The common view of men's sexuality is that men's bodies contain a powerful mechanism called 'sex drive' (connected to 'male hormones') to 'penetrate' and 'impregnante women with their seed', that this is a biological imperative.

However, there has never been any scientific proof for the existence of a 'sex drive', aside from circumstantial.

In fact, 'sex drive' may be a deus ex machina, a concept designed to 'prove' everything else, ('since this, therefore that ....'), 'obviously evident' -- but is it? There is no proof whatsoever for its existence. The only 'evidence' is circumstantial, that is, that many men feel their desire is one with erection and the 'urge to penetrate a woman's vagina' (whether a loved one or in general); another 'proof' is that images 'throughout history' (selected images during only the last two millenia) have depicted 'the act' of coitus, i.e., kama sutra writings, or the famous large carvings on an ancient Indian temple showing positions of coitus, or Japanese engravings, Do such references 'prove' the eternal 'obvious' validity of men's (and women's?) basic sex drive as focused on coitus (as a mechanism in the body leading to reproductive activity)? What about the many (conveniently ignored) artifacts and icons of previous millenia that are not depicting coitus?

The focus on 'sex' as basically 'the act' may not be human nature or 'male nature'; it may be society's way of putting men-in-the-harness-of-reproduction, a view we cheerfully pronounce 'scientifically true'.

If the 'male sex drive' -- the erect penis being biologically programmed to be attracted by the vagina of a reproductively aged female -- exists 'in nature', then it should be possible to prove its existence scientifically. The question: is it physically demonstrable in the body, or is it a mental structure, an idea embedded in our minds?

Of course the existence of male sexual hormones does not prove the existence of a male 'sex drive'; it must still be demonstrated, first, how hormones cause desire for orgasm (in men or women), other than that they and orgasm coincidentally exist (the two may or may not be causally related); and secondly, that hormones cause men to 'naturally' focus on 'penetration of the vagina' of a woman, or 'the reproductive act'.

Perhaps the area of 'sex' has been under-researched from a scientific perspective, since it has been taboo so scientists may have had difficulty obtaining serious funding for such a 'frivolous area'. (A scientist might be chided by colleagues, 'Aren't there more serious things to worry about, such as world hunger? Why think about orgasm -- unless you can't have one!') This under-researched possibility is especially true of male sexuality: while there are initiatives now to study female sexual anatomy and 'mechanisms', male sexual anatomy is considered more or less self-evident, though it may not be, thus not necessarily the object of medical or scientific research.

The cause of a desire to orgasm -- whether in masturbation or sex with a partner, and no matter how arrived at -- is not scientifically known. 'Hormonal urges for orgasm' and focus on coitus are separate issues. Men have fluctuating sexual hormones that may or may not coincide with desire for orgasm. An age-old question: how mechanical is male desire? Is it inspired by psychological and emotional matters, or does it arise mechanically/hormonally? If men's desire for orgasm and coitus is, as it is often said, inspired hormonally, in what way does this happen? Most men in my research feel that their desire is in large part inspired by a particular desired individual, or by particular images or a fantasy they like; it does not come automatically or 'mechanically', without their effort (either mentally or with the right surroundings, including psychological/emotional components).

These questions science still must answer. To simplistically assert, 'It's a question of men's sex drive', doesn't answer the questions.

Using the concept of 'sex drive' as a mechanical jack-in-the-box may be distorting both male and female sexuality, making men fear their own bodies, pressuring themselves to 'perform' and to have erections, and making women feel they 'must serve it ('the erection's need for orgasm' ) -- not the best basis for a good relationship.

In fact, we are only at the beginning of understanding what 'male sexuality' is.

Back to Articles Page

---

Copyright 2005, Hite Research International All rignts reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Contact Information