So over on The Spearhead, the fellas are discussing journalist Daniel Bergner’s sexy new sex book What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire. It’s a book that challenges many conventional wisdoms, both scientific and popular, about sexuality and, as Salon puts it, portrays female sexuality as essentially “base, animalistic and ravenous.”
I haven’t read the book, but it’s worth pointing out that this is not exactly a new idea. Indeed, for long stretches of human history this was the conventional wisdom about female sexuality, a fact I can only presume that Bergner addresses in some form.
Of course, none of the fellows on The Spearhead have actually read the book either, including W.F. Price, so essentially they just use the occasion of its publication as an excuse to spout their own, er, theories about evil sex-desiring ladies.
Price, extremely old school himself, agrees that “women’s sexuality is a powerful and often disruptive force” that “can be terrible in its power.” But he also thinks that the good fellows in the “androsphere” — his preferred term for what others call the “manosphere” — have these sneaky sexy ladies all figured out, and that this “knowledge disarms much of that [evil sexy lady] power.”
So, he concludes, Bergner may actually be doing the dudes of the world a solid:
The Red Pill, in short, is simply the truth about female sexuality. All Bergner has done is repackage the red pill and make it look sexy, and even empowering to women. So I suppose we should give the guy credit for doing us a favor, because although it is being sold with some misleading advertising, at least his book will contribute to general knowledge about the ancient truths of the world.
Or so he assumes, anyway, not having read the book. (I wish I could get a job reviewing books without reading them.)
Naturally, the Spearhead commentariat has many, erm, intriguing thoughts on the matter. So let’s look at some highlights — by which, as always, I mean lowlights. (And it goes without saying that all these comments got numerous upvotes from Spearhead readers.)
DCM offers some thoughts on female brains, and why the ladies need to be held in check and, I guess, never told that they’re pretty (even if you want to bone them):
Females’ minds are slightly but noticeably more primitive than men’s. Few of them will achieve mental and emotional maturity till they are old and infertile.
There’s little hope of getting most females to be rational, however smart they may be; they can only be somewhat repressed via ethics enforced by other females and the law, or men can be educated from childhood to see them as they are and not give in to the semi-instinctive idealization of females that’s part of the mating urge.
The latter is probably simpler and better.
Joeb offers a long and admittedly baffling manifesto, filled with parables and mixed metaphors and words used in, well, let’s just call them idiosyncratic ways. I’m trimmed out some of the really confusing bits, so what is left should be merely confusing.
Human sexuality is a red herring for the female to divert the real issue
Men cringe and cower to the mere mention of sex . Females use this red herring the same way the Government uses feminism .
As a shield .
If ,we all stop thinking with the most basic human drive and start thinking with are Mind’s , We need to put away anything remotely attributed to the visualization of sex during the other 23 hours a day . and push the real issue’s that stem from these basic drives in overdrive …
As long as females can divert the argument to sex they win . …
The red pill gives us a release from this Bondage .
I like to call Blue pill males ” Males still tied to the mask . We are all on a ship with rules and a limited space . As soon as you wake to the horror of your enslavement to the mask , Doesn’t mean you are not still enslaved . Shanghaiing refers to the practice of conscripting men as sailors by coercive techniques such as trickery, intimidation, or violence.
Does this sound familiar . …
Continue Taking the regiment of the red pill and you will start seeing Life boats , Islands and other men on the boat .
Its not a one time Pill its a regiment .
Being deprogrammed from Bondage is a painstaking task . All that’s needed to derail this process is The Captain to throw a few galley wags to the sailor and he calms down and works hard .
Don’t get sidetracked by sexual issue’s they have nothing , I say nothing to do with Men’s rights . The Government is the privateer and we are the conscripted Male .
Conscription have been used for Thousands of years , Hitler , pirates , the Chinese , Mongols , The British , To build army’s of slaves .
We still fall for that one every time And it never ends well .
