August 15, 2006
Women In Secure Relationships Want Less Sex

Natural selection did not create human male and female sexual desires that are mutually compatible. Men in long term relationships sound sexually frustrated.

The researchers from Hamburg-Eppendorf University interviewed 530 men and women about their relationships.

They found 60% of 30-year-old women wanted sex "often" at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50%, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.

In contrast, they found the proportion of men wanting regular sex remained at between 60-80%, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship.

Women maintain their interest better in men who have higher status than their mates

The Germans found, however, that living apart slows the decline in female libido, confirming the maxim “absence makes the heart grow fonder”.

Women whose husbands or boyfriends have higher educational qualifications than their own also maintain their sex drive. This, speculates Klusmann, is because such men are regarded as a “valuable mate of choice” by other women.

Some people think nature is great. Nature is all about conflict and competition. Natural selection has produced males and females who have instincts which give desires and drives that make them come up well less than perfectly compatible. If men and women ever become more compatible it will be due to genetic engineering and other biotechnologies that adjust us to make us have more mutually satisfying desires.

When sexual desires and drive become far more manipulable with neurobiotechnology will men and women in long term relationships more often increase the woman's sex drive or decrease the man's? I suspect the decision will be made at least partially based on available time. People will turn down their sex drives when working long hours and raising kids but turn up their sexual desire when they have more time. Taking a vacation? Turn up your libido. Cialis, Levitra, and Viagra are already a step in this direction. But they turn up sexual desire in men whereas what's more needed are down switches in men and up switches in women.

To the extent that genetic variations will turn out to predict sex drives in long term relationships I'm expecting some people to genetically evaluate potential spouses based on the expected difference in their sex drives. I also expect them to genetically evaluate for how likely their mate is to cheat on them. I fully expect human geneticists to find genetic variations that increase promiscuity.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2006 August 15 10:10 PM  Brain Sexuality


Comments
Robert Schwartz said at August 16, 2006 5:51 AM:

This is not news to the married 25 years with 3 children crowd.

Bob Badour said at August 16, 2006 6:21 AM:
I fully expect human geneticists to find genetic variations that increase promiscuity.

I assume you must mean something other than the Y chromosome. ;)

Lars Larsen said at August 17, 2006 1:57 AM:

It doesn't require genetic engineering. It just requires some hormone therapy. Give a woman a little testosterone, bam, she's back in business.

Again, this doesnt come as a suprise to anyone who's been in a long term relationship. To quote the great philosopher Chris Rock "If you like fuckin'... marriage ain't for you!"

Jeffrey Gordon said at August 17, 2006 1:44 PM:

"This is not news to the married 25 years with 3 children crowd."

Nor is this news to the married 8 years with 2 children crowd either. I'll add my own data point:

My wife's libido fell almost linearly starting from the day we got married. Having significantly higher education than her did not help either. However, the day she found out that I was on the verge of an affair with another woman, her libido shot through the roof. It was like the first six months of the relationship all over again.

My experience jives with this study, and I have finally concluded that all of the current popular advice from marriage / sex experts about trust and security being the foundation of a passionate marriage are basically wrong. Anxiety, danger, and insecurity are the basis of great sex. Security is for raising kids.

My advice to anyone who's marriage has lost the spark: get in shape, get the bank account fat, join a class with lots of the other sex, and make darn sure your spouse sees you flirting...a lot.

NA said at August 28, 2006 2:46 PM:

Duh.

Des said at September 19, 2006 5:42 AM:

Sorry but this is just flawed. Mother Nature/natural selection absolutely design females and males to be intrinsically compatible with compatible natures. It is a myth and fallacy, and a blurring of factual reality with social behavior that men are naturally promiscuious with high sex drives while women are naturally monogamous with sporadic sex drives, that women are built to settle down into long term pair bonds while men are wired to cavort with whores because their wives no longer want sex once they are secure.

ALL of that is patently false, uneducated and the very reason that humanity is on a collision course with extinction.

