Thinking of buying book called "What do Women Want?" for my girlfriend

onoma

New member
I've seen a few interviews with the author of this, and one of the claims in the book is that monogamy is more unnatural for women than for men. Also, that much of a woman's sex drive is basically controlled or dampened through societal pressure.

Just wondering if anyone here has read it and what they thought of it?

Thinking of getting it for my mono girlfriend to read. I know there are other books specifically about polyamory, but thinking that just introducing her to the idea that a lot of how she sees sex is due to societal pressure could be a good first step.

EDIT: BTW The full title is: "What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire" by Daniel Bergner
 
Last edited:
I haven't read it. I'm stuck in the first 25% of "Sex at Dawn" and I find I'm hating it (like I hate most evolutionary psych), so I probably won't end up reading this one either. (*)

However, yes, slut-shaming exists, and it sucks.

HOWEVER, however...
Showing your mono GF that the way she is is wrong is a BAD way to go. I'm mono, I went through this with my partner. Suffice to say I reacted badly to being "converted."

Yes, some of it can be societal (the "I want YOU to be faithful to ME" portion of monogamy can be that way). Some of it isn't. I partner with one person at a time. I just do. I'm not repressing anything. I'm not doing it because I don't know any better. I just do. Telling me that I'm wrong only serves to alienate me. Telling me that I'm only mono because society tells me to be is insulting as well, as though you know me better than I know myself.

Whoops. How'd that soapbox get there?
<kick>

Anyhoo... slut-shaming is real and awful. There was some news story about a 15-year old girl who got sexually assaulted, is now pregnant, is going through with the pregnancy, and her jackass neighbors are spray-painting "slut" and "whore" and various other epithets on her house. Real kind. That's the kind of crap that makes you want to repress anything that makes you look "promiscuous" to others and GETS young girls pregnant because they're too ashamed to get birth control.

Ah. Another soapbox. Whoopsie. :eek:

Not barking at you, onoma! The social aspect is tough in general, mono or poly, sometimes. Just watch out for that polyvangelism. ;)

(*) Why do I hate evo-psych? Because it drives me crazy to hear that prior to <pick a point in our evolution>, we were the healthiest/best equipped to/best <blank> ever. Evo-psych tends to romanticize those points in our history while talking down how we've evolved societally or biologically, or whatever. Meanwhile, I tend to think things like higher mathematics, arts, poetry, science, space travel, you name it, is a pretty good price to pay for evolving past our "prime". Which pieces do you pick from our history, and which do you throw away from our present? You can't have both. Yes, let's understand where we came from, but let's not demonize who we are now.

Crap, now that's the third soapbox. I'm getting out before anvils start showing up. :p
 
Re:why you hate evo psych

I hate that too, i haven't read those books yet though. What i also hate and you see it quite a bit when discussing sex and sex sociology is the argument that "other cultures do it" and it's usually when it comes to rationalizing incest or justifying plural relationships.

I have to cut it short. Getting off the train.
 
Re:why you hate evo psych

I hate that too, i haven't read those books yet though. What i also hate and you see it quite a bit when discussing sex and sex sociology is the argument that "other cultures do it" and it's usually when it comes to rationalizing incest or justifying plural relationships.

I have to cut it short. Getting off the train.

Err.. what's wrong with "other cultures do it." It pretty clearly points out how much power society has over a persons beliefs and behavior.

That said: Incest? Really? I vaguely remember from my anthropology class that incest was one of the few universal taboos we know about. Universal taboo meaning that no culture/society allows it. In fact, the theory behind incest being a universal taboo is that there IS something in our nature that prevents it.
 
Err.. what's wrong with "other cultures do it." It pretty clearly points out how much power society has over a persons beliefs and behavior.

I won't speak for BG, but my issue is that many books point to some particular cultures as great examples of what to do, but I don't see any rational justification as to why those cultures are more "right" than any other. Why one method of societal evolution is "better" than another, unless it's to propagate one particular point of view. Then, yes, you pick those cultures that support your point.

What I prefer is an examination of how multiple cultures approach the same thing - I find THAT sort of spread fascinating, without the "this is better than that" trap many books fall into (or place themselves into in order to push a point).

Of course, it doesn't sell books, so what do I know? :D
 
In fact, the theory behind incest being a universal taboo is that there IS something in our nature that prevents it.


They think there is a sort of sexuality dampener which occurs when being raised together, rather than being related. Which is why when you often hear of consensual incest cases it is usually amongst those who had not been raised together. Long lost relatives and such. And why adopted or step siblings rarely get involved with each other despite the lack of biological impediment.

In my own family I was raised with cousins so the idea of marrying cousins, despite it being legal, totally squicks me out.
 
I won't speak for BG, but my issue is that many books point to some particular cultures as great examples of what to do, but I don't see any rational justification as to why those cultures are more "right" than any other. Why one method of societal evolution is "better" than another, unless it's to propagate one particular point of view. Then, yes, you pick those cultures that support your point.

What I prefer is an examination of how multiple cultures approach the same thing - I find THAT sort of spread fascinating, without the "this is better than that" trap many books fall into (or place themselves into in order to push a point).

Of course, it doesn't sell books, so what do I know? :D


Pretty much this. I mean, "other cultures" force women to marry their rapists and make small children labor in sweatshops so we can have designer clothes. Does that mean just because it's "working" that it supports the argument that it's better, ok, or just one way of doing things that is no better or no worse than another way?

And i agree that it is interesting to learn about the ways the same thing is in different cultures, but that's something else.
 
Fighting is bound to arise when one group claims they are better than another by doing X. Even from something as silly as Star Wars vs Star Trek (but don't tell them that).

The way I see it, humans are diverse and varried enough that there is no one true way. Each is different, and has different needs. That's what makes the world great.

I don't have a problem with a girl who wants to have sex, but she has to be aware of the risks and be safe.
 
Fighting is bound to arise when one group claims they are better than another by doing X. Even from something as silly as Star Wars vs Star Trek (but don't tell them that).

No need to. We have one or two threads on here in the Fireplace subforum that discuss Star Wars vs. Star Trek, and so far no fights have broken out about it. So you are not correct this time.
 
Instead of bound to, I should say usually. It does not always happen. But versus usually implies conflict, instead of "or". Or implies choice. Does not really matter to me though, whatever you like best.
 
Instead of bound to, I should say usually. It does not always happen. But versus usually implies conflict, instead of "or". Or implies choice. Does not really matter to me though, whatever you like best.


Ooh, rich. I'll take last things first: "versus" certainly can suggest "conflict". A quick Google brings up the Free Dictionary (not the most authoritative source but this is quick-and-dirty, not up to ANSI specifications, so roll with me)

ver·sus (vûrss, -sz)
prep.
1. Abbr. v. or vs. Against: the plaintiff versus the defendant; Army versus Navy.
2. As the alternative to or in contrast with: "freedom of information versus invasion of privacy" (Ian Hamilton).

So, according to what we have here, "versus" APPLIES TO situations where conflict is present, but I see no indication by definition that "versus" IMPLIES conflict IN a situation. It's a very subtle distinction, but it exists.

Oh hey. I just want to say, I'm really sorry if I'm not choosing my words in the exact way that you need me to in order to not vanish in a puff of greasy black smoke. Besides being a fellow Aspie and therefore exempt from certain things neurotypicals have to do in order to make us feel at ease, i also have not mastered the ability to read people's minds, nor am I half-Betazoid or anything, so that's why I have no Empathy, acccording to at least one person. I mean, I don't agree with that, but I have been accused of it.

Which brings me to the next thing, speaking of Betazoids.

Instead of bound to, I should say usually. It does not always happen.

Now that we clarified the meaning and use (did you realize that "usage" and "utilize" are useless words? Anything you can use "usage" or "utilize" for, you can use "use" for instead. I bet you DID realize that, and you probably thought you were the only one who did. Maybe not. Like I said, I'm not a mind reader; but I aam a pretty good guesser. I can't do differential equations in my head, but i can reach into like, a bag of screws or something and pull out the exact number i need without counting #stupidautistictricks) of "versus", we can say "Star Wars versus Star Trek" without "inevitably", "frequently", "usually" ending up in a "conflict" or "fight" about it (for one thing, I really don't care so much about either (although I prefer Trek - TNG mainly, and TOS but not DS9 or Voyager or any of the other ones. I also wasn't THAT crazy about the latest motion picture, the one where Kirk and Spock were all young and fresh out of the Academy) to the point where it would be worth "fighting" over). Indeed, I have personally never seen that happen in MY experience, and believe me, I have done more than my share of discussing the relative merits and aspects and social implcations, etc. of those two popular cultural icons. Therefore, I would say that those discussions "sometimes" or "might" end up "in a fight", because while I have no empirical observation of such a thing, it is CONCEIVABLE, as in, "not out of the realm of reasonable possibility" that other people might be emotionally or intellectually invested in that debate to the point that they get really worked up about convinccing others they are right, which is what I'm GUESSING you mean by a "fight" (as opposed to people beating each other up with their fists). Correct me if I'm mistaken.

I am JUST getting warmed up, but i have to do other things. For your edification, and to keep you entertained while I am away, I refer you to

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28780&highlight=star

I thought there was another thread; maybe they got merged. Speaking of which - if a moderator wants to move these off-topic posts to that thread right there, that would be peachy-keen and super-grooovy.

(This Episode was brought to you by the Aspies in Favor of Giving NeuroTypicals a Break Foundation, or the AFGNTBF. "We don't need our acronym to spell a word. We know who we are.")
 
Last edited:
Sigh... I'm not getting any answers to my question in this thread, am I? :(

Maybe not, but it's only page 2, and just look at all the love and rockets. you could almost cut it with a knife. Doesn't that make it worth it? Can you roll with me?

(that's going to be my go-to cliché. until-i-get-sick-of-myself-however-long-that-is - "roll with me" it's gonna be. And I have to do that now, but it will be by myself.)
 
ntsrebs congress

Maybe not, but it's only page 2, and just look at all the love and rockets. you could almost cut it with a knife. Doesn't that make it worth it? Can you roll with me?

(that's going to be my go-to cliché. until-i-get-sick-of-myself-however-long-that-is - "roll with me" it's gonna be. And I have to do that now, but it will be by myself.)

I didn't see any rockets... now I want rockets! :p
 
Thinking of getting it for my mono girlfriend to read. I know there are other books specifically about polyamory, but thinking that just introducing her to the idea that a lot of how she sees sex is due to societal pressure could be a good first step.

A good first step to what?
 
A good first step to what?

Lots of things... talking about sex, talking about open relationships. Probably should have given less information in my initial post... really just want to see what people thought of the book. I read one bad review, but also a couple good reviews...
 
I've seen a few interviews with the author of this, and one of the claims in the book is that monogamy is more unnatural for women than for men. Also, that much of a woman's sex drive is basically controlled or dampened through societal pressure.

I haven't read this book but I have done a lot of research into evolutionary psychology recently for my course. The majority (or at least a great number) of evolutionary scientists argue, for a plethora of reasons, that monogamy is in fact more unnatural for men. This is mostly based on Trivers' theory of parental investment and the later research that was inspired by it. There are a large number of studies that suggest that polygyny (a man with more than one woman), whilst still no where near the majority (monogamy) is found to occur in much larger numbers than polyandry (a woman with more than one man)- which is considered very rare. Polyandry is also incredibly rare in most other species - unless the female is the lesser investing sex when it comes to parental investment.

Obviously, it does exist. The countless people in polyandrous situations on this site prove that but, in general it is a much lower number. Although, with the relatively recent introduction of fairly reliable birth control , this could be changing as women are no longer at risk of having to put in a larger (minimal and obligatory) investment from sex. Though it's too soon for the proposed change to have occurred through evolution it could be a cognitive thing that is going against the innate trend. I don't know, this part is merely speculation.

As for sex drive being controlled by culture, I know a lot less about that but, at a guess, I'd say that (like in most circumstances) both biology and culture play a part.

I'd agree with what others have said though, if you're partner identifies as mono - leave her be. This book suggests that monogamy is unnatural for women but there are lots of books that suggest that polyamory is general in unnatural. It doesn't mean it's true and if there's one thing people don't like, it's being told that the way they are is wrong or unnatural. I appreciate that you probably weren't trying to do that and probably were just introducing them to a book with an interesting perspective, but if they're happy as they are don't try and push them.
 
I didn't see any rockets... now I want rockets! :p

Ok, i can't decide between "your thread, your way" (i'd say "your welcome" too but i would be compeled to stab myself in the eyeballs as a result, and i'm not ready for that), and "i got yer rockets riiiiiiiight here, baybee". But either way, here's the link to the thread:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=687
 
really just want to see what people thought of the book. I read one bad review, but also a couple good reviews...

I would focus less on this book and whether or not it will get you closer to accomplishing your plan than I would focus on being honest with my partner.

Have you spoken with her about wanting an open relationship (or whatever it is that you are gunning for)? Has she requested that you find a good book for her? If you have talked with her unambiguously about what you want and she has requested that you do some research for her (which would tell me that she's not actually that interested) then so be it:

I have not read that particular book.

If you haven't spoken with her about it and she thus has not asked you to do research for her... what exactly is your plan? You going to slip it under her pillow and play dumb?
 
Back
Top