Men have Stronger Sex Drive than Women

From Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence, by Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen R. Catanese, and Kathleen D. Vohs

The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found.

Strength of Sex Drive

Recent studies on uncontrolled and unwanted sexual thoughts underscore the conclusion that the male sex drive evokes more sexual thinking even if the person does not wish to have those thoughts. Byers, Purdon, and Clark (1998) found that male college students reported more intrusive, unwanted, and even personally unacceptable thoughts about sex than did college women (7.5 vs. 5.6 out of 20 possible sexually intrusive thoughts listed). Vanwesenbeeck, Bekker, and van Lenning (1998) developed a sexual compulsion scale with items such as “I think about sex more than I would like” and “I must fight to keep my sexual thoughts and behavior under control.” Men scored higher than women on this scale, indicating a greater sense of being sexually driven.


Data on spontaneous sexual arousal and desire reveal one way in which men seem to have a higher sex drive. Beck, Bozman, and Qualtrough (1991) found that men report more frequent sexual desire than women. Nearly all the men (91%) but only half the women (52%) experienced sexual desire several times a week or more. Their study also helped rule out the alternative explanation that women find it more difficult than men to recognize sexual desire, because men and women endorsed essentially the same indicators of desire.

Thoughts, Fantasies, and Spontaneous Arousal

Gender differences in sexual fantasy have been examined in many studies. A review and meta-analysis by Leitenberg and Henning (1995) concluded that men have more frequent and more varied fantasies than women. That is, men’s fantasies occur more often than women’s, include more different partners than women’s, and extend to a broader variety of sex acts than women’s (on an individual rather than a population basis—probably there is at least one woman who has had any given fantasy). These differences in fantasy suggest greater sex drive in men.

The variety in sex partners was the focus of a study by Ellis and Symons (1990). They asked people whether they had had sex with over a thousand different partners in their imagination. Given the relatively young age of their sample (college students), a very active and highly motivated imagination would presumably be necessary to achieve that high a tally. They found that men were four times more likely than women to report having imagined a thousand or more sex partners.

Thus, as compared with women, men think about sex more often, report more frequent arousal, and have more frequent and variable fantasies. These findings would be most consistent with a view that men have a higher sex drive.

Desired Frequency of Sex

Many findings suggest that men want sex more frequently than women. Ard (1977) reported a survey of couples who had been married for over 20 years. He found that “husbands continued to prefer intercourse more frequently than wives” (p. 274). In fact, wives consistently reported that they were quite satisfied with the amount of sex they had in their marriages, but men on average wished for about a 50% increase. M. Brown and Auerback (1981) likewise found that a majority of husbands (60%) but only a minority of wives (32%) said they would prefer to have sex more often.A more recent study by Julien, Bouchard, Gagnon, and Pomerleau (1992) found that husbands and wives agreed that the men were more sexually active and frisky. Even more relevant, Julien et al. (1992) found that men were more likely than women to report having less sex in marriage than they wanted. With a sample of couples ages 51 to 61, Johannes and Avis (1997) found that women were more likely than men to wish for less frequent sex than they were having, whereas husbands were more likely to wish for more frequent sex than they were having. A study of elderly couples in Sweden likewise found that men wanted more frequent sex than women (Bergström-Walan & Nielsen, 1990). Indeed, the authors of that study concluded that “men are significantly more sexual than women, in all ages and in all respects” (p. 289).


One reason that women may be less willing to engage in sexual intercourse is because of the possibility of becoming pregnant as a result. By biological necessity, women are much more invested in pregnancy and, thus, they may be reluctant to have sex because they recognize they will be the ones to suffer the consequences. Thus, for heterosexual couples, women’s weaker desire for sex could indicate cautiousness due to the possibility of pregnancy.


One large investigation that included a sizeable sample of same-gender relationships was the study by Blumstein and Schwartz (1983). They found that gay men had higher frequencies of sex than lesbians at all stages of relationships. Within the first 2 years of a relationship, for example, two thirds of the gay men but only one third of the lesbians were in the maximum category of having sex three or more times per week (the highest frequency category). After 10 years together, 11% of the gay men but only 1% of the lesbians were still in that category of highly frequent sex. At the other extreme, after 10 years nearly half the lesbians, but only a third of the gay men, were having sex less than once a month. Even that difference may be a substantial underestimate of the discrepancy in sexual activity: Blumstein and Schwartz reported that the gay men who had largely ceased having sex after 10 years together were often having sex with other partners, whereas the lesbians who had ceased having sex together had generally not compensated for this deficit by finding other sexual outlets. A lack of sexual desire and activity in women is reflected in the phrase “lesbian bed death,” (e.g., Iasenza, 2000) which has been coined to describe the low levels of sexual activity among lesbians in long-term relationships.

Similar conclusions emerged from an earlier study by Bell and Weinberg (1978), which did not limit its sample to people in committed relationships and is thus a useful complement to the Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) study. White homosexual men were more likely than lesbians (47% vs. 32%) to report having sex more than once per week. A similar difference was found among gay Blacks (65% vs. 56%).

Thus, evidence from multiple sources indicates that men want sex more often than women. This appears to be true in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships and at all ages and relationship stages. Table 1 summarizes the findings reviewed in this section. The pattern would tentatively suggest higher sex drive in men.

Desired Number of Sex Partners

Buss and Schmitt (1993) reported from several studies that men desired significantly more sex partners than women did. In reporting how many sex partners men and women would like to have over the next 2 years of their lives, for example, the men were on average hoping to have about 8 partners, whereas the women wanted approximately 1. Over the course of a lifetime, men wanted around 18, whereas women desired 4 or 5. Miller and Fishkin (1997) asked a sample of college students how many sex partners they would like to have over the entire rest of their lives if they were not constrained by any factors such as disease or laws. The mean response by the women was that they would ideally like to have 2.7 sex partners, whereas the men’s mean response was 64. Miller and Fishkin did not delete outliers from their sample, and in fact they noted that the difference in means was almost entirely due to the skew: The median was 1 partner for both genders. Thus, large numbers of young men and women aspire to having only 1 sex partner across a lifetime, but there is a minority of promiscuously inclined men that is much larger than the minority of promiscuously inclined women.

One may reject these studies as being merely hypothetical and insist on actual behavior. The same conclusion emerges: Men actually report significantly more sex partners than women, across all studies (e.g., Janus & Janus, 1993; Laumann et al., 1994). Unfortunately this difference suffers from being logically impossible, insofar as heterosexual intercourse involves one man and one woman (so the mean tallies of partners should be equal). Several studies have sought to explain this recurrent finding, and the answers converge on motivated cognition: Some men, but fewer women, tend to rely on estimating the number of sex partners and hence round up, whereas women are more likely to rely on trying to enumerate all prior partners, which tends to lead to occasionally forgetting some partners and hence to producing an undercount (N. R. Brown & Sinclair, 1999; Wiederman, 1997).

We note too that median differences are plausible, unlike mean differences. A few highly promiscuous women can have sex with many men. The median differences (e.g., Laumann et al., 1994) fit the view that the promiscuously inclined minority of men is larger than the promiscuously inclined minority of women.

In our view, the difference in the way people count sex partners is itself an indication that men want more than women. Men prefer an estimation strategy because it tends to yield a high tally; women prefer an enumeration strategy because it yields a low tally. Choosing strategies in that way enables men to come up with higher numbers than women, even though the means should be the same.

If our interpretation of motivated cognitive strategies is correct, it should be reflected in how people count marginal cases. Sanders and Reinisch (1999) provided relevant data on this. They asked a sample of students “Would you say you had sex if … ” and then presented a list of possible activities. Men and women agreed very closely that vaginal and anal intercourse constituted sex and that kissing did not, but they disagreed on the intermediate activities such as fellatio, cunnilingus, and manual stimulation of a partner’s genitals. Men were consistently more likely to rate those activities as sex than women. This fits the view that men desired to count those activities as having had sex, which would serve the goal of enabling them to think they had a higher number of sex partners.

Desire for multiple partners can lead to extramarital or extradyadic activity. Most studies of extramarital activity find that men report more partners than women, in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships (Cotton, 1975; Lawson, 1988; Spanier & Margolis, 1983; Thompson, 1983). For example, Spanier and Margolis found that 26% of the unfaithful husbands had had more than three extramarital partners, as compared to only 5% of the unfaithful wives. Conversely, wives outnumbered husbands in the category of having only one extramarital partner (64% vs. 43%). The same conclusion emerges from studies of lesser infidelities, such as necking or petting with someone other than a steady dating partner: Men do this more than women (Hansen, 1987).

Another consequence of a desire for multiple partners would be engaging in sex with someone whom one has just met. Herold and Mewhinney (1993) surveyed singles bar patrons, who presumably are already selected for interest in meeting new sex partners, but even in that selected population they found that men were more likely than women to have had sex with someone they had met that same day. For example, when asked whether they had ever engaged in any sexual activity beyond hugging and kissing with a person who they had met the same day, 80% of men but only 59% of women said “yes.” When asked about sexual intercourse with someone they had met that same day, 72% of the men as opposed to 49% of the women said “yes.” The men were also significantly more likely to express a desire and expectation to do so again.Aquarter (25%) of the men but only 2% of the women said they always enjoyed casual sex.