Keyster is a tad more coherent, if equally backward:
The Red Pill is understanding female sexual power.
If you’re an unattractive woman or lesbian you might be a feminist because you have such limited sexual power – over men.
Women wanted “rights” and “liberation”, but insisted on keeping their sexual power, much to the dismay of strident feminists. The male needs to understand female sexual power. Most are entranced by it while not even knowing it. There are untold fables and metaphor for this, from The Fall to Odysseus to Cleopatra and Mark Anthony.
It’s a “backlash” against women wanting feminism AND sexual power. Their sexual power is diminishing every day. The more they behave like men, the less sexual power they have…the less power they have at all.
I confess I don’t really understand sven thomas’ deal at all. Oh, his argument I get. It’s his, well, vocabulary that puzzles me.
Ummmm
The Author is late to the party.
5,000 years ago we witnessed Eve being tempted by the serpents as she lusted after da lostasts cockasz.
About 2800 years ago we witnessed Helen deserting her family/husband and running off with a PUA and causing a war, whence tens of thousands perished.
The important thing for MEN to see here is why the Neoconsosnz banned the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN–because they teach of the TRUE NATURE of women.
Women are only Virgins and nice and good when they are raised by STRICT, HEROIC MEN who reign over their fallen sexuality via their manly honor, as exalted in THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.
zlozozozozzo
And a zlozozozozzo to you too, sven, whatever that is!
@Fibinachi
Well, if saying that makes you sound silly, then I probably sound even sillier. I think that’s a very kind thing for you to say, especially since many people would never have the guts to say that say that, let alone do that to someone. Just my thoughts.
If it’s any comfort, I think the whole thing’s fake. It’s just another “cool story, dude” load of BS from an MRA who’s probably never been in a relationship with anything livelier than a deflated sex doll.
Kittehs, the original story may be (probably is) fake, but I would be willing to bet that much of the advice he’s getting is sincere.
Yeah, no question about that. Those douchecanoes would mean every word.
Is it just me, or is he phrasing it as if his imaginary wife is the racist/sexist stereotype of a dominant (domineering?) WoC? Every last detail about this saga sounds fake.
Just ran into some more misogyny on Facebook:
http://www.funnhouse.com/images/2013/May/28/51a586fe4387d.jpg
It’s seriously called “Actually Awesome Girlfriend.” V_V
@Kittehserf The possible reality of the story depends on your definition of domineering. Below I list some imagined scenes:
“Honey could you take out the trash for me?”
“HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT TO DO! CAN’T YOU SEE HOW ALPHA I AM?”
“When we go to the family reunion, which was planned for the past 6 months, do you want to drive the first shift or should I?”
“HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT TO DO! CAN’T YOU SEE HOW ALPHA I AM?”
“Honey, I noticed you and I have been communicating poorly of late. I am really hurt when you call me a hypergamous bitch. Could we please cut out the insults and start a meaningful dialogue?”
“HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT TO DO! CAN’T YOU SEE HOW ALPHA I AM?”
I just get the feeling this guy, if he is real, could be overreacting to the normal give and take of an established relationship. Plus he is in the negative feedback loop of a restrictive masculinity. He is trying to prove how masculine he is by wondering how other men would perceive his actions. Which makes one wonder why the guy believes he has a deficiency also makes me wonder more about how real this is.
Wow. I have a few problems with the whole Eve and Helen thing. First off, the obvious one, both of those stories probably aren’t even fact, (historians are saying that while the Trojan War probably happened, the Iliad is pretty much all BS and it was really due to the Greeks being annoyed at having to pay tolls around Troy) but they don’t even fit what he’s trying to say. There was nothing even remotely sexual about Eve’s temptation in Genesis (and I have no idea what a “lostasts cockasz” is.) and Paris was hardly a PUA. Well, first he quite literally had the power of the gods with him which is hardly PUA at all. Next, it was more of the fact that the man Helen was supposed to marry was more than twice her age and ugly, while Paris was her age and attractive.
