Writer capitalizes on reality of female desire

by W.F. Price on June 6, 2013

Journalist Daniel Bergner has come out with a “groundbreaking” book about female sexuality that comes to the shocking conclusion that women are not all sweet innocent little things.

Bergner’s conclusions, judging from the press, are pretty much the same ones we’ve already reached in the androsphere, which leads me to believe he cribbed some of our material. But even we can’t take all that much credit; hell, you can find the same material going back thousands of years to Homer, the Bible, barbarian European sagas, Hindu texts and so on. In fact, the greater part of evidence that has stood the test of time confirms that women’s sexuality is a powerful and often disruptive force.

Salon on Bergner’s book:

In accessible and entertaining prose, “What Do Women Want?” details everything from individual women’s fantasies to the search for a “female Viagra.” More important, though, it represents a complete paradigm shift. The book, which grew from a much-discussed New York Times Magazine cover story in 2009, reveals how gender stereotypes have shaped scientific research and blinded researchers to evidence of female lust and sexual initiation throughout the animal kingdom, including among humans. It reveals how society’s repression of female sexuality has reshaped women’s desires and sex lives.

Bergner, and the leading sex researchers he interviews, argue that women’s sexuality is not the rational, civilized and balancing force it’s so often made out to be — that it is base, animalistic and ravenous, everything we’ve told ourselves about male sexuality. As one researcher tells Bergner of all the restrictions put on female sexuality: “Those barriers are a testament to the power of the drive itself. It’s a pretty incredible testament. Because the drive must be so strong to override all of that.”

“Women’s desire — its inherent range and innate power — is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times, when all can seem so sexually inundated, so far beyond restriction,” he writes. “Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety.” In fact, he argues, “one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.”

Yes, female sexuality can be terrible in its power, but knowledge disarms much of that power. This is why I don’t think the “constraints” put on female sexuality are really hard and fast rules so much as they are components of an illusion — an illusion that renders unknowing men all but helpless in the face of the angelic female ideal. It is women – not men – who have been most vigilant in maintaining this illusion, because it profits them.

People often mention the “Red Pill,” and that term has come to be a catchphrase for male awakening to reality. I’m not a really big fan of the term, because it sounds a bit cultish and brings The Matrix to mind (I wasn’t all that impressed by the film), but it does describe a real phenomenon.

The Red Pill, in short, is simply the truth about female sexuality. All Bergner has done is repackage the red pill and make it look sexy, and even empowering to women. So I suppose we should give the guy credit for doing us a favor, because although it is being sold with some misleading advertising, at least his book will contribute to general knowledge about the ancient truths of the world.

{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }

AF June 6, 2013 at 19:27

I don’t understand all the “mystery” surrounding human sexuality.

Although we have forgotten it in the sanitised, (nearly) sterile West, the reason we have sex drives is to procreate. But for the tiny percent of the population who is exclusively homosexual, the whole point of the reproductive drive is to… Well, reproduce.

As such, we are hard-wired to seek out the mate with the best possible genes and health who will contribute the best possible genetic material to our offspring, and thus give them the best chance of survival – and of reproducing themselves.

For men, this means being attracted to young, slim women with large breasts and symmetrical features – as these connote health, fertility, and the ability to feed a baby.

For women, this means tall, rugged, and muscular (“alpha”, if you will), as this connotes strength, dominance and genetic fitness, all traits most likely to produce a healthy, robust baby with a strong immune system.

It’s as simple as that. Talking about looking for a “good character” in a partner when it comes to hard evolutionary reality is irrelevant, because all the “good character” in the world is irrelevant if your offspring are too weak to survive.

The job of civilization is to try an override these natural impulses and create viable long-term partnerships based on more than just sexual [reproductive] attraction; but as civilization in the West has collapsed, it’s obviously not doing a very good job at the moment, thus unrestrained natural reality is being revealed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 3
Aharon June 6, 2013 at 20:37

Long ago, many wise great sages from different parts of the world recognized the need for human societies, tribes, families, and individuals to restrain (to various degrees) the human sexual genie. The creation of marriage, division of labor by sex, and roles for different family members more or less created an equilibrium of sorts. Most cultures believe the male sexual animal is usually or more often wilder and more primitive than the female sexual animal. In America and the West the genie is increasing escaping from the bottle.

Ironically, the more the hedonistic, animal sexual energy is allowed to run wild the more men and women, and especially women as they slowly mature are unhappy with their lives and the pro-feminist-inspired choices they made years ago.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3
Codebuster June 6, 2013 at 21:55

>”which leads me to believe he cribbed some of our material”

I say let them crib more of it. This is good news, and it’s a part of the reason I persist with what I do, with or without thanks. We may never be quoted, people may never hear our names, but somehow the things we put out online sometimes get noticed, and absorbed into the cultural collective. And that is satisfying in and of itself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 1
Nemo June 6, 2013 at 22:53

The truth will set you free. That doesn’t mean that you should be a sexual libertine. It means that you must know of the true nature of women before you can make an informed decision on whether or not you should try to start a relationship with one of them. Study the risks before you swim in shark-infested waters.

