I couldn’t possibly count the number of times I’ve heard it stated authoritatively that men have a higher libido than women. Repetition must make it true. However, I believe that comparing male libido to female libido is apples and oranges (or bananas and peaches?).
There is no question that men, by and large, have lower standards for sexual opportunities and furthermore have a higher requirement for variety. To witness this masculine principle in action all one has to do is observe the mating behavior of homosexual males. It must also be stated that obviously every man has a “minimum attractiveness” metric when evaluating a possible sexual partner. It is possible that women’s standards in this area are lower or rather, “minimum wealth capacity,” “sense of humor,” and “willingness to please,” tend to matter more to women overall than appearance. Of course there are exceptions.
I’ve also heard, exhaustively, that a woman’s libido tends to be higher in middle age than puberty. I suspect that the reasons for this phenomenon are sociological rather than biological.
When I read these sorts of “factoids”, I wonder whether I am in fact a woman. Perhaps, I am a high-testosterone woman—I’ve never been tested but believe this to be true. However, more importantly, I suspect that these factoids are not true but rather widely-held myths based on the behavior of boys and girls upon puberty—a behavior that does not persist throughout adulthood.
My personal sexual peak in terms of desire and sheer physical ability occurred when I was a minor and has been at a steady downward slide since. While it was obvious that my libido during adolescence was higher than my female peers I suspect that is a matter of having a different social framework than the lot of them. My childhood differs from most girls in that I was relatively unparented other than unwanted attention from my father, moving every two to three years to radically different demographic areas, and therefore the influence of my peers and my family on my personality was less than that of books, popular culture, and then adult men. Having read Xaviera Hollander’s memorable series of books (The Happy Hooker, Best Part of a Man, Xaviera Goes Wild, etc.) while I was still technically a virgin (my childhood sexual abuse did not involve penetration), I determined that my key to happiness was to become a “sexpert.” And so I did.
This does not mean that I don’t have high sexual desire today only that it is nothing like it was when I was a teen when it was overriding to the point of compulsion. While sex is still very important to me, I have developed specific standards that preclude promiscuity, swinging, and hook-ups. Rather, I require enough familiarity to have detailed conversations before even considering the possibility. Otherwise it is just not worth it to me. While for some “bad sex” is better than no sex, that rule doesn’t apply to me. I can consistently achieve orgasm by myself with the aid of a rich catalog of fantastic memories, and therefore see no reason to interact sexually with another body unless the risk is outweighed by the potential for pleasure.
Although, this downward slide in my sexual adventurousness has been going on for decades accompanied by increasingly narrow standards as to who I am interested in having sex with, I have not yet been confronted by a man who a) meets my standards; b) has higher sexual desire than I do…ever. Not ever! That doesn’t mean that such a man doesn’t exist only that he is probably already as busy as he can manage. I believe this because the supply of sexually active men in my age group obviously is well beneath the demand. However, even in my youth, I never met such an animal while admittedly the pool of men in their sexual peak in my experience is tiny. The mean age of male in the first decade of my post-puberty sexual experience was 27. In that age group, while I was in my teens, I never met a man with more sexual desire than what I had. Should I return to that age group, I would perhaps be pleasantly surprised; however, since I’m not turned on by the idea of a younger man, it is a moot issue. I gave it a couple of tries in my 30’s but those attempts were merely the end of a couple of lovely friendships because the sex was decidedly sub par. I’ll never say, “never,” but am not optimistic.
I have never been in a relationship with a man who nudged me while I pretended to be asleep or have a headache such as to repel his sexual advances. In fact, I have an “open door” policy in terms of permissible times to approach me when I am in a relationship with the exclusion of illegal encounters that might possibly result in either arrest or offending the citizenry. I am never “not in the mood” unless I have a gastrointestinal illness or some other physical infirmity (like the time I got stitches in the vagina for instance) or am just unusually sore after a particularly vigorous encounter. Even so, fellatio is nearly always on the table. In fact, if I’m physically out of commission for some reason, that’s a perfect time for fellatio because that’s a guarantee that I’ll “go for the gold,” so to speak, rather than tease with the intention of steering him toward intercourse should such a thing be permissible in my relationship. It isn’t always.
So, do my standards require good looks? No. Great wealth? No. Superior intelligence? It helps but no. Good health? Ideally but given that I am a nutritionist, a health condition that I believe that I can cure is not necessarily a deal breaker.
I suspect that the issue is Dominance. I require Dominance in a man otherwise I am just not interested. I believe that part of Dominance is to dominate one’s own libido. In other words, such a man is in control of himself in his own interest rather than say losing his mind over pussy. I find Dominance to be a trait that accompanies maturity and authority and thereby tends to exist in a man who is older than I am. I prefer men older than I am because otherwise, in my relationships, “sibling rivalry” tends to dominate, and I’d rather admire and submit than compete with a man. Naturally age tends to reduce libido as well.
I also have another theory. I believe that some men’s own sense of masculinity requires that he have a higher libido than his woman. For such a man, a woman who doesn’t fit his inner narrative will never be considered for a relationship. I think that one of the ways that men bond is by complaining about the low libido of their women, whether this is true or false. Of course, when a married man is trying to seduce another women, he’ll tell her, “My wife doesn’t understand me!” That statement might not be true. She might be a nymphomaniac but since her husband craves variety his interest in her has flagged. That would indicate to me that men’s libido is not unconditional and as such is not so overpowering as to be actually higher than women’s libido.