Females create males. Females create females. If females did not exist NOBODY would exist and this is true for ALL species, which are inherently female. The sexual reproductive mating strategy has outsurvived for a reason: it worked the best. Now, instead of tripping over this Freudian ass backwards uneducated nonsense that "natural selection" made us inherently incompatible, step back about 8 seconds and think that through - fire up a brain cell. If that was true we would not be here.

Females create males to begin with. The ONLY thing a male contributes is a little "package" of genetic material. It is deposited into the female who then CREATES a human being, and her body and her genetics determine whether that inherently female clump of cells will become a male or continue developing into a female. It's LITERAL. It's irrefutable. Females create males.

It would absolutely destroy human beings for a female to create and develop a male with a nature inherently predisposed to diametrically oppose the female sexual strategy to reproduce. By no means has the female of ANY species created its male component to NOT do its job.

Female selection favors males that do what they are designed to do....which is adhere to the female sexual strategy because that best benefits the female....NOT the male....because it's the female that CREATES LIFE. If the female goes, IT ALL GOES.

Females are not inherently monogamous. Monogamy is a social legal term that means married to one spouse.

What you mean is sexually exclusive and females are NOT sexually exclusive either. Neither are males. NEITHER gender is inherently designed for life long pair bonding and that fallacy comes about from primitive, fear mongering when MEN (that'd be the actual gender of them) figured out they had control over NOTHING in life and set about the whole religious nonsense that a male god created life, which is an absolutely absurd myth. (And we call ourselves the master race and believe in myths to this day? Riiight.) The problem lies in human beings continuing to presume that we are "different" special and better, or higher and excluded from our "animalistic" natures and WE ARE NOT.


The stuff you are sharing here is flawed. The studies about married women not wanting sex is flawed....for one reason. All these types of studies overlook something crucial and therefor invalidate their findings. Mate selection is *mate specific* - all boy parts might fit all girl parts but not all boys are genetically suitable mates for all females and vice versa.

We are animals. The menstrual cycle IS our MATING CYCLE. We EMIT pheromones - they ARE mate attractants. The female, in this species as in all others who emit pheromones are literally activating males for one purpose: mating. We mate just like dogs and cats. If you step back and remove your presumption we're special or different and that we're animals but not like "real animals" we're animals in more of a conceptual sense bunch of BS, you would easily recognize the following is literal, it's happening day in and day out, it's not any sort of "evolutionary throwback" and yes we are "real animals"....

The female, who creates BOTH genders of this species, who creates LIFE (not any god and certainly not any male one) also controls the mating cycle, arrogantly differentiated as a "menstrual" cycle, that runs 28 days every month, in which each week of that cycle is dedicated solely to her reproductive success, which also controls MATING IN BOTH genders....and WE emit the pheromones, and WE activate the opposite sex remotely by way of our individual chemical messages encoded in those molecules, that then activate males of proper type to engage the mating dance. That menstrual cycle takes the female from active arousal and readiness, through mate selection, thought courtship and on to copulation in a matter of 2 weeks, and then she disengages when no conception happens, which likewise deactivates those males while she expels the unfertilized egg. And then she does it all over again next month...both genders are constantly engaged in the mating cycle to copulate and do it again next month. The mate attractants don't lure in just one male - if females were naturally "monogamous" then we'd need only ONE to do the job and the rest would be disposable. Instead we lure in MANY.

How does this play out for humans who think we're different and special? Same as it plays out for the dog and the cat. Here is the mating game played out in real life - same story, same reason.

Week 1: period, deactivate mating receptivity, expelling unfertilized egg. Hormones disengage, replaced by regulatory hormones. She doesn't want sex, she's not interested in it. If she masturbates at the beginning of the period she will shorten the length of it, effectively signalling the body that it's ready to go again. Midway though the period, these changes from expulsion disengage and the sex hormones juice her up - midway thorough the period women get generally aroused (as opposed to direct genital stimulation) - this is sexually receptive. The pheromones are engaged.


Week 2: Women become increasingly sexually receptive and essentially scout for mates - any given mating pool (work, lifestyle, groups, clubs, etc), she's now checking out the guys all around her, even if she's involved. If she's not, she's receptive to suitable types to check them out. Suitable mates in those pools are activated to appear out of the woodwork finding themselves interested in her, turned onto her, paying attention to her and she begins to engage them in the mating dance. They notice each other BECAUSE she's activated them TO know which female to want to mate with, it's an ID system, it's a nonverbal communication system for a reason. Guys are approaching women on a general level and the preening and courtship gestures are exchanged.

Week 3: Ovulation week, she's becoming more selective in choice of mates - whether involved or not, she's got somebody in mind and more specifically focused on having sex with him for the sake of sexual gratification. Mating cycle engaged: she is sexually focused, her choice of clothing is sexualized (getting as close to naked as laws permit, however should we get rid of these ridiculous laws, she'd BE naked and you'd see those literal changes that are presumed not there since we're different and can mate any time - no we can't.)...she's more flirty, direct, openly sexual in her behavior TOWARD specific males. The male she chooses is by decree of that choice the "dominant" male - and he's not dominant to HER, he's dominant over his rivals. If she's involved, she's horny, actively sexually receptive, ready and horny (ie in heat, it's the same thing for the same reason)....and she goes after the mate directly, since it's always the FEMALE doing the choosing and the control of this dance at ALL TIMES. Copulation happens and usually frequently this week over any other - meaning in real life terms, she's screwing his brains loose, giving it up finally, showing him she wants him, etc.

When she orgasms - provided she does - and the bonding hormones engage - if they do - it does not mean she's falling in love or he's a suitable life mate. The bonding hormones are about nurturing offspring more than each other - and the bonding hormones are temporal, they are not "glue" that keeps relationships alive....that's fallacy, as is most everything people believe about what the hell they're wired to do. Both genders are designed to be able to be sexually exclusive on a short term basis and that short term basis coincides with just about how long it takes to parent an offspring into enough autonomy it doesn't die if left unattended...and then the "pair bond" begins to disintegrate naturally. Women are NOT by any stretch of the imagination designed to mate for life, nor did we design males to do the exact opposite. If this were the case there would never have been the first law to punish a straying wife, nor would there have been the first whorehouse. This thought process blurs the lines between mating/parenting offspring and SOCIAL level ideas about material security and studies that do not differentiate this are studies that are inherently invalid.

If a female mates for life, who the hell is she mating with, if all males are promiscuous? If all males are promiscuous and all females mate for life, who the hell are males being promiscuous with? A whore - still a female. Women mating for long term security is invalid as it implies it's an inherent female trait to marry for material security and it is NOT any such thing. The only security she needs is to stay alive and healthy to reproduce and to be able to get the offspring able to exist without 24hour attention. The material things males bring to females happens in humans too - and when a guy brings flowers, asks her out, fixes her car, gives her jewelry, this isn't a mating for life event, it's no more than a courting ritual - it's courtship, and if she accepts these tokens, she's accepting him as a mate, and it's a means to an end - not the end itself. Copulation and conception and offspring is the ends. There is absolutely nothing "genetic" in our wiring that dictates either gender to provide creature comforts and material possessions to the other for any reason outside means to an end courtship offerings, which cease coming naturally as once the male has been selected, he doesn't need to court - he's IN already. Relationships go straight to hell because women are taught they're created to mate for life and all these things must be an ongoing thing that means he loves her, and when they stop women assume something is wrong....and then all the drama begins.

Week 4: ovulation happens, no fertilization happens, the body ceases production of the sex hormones and deregulates, preparing the body to expel the egg; her libido hits the skids, the PMS symptoms engage, she loses interest in sex specifically but can still be specifically locally stimulated, and then she disengages and so too deactivates the male.

Week 1: rinse and repeat.

That's all women do, despite how astoundingly oblivious to this they may be, they are walking sex machines, always engaged in seeking mates, activating them, luring them, engaging them in the mating dance, the courting rituals, picking the best one from the mix or returning to the currently engaged one, getting more sexually focused, aroused, explicit in desire, preparing the copulatory setting that works for HER comfort, copulating a number of times, and either conceiving or not, and if not, then disengaging, deactivating and expelling, then starting all over again, seeking mates, and etc. Not just ONE guy, but a variety of them...different guy, different month, different need - and it's all dependent on HER needs at any given time...depends on what SHE desires and that's the guy she will select is the one who gives that to her without threatening her ideas of gratification payoff....

All of the drama, lack of interest in sex, that's all a result of flawed education...and it's also a result of improper mating to begin with. If women knew the above and disregarded the social bullshit fed to humans for a few thousand years, it would be glaringly simple for both genders to recognize there's no "war" between them and never was - that war was a religious delusion and purely designed for fear mongering....we're not inherently incompatible else we'd cease to exist, and males are NOT in charge of anything. Females make you horny, by remote control.

Sex hormones work in tandem with other hormones that regulate the body to even remain alive. SEX is what keeps us alive and the lack of it will trigger self termination, a break down of the immune system, of the regulatory systems, facilitating disease, a depressed state of mind, which impacts the psychological mechanisms and behavior selection in any given situation becomes flawed, nonproductive and ultimately ends in DEATH....Mother Nature's built in population control. Sex is not a throwback, nor is it some theory that only has relevance in a laboratory study - it applies here and now and if women plugged into this, they'd realize that's all they are: walking sex machines, always ready for sex, and THAT is why males are always eager to give it to us. We made you that way.

It's ALL ABOUT SEX and mating.


Brought to you solely and implicitly by


the Hand That Rocks The Cradle.

Either learn how you function or stop reproducing these flawed studies that only tell pieces of the story. It's not hard to figure out when you remove, completely remove, all of the social religious myths.

Females are the superior gender. We control the whole thing. Males are entirely bound by this control and those who get it gets laid, and those who don't, gets terminated....

Des said at September 19, 2006 5:57 AM:

PS....

Don't chalk up to a drop in hormones what can be more likely attributed to a simple lack of interest. A lot of people like to think there's a physiological problem or an emotional one when in the majority of cases it's that the one not getting laid has probably let themselves go, gotten skanky, gained weight, slacked off on trying to look appealing and sexy, and is more irritated than turned on by the personality quirks and hangups of the other one.


Courtship stops for a reason. It's a means to an end. Most women are under the impression courtship is supposed to continue for the duration of the tie and when it doesn't, because it's not supposed to, it's a means to an end which is copulation - women presume there's a problem so they start hounding him, pressuring him, he has no idea what the deal is or how to fix it and they basically cause problems where there aren't any simply because neither one of them have a clue in hell how they function or why or WHEN or how long, that their sex life is on a cycle she dictates. So she feels bad about the tie, herself, that state of mind sends messages of threat to the brain which in turn sends out threat response dictate which then motivates her to select behavior (based on the flawed assumption there is a problem) to remove it, which does a number on her state of mind, she gets caught in the loop and down she goes, which is going to affect and be affected by the very hormones that juice her up and make her high on being sexy and alive, and when her sexual state dissipates she begins to wither and stagnate....and so does her entire life.

Same for him.

What snaps them out?

Renewal of sexual state. Sex keeps us alive....those very hormones juicing us up make us feel sexy and alive, and in turn clear and confident and capable....and that puts us back in the game. Sex appeal. When the other party stops contrinuting to the mating game, we turn off of them and begin to turn on to those still active participants - cause sex keeps us alive, our sexual natures display health and vigor, and good genes - as opposed to the whiny, uptight, neurotic, complaining, fat, sloppy, sexless nag of the partner who got lazy...we don't choose mates who are or appear unhealthy, which is precisely what the case is when we slack off the mating game once we've "gotten secure."

There's a reason. It's not a hormonal thing first. It's laziness first, and the direct sexual dictate NOT to mate with unhealthy mates, not to copulate with them....and then wave bye bye to the sex life, but not the sexual desire itself.

Let the cute sexy waitress or the hot studly pool boy waltz by, sex life will awaken and cheating will be practically a guarantee of life itself. Bottom line: we are ALWAYS engaged in the mating dance....so we need to always remember that and continue to maintain our worth as mates....to each other and period....because when that slacks off thinking now we're married we can put the slut pumps in the attic and flake out, pork out, skank out - that's when a more worthy vibrant alive mate will miraculously steal home base...........

Stradius said at September 29, 2006 1:18 AM:

wow! That's good stuff! Thanks. And I agree with it! Man here.

So in your perspective can I reinterest my mate in me if I can prove that other women find me desirable?

linux_chick said at February 5, 2007 9:58 PM:

Hmm.. I've had the reverse reaction. I'm 24, I get hit on daily and feel pretty sexy (5'8", 115 lbs). I've been married for 7 months and can't get my hubbie to touch me anymore. Not sure why: I've bought the lace, see-through (and may I say pricey items)... no go. I don't want to put pressure on him, but we haven't had sex in 2 months (vs. our piping-hot engagement of 3X per week).

What do you think? Maybe I'm the guy in this relationship. Because everyone's starting to look good to me at this point.

Brad666 said at May 25, 2009 10:40 PM:

Your man might just be going gay o_0

Surfer said at December 29, 2009 4:09 AM:

@Linux_chick if a guys not sleeping with you, face it: He's just not that into you.

DF2 said at February 10, 2010 8:44 AM:

In Reply to Des...

While you have mentioned some note worthy aspects I must say that the pheromones theory does not hold much weight. I say this because when look at a Bitch in heat, you will sometimes see a dozen males fighting for her. Thats pheromones at play. Now if the pheromones theory holds true and as you said we are animals so you can expect something similar from humans. I don't doubt that at some point in the past pheromones may have played a central role but we are much more intelligent than other animals so I think nature is very dynamic to adapt us in the use of more advanced methods of signaling like touching, subtle looks and verbal communication to initiate copulation rather than pheromones which can cause havoc in our current volatile state (I.E Weapons). If you walked in a guys shoes you will realize that in more instances the girl we think is ready and willing is actually not and the girl you never thought would be actually is. I read an article in a science journal that mentions fertile human females subconsciously give out subtle clues to throw the guy on the street off track so she can pick and choose without much distraction while unfertile women would have a more seductive stride and look because she does not have to worry about an unsuitable guy impregnating her forcibly. It's about conserving reproductive resources for the most opportune time. This study was done after observing both fertile and unfertile women with observers from both sexes judging and it makes more sense from a guys perspective as it is behavior that can be verified from real life experiences. With some exceptions such as guys with unusually attractive qualities I think most average guys can vouch for what I said. This same trait can be noticed in other highly intelligent animals (I.E Dolphin) that are not locked in a strong pheromone cycle like the dog is. It is true that women control the copulating cycle in a partnership or relationship but that has little to do with pheromones as most males realize that the woman is just not into it. How they know well there are obvious signs like she is less responsive to advances and such. Pheromones may play a small role to this day but it is not as significant anymore. I think we are more subconsciously receptive to genetic markers that we emit than pheromones. Each individual is looking for prime genetic material that can make offspring more resilient.

Anonymous said at April 5, 2010 9:39 AM:

If all women are whores, then there is no reason not to cheat on them.

Thanks for the info. I knew for some reason my 'nice guy' stability act wasn't working. I guess I just bang a few cougars to build up some sexual confidence, and then while their building me up I'll go out and hook up and get a girlfriend or three.

Also, maybe patriarchy works because so called "lesser males" do not want to have to contribute money to the raising of the 'alpha' males children. Society as it is right now, is depopulating at a rate that is virtually unrecoverable without immigration, which it has been doing since the 90's.

I'm not saying DES is wrong. But if women are designed to go around and fucking the most attractive guys, it makes sense, if women just decided to start acting like the men, but the question is, how does this effect the lives of children? And do we want to be a society that has a majority of women have kids with 3 different fathers? It's interesting that this woman argues that women want to bang a variety of dominate men. But what for those who aren't at the top? Why is it dominate instead of quality? I think she's taking some opinions to an extreme.

Des, if this is true, why should a man be loyal to any woman? Most men who say the kinds of things your saying, about women having an intense desire to bang lots of men, are Muslims, who pretty much come to the same conclusion you do (with entirely different logic) to reason why they need to keep their women under control, for the sake of society. If you are right, then I agree with them. That's probably the reason as well that feminized Europe is rapidly become Eurabia.

gigi said at August 4, 2010 11:42 AM:

god damn fungus on my thighs keeping me from fucking pretty ladies..... fuuuuuuuuuck!!!!!

Dr Matt said at October 9, 2010 3:53 AM:

There are as many opinions as there are people. "Future Pundit" is very obviosly a "liberal secular humanest"! like all liberals he thinks he is infalible and knows more than anyone else. In general, he is full of it! I have a PhD and have studied all sides of the issue. Please forgive my spelling errors, I have dyslexia and have always had trouble.

Taking the religous angle, Man was created in God's immage. As he was lonely, God put him in a sleep and removed the female part of Adam and created Woman! Was Adam hermaphrodidic before Eve was created out of Adam? As he was made in the immage of God, what does that say about God?

It is true that people who let themselves go after marriage, in general,loose their mates interest in sex, but not all. I love my wife of 15 years tremendously, I'm 51 and she is 54. She turns me on when she is thinner and when she gains weight, no difference. That is because true love always sees their mate as they looked when they first fell in love, even 50 years later. After 50 years of marriage, on the day my father died, my mother walked by and I heard my father sigh like a love struck school boy! Although my dad got better looking with age, my mother lost her looks between 40 and 50, but not to my dad.

Unfortunately, my wife and I are now estrainged. We had a great sex life untill she had a hystorectomy. Her labido quickly died following the surgery. I would never tell her, but the lack of a uterus left her vagina feel like nothing. I would strongly urge people not to even consider a hysterectomy unless serious health problems or death are certain. Many health issues that hysterectomies are reccomended can be corrected by other less evasive, but more difficult proceedures. Hysterectomies are quick, easy, and profitable!

My last point is infedelity. For some reason, everyone blames men for most cases of cheating. This is obsured! Infedelity occures exactly evenly. Who do theese people think the Man is cheeting with? He is not cheating alone, that is masterbation! He is cheating with a WOMAN! When a woman is cheating, it is with a MAN! Equal guilt!

Lucius Calidius Eroticus said at October 8, 2012 2:55 PM:

I believe that natural selection has done its job by the third month of a new relationship. By month three she has pretty much decided if your a good prospect for mating. If she has decided your the one then she will be more willing to match your sex drive and keep you happy while you are dating but with time, marriage, kids etc she will want sex less because simply put, she has got what she wanted. Of course there are people who buck the trend but as a general rule I believe the above to be true.

My job has involved long periods of time where I have been away from my partner. The forced separation did wonders for my sex life! We went from pretty conventional to handcuffs. But of course it didn't stand the test of time. Now it's sporadic and drives me crazy sometimes.

Finally I doubt the notion that educated males enjoy more sex with less educated females. The only way I could see this happening is if the female believed her relationship to be in doubt because of a disparity in success between the two. You would need to be a special kind of prick to subject a woman to that kind doubt and she would be better off without you anyway!

At the end of the day all we want is to be happy and fulfilled in life. So why don't we all try something novel. Men, don't pester your other half for sex so much. Women, remember that your guy wants sex more than you and spoil him occasionally!

dylan terreri, i said at June 16, 2013 6:20 PM:

as stated on the website, www.thelessergender.com, feminism is a gender-identity issue. it is a gender-identity issue to advocate for the little gender with the words "a woman can do anything a man can do". this is because anyone's gender is a matter of reality, and anyone's identity is merely a matter of self-understanding (or of self-misunderstanding). gender-identity is a matter of the understanding (or misunderstanding) of one's own gender. "a woman can do anything a man can do" is a gender-identity issue because it is based on (mis)understandings of the female gender. it is for this reason that i understand feminism as a gender-identity issue. a woman simply cannot do anything a man can do, this point is justified by every gender-based physical competition (olympics, military requirements, hot dog eating competitions, weightlifting competitions, etc)...as well as the gender-based competitions that have slipped my mind.

why does the wannabee wear high-heeled shoes and shoulderpads?

woman = womb+man

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©