Ok fair enough. Maybe we can talk about all the faux non-sex in Twilight. Anyway - - since when were women flocking to 'give it up'? Ever? One woman has anonymous sex in a car and it's a 'sexual revolution'. Two do it, it's a craze. Three, and Broadsheet proclaims that women are being pressured to drink and copulate against their will.

Say what you like, women have not, are not and never will 'give it up'. Women use sex for love, with men it's other way around. Therein lies the rub.

in Japan for the flip side....

There is a cultural backlash when women are perceived to be too sexually aggressive, now there is one if they aren't? We can't win. Perhaps, intelligent, high powered women are feeling confident enough in their places in the world to not have to use their sexuality as a bargaining chip these days. In either event, I'm not sure I care if men are upset that it seems the slut to prude ratio has gone down. Maybe it means they have to partake in more meaningful relationships.

is are more or fewer women having more, less, or the same sex with the same people, or with different people, than in the past.

The stuff is literally in the water supply at this point.

One of the most common and obvious side effects is reduced libido.

This is a gender-neutral effect. Or at least MOSTLY gender-neutral, as men on SSRIs can sometimes even experience outright impotence which effectively makes sex "impossible" for them.

It's not a joke, either, but no one seems to care.

As a straight man, let me assure you that I for one prefer women who primarily use their brains and training to succeed in most areas of her life. When a woman is trying to use her sexuality to make gains in areas that aren't related to sex, that's simply reinforcing the idea that women who have made it got there by sleeping or flirting their way to the top. It also creates a perception among men that the standards are lower for women than they are for men.

The obvious exception to this is her personal life: while I strongly prefer women who are smart, I even more strongly prefer women who are smart and are acting interested in me.

It may be that Stephen March can't find a women he's willing to talk to that's willing to sleep with him. Maybe he's just upset that they're not buying his pickup line anymore.

speaking as a woman with a high sex drive, though i am now monogamous, i can tell you that you don't hear about the women who love to fuck because they are busy fucking, and they have neither the time nor the inclination to, like, talk about it. why *discuss* when you can *do*?

sounds like that esquire writer just ain't getting any and is (shocker!) looking to blame anything/anyone but himself

the only thing holding me back from more fucking at this point is these damned recurring bladder infections

(also, good point, blunderdog)

Men who confuse television with reality have a hard time getting laid, especially if they want a woman with brains.

In other news...

I agree with you.... but every once in a while....

Have you been reading I Blame the Patriarchy?

obviously the situation is NOT gender neutral or the same thing would apply to men

Well I don't think most women ever used their sexuality as a bargaining chip. This is a myth ffrom the old boys club, when men could sexually harass us without consequences.

My theory is you young people spend too much time looking for people online, as we used to go to 'fern' bars or out dancing in the 70s. So maybe we got into more sexual encounters, but for the most part I remember meeting mostly jerks who I would never consider having a sexual encounter.

what silliness. Why would women want to screw this dildo of a dude when you can buy a perfectly good dildo that doesn't say stupid shit? I don't expect an inanimate object to be able to discern tv from reality. But I would expect a date or a partner to. I would also expect and editor to understand the difference but it seems like that business is about letting writers and bloggers embarrass themselves for fun and profit.

when you say "gender neutral" in this context - i have never claimed there were no general differences between men and women

though i do despise stereotypical gender roles and the narrow interpretations and false perceptions derived from them

but frankly i'm not that interested in discussing with you when you have flat out called me a liar in the past for stating that my sex drive is just as high as any man's - if it makes me a statistical anomaly, fine, but women like me do exist - and maybe more would exist if women were not still socially shamed for being explicitly and aggressively sexual

all the women i know are just like me - and they would fuck more men if men (most of them, not all) didn't treat them like dogshit once they fucked them

not all women want marriage and commitment and cuddling - some of us just like a good hard fuck and a little friendly respect afterward

... and the guy was trying to be funny, Tracy. I mean, he didn't succeed, but I practically guarantee that if you ask him about it, he'll tell you it was satire, or irony, or slapstick, or something in the style of .. uhhh, Twain. Or Garrison Keillor.

Because if you look at every other piece he's written, they all have "This is funny" kinda headlines.

I think he'd be more jolted by "not funny" than any social criticism anyone might care to muster.

men can't treat women like dogshit and still get laid. Women can and do treat men like dogshit and have no problems. In fact they believe they are entitled to do so, the existence and widespread acceptance of female supremacist feminism proves this, actually proves both the female entitlement and the male acceptance.