Furthermore, the generally-accepted high value of sexual inexperience in a woman dictates that a woman with high experience has less value to general society, which would also be a threat to an individual man’s self-worth within that society. In other words, I have generally-accepted low social value and have always had low social value even though I’m attractive, healthy, intelligent, possess social graces, and was once highly professionally successful. That low social value is not entirely due to my high libido, but that’s a big reason. Of course, when I was young, I learned how to fake social acceptability but fakery is no way to start a relationship. In fact, I turned down a marriage proposal because it was clear to me that I would have to keep up “the act” in all our social milieus or risk embarrassing my future husband. I didn’t think that would be worth it. I don’t regret that decision, even though he and I are still friendly. The problem of me not being true to myself when around his very large circle of friends would likely have exploded down the line. It would either have made me less attractive to my husband or caused me to have a personal crisis. It would not have been sustainable.
It isn’t that I’m not trustworthy. In fact, I have entertained monogamy numerous times (13 years was the longest, when I was married). I have never cheated in a monogamous relationship. Honor has a higher value to me than sex and I prefer men with similar values. I don’t consider masturbating alone to be “cheating”. In fact, the more desire I have for my partner, the more likely I am to be masturbating because his presence stimulates me.
I have been in numerous open relationships (albeit not usually entirely successfully) as well as monogamous ones and in all cases, my libido was higher than his albeit I tend to take less advantage of an open relationship than my partner. Let that sink in that a man with a lower libido than I have is nevertheless equipped to take on secondary partners. In other words, such a man requires variety to maintain his libido whereas I do not. However, in an open relationship, my ego compels me to get some strokes once in a while rather than demurely waiting at home while my partner gallivants about. This has resulted in the dissolution of more than one “open” relationship when it became apparent that what was good for the gander was not so good for the goose. In other words, my partner would discover that he was either possessive or insecure when tested and this resulted in our relationship ending in all cases but my current open relationship. I have always been open to a monogamous relationship because I do not require variety in order to maintain my libido. However, I am not open to a one-sided open relationship or the sense that I am not getting out what I am putting in. Funny that it would seem that a one-sided open relationship is what most men desire as it tends to be what wealthy men seek. I suppose if the perks were worth it, some wives wouldn’t complain. However, I would find such a situation intolerable for love or money.
I prefer to be in a relationship rather than to be single and want to give it the best chance of succeeding—whether as monogamous or open. The only sort of relationship I haven’t tried is “poly” but that’s because I’m not much of a joiner or follower of groups that tend to be female-dominated (that includes many so-called Male Dominant/Female Submissive groups where the women are obviously in control of all social aspects of the group). I’ll never say “never” but rather find it unlikely that such a thing would work for me, unless, perhaps, it was me and two men. The fact that I am today unapologetically heterosexual eliminates the possibility of a female/female/male triad except as a one-night thing as a gift to a man who wanted that sort of thing. As for a poly living arrangement with two men, that’s long been a fantasy of mine albeit I don’t hold out much hope of ever realizing it (other than short-term, which I have realized several times in my faraway youth, but eventually the dynamic would fall apart).
Perhaps the reason why I have never been in a relationship with a man with a higher libido than I have is that there are relatively few men in this world who are dominant over their own libido, value honor over sex, and don’t consider a woman like me to be “low value”. Of those few men, it would appear that either none of them have a higher libido than I do or I just haven’t met one yet.
I asked my Dominant about this phenomenon and he said this:
“In my circles, women always have the higher sex drive.”
I believe this statement to be true. I also believe that persons in his circle and mine are not studied by the authorities who maintain that men have a higher libido than women. In other words, there’s an entire subculture of individuals who don’t fit the narrative. They consist of men who do not find sexually experienced women to be of low value and thereby do not maintain the fiction that their own libido is higher than their women. In short, they are resistant to social conditioning.
Nowadays, however, if it is not on television or studied by “the experts,” it can’t possibly be true. There cannot possibly be legions of women who will beg for it when encountering a dominant man who values honor over sex. They cannot exist except in fantasy land. Because otherwise it would have to be conceded that the majority of men are without honor.
However, I’m sad to say that I believe that to be true. Similarly, the majority of women are without honor. I would even venture to say that fewer women have honor than men and that men with honor usually reserve that honor for other men. In other words, most men have rightly decided that women are without honor and therefore there is no reason to be honorable with them.
That must be another legacy of Feminism/Gynocentrism.
What if the notion that men have higher libidos than women is a fallacy? What if it is nothing but an artifact of the “Cinderella” narrative which says that it is possible for an attractive young woman to marry a man who is above her in class? While I concede that it is indeed possible, I find that to be the exception rather the rule in relationships of my experience. Furthermore, I suspect that more than one relationship that resembles Cinderella and her Prince Charming is staged, that is, she actually out-earns or out-classes her husband, appearances to the contrary. However, the appearance of being in such a relationship is so important to the parties involved that some couples will go to extreme lengths to maintain it.
What if huge sectors of popular culture depend on the notion that sometimes men are such slaves to their high libidos that they will willingly marry outside of class with a “Cinderella” (and their friends, family, and accountant won’t talk them out of it)?
Considering the resilience of the various beauty and fashion industries, even during a worldwide recession, I would say that the “Cinderella” narrative is alive and well. If all it takes for the future economic security of a young woman is to appear beautiful, fashionable, and high status, then obviously that fiction is good for business.
Similarly, our society does not require an excess of Dominant men or leaders. Therefore the beta men are told that they necessarily have high libidos as a way of sabotaging the competition. So long as the majority of men are pussy-whipped, there is no threat to the status quo.