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

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?
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?
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
What Do Women Want?.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-44 of 44 (44 new)
date
newest »


For leftovers.


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.


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

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.


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.

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!

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.

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.

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.


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.



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.





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.
I call that "Friday night."