Pondering the Human Predicament in Seattle ~
Betka

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Suggestion for another study
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Aug 26, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone tried looking into the female sex drive in households where she's provided with maids, nannies, servants and inexhaustible credit cards?

You know, I bet they'd find exactly the same thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Suggestion for another study Posted by: BlueStateBitch
Where have all the horndogs gone?
Posted by: Guy on Aug 26, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I want to know is where are those "20 percent of focused horndogs?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Newness Factor
Posted by: DataDoc on Aug 26, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A new relationship is definitely hot, and both men and women can fall crazy in love. For the work you put into it, you get a lot of passion in return. An old relationship is safe, and takes more work to generate passion. Still, it's worth the effort - you might not have as much sex, but the sex may get better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A question concering the article that needs clarification, please.
Posted by: bornxeyed on Aug 26, 2006 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does this article imply that statistically women lose interest in sex overall or is it implying they lose interest in their regular partner?

The two are quite different with different implications.

In scenario one the woman simply wnats no more sex. In scenario two she has no interest in sex with her husband. If so, perhaps she doesn't seek others for reasons outside of lack of desire, but would be receptive to a new genetic source - using the paradigm of enhancing genetic diversity in her potential offspring.

Can anyone clear that up for me?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Women are naturally promiscuous too Posted by: radical_blonde
» RE: Women are naturally promiscuous too Posted by: radical_blonde
Broaden The Inquiry
Posted by: Rich G. on Aug 26, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Human beings have more "soft wiring" than other animals (that we know of). Carnivores are sculpted to take down other animals, giraffes are built to pluck leaves from high branches, anteaters to give select insects a bad time. But physically humans are relatively amorphous (pink & fuzzy--pick your favorite color!) and must rely on their wits, and each other. It's our capacity for learned behavior that distinguishes us, and makes us so mutable, by turns capable of both the demonic and divine. We're made of very plastic stuff. And then there's language, culture, art, religion, and science and cycle upon cycle of the extra-dimentional plasticity they create through collective behaviors. Before I put much stock in the kind of study the author cites I'd want to see a serious attempt to take stock not only of human sexuality among a small group of woman in one modern European industrial nation where everyone takes electricity and automobiles for granted, but of diverse cultures throughout the world, and not only focused in the present, but with an eye on historical perspectives as well. We belong to a race which, whatever horrors it's capable of, affords its member the sublimity of "conversing" with genius long dead. That's a magic brief, people! Our desire to understand ourselves in the here & now can only profit from studying what A. Whitney Brown used to call "El photo grande" on Saturday Night Live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Am I missing something?
Posted by: Graeme on Aug 26, 2006 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or is the study? Did the researchers ever examine the simple possibility that female sex drive in general tends to decline during the two decades between 30 (sexual prime) and 50 (post-menopause)? What if it has nothing to do with attraction for a particular partner at all?

The first difference, at age 30 (60% of women compared twith 60-80% of men, which is itself a fairly wide and unexplained variance; is it 60% or 80%?) may be explained by the fact that men's sex drive (at least as measured here) is naturally stronger to begin with, regardless of monogamy vs. multiple partners. On the other hand, the figures could be identical (60% each?). The fact that female sex drive drops within 4 years would seem to support the thesis described above, but this is still unclear: 50% of women compared to 60% of men isn't much of a difference, especially taking the margin of error into account (whatever it is in this case). If it is 50% compared to 80% this would be more striking, but only if the original figures were comparable (i.e., 60% consistently contrasted with 80%).

As for the later comparison: as I remember, female sex drive tends to slowly decline as a woman ages, particularly after menopause, whereas male sex drive tends to stay pretty much constant from a man's mid-20s to his late 70s. Did the researchers ever try to simply correlate their data with this oft-reported general trend? Maybe their findings have nothing to do with the issues being discussed above, and were released simply to generate attention. Maybe there is nothing new here at all.

Then there is the simple fact that 530 people is a ridiculously small sample size from which to draw any conclusions anyway (is it 530 total or 530 men and 530 women?); I think the conclusions being suggested above, while interesting (and possibly valid), really aren't based on any hard science (at least based on this single survey alone), which makes them highly questionable to say the least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Am I missing something? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Am I missing something? Posted by: Graeme
» RE: Am I missing something? Posted by: leftisright
» RE: Am I missing something? Posted by: Graeme
» RE: Am I missing something? Posted by: digitalspy
No more sex - HOORAY!
Posted by: pianojo on Aug 26, 2006 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a woman friend who went into menopause when she turned 50. Once that started, she lost all interest in sex and she says that for her it was FREEDOM!

