Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-smtgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-10T20:35:05.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex Differences in Sexual Desire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2022

Jacob Stegenga
Jacob Stegenga*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
*
Email: jms303@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standard view about sex differences in sexual desire is that males are lusty and loose, while females are cool and coy. This is widely believed and is a core premise of some scientific programs like evolutionary psychology. But is it true? A mountain of evidence seems to support the standard view. Yet, this evidence is shot through with methodological and philosophical problems. Developments in the study of sexual desire suggest that some of these problems can be resolved, and when they are, the standard view looks, at best, to be an exaggeration.

Information

Type
Symposia Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 89 , Issue 5 , December 2022 , pp. 1094 - 1103
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, Michele, and Terri, Fisher. 2003. “Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality.” The Journal of Sex Research 40 (1):27–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, David M. 2016 [1994]. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Russell D., and Elaine, Hatfield. 1989. “Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers.” Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 2 (1):39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, Terri D. 2011. “Perceived Proposer Personality Characteristics and Gender Differences in Acceptance of Casual Sex Offers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100 (2):309–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John. 2001. Human Nature and the Limits of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Eli, and Paul, Eastwick. 2009. “Arbitrary Social Norms Influence Sex Differences in Romantic Selectivity.” Psychological Science 20 (10):1290–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freud, Sigmund. 1905. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul. 2020. “Sex Is Real.” Aeon, September 21, 2020.Google Scholar
Halperin, David. 1989. “Is There a History of Sexuality?” History and Theory 28 (3):257–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hite, Shere. 2004 [1976]. The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality. New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
Krafft-Ebing, Richard von. 1886. Psychopathia Sexualis. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
Laqueur, Thomas. 1990. Making Sex: Body and Gender From the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catherine A. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Sarah. 2022. “Sex Contextualism.” Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 14:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruton, Roger. 1986. Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Symons, Donald. 1979. The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, Robert. 1972. “Parental Investment and Sexual Selection.” In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971, edited by Campbell, B., 136–79. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Weeks, Jeffrey. 1985. Sexuality and Its Discontents: Meanings, Myths, and Modern Sexualities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar