One of the most interesting things I've come across pertaining to the differences between men and women's sexual desires and preferences.

hyperrreal · 2014-07-29T16:04:36+00:00

Late to the party, but this was a fascinating read.

For PR reasons academics need to pay lip service to feminism, even if as you say, feminism is irrelevant to the work in question. I think it's just a practical concern on the part of the author. Academic jobs and good research opportunities are incredibly competitive, and a good way to get blacklisted forever is to do research that people can twist as 'endorsing rape' or 'denying female agency' or whatever.

I think she may feel some cognitive dissonance as well, since I'm guessing she really is a feminist, and her conclusions don't fit neatly with her ideology.

steelpuppy · 2014-07-29T13:26:28+00:00

I'm hoping this sparks a few more debates about different aspects of this research but for now I'd like to concentrate on why you guys feel she needs to throw her feminist perspective in there seemingly out of nowhere, which imo completely contradicts everything she's concluded up to that point?

Because feminism (or rather its followers) simply can't allow research which contradicts their ideology. Blank slate aka "gender is a social construct" (lol) can't have science contradicting it since it might lead to realizations that man and women have distinct biological advantage and weaknesses. Which in turn might lead to people realizing that perhaps equal outcomes are detrimental to society.

Modern day feminism is very anti-science, and has blocked plenty of good research simply to keep its fundamentalist worldview intact.

BorMato · 2014-07-29T02:18:46+00:00

Probably because she's been an outspoken feminist for a while and now to say something contradicting feminist ideas would have backlash against her.

[deleted] · 2014-07-29T18:09:16+00:00

Feminism is the ultimate hamster. Women say they are feminists to appear like their words have logic to them.

RlyORly · 2014-07-30T17:48:05+00:00

That was areally interesting article. IMO a must read for both TRP and BP. For BP, to understand from what experiences TRP sometimes comes from. And for TRP to understand what the women in these experiences could be motivated with (not 100% evopsych). The sexual narcissism and the passiveness of women's sexual attraction is what really hit me there.

About the feminist part... I just think that the West (I live in central/easter europe) is far more politically correct. I didn't get the impression of the scientists trying to ruin the research with "feminism" though. More like caution in defining the end answer.

EDIT: In the comment section of the article there's some more stuff to read. Just pointing it out, for people who long for more info.

alphabetmod · 2014-07-29T02:32:57+00:00

What I'm getting out of it is that no matter what the contrary evidence shows, this woman feels the need to include an irrelevant feminist slant on the research for whatever reason.

Could you show me how you reached that conclusion? I don't really get how you got there from the quoted paragraphs. Are you rejecting to this statement in particular(?):

For women, “being desired is the orgasm,”

Because I think a lot of RP guys would also agree that being desired is the feminine form of lust while desiring is the masculine form of lust. Doesn't sound like a particularly feminist idea to me. Just sounds like an idea of hers. I can't see what the "irrelevant feminist slant" is.

ThorLives · 2014-07-29T03:52:13+00:00

What I'm getting out of it is that no matter what the contrary evidence shows, this woman feels the need to include an irrelevant feminist slant on the research for whatever reason.

It's true that the "I'm a feminist" statement was a little out of place in that section of the article. Although, it does come up a little bit again towards the end of the article, when she talks about rape fantasies - while cautioning that, while some women find them hot, they are not the same as actual rape (which would be traumatic) and mentions the paradox of being a feminist but also acknowledging the idea of rape fantasies (which is very anti-feminist).

A symbolic scene ran through Meana’s talk of female lust: a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana’s vision, was an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders. Meana apologized for the regressive, anti-feminist sound of the scene.

...

After our discussion of the alley encounter, we talked about erotic — as opposed to aversive — fantasies of rape. According to an analysis of relevant studies published last year in The Journal of Sex Research, an analysis that defines rape as involving “the use of physical force, threat of force, or incapacitation through, for example, sleep or intoxication, to coerce a woman into sexual activity against her will,” between one-third and more than one-half of women have entertained such fantasies, often during intercourse, with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.

...

The section on rape fantasies goes no for a bit after that.

alphabetmod · 2014-07-29T04:37:18+00:00

I remember reading this piece when it was first published a few years ago. It remains, imo, the most fascinating non-fiction (in the sense of 'not poetry or literature') writing I think I've ever read on the specific subject of female desire. At each point, each new discussion with a new scientist (there seem to be 3 main ideas of female desire discussed in the article) I recall thinking along the lines of 'yes, that's entirely correct, this is an exact description of how it feels for me'. For all 3 of them, strong contradictions and all.

The one scientist, Chivers, seemed to have some concern about what would be made of her statements, which doesn't seem idiotic in academia, but she's also just doing this kind of science right - i.e. avoiding absolute statements and backing away from certainty that the hard data does not yet allow for.

Edit: re: the variability between genders - this was either bad editing by the NYT or it really was just kind of plopped in there. There could be a number of reasons for this - it could be that she's allowing dogma into her thinking, but it could also be that she's making a clear gesture to what I mentioned above - not being certain, not standing atop a mountain and making pronouncements of 'facts'. If it's the latter, she definitely could have worded it in a less clumsy manner.

Skratt · 2014-07-29T05:24:25+00:00

So basically women are turned on by the feeling of being desired, and men are turned on by the feeling of desire period. Right?

Skratt · 2014-07-29T05:24:35+00:00

So basically women are turned on by the feeling of being desired, and men are turned on by the feeling of desire period. Right?

Title	One of the most interesting things I've come across pertaining to the differences between men and women's sexual desires and preferences.
Author	alphabetmod
Upvotes	10
Comments	38
Date	July 29, 2014 2:01 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2c068x/one_of_the_most_interesting_things_ive_come/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/one-of-the-most-interesting-things-ive-come-across.285222 https://theredarchive.com/post/285222

Comments