No more sex drive making her climb the walls.

Since sex was too painful she simply eliminated it from her life and for the first time, she knew FREEDOM - real FREEDOM. To be free of the sex drive was a revelation. To be relieved of the burden of sex was to have a very weighty bundle lifted from her shoulders.

And now she loves it. NO MORE SEX! Doesn't miss it for an instant. Never thinks about it. Has freedom from it and LOVES IT!

Judging by my friend, I guess there is something to be said for celibacy after all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No more sex - HOORAY! Posted by: mazel
» RE: No more sex - HOORAY! Posted by: leftisright
» I will miss it! Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: No more sex - HOORAY! Posted by: nowfifty
RE: tedbohne, PhD
Posted by: Talon on Aug 26, 2006 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spoken like a true closeted gay man!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Closeted? Posted by: sln70
MEN are NOT stupid.
Posted by: Jnutter on Aug 26, 2006 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm posting this one on its own because otherwise I would have to attach it to half the posts on here.

MEN are NOT stupid. When did it become OK to paint an entire gender with the stupid brush?? OK, fine. Women have had to put up with this kind of crap for most of history but do you really think you are making the situation between men and women any better by constantly degrading males? Is this the "equality" you were looking for?

The prevalence of this kind of crap is just getting out of hand. You want a healthy relationship? How about starting by showing the opposite gender a little respect... and guess what ladies... its a two-way street.

I'm waiting for the article that says "Gender is not a basis upon which any serious conclusions can be drawn." Until then, this whole feminista movement has nothing to do with equality... its just all about revenge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: Ouelle
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: celticsweetgrass
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: celticsweetgrass
» Ahem, how about this... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: bornxeyed
» I agree! Shhh! Posted by: MatthewSavage
» wrong thread guys . . Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: wrong thread guys . . Posted by: AFWXMAN
» RE: MEN are NOT stupid. Posted by: Logic's Edge
I agree....
Posted by: BobHarris on Aug 26, 2006 7:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the findings so far, because I have seen it in action.

Hopefully it will get talked about now, insted of people throwing stones at each other for something nobody knows how to express.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hi, Bob! Posted by: H_H
What if people turn out to be complicated?
Posted by: davelwhite on Aug 26, 2006 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an information technology person, I have this wild and crazy theory I call the "Microsoft Word Theory." Microsoft Word is composed of tens of thousands of lines of code (even Notepad probably has a thousand or more) and I propose that describing the varieties of human intimate experience (especially if you are aiming to include love and commitment as well as sex, like the above article attempts to do) should be AT LEAST as complicated as Microsoft Word. Maybe love isn't "Ineffable"; maybe the mysteries of attraction are not reserved for poets and off-limits to science forever; but if science wants to explain love, it's going to have to try harder than coming up with something that has the complexity and subtlety of a first-semester programming project.

Let's take one paragraph for starters:
>>...whole package -- warm, fuzzy love and hot monkey love, with the same person, true blue, until somebody is dead.

Surely any even halfway-decent SUMMARY of knowledge on this subject would need to point out that this wasn't even a goal for people in most cultures before the twentieth century. Premodern marriage was a sexist economic arrangement; as such, it needed to be replaced, but there is no particular reason it needed to be replaced with the above summary of five Meg Ryan romantic comedies. Even hot monkeys, I suspect, get less horny as they get older-- I think it's sad that we have become so fixated on sex being the basis of love that we now even expect seventy-year-olds to chomp Viagra to pump "vitality" into their marriages. You know what? They might love each other even if they DON'T have a sex drive.

Occasionally, when we're not pretending that marriage-for-sexual-love is timeless, we admit that pre-modern marriage wasn't much about love, and pre-moderns didn't focus on achieving happiness through their sex drives like we do. That makes us feel enlightened and un-repressed; but we don't follow the analysis further to find out what ELSE was different then. In the 1700's, the dictionary definition of friendship (from Samuel Johnson's English Dictionary) was "the highest degree of intimacy," and a whole raft of other facts about nonsexual physical affection, emotional expressiveness, etc., attests to this difference between now and then, for both sexes. Why can't we un-repress the Victorian attitudes about gender and sexuality, while keeping the wisdom that love does not necessarily require sex?