Gender differences in masturbation are large and consistent. Women and girls are less likely to masturbate than men and boys (Arafat & Cotton, 1974; Asayama, 1975; Laumann et al., 1994; Sigusch & Schmidt, 1973), and some evidence indicates that males who masturbate do it more frequently than females (Laumann et al., 1994; Sigusch & Schmidt, 1973). Jones and Barlow (1990) found, for example, that 45% of men but only 15% of women reported masturbating at least once per week. Meanwhile, nearly half the women in their sample (47%) but only 16% of the men said they had never masturbated. Arafat and Cotton (1974) found women and girls were almost four times more likely than men and boys to say they never masturbated (39% vs. 11%). In a survey of German teenagers ages 16 to 17, Sigusch and Schmidt (1973) found that 80% of the boys, but only 25% of the girls, were engaged in masturbation during the past year, and boys averaged five times per month as opposed to once per month for the girls.

Willingness to forgo sex

The Kinsey studies (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953) noted a relevant gender difference. They obtained relatively thorough sexual histories from a broad sample of individuals. One of their major concepts was “total sexual outlet,” which referred to all sexual activity (often operationalized as total number of orgasms) in the person’s life, from all sources. They found that some women showed substantial fluctuations in total outlet. Thus, a woman might enjoy a full and active sex life for a period, then lose her partner and have no sexual activity at all for some time, and then resume active sex with a new partner. Kinsey et al. (1953) observed that such discontinuities were almost never found among men. More recently, Leiblum and Rosen (1988) confirmed that in-depth histories indicated that many
women seem to adapt easily to a complete absence of sexual activity during long periods of involuntary abstinence, unlike men.

The total outlet measure is quite relevant to the issue of total sex drive, because it combines all behavior relevant to the sexual motivation and avoids the potential confusion that could stem from substituting one kind of sexual gratification for another. The fact that women were more willing than men to do without sexual activity altogether supports the view that women are less strongly motivated to find some sexual gratification consistently across time. When men lose one source of sexual gratification, such as by breaking up with a regular sex partner, they apparently seek out a new one soon, or at least they step up the frequency of masturbation.

Emergence Sexual Desire

As it happens, though, most evidence indicates that boys commence sexual interest and activity earlier than girls. Women start having sex at a later age than men (Asayama, 1975; Laumann et al., 1994; Lewis, 1973; Wilson, 1975). For example, Asayama’s interviews with Japanese students during the late 1940s and 1950s found that half the boys had become quite interested in sex by age 15 and 90% had by age 19, whereas only 30% to 40% of the girls had become interested by age 18. Over a third of the boys had masturbated by age 15 and over 80% had done so by age 21, whereas by age 21 only 12% of the women had masturbated. Asayama concluded that the development of sexual interest “among females is rather slow while for males it is quite rapid” (p. 95). With an American sample, Lewis (1973) found that half (52%) the boys but only 16% of the girls reported having sex by the age of 17.

Even though girls pass through puberty earlier than boys, they report experiencing sexual arousal later, and in fact in multiple samples all the boys reported their first experiences of arousal prior to the age of 13, whereas most girls reported their first experience after that age (Knoth et al., 1988). Girls start having sexual fantasies later than boys (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995), and they are slower even to develop interest in sex (Asayama, 1975). Most studies find that boys begin masturbating earlier than girls (Kinsey et al., 1953), although recent data suggest that the discrepancy may be dwindling (Leitenberg, Detzer,&Srebnik, 1993; Smith, Rosenthal, & Reichler, 1996). In a national survey, girls reported a later onset of sexual activity than boys (Leigh, Morrison, Trocki, & Temple, 1994).

Seeking Versus Avoiding, Initiating Versus Refusing

Women initiate sex less often than men. A diary study by O’Sullivan and Byers (1992) found that men initiated sex about twice as often as women, although there was no significant difference in considering initiating sex. M. Brown and Auerback (1981) found that men initiated it three times as often as women during the 1st year of marriage, although the difference dwindled in later years. Byers and Heinlein (1989) found that over a 1-week period, men initiated sex about twice as often
as women.


Refusal rates outside of relationships do differ by gender. Probably the best data were provided by Clark and Hatfield (1989), who used an experimental procedure to investigate responses to sexual offers. Both men and women were approached by a moderately attractive, opposite-sex confederate and invited to have sexual intercourse that evening. Women’s refusal rate was 100% across two studies, whereas only 25% of the men refused.

Liking for Various Sexual Practices

Fewer sexual practices appeal to women than men. Laumann et al. (1994) offered their respondents a list of 14 sexual practices and asked whether they found each of them appealing. They reported only percentages, not significance tests, but these were extremely consistent: On 13 of the 14 practices, a higher percentage of men than women rated the activity as appealing, and the 14th showed no difference (“being forced by a sex partner” was rated as appealing by less than 1% of both men and women). The index summarizing the number of appealing practices yielded, not surprisingly, an overall significant finding that men liked more activities than women.