There is a huge amount of deliberate disinformation in the MSM bombarding men every day about how women are vastly superior to men in every way. If this guy dispels some of those lies, then good for him.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 3
Anonymous June 6, 2013 at 23:40

Takin’ the Red Pill is spreading… hopefully it’ll remind people why civilization and being reponsible are good things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Opus June 7, 2013 at 00:31

I looked at the book on Amazon – at least as much as they would let me read – and thought it somewhat salacious; far from being red pill, it seemed to me to cheer-lead female promiscuity – not merely to excuse it, but celebrate it, in you-go-girl fashion. It seemed to me to be aimed at titillating women: Moxon it is not.

Most of the time, most women, are nothing like the women presented in the book. When women are indulging themselves promiscuously they are (unlike men) equally keen to present a virginal image to everyone else, indeed they will repackage their promiscuity through the prism of romantic love, as the equivalent of monogamy.

It is perhaps unfair to attempt to review a book I have only very briefly and incompletely read but that was how I saw it. In many ways it seemed similar to those best selling American books on psycho-babble subjects; easy to read, largely forgettable, and naively simplistic. Perhaps I just got out of bed the wrong side this morning.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Jaego June 7, 2013 at 01:13

Some cultures believed Female Sexuality was stronger. The Fathers of the Church said so and that if God hadn’t given women a certain shyness, “No flesh would be saved”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
DCM June 7, 2013 at 02:59

Females’ minds are slightly but noticeably more primitive than men’s. Few of them will achieve mental and emotional maturity till they are old and infertile.
There’s little hope of getting most females to be rational, however smart they may be; they can only be somewhat repressed via ethics enforced by other females and the law, or men can be educated from childhood to see them as they are and not give in to the semi-instinctive idealization of females that’s part of the mating urge.
The latter is probably simpler and better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
AF June 7, 2013 at 04:24

This is slightly off topic, but I think everyone here will appreciate this article I just stumbled across, excerpt:

“Our society has told women they are simply defective men, with irritating defects like fertility and maternal instincts, which medicine and therapy can remedy so they can take their rightful place as full human beings in cubicles working for strangers.”

The shift is also detrimental to men, Zmirak says: “Men, in turn, are emasculated and deprived of what men need most–something sacred for which they can sacrifice their short-term self-interest, and thus develop virtue.”

He blames misguided feminists and a backfiring of civil rights legislation: “Second wave feminism (de Beauvoir) and its American variant (Friedan and Steinem) amounted to a Cartesian, utilitarian attack on what is essentially feminine. Instead of love, sacrifice, loyalty and care, women were taught to value power, money, and promiscuity.”


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Towgunner June 7, 2013 at 06:42

“hell, you can find the same material going back thousands of years to Homer, the Bible, barbarian European sagas, Hindu texts and so on. In fact, the greater part of evidence that has stood the test of time confirms that women’s sexuality is a powerful and often disruptive force.”

In so many words, we know better and, worse, have known better for a very long time. The other side actually calls itself “progressive”, in what? I say feminism and progressivism is the complete opposite – its regressive. Now we’re in a paradigm where precious time, energy and resources will have to be devoted to once again re-learn what we already know. Hopefully, that will make for a relatively shorter process.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
greyghost June 7, 2013 at 08:30
Lyn87 June 7, 2013 at 08:54

AF wrote,

As such, we are hard-wired to seek out the mate with the best possible genes and health who will contribute the best possible genetic material to our offspring, and thus give them the best chance of survival – and of reproducing themselves…

… For women, this means tall, rugged, and muscular (“alpha”, if you will)…

… Talking about looking for a “good character” in a partner when it comes to hard evolutionary reality is irrelevant, because all the “good character” in the world is irrelevant if your offspring are too weak to survive.

… and yet PUA gurus with their fuzzy top-hat, smirks, and black mascara purport to prove that “effeminate, goofy, and rude” beats ” tall, rugged, and muscular” as a means of attracting women to take their seed.

Leaving aside whether macro-evolution is “science” or a modern “scientistic” fairy-tale designed to shoe-horn contradictory data into a non-falsifiable worldview, I have an actual question for you.