As for people being complicated, where does the above Theory have any space for me? A virgin till 27, came out as bisexual, had a number of lovers (mostly same-sex) for a few years, then went back to being celibate again (I'm 34 now); lived with friends, exchanged sappy letters with friends for years, did pretty much every "relationship" type of thing with nonsexual friends, throughout my whole life. Biggest disappointment of my life was losing one of my best friends to his wife's disapproval of me. Sometimes have a high sex drive, but mostly not interested most of the time, mostly want to just cuddle. Now that you've got this nice picture in your head of a crunchy sensible-shoe-wearing lesbian, consider that I am male.

Does the theory above even explain mostly-nonsexual queer guys in the first place? Does your theory explain the possibility of friendships lasting longer than marriages, which happens all the time? There are so many people I know who are not explained by these simplistic theories, it makes me think that they are just describing the majority cultural preferences of our time and calling it "science," as though some guy with a clipboard stood in Medieval European town squares and, by ignoring the Pagans who did their ceremonies in secret, as well as any other cultures or times, came to the conclusion that "human beings all believe in a tripartate God and worship Him on Sundays, probably based on genetic programming."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for advising the fickleness of it all
Posted by: BarneyMoran on Aug 26, 2006 7:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Refreshing to get this info and not have the writer layer over it, and honestly admit the heart is a fickle beast.

For my 2 cents, the sex is good after the day has been good, stuff accomplished, ideas exchanged, and the kids are happy and sleeping soundly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Real Love Exists!!!!
Posted by: Evergreen444 on Aug 26, 2006 11:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is just wanting something new-more better new shiny whatever. No one waits for real love anymore. People don't try to stay together( I am not a christian)You just go for the lavish wedding and all the junk that goes with it. Sex changes-you don't always feel the same. So what?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sociobiology is BS
Posted by: kenhymes on Aug 27, 2006 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All sociobiology is speculation and culturally constructed ideas dreseed up as science. People are not predictable or reducible to these kinds of notions and categories.

A friend of mine once pointed out that the flaw in both sociobiological thinking and statictical thinking when applied to human behavior is that it fails to recognize a basic truth about humans: one does not equal one. In other words, humans (and any other critters with consciousness) are both too complex and too individual to ever be reduced to integers or factors in an equation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sociobiology is BS Posted by: bornxeyed
» Thank you - yes Posted by: nowfifty
In Response to Liz
Posted by: Cousin Jack on Aug 27, 2006 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Long Dive of a Woman's Sex Drive

By Mitzi Tingleless, August 2006
A German study reports that women's sexual desire for their partners dwindles with time. What's a monogamous gal to do? "Get Laid>........Jack"
Imagine, if you will, a slide whistle -- it starts out high and then declines. That's also the soundtrack to a woman's sex drive in the same relationship over a course of years, according to a German study. "Ladies, trade in that "slide whistle" for a fog horn; One long low moan after another>..............Jack"

Now imagine a test of the Emergency Broadcast System, that consistent hum that stays steadfast in its signal and doesn't seem like it will ever end. That's the soundtrack for the men. "We will now conduct a 30 second test of the Emergency Broadcast System> ........Jack"

A BBC News story reports that researchers at Hamburg-Eppendorf University studied 530 men and women found that men's interest in sex stays the same, like that EBS test, no matter how long they've been in a relationship. Between 60 percent and 80 percent still wanted it regularly over time. As for the ladies, 60 percent of 30-year-old women started out hot in relationships, but "within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50 percent," and in 20 years only 20 percent remain focused horndogs. "Horndogs, a corn dog with an attitude. Yo....Adrian, bring those buns over here, and let's relish the moment>........Jack"