Even though a majority of married couples today practice both fellatio and cunnilingus, women find these activities (especially fellatio) less appealing than men. For example, Laumann et al. (1994) found that 45% of men but only 29% of women said receiving oral sex was very appealing, and a similar discrepancy was found for giving oral sex (34% of men, 17% of women). This difference caused the researchers to speculate that some women perform such acts more out of a sense of obligation than genuine desire (Laumann et al., 1994, p. 157).

Sacrificing Resources to Get Sex

[…] it is clear that men spend a great deal more money on sexual products than women. Men have paid women for sex throughout most of history and across many different cultures, but the pattern of women paying men for sex has been considerably less common and in many contexts nonexistent (e.g., Elias, Bullough, Elias, & Brewer, 1998). Even in societies where there have certainly been enough rich women to be able to pay for sex, the practice has been rare or nonexistent.

The same is true for pornography. Men spend considerably more money on pornography and erotica than women do, as all studies have shown (e.g., Laumann et al., 1994). To be sure, pornography is only one kind of sexual stimulus. A lack of interest in pornography does not alone signify a lack of interest in sex. Women’s magazines in recent years do offer information about sex, presumably reflecting a marketplace in which women will pay for such information.

Some might object that most pornography is more geared toward men than women. There are two reasons to dismiss this objection, however. First, several studies have found that women do have strong physiological responses to pornography and experience levels of sexual arousal that compare with men’s (e.g., Fisher & Byrne, 1978; also Heiman, 1977). It is thus clear that currently available pornography is amply arousing to women. Once they see it, they like it and find it stimulating—but women are simply not sufficiently motivated to seek out that kind of stimulation as often as men.

The other reason to dismiss the argument of gender bias in the sex industry is that if the market existed for a special, female-targeted pornography, it is highly likely that someone would have been willing and eager to make the millions of dollars that it would represent. In actual fact, the sex industry has tried repeatedly to reach out to women, but it has repeatedly failed (Abramson & Pinkerton, 1995). Playgirl was introduced to the market with considerable hoopla in the 1970s, but the appeal of seeing nude men did not sustain enough sales to make it successful (let alone even approaching the success of Playboy), and so it shifted away from male nudity as a major selling point. Viva, which alone among the female-targeted magazines featured pictures of male genitals, closed down after 3 years. The market was simply not there—unlike the male market for pictures of nude women, which has sustained an assortment of magazines for decades.

Favorable Attitudes Toward Sex

The person with the higher sex drive would be motivated to espouse more favorable attitudes toward sex.

Women have less permissive attitudes toward sex than men. Although they are equal on some things, generally women are more critical of promiscuity, premarital sex, extramarital sex, and various other sexual activities (Laumann et al., 1994; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Sprecher, 1989; Wilson, 1975). Some of these attitudes, most notably favoring casual sex, produce gender differences that meet the statistical criteria to be called large differences (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Casual sex is conceptually important because it represents the opportunity to obtain sexual gratification without a high degree of effort, commitment, or investment, and therefore people with a high desire for sexual gratification would be expected to be most favorable toward such opportunities. Apparently, most of those people are men.

Prevalence of Low Sexual Desire

Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is officially defined by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) as constantly low or absent desire for sexual activity or sexual fantasies, a condition that is distressing to the person and is not caused by a medical or substance abuse disorder. A recent review of hypoactive sexual disorder (Beck, 1995) highlighted differences in the prevalence of HSDD diagnoses as a function of gender. Significantly more women than men are diagnosed with HSDD, consistent with the view that women are more vulnerable to problems of low sexual desire. Beck (1995) noted that low sexual motivation is among the most common complaints in sex therapy. A study of over 900 clients who were being seen for a variety of sexual dysfunctions confirmed the frequency of the complaint, with 65% of all clients being diagnosed with HSDD. More germane to this analysis, 81% of those diagnosed with HSDD were women (475 women out of 588). Thus, women appeared to be more vulnerable than men to the problem of low sexual desire by a rate of about four to one (Segraves & Segraves, 1991).

Self-Rated Sex Drive

Mercer and Kohn (1979) included items asking people to rate the strength of their sex drive. Women rated their sexual urges as less strong than men rated men’s. Although one may question whether people have an accurate basis for comparing their own feelings against those of others, the results do point toward stronger sex drives in men. In studies of sexual desire among healthy people, men report higher levels of sexual interest than women, regardless of age. For instance, Beck et al. (1991) found this pattern among college students, Pfeiffer, Verwoerdt, and Davis (1972) found this pattern among middle-aged men and women, and Bretschneider and McCoy (1988) found gender differences in sexual desire in people ages 80 to 102. A study (Mehrabian & Stanton-Mohr, 1985) on emotions, sexual desire, and gender found uniformly greater sexual motivation among males than females across all emotional states.

