“All human life stems from the reality of, and difference between, men and women.”

~ Nina Power, What Do Men Want?, 2022

In “How Should Feminists Have Sex Now?,” a recent article in the Atlantic magazine, it struck me that this question, in one form or another, is at the forefront of feminist inquiry for a reason. The question about how heterosexual men and women can relate to one another in 2022 has never been more pressing (especially after the Roe decision and “me-too”). And the accumulation of 50+ years of feminism (1st to 5th wave) has yet to resolve or settle the dilemma of how to integrate power equity and sexual desire in a partnership or how to navigate the shared terrain of social policy and politics. This lack of integration is more acute than ever. That is why I am interested in heterosexual sex and heterosexual relationships.

Infrastructure of Heterosexual Relationships

In seeking integration, first we must acknowledge our “prime directive.” Heterosexual sex and reproduction are the ancient forces that operate across all recorded time — within all non-human species and for all humans, regardless of geography, nation-state, and cultural system. Sexual selection, reproduction, and the survival of children remain the essential pillars of human societies — the primary, often hidden infrastructure for all issues of heterosexual relating.

Clarion Calls: Recent Writings on Male-Female Dynamics

Book reviews recently appearing in the Atlantic (Right to Sex, Tomorrow Sex Can Be Good Again, Rethinking Sex, Bad Sex, and What Do Men Want?* reveal that the current dynamics of male-female relationships are raw and volatile. The clarion calls of cultural critique are not about how we have heterosexual sex (although there is some relevance); they are about how our world is ordered between men and women. They dare to ponder who has the (erotic) allure of power, rank, dominance, and physical beauty — and how those ingredients of mate value are used to negotiate empowerment and satisfaction for both men and women.

Revisiting Our Natures – Not Always a Happy House

Leaning into a truth that revisits and reacquaints itself with our “nature,” these books address the complexities of whom we desire and why — whom women choose and the way men pursue them. They tentatively go beyond the trope of social constructivist feminist theory and its singular focus on “nurture.” How do feminist political sensibilities “live” within the psychological and physiological imperatives of sexual desire? It is not always a happy household.

Frank Recognition of Sex Differences is Needed**

Mostly missing (still), in the current crop of feminist revisionist thinking, is a frank recognition of the evolved differences between men and women – physiological, hormonal, sexual, psychological, neurological, and behavioral. Feminism has tended to deny or downplay those differences for supposed gains of agency and equity. Some gains have been made, but the cost to male-female heterosexual relationships has been high. The battle continues, as these books (and hundreds of essays and articles) describe, because our sex differences are not fully acknowledged, understood, or embraced.

The political history of the feminist struggle reveals, among everything else, the absolute truth of male-female difference. As Sophie Gilbert says in “How Should Feminists Have Sex Now?”:

What happened to sex in the 21st century was informed by long-standing failures to reconcile all of the forces – physiological, psychological, historical, cultural, evolutionary — that sex embodies.

Search for the Meaningful Pair-bond

This failure to reconcile all the forces is why I study mate selection science and the evolved behavioral differences between the sexes. That is why I examine, primarily from a psychological context, the current search for love, intimacy, romance, pair-bonding, and sexual pleasure preoccupying a large portion of our population. These are the essential ingredients of sexual selection and, thus, all human life. It has been the signature dynamic in my life, made most acute by unrequited efforts. Facing the unforgiving reality of mate choice was the rudest awakening of my adulthood.

Many of You Do Not Feel the Relevance

Yes, those of you who are long married, partnered, gay, or asexual (in practice) do not see and feel the relevance of this inquiry. You are mostly lucky to be out of the mating game. But this conversation between men and women is ubiquitous and ancient. It is our evolutionary heritage. As Jordan Peterson tells us in 12 Rules For Life, mating behavior, in the context of dominance hierarchies, is older than the dinosaurs. Sexual selection is a powerful force. It constructs human culture – it even trumps natural selection.

Furthermore, I must pose this question to those out of the heterosexual mating game: Do you really think you are immune to the “toxic soup” of social and political conditions caused by disaffected and angry (mostly White) men? Their anger is often related (even if not articulated) to their failures in the (sometimes brutal) ecosystem of mate selection.

The Perennial Mating Dance Continues

Alas, the dance of heterosexual mating behavior continues unabated – it “soaks” and permeates nearly all corners of our interpersonal world and media environments. Right now, it rests on “unfertile” ground – a dry and depleted soil not given to grow empathy and understanding. Tribal politics make it hard to cultivate connections. Authentic and performative expressions of identity and sexual fluidity (however necessary) complicate the search for a shared truth.

How Feminists Should Have Sex Now

In the final analysis, it is heterosexual relationships that populate the planet. We must figure out how to do them with mutual respect and harmony. That’s one prescription for how feminists should have sex now.

Urgent and Robust Narratives

Here is a sampling of recent writings that illustrate the urgent, robust nature of the male-female conversation:

Articles

• “How Should Feminists Have Sex Now?” Sophie Gilbert, Atlantic, (August 14, 2022).
• “How Toxic is Masculinity?” Zoe Heller, Atlantic, (August 2022).
• “Desire in Our Times: A Conversation with Amia Srinivasan,” Nawal Arjini, The Nation, (2021).
• “Where is Our Paradise of Guilt-Free Sex?” Helen Lewis, Atlantic, (Oct. 2021).
• “We’re Shaped by Our Sexual Desires. Can We Shape Them?, Alexandra Schwartz, New Yorker, (Sept. 2021).

*Books

What Do Men Want? Masculinity and Its Discontents, Nina Power, 2022.

Daddy Issues. Love and Hate In the Time of Patriarchy, Katherine Angel, 2022.

Bad Sex – Truth, Pleasure, and An Unfinished Revolution, Nona Willis Aronowitz, 2022.

Rethinking Sex. A Provocation, Christine Emba, 2022.

Sexual Revolution: Modern Fascism and the Feminist Fightback, Laurie Penny, 2022.

A History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice, Ivan Jablonka, 2022.

The Right To Sex. Feminism In the Twenty-first Century, Amia Srinivasan, 2021.

Tomorrow, Sex Will Be Good Again. Women and Desire in the Age of Consent, Katherine Angel, 2021.

I Hate Men, book and essay, Pauline Harmange, 2020.

Important Older Books

The End of Men, Hanna Rosin, 2010.

Sexual Fluidity. Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, Lisa Diamond, 2008.

Look Both Ways. Bisexual Politics, Jennifer Bumgardner, 2007.

**Acknowledging Similarity

There are, of course, similarities between men and women. (I have underscored this “caveat” many times.) All human beings live within a hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, belonging, love, esteem, and self-actualization. Finding common ground related to our shared needs and values is necessary for healing. Nothing said here disputes that. A “technology” of conflict resolution and interpersonal communication skills must be used to find this common ground. But this technology must also be used to confront our differences. We must do both. In the world of cis-gendered heterosexual men and women, it is our denied differences that are most problematic. Please see Political Divide – Part 6: Moral Communication – The Way Forward for a description of what this “technology” looks and sounds like.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.