That would seem to upend the stereotypes of the romantic, ring-happy woman and the skirt-chasing commitment-phobic man. But psychologist and lead author of the study Dr. Dietrich Klusmann points to evolutionary reasons for both male attention and female distraction. "Ellen Degenerate, a leading women for women's sake advocate, points out that many frustrated women have yet to come to terms with their true sexuality. Her now famous tv show, "Ellen Degenerates Hour of Women Power advocates the use of old fashioned converse sneakers and mens pants, to get a woman to think in an "Ellenly way." "I think women of today just need to reach out to other women to help them with their true feelings said Degenerate." "Men want to shower us with their testosterone; but my system allows a woman to drink the nectar of womanhood, that so freely flows from them, when they are stimulated to their estrodegenerate peak. We want women to love men again, and we are sure they will, after we are done with them." (Degenerate does a little dance, gives a big smile, and adjusts her crotch>............Jack"

"For men, a good reason their sexual motivation to remain constant would be to guard against being cuckolded by another male," Klusmann says. It sounds simple enough: Keep paying attention so she doesn't seek attention elsewhere. "Cuckolded by another male? Reminds me of the famous scene from "Pulp Fiction," "Yo, Bruth, you bad boy, did you get cuckolded in the basement of the Army Navy store." "Naw, sayeth Bruthey, Zed is Dead,.....talk to Ving though."
Uma Thurman reportedly said that Bruth got her attention, and got to her heart faster than any man ever had. "It was miraculous" said Thurman, who is currently recovering in a rehab unit for needle junkies.>.............Jack"

This constancy doesn't square with the idea a lot of us have -- OK, I have -- of the promiscuous male, biologically driven to throw his DNA around like mardi gras beads to any chick who'll accept. "Peanuts, get your Peanuts here, Hello there pretty missy, would you like some peanus.>.........Jack"

In looking for an explanation on how a wandering eye and a constant heart could jibe, David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington. In "Deflating the Myth of Monogamy," Barash quotes sociobiologist Robert Trivers, saying males have a "mixed reproductive strategy." "Bernadette Peter-Turner...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intellectual Arrogance
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Aug 27, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doestoevsky stated in The Brothers Karamazav "The intellectual loves mankind but not his neighbor." It describes well the much of the content of the comments to this article. It seems many of those who voice their views are doing so from a detached position viewing all those "neighbors" i.e. common men and women with a veiled arrogance belying an underlying contempt while professing to embrace the species.

It is hard to reading these comments without an overwhelming feeling that they are somehow above the human condition. But of course actually living life, struggling with human relationships and caring for families seems secondary to the explanation of our connectedness by which way peneatration occurs, who is the "alpha" male and how he is selected by some secret female code, who pairs with who and who copulates with who.

Bona fide intellectuals at least would have read the more insightful, complex and more human studies and research into sexuality including psychosexual development, psychosocial development, attachment theory, spiritual agape in relationships and the impact of technology on the detachment of Western Culture from nature. Also it would help to read the Kama Sutra, Greek culture B.C. and a bit of Zen Buddhism to undertand that sexual activity, relationships and paring have been well understood and practiced in other societies, countries and cultures. But they managed to respect the relationship before the sexual act whereas comments to this article consdier the sexual act first, then realtionships. And as Hamlet stated "there is the rub."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

taking apart evo-psych
Posted by: mr5roses on Aug 27, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Susan McKinnon's book Neo-Liberal Genetics: The Myths and Moral Tales of Evolutionary Psychology calmly, learnedly takes apart the conventions of evolutionary psychology that previously I had some inclination to believe. Human beings and their cultures are much more diverse, on the (for instance) anthropological record, than e-p cares to account for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for the reminder. Posted by: Sojourner
why mine has gone down the tubes....
Posted by: realisticwomon on Aug 27, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
uh....1 in 3 men suffer from premature ejaculation. Yeah, I'm a married woman who's sex drive seriously declined two years ago when my husband aquired this premature ejaculation problem. When sex lasts 1 whole minute, what woman in her right mind would want that kind of sex life? It's not even worth it. And I'm in my 30's. I should be having a wonderful sex life. But it's just not happening. My husband has a very strong sex drive. So maybe, science needs to find out WHY women's sex drive has gone down. Look at the man. UGH!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» get your hubby to an ND ..Quick!! Posted by: Loopylafae
» cunnilingus.... Posted by: owleyes
» RE: cunnilingus.... Posted by: aburritt
"What's a monogamous gal to do?"
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Aug 27, 2006 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if there is an agenda behind this article. It seems a lot like just one more swing of the axe at marriage. "What's a monogamous gal to do?" Staying faithful to her husband doesn't seem to be on the table here. The suggestion appears to be that this is a common situation, she should start having affairs, and feel ok about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