Other Constructs

Our focus has been on the strength of the sex drive, which we defined as intrinsic motivation to engage in sex. To avoid overgeneralization of our findings, we briefly consider several other constructs (sexual capacity, enjoyment, and extrinsic motivation) that might seem to be related to the sex drive but that will not necessarily yield similar conclusions.

The first of these is sexual capacity. By virtue of the very biological structure of the sex organs, women have superior capacity to men. Women can copulate with more consecutive partners than men, can copulate for a longer period of time, and can achieve more orgasms during a single session than men can. We can think of no aspect of sex in which men’s capacity for sexual performance matches or exceeds women’s, other than the reliable incidence of orgasm. Orgasm is, however, arguably an index of pleasure rather than sexual performance per se, and indeed the potential orgasmic capacity of women undoubtedly exceeds men’s anyhow. Women clearly have a greater overall capacity for sex than men.


Orgasm may be taken as one measure of sexual enjoyment, but it is admittedly crude and incomplete, and certainly many people report enjoying sex without orgasm. Even if one does use it as an index of enjoyment, however, the results are mixed. Women are more likely than men to experience multiple orgasms during a single copulation, and women are also more likely than men to experience no orgasm during a single copulation (e.g., Laumann et al., 1994). Thus, women’s capacity for sexual enjoyment may have a higher peak than men’s, but across all sexual acts women’s average level of sexual enjoyment may be lower than men’s. Put more simply, women can occasionally enjoy sex more than men can, whereas men actually do enjoy sex more consistently than women do. Also, men probably experience more orgasms than women over a lifetime, especially if masturbation is included in the tally. Given the current state of knowledge, we regard the question of which gender enjoys sex more as unanswerable.

Are Differences Rooted in Biology?

[…] testosterone is one of the primary organizational and activational hormones that differentiates men and women. Although both women and men have natural supplies of testosterone in their bloodstream, the amount of testosterone varies significantly between the genders. On average, men’s blood testosterone levels are 1,000 nanograms per deciliter, whereas women’s blood testosterone levels are only one seventh or one eighth of this amount (see Dabbs, 2000; Mazur & Booth, 1998). Postmenopausal women have especially low levels of testosterone (regardless of whether menopause occurs naturally or as a result of surgical procedures). Most commonly, surgically induced menopause is the result of an oophorectomy (i.e., removal of the ovaries and adrenals) or hysterectomy (i.e., removal of the uterus).

Differences In Male And Female Sexual Behavior

Men and women behave differently in the sexual arena. The differences are due to the different circumstances they have faced through their evolutionary history which have formed their biology.

Men and women did not face the same circumstances in the state of nature. Or rather, they did not deal with the circumstances in the same way. Thus, each developed behaviors which served best their survival and reproductive goals, and over time those behavioral patterns got hardwired into their natures. It is to be noted that most men and women are not conscious of the evolutionary causes of the differences in their sexual behavior, and would use various rationalizations to justify their behavior, or simply won’t admit to the differences.

The primal root of all sexual behavior is women’s instinct of finding a strong man who would protect them and their offspring, and men’s biological imperative of propagating their genes as much as possible by reproducing with women of good health. Keeping this in mind, following is a list of some of the differences in male and female behavior in the sexual marketplace.

Women love jerks. Men prefer chaste women.

Jerk, of course, is a term given to such men by culture. A man who has lived a day in his life knows that women dig bad-boys. It is because bad-boys possess the alpha-male qualities. These men are unemotional, uncaring, overconfident, narcissistic, psychopathic,.. Jerks, because owing to those alpha-male qualities they are not long-term relationship materials and often don’t treat women well by the present-day society’s standards.

Why would women fall for such men? Because in the evolutionary past when humans lived in the state of nature, those were the qualities that conferred survival advantage on them. Note that those traits correlate with the behavior required to effectively deal with harsh conditions of the wild. These men were also better protectors of women and offspring than the kindhearted and emotional men. Therefore, women’s trait of being attracted to alpha males is naturally selected by evolution.

As long as the man is alpha, his looks don’t matter that much, nor does his promiscuity. For men, on the other hand, the woman has to be good looking and must have good character. (Good looks are a sign of good health. That is the reason why humans – men more than women – find other good looking humans sexually attractive.) Whereas a man’s promiscuity does not prevent the expansion of women’s genes into the gene pool, a man having sex with a promiscuous woman would not be using his reproductive resources efficiently (his sperm would have to complete with other mens’ sperms). Hence, men’s innate preference for chaste women.

Virgin man is considered abnormal or gay by women. Virgin woman is considered a prize by men.

Culture, for healthy growth of society out of the state of nature, has tried to put a veil on many a fact of the dark side of our nature that is sexuality. Religions have imposed on men and women the uniform sexual morality. If you ask a priest, sex before marriage is sin for men as well as for women. But the unregulated sexual marketplace that the world is turning into is where the religious/cultural values and teachings are forgotten and the biological imperative rules.

Let a man in his twenties confess to a woman he is dating/courting that he is virgin and watch his prospects tumbling to the probable doom. Women would never admit this, but they feel biologically creeped out by such betatude. It is beta, because if the man was an alpha male then many women would be desiring him and he won’t be a virgin. She won’t admit it because she herself probably doesn’t understand her biological reactions which are at odds with her best interests in the present-day society. Rationally she may know that the man is rather good and virtuous but when it comes to taking him for a lover her biology won’t allow it. Have we seen a woman saying she wants a nice gentleman but is sleeping around with a bad-boy who always hurts her? All too familiar, isn’t it?

Men are wired differently. For them, woman’s virginity reflects her good character. It means that by having sex with a virgin woman the man can be assured that his reproductive resources are not being wasted, and that his genes will pass on as the woman is likely to remain faithful.

It is an offshoot of the above fact that a man’s virginity among his peers is a matter of ridicule; whereas a woman’s virginity is something she can flaunt with pride.

A woman expects a man to prove his love by not pushing for sex. A man expects a woman to prove her love by giving him sex.

Men and women both want sex, perhaps equally. But due to men’s biological imperative of having sex with as many women as possible for propagation of their genes, men are almost always ready for sex. Men are more sexual that way. Women, on the other hand, are choosy due to their having more stakes in the sexual activity. In the evolutionary past, women could not have sex as much and as often as men because of pregnancy and related risks to life. Besides, having sex with a wrong man (weak, beta male) would mean her offspring may not survive which would be an evolutionary failure. And since women can get pregnant limited number of times compared to men who can impregnate hundreds of women in their lifetime, right choice of mate is utterly important from evolutionary standpoint. Hence, women have evolved to be more reluctant and calculative in giving away their sexual resources.

Women want men to protect and provide for their offspring. Women’s challenge is to extract that kind of commitment from a man, not sex. For men, the challenge is to extract sex. Therefore, a man desiring a woman’s love has to show her that he does not just want to have sex with her but is ready to commit to her for long term. If he pushes the woman too much for sex then obviously the woman would get suspicious of his intentions. And by virtue of the same dynamic, when the woman gives him access to her sexual resources the man feels he has won her love.

Men prefer other men have less interest in their partner. Women love it when other women take interest in their partner.

A man would not like it if other men take interest in his woman. The underlying reason for that is if another man has sex with his woman, it may prevent his genes from being passed on. This is because if the woman has sex with multiple men, their sperms have to compete and only one man’s genes would be passed on into the gene pool. This does not apply to women.

For a woman, the more her man is desired by other women the more valuable he is, and the more attractive she would find him. Other women’s attention is validation that her man is an alpha male. Women love this, albeit, few of them admit this.

That is the reason why a woman hanging close with many men is labeled as slut and men won’t want a long-term relationship with her. On the other hand, a man hanging close with many women is interesting and cool, and would be desired by women. Contrary to the way it is with women, a man with no woman friend is unattractive, nerd, weirdo,.. to women. His looks don’t even matter.

Men are wired with sexual jealousy. Women are wired with emotional jealousy.

As I said above, men’s challenge is to get sex from women, whereas women’s challenge is to get men to commit to them. Sex is important to men, emotional attachment is important to women. Again, its root can be traced back to the male and female biological imperatives.

A man won’t want other men to have sex with his partner (or potential partner), or his partner to have sex with other men, because that would block the propagation of his genes. A woman won’t want her man to get emotionally attached to another woman for she wants him to provide for and protect her and the offspring. If the man develops emotional attachment for another woman, he might abandon her. The function of jealousy is to prompt necessary action in each case.

Men can tolerate emotional infidelity more than sexual one. Women can tolerate sexual infidelity more than emotional one.

It is because of this that men are often curious about the number of sexual partners the woman has had. The higher the number the lower is her value. Women’s curiosity is how many women the man has been in love with. The higher the number the lower is his value.

How to Have Peaceful Sleep with Alarm Clock

This post is for those who have miserable time sleeping as they keep waking up intermittently from their sleep to check the time out of fear of oversleeping or for any other reason including plain curiosity. People with schedules, like students and working people, mainly suffer from this condition.

When I was a school-going kid I always woke up at the right time without any external aid. The biological clock worked fine almost every day. I can’t remember a single instance of oversleeping and getting late for school. That is, perhaps, because for many years I woke up at the same time, making the body used to my schedule.

It changed when I grew up and started working. The “trusted” biological clock no longer worked now. The erratic work schedules messed up my inner clock, and I started using an alarm clock.

Let me stress here that though an alarm clock is a useful instrument, there is certain feeling of being in control when your biological clock alone works for you. The feeling is great. I am not sure how many people would relate to this but to me it felt great bacause I believe it is also a sign of good health. The biological clock, perhaps, would not work if one does not have a fixed routine with the time slot for sufficient sleep. It would also not work if there is too much anxiety about the consequences of oversleeping in case. So the well-functioning biological clock, I believe, is in some way a sign of healthy living.

I started using an alarm clock, which is now inside my cell-phone, so that I don’t have to worry about oversleeping. That is the point of an alarm clock.

Now you must be thinking that this is the most pointless post I have written and you are wasting your time reading this ramble. Wait. There is a species who can’t sleep peacefully even with an alarm clock. You may be one of them. So you might want to stick around and read on.

Have you ever woken up from sleep to check the time to know how much more time you have until the alarm rings? If you have, you are one of those.

Picture this: You have to wake up at certain time. You want to sleep and not oversleep. You set the alarm and go to sleep. You wake up in between and check the time. When you do that, obviously, you are hoping you have good enough time left to sleep more. But when you check the time you see that only half-hour is left before the alarm rings. “Shit, no!” You try to go back to sleep, in vain. You want to sleep desperately now, but you constantly fear that the alarm might ring any time. At some point during this ordeal you realize that you won’t be able to sleep and there is no point struggling. But you don’t get up from the bed because, well, you still have time to sleep. What misery!

I have a suggestion. When you have set the alarm and you wake up from the sleep in between, don’t ever check the time to know how much more you have left. Assume that there is plenty of time left to sleep, and go back to sleep.

This strategy can’t hurt. The alarm will not let you oversleep, so you don’t have to worry about that. When you wake up before time and go back to sleep assuming you have plenty of time, even if there was only a quarter of an hour left, you will have good sleep for the quarter of an hour. That is because you thought there was plenty of time left and went back to sleep without worry.

When you sleep with an alarm clock, there is no benefit at all in checking the time to see how much more time is left. Avoid that and have a peaceful sleep with alarm clock!

Rape Through The Lenses Of Sexual Economics

Rape is robbery of sexual resource that a woman possesses. It is akin to a man getting robbed of wealth. Both are essentially taking by force what someone else has that one desires. Sex is a resource that women possess and men desire.

A somewhat effective (and not the only) way to reduce instances of rape would be to view it as robbery as described above and expect women to exercise the same caution that men are expected to exercise to guard their wealth.

Sex is a powerful resource that women possess. More powerful a resource than is wealth for men, and hence more tempting, for obvious reasons. Seen in terms of sexual economics in nature, the purpose of man’s existence is to attain this resource, and the purpose of woman’s existence is to give this resource to a worthy man. Everything else is only the instruments to the species’ biological purpose. That is theory of evolution which does not require proof. It is a fact of nature. Now, as in any system with economic forces there is propensity to cheat (short-circuit the moral way to attain what one desires) which in this case is to rob. We have people for whom money is a resource, and they rob money. Likewise, we have men for whom sex is a resource, and they would rape. It is a fact of society. Deny these facts of nature and society and it is the end of a meaningful discussion.

Try imagining a world where men roam around wearing diamonds and gold and conspicuously stuffing wads of cash in their pockets to show off their wealth or to give off vibe of powerfulness, and there are no robberies. Anyone with common sense would agree that it is a Utopian ideal. A woman is equivalent to a man with wads of dollar bills dangling out of his pockets. Because a woman’s bare body is already resourceful. A woman dressed to show skin and/or create sex appeal is all the more so. Both a man with wads of dollar bills and a woman have resources of value to others, some of whom would do anything to get them.

All would agree that women already show more skin than men. They wear skirts and sleeveless blouses even to work, whereas for men wearing shorts or sleeveless t-shirts to office is unprofessional. Where I work, I see women wearing body-tight trousers and cleavage showing tops, but for men wearing collarless t-shirt is against the HR policy! Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Men are not vulnerable if they show muscles by wearing clothes to exhibit them, whereas women are. No one is going to stare up men’s shorts, pass sexual comments, and certainly no one is going to rape them. As this was not enough of contradictions, our movies are selling sex, magazines are selling sex, music videos are selling sex. Bare skinned women are shown through every media one can name. Women are freely using their sexual resources to attain all sorts of ends in the society. It is like dangling bones to the dogs and expecting them to not advance and bite. A society where women want to exercise this kind of freedom can not expect that there should not be rape.

I have seen kids of modern generation publicly criticize and condemn their own parents for not giving their daughters the freedom to go out late at night while giving the same freedom to their sons, and those parents later admitting to their “flawed” thinking. Let me say this: Their thinking is anything but flawed. And I am sorry to see them succumb to the pressures. It is not sexist to say that women should not go out at an unsafe hour and in an unsafe place. They should not.

I am grossed out by the fake morality of modern women and the society that padestalizes them. I must say that at some level I sympathize with rapists and feel no sympathy for women. In normal circumstances I won’t sympathize with robbers, but in normal circumstances men showing off diamonds on them and getting robbed would admit that it was their mistake as well for carelessly putting themselves in the way of danger. Women of the day are not normal.

I urge intelligent people to view men and women from the lenses of sexual economics, then see the sexual dynamics at play to understand the issue in a more meaningful way.

Sexual Economics by Roy F. Baumeister

Condition of Modern Relationships

A relationship can be lasting only if the man and woman require each other beyond emotional and sexual needs. In a modern-day relationship, once the “novelty effect” wanes, there is little else to fuel the relationship.

Women today are not happy to cook for their men, there are no large families to look after, household work is done by maids while women work in offices,.. (Hail feminism and women’s “liberation” movements.) What, then, is the usefulness of women to men in the society?

Similarly, “empowered” women don’t need men for survival and protection. In the technologically advanced world, women can do almost everything for which in the past they needed a man in their life. Thus, as far as comfortable survival is concerned, women don’t need men. They would do just fine on their own.

Usefulness of men and women to each other, therefore, has reduced to gratifying sexual and emotional needs of each other.

Sex drive and emotions are fickle. Hence, fulfillment of sexual and emotional needs would only keep the man and woman together till the spark remains.

It is very easy to lose the “spark” or the “connection” in the world with virtually unlimited choices of, and easy access to, potential mates (Facebook, WhatsApp,..) and where sexual freedom is celebrated as a development.

In the world where women don’t need men for survival and protection, marriage (even a long-term relationship) can’t sustain. In absence of any real practical use for men in their life, women feel no pressure to be useful to men. Manifestation of brutal market forces in nature.

From here:

A marriage will survive if two people need each other to be happy and if they need each other to live well. If they are self-sufficient, and each can do anything that the other can also do, the stability of their marriage is going to be an uphill struggle. There will be frequent validations required, a search for ways to “keep the spark alive”, a persistent need of expressions of love, chronic feelings of inadequacy, and a predilection to go one’s own way if the going gets tough.

In the past, if the man was being a good provider and protector, and the woman remained pretty or in shape, was a good homemaker and a mother, it was very easy to have a happy home. Now-a-days, if both earn, and both act as a mother to the children, and both do housework, it is not easy to see why a marriage will last long. Emotional bonds, in the absence of other factors, are fickle. Sexual desire, or shared hobbies, or shared values, can bring two people together, but cannot sustain their being together.

People who seek the amorphous goals of “fulfillment” and “growth” through their relationships are not going to have an easy time. Fulfillment and growth are side-effects, as it were, of a healthy relationship. A relationship can’t be based on these goals, but needs to have something more concrete at its foundation.

Consider two scenarios:

A: A wife tells her husband that she is going to be away for two weeks, and the husband says, “No problem, I’ll manage without a hitch.” Or, a husband is to go on a business trip for a week, and the wife says: “Have fun! I will too.”

B: A wife tells her husband that she is going to be away for two weeks, and the husband says, “Aw shucks, how will I manage?” Or, a husband is to go on a business trip for a week, and the wife says: “Oh dear, it is going to be so difficult for me alone.”

Which scenario makes you think that the husband and wife are going to have a long, stable, happy marriage?

And which scenario is the current ideal for an individual in our society?

I think increasingly, due to prosperity and various other factors, people are relating to each other for purely emotional or sexual reasons, and they can manage their lives and homes and careers just fine (or so they think) on their own. They want to feel great with each other, to spend time with each other, and so they invent activities (mostly related to vacuous show-business events or to spending money eating out, shopping or seeing a “new place”) to do together. They have a nagging suspicion that it is too much effort and that they would rather spend time with themselves.

We are told by the media that emotional or sexual reasons are primarily why we should get married. That love is all-important, and nothing else matters. I think that is a very wrong message. A couple certainly needs emotional and sexual compatibility, and for them to love each other is great, but that is not enough, not by a long shot, to want to spend their lives together.

A nut and a bolt may love each other, but even if at times they don’t, they are and will feel incomplete without each other, and will not be fulfilled for long on their own. Two nuts, on other hand, may decide to be together because they feel they have a “connection”, but they are tempting fate.

Modern men and women won’t feel fulfilled living alone, either. For when it comes to emotions and emotional needs, humans have not evolved as they have intellectually. Men still have the instinct for protecting, and women still have the instinct for protection from a strong man. That’s why women find strong men attractive, and men find women who are not strong more attractive. The instinct served well in the state of nature. In the modern world, the instinct is misplaced, and would create a void that can’t be filled.