Science Sunday

 

Here at the UCTMW World HQ we are enjoying a precursor to our empty nest - cute Co-Ed #1 is in Chicago with her Dowager Domme Grandma, who is probably shopping for more of those kinky shoes. Meanwhile, cute Co-Ed #2 is safely ensconced in her student housing in France, no doubt burning through my credit card limit.

It's given Mistress and Slave some time to have less restrained sex, with our doors open and no need to apologize for spending the

  afternoon in bed. Mistress even had some pancakes yesterday AM with her lover J, but, sadly, there was no time for hanky panky. In the absence of his intervention, Slave was happy  to step into the breach with both wake-up sex and late afternoon fucking, before we headed to a desultory pre-season game of the local Pussycats.

So with that update, let me share with you an article I noticed in Salon over the weekend reviewing a new book on female sexual impulses called "What do Women Want". The thrust of the piece is that women are no less animalistic and base in their sexual cravings than us pathetic guys.  Here is a quick summary:

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.”

Of course, this notion of women acting on baser instincts rather than simply searching for a good provider who can contribute above average sperm to meet her reproductive impulses should be no big surprise to those of us bound up in the sex-blog-o-sphere. Would we have been so engrossed in such blogging heroines as the lost and lamented Suzanne or Sin if they simply wrote about child care tips and finding Mr. Right?  

Here at UCTMW we also are quite familiar with Mistress's appetite for a little more exotic and aggressive sexual action than one humble blogger and his work-a-day cock can provide.  Which gets to a point of the article on whether women are typically satisfied with one lover when others tempt:

Certainly, women are no better suited for monogamy than men are. That, I think, is clear. It seems possible, if you look at some of the data, that women are even less well-suited for monogamy than men. It’s important to distinguish between the sexual level of desire, and what we choose in our relationships for all kinds of reasons. But on a sexual level, women are even less suited to monogamy.

Considering the scientific evidence, it is only natural then for Mistress to crave another cock from time to time. Indeed the article suggests that women are turned on by all sorts of sexual imaginings, whether men / women couplings, women / women couplings or even guy/guy couplings. And what really gets their juices flowings are manifestations of desire for them by others. So it's only natural for Mistress to feed the beast of her desire by the occasional daliance with a fellow who's cock will expand to abnormal proportions at the sight of her lush body, or even the pictures in her "private showcase" over at Ashley Madison.

Why fight science?