As a guy who really enjoys history, these things really annoy me about that (you know, in addition to all of the misogyny, obviously.)
@Tombcat and Bionicmummy:
I don’t really think these are contradictory prejudices, it’s the same prejudice from different angles. If you by “bi woman” means someone who thinks sex with another woman is as good and as much of “real sex” as sex with a man, and who actually falls in love with other women sometimes, they don’t exist. That’s just silly, how could another woman possibly replace A MAN? On the other hand, if by “bi woman” you mean a woman who has lesbian sex AT men in order to please their boners, then all women secretly wants this.
Has anyone else read Vagina by Naomi Wolf? I remember reading parts of the book and thinking if only some of the more “open” MRAs (if they exist at all) would read this! Especially the bits about rape which seems to be something MRAs are very callous about.
I think it’s interesting when all these different takes on Genesis come up in the comment threads, but personally I just don’t get these people who see eating of the forbidden fruit as liberating. My personal take is that eating the fruit symbolizes how (most) human beings lack a certain kind of innocence that other creatures might have. We have free will in the sense that we must actively choose what to do all the time, and think of things and actions in terms of good and bad, right and wrong in order to be able to choose. But that’s a pretty sucky part of being human, I think. I think my dogs have a way better life than I have; no troubles (except for incredibly trivial ones such as not being able to get what you want precisely ALL the time and at ANY moment) and such innocence. They can be thoroughly happy simply because they live in the moment and aren’t distracted by thoughts the way humans are, who can start worrying about the future, the general state of the world and other people even if things go swimmingly for ourselves right now.
I’m not saying all animals have a great time, obviously there are billions of animals in the world who suffer horribly in all kinds of way, and just as a non-human animal of limited intelligence can be more thoroughly happy than a human being if their life is good, so I think they can be more thoroughly miserable if their life is bad (since human-level intelligence allows one to daydream, and that can bring a, however small, relief to a horrible situation). But I think they do have a capacity for happiness that we lack due to our intelligence.
If the Bible had been literally true, obviously life in Eden before the fall were absolutely great. They’d just lounge around all day, eating fruits, among all these sweet and non-dangerous animals – it would be like one big super-cutesy youtube-video forever.
“The Red Pill, in short, is simply the truth about female sexuality.” Good to see it put so succinctly, and so honestly. MRA’s as they exist today are a movement largely driven by discomfort with female sexuality. I hardly hear them talk about divorce court anymore. It seems like it has to be a demographic shift among MRA’s, from middle-aged men to men aged 18-35–but that’s only a guess.
@Marcilannister: Emily at the Dirty Normal is reading it right now (she’s some kind of sex scientist who teaches university classes about sex), and she writes it’s frustrating because Wolf seems like such a genuinely nice woman, but she’s got a lot of the science wrong, apparently.
(Emily also read Sex At Dawn and wrote that these authors got lots of the science wrong as well besides coming off as total dicks.)
Regarding fundie porn, someone should make a porn movie featuring Adam and Eve banging before the fall and how Adam could totally move his dick about with his will, just like we can move our hands and feet. Because that’s how saint Augustine said sex would work before the fall, and who are we to doubt his theories?
@marcilannister – I read an excerpt from the book, but I’d be wary of recommending it, because apparently NW gets the science really badly wrong. Emily Nagowski has a couple of interesting articles on it on her blog the dirty normal if you’re interested.
Ninjaed! 😀
Dvärghundspossen, I knew Augustine was weird, but that makes him sound like he’d have had a really interesting porn collection as well …
@Dvarghundspossen: I do not have a high level of education in science, so some of the science in the book could have been “dumbed-down” which tends to mess with the original intent. Overall though I thought her message was a good one.
marcilannister – I have no education in science, which is why I’m glad to be reading Emily’s comments on the book. It’s the sort of info I would like, because the excerpt I read was interesting (not enough to make me buy it, but interesting enough) and it’s good to have someone able to point out mistakes. She’s not having a go at NW, but if NW’s message is based on getting the science wrong, then it’s not going to stand up, is it?
