Naturally, I had to look up my dissertation topic, female sexual dysfunction. And this is what I found. There was absolutely nothing for "female sexual dysfunction", but there was information for the terms "women sexual dysfunction" and "sexual dysfunction".
If you notice for keywords "women sexual dysfunction" and the age range 35 to 64, most of the people looking up these terms are men. In fact, from the ages of 35 to 44 and 55 to 64, men are over twice as likely to be the searchers of info on women and sexual dysfunction.
|Women Sexual Dysfunction|
But the most interesting part of this (at least to me, your certified sex geek here) was the info about income. Only 1 to 2% of people with incomes over 50k give a rat's rosy red one about dysfunction. Most of the people searching have incomes under 50k. And about 57% of the men searching for women and sexual dysfunction have incomes below 25k. So, if you're broke guy, you ain't getting no lovin,' it seems.
She'd Rather Eat Chocolate
So, what to make of all this? Well, keep in mind this is hardly scientific. And the fact that I couldn't bring up men and dysfunction might indicate some issues with Yahoo Clues. Also, the results could change when the time frame does. Next week might bring something different. However, some of it is a no brainer. There are a lot of sexually frustrated married men out there who probably regard their wives as "dysfunctional".
The number one sexual issue most women complain about (when they complain that is) is of low desire. Studies indicate that about 30% of women report a lackluster libido. However, you will notice that women weren't the ones doing the searching. Now leaving aside the issue that maybe men surf online more than women and look up info on sexual topics more often, what gives? That women don't care?
Possibly. In some cases, yes. Is this a dysfunction then? Technically, no.
If you aren't unhappy with your sleepy libido, you don't have a problem. At least, not according to the clinical definition of dysfunction as designated by the DSM-IV (the bible of the mental health field). And this is not an uncommon scenario.
A study of women between the ages of 20 and 49 published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that while 16% reported low desire, when the researchers looked at how many women were actually distressed about the issue, only 7% had an actual dysfunction if personal distress was required for a diagnosis (and it currently is).
Plus, distress over sexuality often decreases with age. So, it is not surprising that it was women from 25 to 34 who were the primary ones looking up "sexual dysfunction".
Show me the Money
I keep hearing the lyrics of that old song from the 50's in my head on this one. " ...One of the most important findings that I have run across over and over again in the literature is the association between income and sexual problems.
If you ain't got the moola, things often go wacky in the bedroom. Women with less money report more problems with desire. Another interesting finding is that women are often more orgasmic with financially endowed men (forget about the big dick, it's the big wallet that's important).
Why aren't more women distressed about low desire and what's the deal with money, you ask?
I think a lot of women are too worn out working a double shift at home and at work to really give a damn about sex. They'd rather sleep. Or eat chocolate, or in some cases, sit down. Many women grow up without a clue as to how their equipment works and have sex with men with even less of a clue. So, they may never have enjoyed sex to begin with, scripted as it often is to male norms of enjoyment. When the hormones drop and the honeymoon fades, so does their interest.
While money, on the other hand, means power. More money often means less stress and less arguing over its absence. Money is associated with social rank. And that is hugely important in terms of quality of life. Thirty years ago, Stanford psychologist Robert Sapolsky found that baboons with low social rank in their troop had higher levels of stress hormones and often more health problems. This is also true for humans. So, if you aren't worried about money, you are less stressed, possibly healthier, and maybe have a less volatile relationship.
Of course, David Buss and other evolutionary psychologists would argue that women have evolved to be more attracted to high status men. I don't totally agree with that. I think if it is true, it is because men have controlled the economy in many cultures.
For couples with desire discrepancies (and that means most of us), I agree with Betty Dodson: Men, upgrade your masturbation style, accept her as she is, or if you can't, leave. You will never change another person, and desire can't be pulled out of your ass. It's either there, or it's not. Sometimes, communication or therapy can help, and I think creativity goes a long way. But not always.
Women also need to understand that female desire isn't always spontaneous. Much of the time, desire comes after physical arousal. So, give it a shot. Whip out the vibe, try a little kitty petting. But if it isn't working, I don't recommend doing it anyway. That only leads to bad sex and resentment. However, that also doesn't mean no sexual activity at all - in all cases. I learned a long time ago that if I wasn't in the mood, foot rubs could be traded for hand or blow jobs. Expanding the definition of sex often helps in these kinds of situations.
Now, I need to stop fucking around on Yahoo Clues and get on with my dissertation. Distractions, distractions.