In the book description it says:
“An unparalleled exploration of the mysteries underlying women’s sexuality that rivals the culture-shifting Kinsey Report, from two of America’s leading research psychologists.”
The book amazed me. Because it really manages to let people in the dark and I have no choice, but to conclude that at least two of America’s leading research psychologists have no clue of what’s really going on in the “sexual marketplace” of the modern dating world.
The parts where both authors base interpretations/conclusions on research are mostly correct, but the inherent flaw present in the whole book and its premise is this:
“Through the voices of real women, Meston and Buss reveal the motivations that guide women’s sexual decisions and explain the deep-seated psychology and biology that often unwittingly drive women’s desires—sometimes in pursuit of health or pleasure, or sometimes for darker, disturbing reasons that a woman may not fully recognize. Drawing on more than a thousand intensive interviews conducted solely for the book, as well as their pioneering research on physiological response and evolutionary emotions, Why Women Have Sex uncovers an amazingly complex and nuanced portrait of female sexuality.”
…Through the voices of real women…
…Drawing on more than a thousand intensive interviews conducted solely for the book…
—> Women have NO CLUE of what they respond to and why. The fact that you got knocked out by Mike Tyson doesn’t make you a boxing expert. Women are extreme rationalizers in order to avoid emotional guilt and (public) shaming because of their sexual behavior. Women are extremely opportunistic in regards to access to their vagina and they are mostly not aware of the reasons. You simply can’t take “the voices of real women” at face value. The whole book is formatted in the style of giving advice or explaining in a non-fiction, scientific kind of way and then it’s being underlined with a quote from a female supporting the foregone statement. This doesn’t work. The authors assume “a woman is a woman” and so any quote of any woman is as valid as any other quote of any other woman, which is FAR from the truth. There are major differences if a 19 year old girl wants sex or if a 49 year old woman wants it. Because of their age and accumulated amount of life events those 2 women have a totally different value proposition in a marketplace, which is completely neglected and not mentioned once in the whole book. Next, when a woman makes a statement about her husband it’s simply not possible to have that statement stand on its own without knowing some data about the husband. Here again, the authors make an awful newbie’s mistake of assuming “a husband is a husband”. It’s completely wrong. There’s a part about “sex as necessity” in marriages where different women are quoted as having to do the duty and getting fucked once in a while is simply necessary to maintain the marriage, which in their case is true, but to make it an general assumption that’s always true is terrible. Those husbands scream beta-males without being described, but that’s what a scientific approach to the topic should have done. Women who trade sex and give it out sparsely and deliberately, are in emotional control of the relationship, which is the no.1 signal for beta male emasculation. The whole book is written in that manner, fully neglecting observable realities and buying into the feminine imperative. approaching a topic from that perspective i9s the zeitgeist thing to do, but nonetheless it’s scientifically wrong and it really amazes me that professionally trained scientists are able to run in those traps.
—> Doing interviews for a specific topic where you already have research and reputations in place, is scientifically questionable. Of course, you only ask a certain range of questions and of course, you only use a certain set of answers. It doesn’t reflect reality. By far.
Anyone remotely interested in this book should read The Rational Male beforehand to have some contrast and be exposed to the dynamics that really govern why women have sex. JLAIX from RSD recently said on their forum (paraphrasing) that a huge part of why they got so good at what they do is the fact, that they operate outside of university reasearch environments. And he’s completely right. The difference is as harsh as day and night.
There is one example in “Why women have sex” of a 54 year old woman complaining that men still don’t get how important foreplay is. This is presented by the authors as a form of moral guideline to men. ‘Guys, come on, foreplay matters. Would you please get it finally?’ I fully believe that this is well-intentioned and both of the authors put a lot of work into it, but it’s completely wrong. The reality of the sexual market lets you quickly realize that it’s not those oh so stupid guys still not getting that foreplay is important, but the fact that they are having sex with a 54 year old. Those guys KNOW that foreplay is not necessary at all to fuck an old spinster and so they simply don’t bother. She has become completely invisible in the sexual market place at around age 38, a depreciating asset, and has nothing to offer anymore that’d justify female-approved foreplay. Men get it more than she does.
Another example quotes a 20s something woman explaining she had the best sex ever with her boyfriend on their anniversary after he took her to an expensive seafood restaurant. It boggles my mind that fully trained and certified research psychologists take this at face value and even quote it in the book to make sense of an even weirder line of thoughts. It’s completely distached from reality. Women have NO insight on why they act in gender dynamics. What they do have though is a subtle understanding of socio-sexual female primacy and gender advantages. The seafood girl rationalized that sex was amazing, because her boyfriend finally played according to her rules and proved to be a good long term provider of resources. Google lover/provider distinction. The reasoning of her is even atypical to the rest of the book, but because she has a vagina, it’s taken at face value again.
The book is brimmed with examples like this that fully neglect actual reality and therefore it’s only a semi-useful read. Especially if you’re a male and consider reading the book, make sure to google the Manosphere first and dive into those topics from guys like the frequently mentioned Rollo Tomassi and Chateau Heartiste, before you get your head twisted by “Why women have sex” and fully turn into a life long beta male.
(Note: This post originally appeared on my tumblr blog, which was intentioned to be the place for my shorter thoughts and ideas. After reading Gary Vaynerchuck’s new book “Jab, jab, jab, right hook” I’ve come to the conclusion that I wasn’t speaking the right slang for Tumblr and therefore re-import those ideas here as I still find them valuable as food for thought.)