Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Buck's Reviews > What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire

What Do Women Want? by Daniel Bergner
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1450485
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: pop-science

In university, I once overheard a couple of female friends talking about guys. One was trying to get the other to set her up with somebody. There was the usual question: ‘Well, what kind of guy are you looking for?� My one friend hemmed and hawed for a minute, and then said, ‘Oh, who am I kidding? I just need to get fucked.�

It was an eye-opening moment for me (granted, I was a pretty clueless 19-year old.) On one level, it was liberating to realize that women could be driven by the same imperious desires as men. On another level, it was kind of terrifying. And I think most men, if they’re honest, would admit to some ambivalence about female sexuality. We’re uneasily aware that there’s this powerful force out there that affects our lives in all sorts of ways, for good and ill, but we can’t even begin to understand it.

If there’s one consolation here, it’s that women themselves don’t understand it either. Or so says Daniel Bergner in this poppy but fascinating little book. In one of the more prurient experiments he summarizes, female subjects were shown a range of porn—gay, straight, animal, whatever—while hooked up to vaginal sensors that measured their state of arousal. When the women were asked which scenes turned them on, their answers wildly diverged from what the sensors were indicating (‘Nope, sorry, that bit with the monkeys didn’t do anything for me.�) Whereas, when men were shown the same clips, their reported reactions closely matched the sensor readings. So what’s going on here? Why do women apparently misconstrue what their own bodies are telling them? The sexologists don’t rightly know. It could be an effect of sociocultural repression. It could be some kind of psychosomatic disconnect between loins and brains. Or maybe women just don’t like having scientists mucking around in their lady bits.

My guess is that this book will make a lot of female readers feel a little better about themselves, a little less weird and ashamed. On the other hand, it’s going to freak out some male readers, especially those in long-term relationships. There’s emerging evidence that, contrary to popular belief, monogamy may be even harder on women than it is on men. Not that monogamy is necessarily wrong � just that its costs are very high and, for many women, simply intolerable. In that respect, What Do Women Want? is a surprisingly melancholy book. There are threads of sadness and desperation running through it. It’s a vivid reminder, in case you needed it, that life is tough, even for the luckiest among us.

Here’s my own two-bit theory, cobbled together out of Freud and failure: you’re never going to be satisfied � not for long, and probably only in retrospect. A Korean proverb goes: get married and you’ll regret it, stay single and you’ll regret it. Sounds about right. What Plato called ‘the pursuit of the whole� takes place down here, in the realm of the incomplete, among the half-assed. Frustration is the norm.

As I see it, this isn’t an invitation to cynicism. It’s an invitation to acceptance. In the ordinary course of things, there’s no mingling of souls. There’s Chinese takeout and perfunctory sex. And that’s still pretty good, isn’t it?
99 likes ·  âˆ� flag

Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read What Do Women Want?.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Finished Reading
June 21, 2013 – Shelved
June 21, 2013 – Shelved as: pop-science

Comments Showing 1-44 of 44 (44 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jason (new)

Jason There’s Chinese takeout and perfunctory sex. And that’s still pretty good, isn’t it?

I call that "Friday night."


message 2: by Jen (new)

Jen There’s Chinese takeout and perfunctory sex. And that’s still pretty good, isn’t it?

Depends.


message 3: by Jason (new)

Jason Jen wrote: "Depends."

TRUE. Some Chinese restaurants just don't perform up to par.


message 4: by Jen (new)

Jen Or the perfunctory participant. Some start out all perfunctory and then they turn on you.


message 5: by Jason (new)

Jason You mean if they get like, really hungry?


message 6: by Jen (new)

Jen Sure. That.


message 7: by Jason (new)

Jason Well I don't understand what their problem would be. When you order Chinese food, you're always supposed to get more than you can handle.

For leftovers.


message 8: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! I enjoy the use of lady bits. In a sentence.

A nice review. It almost sounds wise.


message 9: by Jen (new)

Jen Almost?


message 10: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! It doesn't seem right to concede full wisdom, for anyone. Just the tip.


message 11: by Mir (new)

Mir If you're asking the participants to think about being turned on, it seems like the experiment is biased from the start, no?


message 12: by Paquita Maria (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez Miriam wrote: "If you're asking the participants to think about being turned on, it seems like the experiment is biased from the start, no?"

Wouldn't that be nice for everyone! You're all having naked time with someone and stuff and you just command "THINK ABOUT BEING TURNED ON!" Like a light switch. Or an electric chair. "THIIIINK ABOUT IT."

This review. And this conversation. All glorious.


message 13: by Esteban (new)

Esteban del Mal I think monogamy is only harder on women who are married to scientists hooking electrodes up to the genitals of women looking to have electrodes hooked up to their genitals. Just hazarding a guess.


message 14: by Sketchbook (new)

Sketchbook Great review.


message 15: by Esteban (new)

Esteban del Mal I think Buck just thinks all women are sluts.

It's ok, Buck. You're amongst friends. Let your freak flag fly.


message 16: by Paquita Maria (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez They aren't?


message 17: by Esteban (new)

Esteban del Mal Any woman that let me crawl on top of her is a saint. That's all I know.


message 18: by Paquita Maria (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez Hah! Good answer.


message 19: by Buck (new) - rated it 4 stars

Buck I don’t think all women are sluts. Just the ones who let Esteban crawl on top of them.

It’s funny: even though this book was written by a man and goes to some dark and freaky places, it made me more sympathetic towards women. Actually, it made me more sympathetic towards the whole human race. Finding happiness is, like, really, really hard. Bet you didn’t know that.


message 20: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! I'll ask: how hard is it?

This does feel like witnessing the growth of a man-boy.


message 21: by Buck (new) - rated it 4 stars

Buck I've been doing my best to ignore your double entendres and keep the tone dignified here. But thanks for noticing: this man boy is growing. If you know what I mean.


message 22: by Buck (new) - rated it 4 stars

Buck Miriam wrote: "If you're asking the participants to think about being turned on, it seems like the experiment is biased from the start, no?"

In that experiment—which was conducted by a female sexologist, by the way—the subjects were not only hooked up to genital sensors, but also held a keypad where they rated their feelings of arousal. According to the sensors, the women were turned on by almost everything � even the lesbians got off on scenes of gay male sex. But their keypads told a different story. They repeatedly denied that they were aroused.

Strangely, the male subjects seemed a lot pickier. Gay men, for example, were supremely indifferent to girl-on-girl action. Straight men were only mildly aroused by gay male sex (take that, Gore Vidal). And none of them really liked the monkey sex that the women seemed to enjoy. But in any case, their subjective reporting was pretty much in sync with their cocks.

All very fascinating, of course, but what does it mean? Is the female libido truly more ‘omnivorous’—the author’s word---than the male libido? And are we all just in denial about it? Unfortunately, sexology is still a young and underfunded science, so we’re going to have to wait on the answers.


message 23: by Esteban (new)

Esteban del Mal I'll content myself with anecdotal evidence (i.e., Buck's mom) until that time.

Oh snap.

Did they show them snuff films? Baby rape? Necrophilia? I have to know! The female libido could be the problem with the world! Men must keep women in check, otherwise the world will BURN!

Just look at Eh?/! for instance. She's probably eye-fucking this comment right now!


message 24: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! Hah! Sorry. I find dignity online to be a burden.

That's a commonly cited study. I'd wondered if it was related to how men are supposed to be visual so seeing what they wanted is what worked, while women could hear the sounds or use the imagination and do some superimposing on what they saw, how the erotica and romance reading is overwhelmingly female? Eh, whatever the reason. The study is interesting.

My libido is mentally challenged. It doesn't get to have a say in anything.


message 25: by Buck (last edited Jun 21, 2013 08:41PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Buck Sorry, Esteban. If you want to know just how freaky the female libido is, you'll have to read the book. Or just ask your mom. If she'll spit out the ball gag long enough to answer.

So much for my dignified tone, I guess.

According to the author, the idea that men are more visual than women could be another fallacy. Same goes for the idea that women are sexually more selective and less aggressive. Basically, everything you thought you knew is wrong. Or at least debatable. My advice: don't even look sideways at a guy until you read this book.


message 26: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! Gah. Ham fingered my way into deleting instead of editing my chit chat comment.

I would agree that women can be aggressive, but typically find other ways to go about it, maybe persistence instead of any real force. And the idea that women are more selective, snort. I don't know how that one became a theory. Hypothesis. Whatever. But the visual male made sense to me.

Why read this book? I produce my own whiff of sadness and desperation.


message 27: by Buck (new) - rated it 4 stars

Buck I think that's right. There's no evidence they're lying in this case. However, there was another experiment that showed the extent to which women do lie about their sexual desires and experiences. It's also in the book.


message 28: by Matt (new)

Matt Maybe its about action and intent. I mean, they might not be lying about feeling aroused, or lying that something doesn't arouse them.

It might be the difference between 'that feels good, let's go do it' or 'that feels good, pass the popcorn'.

And for the record- Chinese takeout is a pretty good Tuesday night, perfunctory sex either preceding or following Chinese takeout proves heaven is a place on earth.


message 29: by Buck (new) - rated it 4 stars

Buck Or, you know, pizza and frantic masturbation, which is more my style lately.


message 30: by Matt (new)

Matt But of course...I hope, in the name of civilization itself, that the former follows the latter!


message 31: by Sketchbook (new)

Sketchbook The US today is anti-civilization. Just look at our movies.


message 32: by Matt (new)

Matt


message 33: by Orna (new) - rated it 4 stars

Orna Johnson Like Chinese food, perfunctory sex does not fill you up, except momentarily. It leaves you craving for something more. It is only after you have had a really good meal that you realize the difference.


message 34: by Bassem (new)

Bassem Elmohr I welcome you on behalf of my name all and all for your thoughts I have a question I want to ask you as possible


message 35: by Buck (new) - rated it 4 stars

Buck Wait. Are you telling me everyone is unique? Mind blown.

Of course, if we’re no longer allowed to generalize about people, we’ll have to throw out the social sciences, law, medicine, and maybe art and religion while we’re at it. Pretty much the whole of human culture, really. But that’s cool. We can just wander around gaping at one another in mystical awe.


message 36: by Esteban (new)

Esteban del Mal But I'm in a monogamous relationship with human culture...?

(It's hard on me, but I soldier on.)


message 37: by Paquita Maria (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez So J.D., just curious: do you bust out the vaginal sensors when you are asking goddess women what they want as individuals? Because otherwise, that's not terribly helpful when we're discussing what we say we want v. what we respond to physiologically. That's sort of like holding a trial and letting the defendant have the whole say. Well, we're adjourned. He just said he didn't do it!


message 38: by Paquita Maria (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez I'd also like to add that there are a LOT of repressed people in the world who go around fussing in other people's private lives out of sheer frustration from misunderstanding or submerging their own desires. Just ask Ted Haggard's wife how forthcoming he was about what got his britches a'swellin'. Spoiler: not very.


message 39: by Mir (new)

Mir I would like a million dollars, a well-libraried home in a temperate European city with good museums, wine, and a personal chef. Is there a study I can sign up for that provides these in the interest of science? I think I need at least a year to see if I really want this or am fooling myself.


message 40: by Paquita Maria (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez And I would like one thousand dollars of Miriam's one million dollars.


message 41: by Mir (new)

Mir You can come lounge around and help me spend money and drink wine. I need someone to make loud inappropriate comments with so I don't let down America's reputation abroad.


message 42: by Paquita Maria (new)

Paquita Maria Sanchez I am an expert at all of those things.


message 43: by Carolyn (new) - added it

Carolyn Such a well-crafted review


message 44: by Marlena (new)

Marlena Needham I know why the results of the machine seemed to contradict what women actually said aroused them...it's because the methods were flawed. This way of measuring arousal by way of lubrication has been Debunked. There is a theory that perhaps women self lubricate at the mention of sex to protect themselves from tearing if sexually assaulted, etc. Lubrication doesn't equal arousal.

But later researchers actually measured women's erectile tissues such as their clitoris when looking at similar videos, and they found that their results matched what women said actually turned them on. They were just as sure as men about what did and didn't turn them on when their erectile tissues were the measurement for arousal. The point being, vaginal lubrication is a flawed method of measuring arousal in women.


back to top