@Kitteh and Dvar: Ooooh I think I am really going to like reading that blog! I read the posts about the book, and I recall feeling a bit twitchy about those parts in the book too! I am a totally omnivorous reader so I guess for me to really like a book it doesn’t have to be exactly perfect. I will take it all in and pick out the stuff I like. Thank you both for the recommended reading.
My pleasure, marcilannister! I like Emily’s blog too, she writes some really interesting stuff.
I’m one more person who hasn’t read the book, but I listen to an interview of the author:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/427037/june-11-2013/daniel-bergner
Here is what the guy mostly says about his book:
* women are a bit less adapted than men for monogamy
* women might be more attracted to stranger than close friend than they say (based on measuring blood flow in genitals)
* female monkeys do most of the sex initiating and get bored of their mates after a while.
* If you remove danger and stigma of casual sex, women’s sexuality would be different and stronger.
* Evolutionary psychology is wrong about some stuff.
So, while I don’t know what’s true or not in what he wrote and said, if his thesis was “women are terrible and lustful and hate men” he disguised it well in this interview.
That measuring blood flow in genitals as a way of measuring sexual attraction has been heavily criticized by various writers, including Emily at the Dirty Normal. Sure, you can’t always trust what people say about their sexual attraction since they may lie for various reasons, even lie to themselves. But it’s not like you can get an honest answer instead by measuring genital blood flow, since bodily arousal and sexual desire isn’t the same thing.
And, well, that makes perfect sense. I think it’s happened to most people that you had the bodily arousal thing going on for no apparent reason at all in a completely non-sexual situation, and also that there were instances where you really wanted to have sex although your body wasn’t up to it. It’s just stupid to assume that in ALL those situations, not merely some of them but ALL, your body showed you something about your desires that you didn’t want to admit for yourself.
Plus, the idea that swollen genitals show that you “really wanted it” has some pretty horrible implications for rape situations, since some people do get the bodily arousal reactions when they are raped.
I mean, I was a total slut myself before me and Husband became an item, I’ve been happy in a poly relationship, I still feel attracted to tons of different people (including complete strangers that I just see in public transport or whatever) so I’m all for breaking down prejudices according to which this is somehow abnormal for women. But I don’t think measuring blood flows through genitals with the assumption that this shows the Truth about attraction, and that genitals are more trustworthy than the words coming out of a person’s mouth, is the way to go.
Ditto with dvarghundspossen.
If blood flow was a good way to measure attraction then male teenagers must really love math class.
Dvärghundspossen, I just read a few article on the blog Dirty is Normal and I completely agree with you. Her distinction between liking and wanting, and arousal and desire is very interesting.
I wasn’t saying that I agree with the author, after all if you applied that methodology to me, you could find that what I really want is an unhealthy and violent relation with an unstable vampire. ^^
This. Zen exists to help the attempt to return to the innocence and greater “now” of existence without worries about the future and regrets concerning the past wearing us down.
Back when I was a fundie of sorts due to my sheltered upbringing in a religious family, I toyed with the idea of heaven and hell not being “eternal joy” and “eternal punishment” per se, but a “locked in the moment” type of deal. It didn’t seem so horrible to imagine hell as a place for eternal torment if it wasn’t strictly eternal, simply a moment that didn’t end (since time as we measure it has no meaning on the other side). Ultimately, not much better, but theologically speaking, made more sense to me than God with a thumb on a stop watch timer, saying: “Eternity starts… now!”
It was also a better reply to the intellectually lazy question “what did God do before He created the world?” What do you mean by “before” in a timeless state*, dumbass?
*This, of course, would raise some new questions, if being religious didn’t involve the awesome and constantly useful “Goddidit!” trump card.
“What women want” is basically “what I want to believe that all women want”.