From Mark Regnerus’s Slate article Sex is Cheap:
“[M]en want sex more than women do. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it’s true. In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University’s campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know: Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it.”
The conclusion drawn fromt the cited research is at best sloppy at worst wrong.
Base on what is describe about the research the correct conclusion should be:
Women is less inclined than men to be alone with a stranger for the purpose of unexpected sex.
This could mean one or any combination of the following factors:
1. girls want sex less than man
2. girls are less comfortable with unexpected sex than man
2. girls are less comfortable to have sex with total stranger than man
3. girls are less comfortable to be with a physically stronger unfamiliar male than male are comfortable with a physically weaker unfamiliar female.
The evident is insufficient to make the claim that women desire sex less than men, due to the involvement of additional variables (noise), namely, unexpectedness, stranger and risk associated with being alone (sex is presumably expected to be conducted in a private space) with an unfamiliar physically stronger or weaker person.
A change of subject. Reading this article reminded me of a female friend’s justification for having guys pay for dates: “girls spend time and money to look pretty for the guys”. To which i responded: “guys also dress themselves with expensive education, flashy business cards, pricy cars and accomplishments like climbing Mt. Everest or swimming the english channel to impress the girls and her friends.”. Then came the thought: is there is a correlation between male/female ratio and economic/social vibrancy? Or quantitatively is there a correlation between male/female ratio and economic growth?
The end of the Slate article points to a similar course of thought:
“And yet while young men’s failures in life are not penalizing them in the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to achieve in life. Don’t forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today’s young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year’s book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, “Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy.” They’re right. But then try getting men to do anything.”