Can we talk about the differences between women’s and men’s sexuality?

Not sure who you're arguing with, Banana, but it can't be me as that was my first comment in this thread.

How is it possible to tell what the female libido would be like in a society in which we were allowed to express it freely, without men constantly trying to hijack it and redirect it to serve their needs rather than ours?

How does it help if we automatically make assumptions about female libido and how it's shaped when we've only just started exploring it?

Micke
But what if I liked tea with lemon? Should I stop liking it because some woman don't like it?

What if I don't enjoy normal tea but because I'm I woman I should drink it anyway because women dobt like lemon tea?

Then you hit upon the real problem Consent.

if my partner bought me a mug every birthday, and expected me to drink tea a certain number of times a week, and got grumpy if I didn't

This isn't about sexuality its about consent.

and watched videos of other people drinking weak tea with lemon, when I like it with milk

Your uncomfortable with a partner's behaviour its about incompatible and consent.

and he thought I should drink my tea with lemon and kept trying to make it for me that way, then perhaps, I might decide that tea isn't all it's cracked up to be.

And again this is about consent. All the about could be written about any kind of tea if it wasn't the kind you wanted.

As women most of the problems with ate sexuality are actually difficulties is getting our consent taken account or taken seriously.

It's not helped by assuming men and women in their sexuality are inherently different.

Micke has hit on a key point here. How is it possible to tell what the female libido would be like in a society in which we were allowed to express it freely, without men constantly trying to hijack it and redirect it to serve their needs rather than ours? It's like trying to run an experiment with no control group.

It would probably matter in terms of how libido (and lack of it) can be medicalised.

But then we're talking libido not sexuality.

Micke exactly and imagine if drinking tea could make you ill and you'd need medication to deal with this.

And if drinking too much tea was seen as socially unacceptable despite images everywhere saying you should be drinking it all the time.

And that men could force you to drink unwanted tea and it would be your fault if they did.

And if the media portrayed the drinking of tea in most impractical places and out of barely functional cups or mugs. But you were expected to enjoy this.

I do wonder why it would actuallymatterif women's sexuality turned out to be innately different to men's?

It would probably matter in terms of how libido (and lack of it) can be medicalised.

I wonder if there's something in the whole idea that, for example, I like a cup of tea (seems appropriate) - but, if whenever I left the house, people on the street were yelling out tea-related comments, if the place was covered with posters of women like me holding teabags, if my partner bought me a mug every birthday, and expected me to drink tea a certain number of times a week, and got grumpy if I didn't, and watched videos of other people drinking weak tea with lemon, when I like it with milk and he thought I should drink my tea with lemon and kept trying to make it for me that way, then perhaps, I might decide that tea isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Girls aren't encouraged at all to explore their sexuality. The message from a very young age is watch out, males only want one thing, teenage pregnancy is bad and you should save your virginity for someone special.
Added to the fact that first time sex for women is generally painful, it's not really surprising that they say (studies ? ) that women hit their sexual peak in their thirties.

What an interesting conversation. I am not sure I have that much to add but here are some random thoughts anyway.

Male and female bodies are biologically different - inherently so with regards to sex because we have different genitals. This is bound to have an effect on our sexualities. From all my experience chatting with friends one of the major problems in all relationships is a lack of sex drive on the mans part. Women have a much higher sex drive and are also able to maintain sexual arousal for hours at a time.

That being said the largest sex organ in the body is the human brain - and we all know where we stand re lady brains (i.e. sexist junk science.)

I am only just realising how estranged from my own sexuality I actually am. So much of sexual desire is socially constructed - through a male gaze and a mans understanding of the world. How to construct from scratch what a female sexuality would even be when we've alreay been conditioned since birth to see the world through a certain prism.

There's huge amounts wrong with what you have just written.

Paedophilia bestiality etc may all be natural but socialization correctly says this is wrong and should be repressed. This is positive socialization on sexuality.

Now what is inherently wrong in a fully consenting situation, a adult woman watching a video of people having sex....

Or having rough sex if actually that's what turns her on

And why do we assume a woman wouldn't find that every but as stimulating as a man? Especially when there are women saying "well I do"....

(Putting aside the difficulties of consent for a moment)

Its still one person imposing their view of sexuality on someone else. By stating woman and men are innately different we are perpetuating the myth that woman's sexuality is somehow wrong.

Why do some seem to believe that having a high libido, being aroused by visual stimuli, and being willing to have sex with lots of different people

Why is it assumed this is gendered sexuality wise as opposed to individualised? And mores to the pont why is it wrong for euther gender to behave in this way if consent and health are taken care off?