Given: humans are above other creatures that share our biology, and only humans have built civilizations (a very advanced type of herd) that – far more than anything else – drastically increase the chances of survival and reproduction of the members of that civilization – and there is absolutely no indication that we have ever been anything other than a herd species. It seems to me that the traits most likely to ensure survival of offspring would be the exact same traits that help an individual to be a successful member of the “herd” (civilization) and rise within it. In other words, “good character” has a much higher reproductive value than “good hand-eye coordination,” and “big brain” ought to trump “big arms” every time. Yet we all know that women at the height of their fertility prefer to mate with men who possess certain physical traits that are grossly inferior to things like character and intellect when it comes to their life-long reproductive viability. Therefore as a predictive model for female behavior, proponents of “Evo-Psych” get it exactly backwards – and models that predict the opposite of the actual outcome ought to be discarded or at the very least completely revamped.

In your opinion, are women trying to “split the difference” (a.k.a. “hedge their bets”) when they seek “strong” men to breed with and “smart” men to support them, or is something else in play?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
TFH June 7, 2013 at 09:45

I say let them crib more of it. This is good news, and it’s a part of the reason I persist with what I do, with or without thanks. We may never be quoted, people may never hear our names, but somehow the things we put out online sometimes get noticed, and absorbed into the cultural collective. And that is satisfying in and of itself.

Of course. Our job is to educate. Anyone who does this, is furthering the same cause.

Misandry weakens when more men are aware….. and books like this, do it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
joeb June 7, 2013 at 11:17

There is no confusion about human sexuality .
Human sexuality is a red herring for the female to divert the real issue
Men cringe and cower to the mere mention of sex . Females use this red herring the same way the Government uses feminism .
As a shield .
If ,we all stop thinking with the most basic human drive and start thinking with are Mind’s , We need to put away anything remotely attributed to the visualization of sex during the other 23 hours a day . and push the real issue’s that stem from these basic drives in overdrive
Any caveman and single cell organism can reproduce .
As long as females can divert the argument to sex they win . Hence
The Cave man thumping his club on the ground yelling no fair .
The red pill gives us a release from this Bondage .
I like to call Blue pill males ” Males still tied to the mask . We are all on a ship with rules and a limited space . As soon as you wake to the horror of your enslavement to the mask , Doesn’t mean you are not still enslaved . Shanghaiing refers to the practice of conscripting men as sailors by coercive techniques such as trickery, intimidation, or violence.
Does this sound familiar .
You can free your mind by telling yourself “I’m fed , I have a job , And there is nothing I can do about it .
But , This is simply an Intellectual lie we tell are selves To make the physical reality of our bondage palatable .
Continue Taking the regiment of the red pill and you will start seeing Life boats , Islands and other men on the boat .
Its not a one time Pill its a regiment .
Being deprogrammed from Bondage is a painstaking task . All that’s needed to derail this process is The Captain to throw a few galley wags to the sailor and he calms down and works hard .
Don’t get sidetracked by sexual issue’s they have nothing , I say nothing to do with Men’s rights . The Government is the privateer and we are the conscripted Male .
Conscription have been used for Thousands of years , Hitler , pirates , the Chinese , Mongols , The British , To build army’s of slaves .
We still fall for that one every time And it never ends well .
Most of our conscription started at the time of our Family’s Kidnapping . Hitler did the same thing to use male’s as tools and soldiers . Showing us a document we singed and placing us in Bondage to that document also disregarding the legality of the document .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Mark June 7, 2013 at 11:43

If I may paraphrase Dana Carvey as the Cranky Old Man: “In my day, taking the Red Pill meant you were a lousy, no-good, pinko commie, who could be harassed, blackballed, tarred, feathered, and run out of town, and we liked it!

“Nowadays, this Red Pill business is about women and sex. In my day, women just lay there and took it, and it was quick and disgusting, and they got pregnant, again and again, and they didn’t like it, but we liked it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
keyster June 7, 2013 at 12:19

The Red Pill is understanding female sexual power.
If you’re an unattractive woman or lesbian you might be a feminist because you have such limited sexual power – over men.
Women wanted “rights” and “liberation”, but insisted on keeping their sexual power, much to the dismay of strident feminists. The male needs to understand female sexual power. Most are entranced by it while not even knowing it. There are untold fables and metaphor for this, from The Fall to Odysseus to Cleopatra and Mark Anthony.

It’s a “backlash” against women wanting feminism AND sexual power. Their sexual power is diminishing every day. The more they behave like men, the less sexual power they have…the less power they have at all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
sven thomas June 7, 2013 at 13:56


The Author is late to the party.

5,000 years ago we witnessed Eve being tempted by the serpents as she lusted after da lostasts cockasz.

About 2800 years ago we witnessed Helen deserting her family/husband and running off with a PUA and causing a war, whence tens of thousands perished.

The important thing for MEN to see here is why the Neoconsosnz banned the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN–because they teach of the TRUE NATURE of women.

Women are only Virgins and nice and good when they are raised by STRICT, HEROIC MEN who reign over their fallen sexuality via their manly honor, as exalted in THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.


Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6
Sam June 7, 2013 at 17:16

“What Women Want” Everytime I hear that question, I cringe. Why is it never “What Men Want”? I am glad I am at a point of no longer caring what women want. Don’t need em and don’t want em.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
AF June 7, 2013 at 17:17

@Lyn 87

I think it comes down to the fact that until very recently all small children were at serious risk of fatal disease, and infant mortality was very high. Parents expected to lose children to disease, it was one of the reasons why large families were the norm, and fatal conditions were particularly pronounced in cold, wet countries such as England, Ireland, and parts of Europe.

It is only fairly recently that it has been the norm for all children born to be expected to survive to adulthood and so certainly, with our current medical advances and minimal risk of infant mortality, “big brain” should trump “big arms”..

However, the hard-wiring of female sexuality was imprinted a long time before the last hundred years or so, and so when it evolved it did so with a strong preference for the physical “alphas”, as tallness and muscles suggest a very healthy man with enough resources and reserves to grow tall and develop muscles – a weak, sickly person can’t waste the resources on that (similar reason to why men like big breasts). This is particularly true for women of white European descent where risk of infant mortality was always much higher than the hotter, more tropical countries.

So that’s why we see the patterns in women of being attracted to “alpha” at ovulation, and “beta” the rest of the time (have you heard of that study showing that when women in long term relationships come off the pill, they have a tendency to suddenly dump their partners, as the pill suspends their body in a state of thinking it’s pregnant, so they’re looking for the beta provider – so as soon as they come off it, nature/ovulation kicks back in and they immediately want Mr. Alpha).

Because first and foremost nature needs that baby to survive. If it’s going to die because of weak genes/immune system, it doesn’t matter how good a provider a man is. So getting the good genes/immunity first has got to be nature’s priority.

The PUA thing is a good point though…. Not sure about that one. Would be interested to hear any theories.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
FTLOTBP June 7, 2013 at 18:54

I hope the word “hypergamy” enters the mainstream lexicon.

The media/feminists will distort it, spinning it as some sort of good thing no doubt. (It’s a GOOD thing that Wimminz choose “superior” “men” to fuck with. Alpha fux and Beta bux!!! It’s all NATURAL!”)

The good thing that would happen though is tons more men would then have exposure to the word, look it up on the internet, and then find the truth of the matter. That could really be the start of game-over for the feminists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
AF June 8, 2013 at 02:25


While the media/feminists do do what you say, I also think there’s nothing wrong with rationally trying to deconstruct something and working out why it is the way it is, without necessarily saying it’s a good thing for it to be like that. To say something is “natural” is no particular defence of it – walking around barefoot is natural, sleeping in trees is natural, but we don’t do those things and it wouldn’t be productive if we started.

So from my perspective explaining why female sexuality is the way it is (or male sexuality for that matter) isn’t defending or deriding it. It’s just explaining it.

The point of civilization as I said in my earlier comment is to civilize, e.g. to have people conquer and control their natural instincts for the betterment of society. So in an advanced civilization like ours WAS, it shouldn’t really matter what is or isn’t arguably “natural”. It should matter what is proven to work best. That obviously is NOT women cuckolding men en masse, so whether that behaviour is “natural” or not is irrelevant.

However, it’s interesting to speculate on why hard-wiring is the way it is, which is what I take this discussion to be about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
OralCummings June 11, 2013 at 15:27

Women,in their fluffy little hindbrains,dont care a fig for “civilization” and “decency” and “competence” etc. Their genes predate any civilization. they get turned on by the same things their ancient paleo sisters got turned on by. So we’ve got our work cut out for us repressin’ dem bitchezz!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
GeoRice81 June 13, 2013 at 10:26

I just finished watching the HBO series, “The Pacific” and I read some of the books that served as the basis for this. One of the books was written by Robert Leckie who fought in several of the battles of the Pacific as a Marine. He was sent for a few days for rehabilitation to a US Navy Hospital in the island of Banika. There were nurses there and Leike had a conversation with a Navy Corpsman about them. This is what the corspman said:

“It’s just that they are women, and women out here are just no good. They cause too much trouble.” He reflected a moment. “You know, we didn’t have nurses when we first got to Banika. There was just the doctors and ourselves.” He sighed wistfully. “It was wonderful. The doctors shared their liquor rations with us and everything. It was like one big happy family. We ate good, too, as good as the doctors. You never heard of a doctor pulling his rank. We got along wonderfully together.” His face darkened. “Then the nurses came, and everything changed overnight.”

He continued. ” Look at the fancy stockade they had to build for them and get a whole MP batallion to stand guard for them……It’s crazy. It’s unfair. Women have no place out here. Not just a few of ‘em anyway. If they can’t send a woman for every man, they’d better keep ‘em all the hell home!” (from Robert Leike’s book, “Helmet for my Pillow”)

Sex is a powerful thing. The US Marines took the best that the Japanese could send against them and won. Yet, just a few women brought from the US Mainland were able to create problems and confusion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: