A book you might find interesting is "Loving to Survive".
It's a radical feminist book, so obviously controversial, but the argument is sound.
The author argues that women are trauma bonded to men, individually, and as a group, through a variety of ways. Intercourse is one way the bond can occur, especially if the man in question shows kindness. Kindness is crucial to the completion of the trauma bond.
With intercourse, it is women, and only women, who can be harmed physically by an unwanted pregancy. Therefore it makes sense that women have might have more emotional investment in the sex act. Lots of women who have sex with a man for the first time for example, find themselves inexplicably hanging around waiting for his phone call the next day... whereas the men often don't feel as bonded to the women they fuck... it's possible that this is because they're not experiencing any trauma. Sex is not traumatic in any way at all for men. There is no physical boundary violation. For women, the man is inside you, which seems okay, but step back and think about the effect this might have on your sense of boundaries and physical integrity.
A blogger has written some fabulous stuff on this subject:
"because the sad, sick truth of it is that every single man with whom we have ever had intercourse is just some tool who laid pipe, at our expense. thats all. if it hurts to think about it that way?well it hurts, whether or not you choose to think about it. thats kind of my point, actually. PIV hurts and is harmful to women, but not to men. how can you tell? we form emotional bonds with men we have fucked, that are inappropriate, and not reciprocal. work backwards, if you have to, if you cant see that PIV hurts, and is dangerous to women. look at the most common ?female response? to PIV (emotional attachment), and tell me it doesnt look a hell of a lot like another commonly-recognized bonding-response to having experienced extreme terror, and the fear of death.
women also manage not to stalk or murder our lovers, really, ever. they are our war-buddies, afterall. not our pets, our our property. see how womens alleged ?obsession? with men really has no correlate with mens sexual obsession with women? a more reasonable correlate (besides stockholm syndrome) would appear to be a kind of one-sided war-buddy syndrome, which normally creates intense emotional bonds between people, who face death with each other, in times of war.
those are my thoughts at the moment. that, and something i might have wondered about if i were about 15 years younger, cause i dont really care at this point: if we made PIV more traumatic for men, would they have the common decency to pick up the fucking phone the next day, but without going all stalker?"
A little controversial, maybe, but certainly not dull. I enjoy opinions that are off the beaten track 