data + speculation = "reasons"
Posted by: owleyes on Aug 27, 2006 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biological reductionism is too adaptable to be taken seriously. You can apply some form of it to virtually any results and get some nice platitudes to make people feel better about their behavior. But biological reductionism assumes that we are biologically determined. Most people, when pressed, are not able to accept evolutionary determinism, because they recognize that there are other factors (mentioned by the author a few lines after she appeared to swallow evolutionary determinism whole hog). Certainly, evolution must account for some of our behavior. But without some method other than collecting data and then shooting in the dark to arrive at an explanation for it, we will never know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My experience
Posted by: popsicle67 on Aug 27, 2006 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I have to share is uncomfortable, more for men but some women may take offense. The real problem with marriage today is the way we allow our spouses to treat us.
A comment here, a rant there, Does your partner make you feel uncomfortable with actions or words? Yes I am talking about abuse! subtle,sometimes amusing,mostly tasteless comments or jokes about a person or little lies that build up.
I see things that make me ill happen to women everyday and it gets laghed or at least ignored away. Look deeply into yourself and ask if you do feel loved by this man or do you feel like a football(sure he likes the football a lot, but he stills throws it and kicks it because that is it's purpose) Do you feel your purpose is to make him feel better by letting him tear you apart? Remember this isn't the problem that women who are beaten and killed are suffering from this is a problem because you don't think it is a problem, you just
don't feel as good about yourself or your relationship but you can't think of it as being a bad one. Start expecting more from your partner. Expect your partner to treat you with dignity always. If you aren't, find one who will and don't worry about sex, I found out with my ex that respect is the best aphrodesiac( well that and weight loss ) and enjoy an active sex life with her years after the divorce because the other men she has dated still have no idea that women have feelings and she is tired of them period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pure drivel!! Posted by: FauxPorteno
Pathetic.
Posted by: adiene on Aug 27, 2006 1:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pathetic that you argue over this. . . It's disheartening that with all of the real problems occuring in this world we choose to spend time on a blog and debate "its" & "it's", whales, penguins. . . To throw inflammatory statements at a screen - really, use your energy & mind in a more positive way.

What is wrong with us? No wonder we all lose our sex drives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pathetic. Posted by: bornxeyed
futility
Posted by: caspar on Aug 27, 2006 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Woody Allen famously said "The heart has its reasons." Blaise Pascal said, "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know." And Ulysses Everett McGill said "It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart."-- O Brother Where Art Thou? I side with Ulysses. And think the same could be said for the sex drive and behavior of human beings and in my opinion most efforts to connect the two are futile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: tedbohne, PhD
Posted by: caitlin on Aug 28, 2006 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If only there was a way to tattoo this on your forehead so that all of us "fucking whinebags" can avoid your sorry ass...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know how...
Posted by: caitlin on Aug 28, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lots of (annoyingly sexist) people say that the cure for erectile dysfunction isn't Viagra, it's a younger woman? Well, I've long felt that the cure for women's frigidity is a new partner. Sorry men, but you aren't the only ones who get bored with the same sex partner, year in and year out.

Fortunately for my husband and I, we are realistic about the fact that we will be interested in sex with other people. We don't necessarily act on it, but we do find ways to incorporate our fantasies into our sex lives, which has the added effect of making our sex even better. I find a lot of people are not honest with themselves or with each other about their sexual desires, and that they hold each other to unrealistic expectations. Like, who seriously expects that their partner will never look at another person with lust once they are married? That's just nonsense, and anyone who is unable to deal with the fact that people have wandering eyes needs to reconsider their readiness to enter into a committed relationship.

Of course, this is after only six years of marriage and no children. Ask us how we are doing in twenty years, or if we decide to have some kids....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You know how... Posted by: bornxeyed
» Beware "The Seven Year Itch"? Posted by: Sojourner
» we're at 8 years and 2 kids Posted by: nor cal surfer
I will miss it.
Posted by: crashgrab on Aug 28, 2006 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If she doesn't miss it then she wasn't doing it right in the first place!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Percentages?
Posted by: jxnhole on Aug 28, 2006 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder how much those numbers would change it she's having great orgasms?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Read more....
Posted by: morticia on Aug 28, 2006 10:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I followed your link and did read more, including the Schopenhauer. Methinks the fancy last sentence in your post is a disguised, dressed-to-kill version of his verdict on womankind...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ead more.... Posted by: bornxeyed
RE: The Reason That Women Lose Their Sex Drive...
Posted by: bornxeyed on Aug 29, 2006 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I really hate diatribes that state "men are this, women are that"

People are people. Generalities are injustice.

Stop thinking in dualities and maybe we'd all get along better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It looks as if..... Posted by: morticia
» RE: It looks as if..... Posted by: bornxeyed
What Young Women Want
Posted by: Ouelle on Aug 29, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The cure for men and their sexual problems cannot be young women, that wouldn't be fair to the young women. Men act as if young beautiful women with their lives ahead of them would be all for hooking up with some sweaty middle aged creep. What a joke, it's like it never occurs to them that these young women have the same dreams they do. What the hell makes anyone believe any young girl would throw her life away to be with some old guy and his baggage? Not to mention his middle aged spread. Like we can't apprciate hard bodied hot young guys. They don't want to be with women their own fucking age but some hot girl should want them. Yeah right. Stop kidding yourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: Ouelle
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: celticsweetgrass
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: celticsweetgrass
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: Ouelle
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: Ouelle
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: celticsweetgrass
» RE: What Young Women Want Posted by: Logic's Edge
We must embrace adultry
Posted by: Bobsays on Aug 31, 2006 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it: you should never, ever marry a person who is not your best friend. And you should never kid yourself that over a lifetime you will be stoicly faithful. Life is about phases: good ones, bad ones, mediocre ones. We need sex like we need food.

We need to ditch the hideous morallising that comes from mostly American females about adultry. Most women in Europe and Canada know that for a marriage to survive the long-haul, a tolerance of affairs here and there is the right thing to do.

The whole blow job scandal with Bill Clinton was a very American scandal. One that held a charismatic man to an impossible standard.

I have noticed that most militant women around this issue are often the ones in their 20s and 30s who have not yet married. They babble all sorts of stuff about female empowerment and how they can play the field until they get married. And then they say dumb stuff like 'if I catch him with another woman, bang, he is so history!'. And then they look for another guy, and they apply the same fase expectations, then they divorce again. Then they try being a bitter lesbian for a while. And then their looks go and they start the endless complaining about men because she can't find another partner again. And they take this bitching to the grave. Yet they could have gone about it in a different way. They could have looked for a best friend. They could have realised the best friend is only human, and that life is a marathon race, not a sprint. That they will need occassional muses to get the juices flowing again. And they would ditch the hypocracy.

As for miserable American men who get all this BS from American women, I say this: go get a European or Asian wife. You will be a million times more happy and your marriage will have a better chance of going the distance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank You!! Posted by: Loopylafae
Human behavior is "thank god" complex.....
Posted by: mdevitt on Aug 31, 2006 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder how many women/ or men, who loose interest in their mate, truly take responsibility for creating their excitements and are simultaneously in a caring relationship where they both scribble on their TO DO lists... "Make choices to support and foster myself and my mate". Or how many women/ men displaced their interest because they didn't understand it is a type of self-exploration and responsibility to rekindle lust--- a committent to the relationship. To stop seeing the wonder in the person next to you is narrow. One amazing way to re-create excitement is to have the ability to follow the yellow brick road of a fantasy and verbalize it in the acts of love making. I love verbalizing for her my fantasy of watching her with another man. That kicks things up a mile. What if we acknowledged these outside attractions and integrated them? Nothing forbidden in fantasy? I think we need to understand that we all have attractions outside our principle relationship. When we do--- we realize interest somewhere else does not have to mean limiting attention for ourselves, but maybe it is more like a temporary suspension and something to be shared. Relationships that are shallow, not mutually valued, and/or overly possessive have a problem creating this type of mature appreciation. I think this study is provocative and creates interest but does very little to answer questions. Human behavior is too personal in nature to be generalized. The study is amazingly narrow. And the frame is dispiriting and naively biologically reductive. I am much more interested in hearing stories on how people generate satisfying lusts and erotic connections with mates, either long term or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]