Okay, this post isn't very timely because it's about a CNN article from September 30, but I just read it for the first time and am so turned off (!) by the whole thing that I have come here to rant. The article is describing a new book called "Why Women Have Sex" by psychologists Cindy Meston and David Buss, professors at the University of Texas at Austin.

What makes a woman want to have sex? Is it physical attraction? Love? Loneliness? Jealousy? Boredom? Painful menstrual cramps?

I'm sorry, what? Why is nobody asking why men have sex? Is that supposed to be self-explanatory? Also what is this implication that it's a huge mystery why women want to have sex? Is that supposed to be yet another Secret of the Blushing Woman? That's not a real phrase I just made it up because I am raging.

Okay, okay, part of what the book is going for is to look into the thought processes behind situations when women decide to have sex, and the partners they choose. That IS interesting. But wouldn't it all be more accurately represented by questions like, How do women choose their sexual partners? What factors into a woman's decision to have sex in a given situation? 

Sure, the title Why Women Have Sex is catchy, but in my opinion, it's also underscoring this not-so-extinct notion that men want sex (all the time), and women don't. The question is definitely interesting -- the reasons people have sex can be super complicated. But that's another problem. It's complicated for people. Not just women. Here are some of their groundbreaking discoveries, anyway:

It turns out that women's reasons for having sex range from love to pure pleasure to a sense of duty to curiosity to curing a headache. Some women just want to please their partners, and others want an ego boost.

The article goes on to explain some of the authors' findings. My issue is less with the "findings" and more with how they're described. For example, the author of the CNN article quotes one of the authors, Meston, as saying, 

"Many of the women were having sex purely because they wanted the experience, they wanted the adventure, they wanted to see what it was like to be with men of different ethnicities," she said. "Some women said they wanted more notches on the belt. They simply wanted to get rid of their virginity." 

So close, yet so far from saying, "Some women have sex because they like sex." Instead, we get, "Women want to experiment with different ethnicities." Did "many" of the women really say this? I'm sure some did, but I'd like to believe that The Experience and Adventure of Having Sex With Ethnic People is not a hugely important factor in most women's decision to have sex. Either way, why do we need to paint female sexuality in such a questionable, even racially ignorant light, especially in a short article about a book that probably gives many other reasons why women have sex "for the experience"?

And is it just me (very possible), or is there some weird, vaguely negative undertone to that entire quote? A hint of disdain for those women who want "more notches on their belt"? Condescension or dismissal of the women who want to "get rid of their virginity"? Okay, maybe it's neutral. But I'd be shocked to hear someone argue that it's empowering. 

But now to my favorite problem which you probably have already noticed: Heteronormativity! I mean, that one word pretty much sums it up. Queer women and trans people do not exist in this article. Not sure about the book but it's not looking good. 

Then comes another lovely point. The other author, Buss, is quoted as saying:

"The adaptive problem that women have had to solve is not simply picking a man who is fertile but a man who perhaps will invest in her, a man who won't inflict costs on her, a man who might have good genes that could be conveyed to her children," he said.

In this context, women must also be more selective, because wrong choices can lead to much higher costs than for men: pregnancy and child-rearing.

Has Buss ever heard of a woman supporting herself without a man "investing in her"? What is up with this entire phrase -- that if women make "wrong choices" by sleeping with a guy who doesn't have great genes, she'll be stuck being pregnant and raising a child alone? 

And last but not least, the article ends with a bang, or bomb. 

A 26-year-old heterosexual woman wrote, "When I was single, I had sex for my own personal pleasure. Now that I am married, I have sex to please my husband. My own pleasure doesn't seem as important as his. I believe he feels the same way."

What? Is that seriously the last sentence? If this were coming from an article with a different vibe, it might be a sobering and powerful quote, but here, I just want to go up to the author of the article and say, "Please tell me you know there is something wrong with this statement." There's a good chance the author would say there is, and I would be relieved. But instead, I'm not sure. And I don't think it's okay for an article about "Why Women Have Sex" to be sending an ambiguous message about how women should (or should not) feel empowered about their own sexuality and sexual autonomy.

Since I haven't read the book, it's definitely possible that it's less heteronormative and sends a more empowering message than this article does. I do think it's interesting to hear what women are thinking when it comes to sex, and it's a promising sign that an extensive study was conducted on the subject (and a book written). But I don't think it should be too much to ask for writers to take care in the words they choose and the attitudes they promote when discussing female sexuality. It's irresponsible and despicable to write about female sexuality in a way that is anything less than thoughtful, respectful, and empowering.