That's a good point, kesstrel.
It makes total sense for women to be pickier.

Also are we conflating casual sex and committed sex.

They want to be seen as the hot lesbians in the porn that they watch. That's from a self-confessed autogynephiliac.

So I have a sneaking suspicion those incels would have been single in Victorian times and blaming it on something else, the influx of Irish maybe?

try the 1340s

I do wonder why it would actually matter if women's sexuality turned out to be innately different to men's? Why do some seem to believe that having a high libido, being aroused by visual stimuli, and being willing to have sex with lots of different people is somehow better, to the extent that we are keen to come up with reasons why it's oppression that's made us not like that? Is it because we've been socialised to believe that whatever men want/do must be superior, and that to be equal we have to be the same as them?

There is actually a very good reason why for tens of thousands of years women haven't been exploring their sexuality as freely as men do, and it's related to our biology: the likelihood that (until 50 years ago) we would end up with an unwanted pregnancy. There are good evolutionary reasons why our greater "pickiness" with regard to sex might turn out to be innate. Maybe women will never turn out to have a sexuality that is similar to men's, no matter how our culture changes? Would there be something wrong with that?

@EBearhug

When I'm sexuall'y attracted to someone, I do have a desire to constantly want to touch them. But I also know it's socially unacceptable to do so, especially if that desire is not reciprocated

Yep this totally. I will be in some kind of physical contact a lot of the time we are together whether that's holding hands touching his back etc. Thankfully he doesnt seem to mind. But if hes touched out i would stop.

But the innate need for physical contact itself is absolutely not gendered

BananaBonanza
That's a good point. It reminds me of the chap thrown out of KSA because he was too handsome. Presumably the Saudis think women are visual. link to handsome chap

innate or socialised or a mixture of the two is a different question

Not really. Because it isn't that woman are innately less visual, that is imposed upon them. We need to be differentiating between the two.

By stating man ARE more visual, we are most likely perpetuating the suppression of female sexuality and exploration.

By identifying some sexual traits as masculine and feminine we are encoding century's of sexual repression onto the next generation.

deepwatersolo yeah I'd heard of that. Disturbing.

"As a matter of fact, I'd guess that women actually have a much higher libido than men -- how else do you explain the fact that women keep marrying into the class of people who keep trying to take our rights away?"

Surely this is about social conditioning and security rather than libido.

There's also a theory that inflicting that much pain on an infant causes permanent changes in the brain, but that research was defunded.

Yeah, because selling foreskin tissue is big business, so of course they wouldn't want to end that. Plus: some people deciding on the funding may be circumcised and take this personally.
And the ultimate bummer: There is something like a circumcision fetish, there are actual internet sites for it, like there are for nappy wearers, furries....(one of the premier Australian pro-circ docs was actually linked to that circ kink).

(off topic, sorry)

Badstyley
I agree, that's the end result of it anyway. Regardless of why men's and women's sexuality is different the deciding factor is power.
It's still interesting to look at how the sexuality is different though, especially as most posters here have relationships with men.

Diffident
Not judgemental, it's not something I'd do to my son but that's a different topic. My point was that a significant percentage of men have altered penises that are both less sensitive and with less skin movement, and that affects their sexual behaviour and the comfort of their sex partner so it's relevant. There's also a theory that inflicting that much pain on an infant causes permanent changes in the brain, but that research was defunded. As I say, the US is very different to here, many men are routinely circumcised as infants for non religious reasons although the numbers are decreasing. They also have some questionable medical ethics with regards to the removed skin, as it is used to make fibroblasts and face cream with no financial compensation to the child.
This is off topic now but I'm happy to post in a new thread about it if you like.

Of course women find men sexually attractive but they don’t have the desire to constantly want to touch them or harrass them.

When I'm sexuall'y attracted to someone, I do have a desire to constantly want to touch them. But I also know it's socially unacceptable to do so, especially if that desire is not reciprocated. So I tend not to do it, though I have noticed I am more likely to touch their hand in conversation. I do manage not to grab their arse or anything.

I think a lot of it is down to socialisation - it's more socially acceptable for men to harass women than vice versa, as part of that "boys will be boys" idea. I know plenty of men who wouldn't harass women or touch them without invitation, whatever they might desire to do, but it is not universal and that's mostly societal. They do it because they can do it without much censure.

I’d say it’s all about power, not sexuality. Men are bigger, stronger, faster, so they always have the upper hand over a woman. Men are positively encouraged to act out their sexuality and women are not, and women know they are at a physical disadvantage. It’s all about power, both societal and physical imo.