April 15, 2007

  • Today’s Papers,Iraq War,Sexual Attraction,Sexuality

    Sexuality Is Written in the Genes

    John Hersey
    April 10, 2007

    Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes

    When it comes to the matter of desire, evolution leaves little to chance. Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.

    Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.

    So much fuss, so intricate a dance, all to achieve success on the simple scale that is all evolution cares about, that of raisingthe greatest number of children to adulthood. Desire may seem the core of human sexual behavior, but it is just the central act in a long drama whose script is written quite substantially in the genes.

    In the womb, the body of a developing fetus is female by default and becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene, the Y chromosome’s proudest and almost only possession, sidetracks the reproductive tissue from its ovarian fate and switches it into becoming testes. Hormones from the testes, chiefly testosterone, mold the body into male form.

    In puberty, the reproductive systems are primed for action by the brain. Amazing electrical machine that it may be, the brain can also behave like a humble gland. In the hypothalamus, at the central base of the brain, lie a cluster of about 2,000 neurons that ignite puberty when they start to secrete pulses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone, which sets off a cascade of other hormones.

    The trigger that stirs these neurons is still unknown, but probably the brain monitors internal signals as to whether the body is ready to reproduce and external cues as to whether circumstances are propitious for yielding to desire.

    Several advances in the last decade have underlined the bizarre fact that the brain is a full-fledged sexual organ, in that the two sexes have profoundly different versions of it. This is the handiwork of testosterone, which masculinizes the brain as thoroughly as it does the rest of the body.

    It is a misconception that the differences between men’s and women’s brains are small or erratic or found only in a few extreme cases, Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine, wrote last year in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Widespread regions of the cortex, the brain’s outer layer that performs much of its higher-level processing, are thicker in women. The hippocampus, where initial memories are formed, occupies a larger fraction of the female brain.

    Techniques for imaging the brain have begun to show that men and women use their brains in different ways even when doing the same thing. In the case of the amygdala, a pair of organs that helps prioritize memories according to their emotional strength, women use the left amygdala for this purpose but men tend to use the right.

    It is no surprise that the male and female versions of the human brain operate in distinct patterns, despite the heavy influence of culture. The male brain is sexually oriented toward women as an object of desire. The most direct evidence comes from a handful of cases, some of them circumcision accidents, in which boy babies have lost their penises and been reared as female. Despite every social inducement to the opposite, they grow up desiring women as partners, not men.

    “If you can’t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, how strong could any psychosocial effect be?” said J. Michael Bailey, an expert on sexual orientation at Northwestern University.

    Presumably the masculinization of the brain shapes some neural circuit that makes women desirable. If so, this circuitry is wired differently in gay men. In experiments in which subjects are shown photographs of desirable men or women, straight men are aroused by women, gay men by men.

    Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.”

    Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.

    Similar differences between the sexes are seen by Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist at Michigan State University. “Most males are quite stubborn in their ideas about which sex they want to pursue, while women seem more flexible,” he said.

    Sexual orientation, at least for men, seems to be settled before birth. “I think most of the scientists working on these questions are convinced that the antecedents of sexual orientation in males are happening early in life, probably before birth,” Dr. Breedlove said, “whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.”

    Sexual behavior includes a lot more than sex. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, argues that three primary brain systems have evolved to direct reproductive behavior. One is the sex drive that motivates people to seek partners. A second is a program for romantic attraction that makes people fixate on specific partners. Third is a mechanism for long-term attachment that induces people to stay together long enough to complete their parental duties.

    Romantic love, which in its intense early stage “can last 12-18 months,” is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.

    The best evidence for a long-term attachment process in mammals comes from studies of voles, a small mouselike rodent. A hormone called vasopressin, which is active in the brain, leads some voles to stay pair-bonded for life. People possess the same hormone, suggesting a similar mechanism could be at work in humans, though this has yet to be proved.

    Researchers have devoted considerable effort to understanding homosexuality in men and women, both for its intrinsic interest and for the light it could shed on the more usual channels of desire. Studies of twins show that homosexuality, especially among men, is quite heritable, meaning there is a genetic component to it. But since gay men have about one-fifth as many children as straight men, any gene favoring homosexuality should quickly disappear from the population.

    Such genes could be retained if gay men were unusually effective protectors of their nephews and nieces, helping genes just like theirs get into future generations. But gay men make no better uncles than straight men, according to a study by Dr. Bailey. So that leaves the possibility that being gay is a byproduct of a gene that persists because it enhances fertility in other family members. Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother’s side.

    But Dr. Bailey believes the effect, if real, would be more clear-cut. “Male homosexuality is evolutionarily maladaptive,” he said, noting that the phrase means only that genes favoring homosexuality cannot be favored by evolution if fewer such genes reach the next generation.

    A somewhat more straightforward clue to the origin of homosexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. Two Canadian researchers, Ray Blanchard and Anthony F. Bogaert, have shown that having older brothers substantially increases the chances that a man will be gay. Older sisters don’t count, nor does it matter whether the brothers are in the house when the boy is reared.

    The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.

    The fraternal birth order effect is quite substantial. Some 15 percent of gay men can attribute their homosexuality to it, based on the assumption that 1 percent to 4 percent of men are gay, and each additional older brother increases the odds of same-sex attraction by 33 percent.

    The effect supports the idea that the levels of circulating testosterone before birth are critical in determining sexual orientation. But testosterone in the fetus cannot be measured, and as adults, gay and straight men have the same levels of the hormone, giving no clue to prenatal exposure. So the hypothesis, though plausible, has not been proved.

    A significant recent advance in understanding the basis of sexuality and desire has been the discovery that genes may have a direct effect on the sexual differentiation of the brain. Researchers had long assumed that steroid hormones like testosterone and estrogen did all the heavy lifting of shaping the male and female brains. But Arthur Arnold of the University of California, Los Angeles, has found that male and female neurons behave somewhat differently when kept in laboratory glassware. And last year Eric Vilain, also of U.C.L.A., made the surprising finding that the SRY gene is active in certain cells of the brain, at least in mice. Its brain role is quite different from its testosterone-related activities, and women’s neurons presumably perform that role by other means.

    It so happens that an unusually large number of brain-related genes are situated on the X chromosome. The sudden emergence of the X and Y chromosomes in brain function has caught the attention of evolutionary biologists. Since men have only one X chromosome, natural selection can speedily promote any advantageous mutation that arises in one of the X’s genes. So if those picky women should be looking for smartness in prospective male partners, that might explain why so many brain-related genes ended up on the X.

    “It’s popular among male academics to say that females preferred smarter guys,” Dr. Arnold said. “Such genes will be quickly selected in males because new beneficial mutations will be quickly apparent.”

    Several profound consequences follow from the fact that men have only one copy of the many X-related brain genes and women two. One is that many neurological diseases are more common in men because women are unlikely to suffer mutations in both copies of a gene.

    Another is that men, as a group, “will have more variable brain phenotypes,” Dr. Arnold writes, because women’s second copy of every gene dampens the effects of mutations that arise in the other.

    Greater male variance means that although average IQ is identical in men and women, there are fewer average men and more at both extremes. Women’s care in selecting mates, combined with the fast selection made possible by men’s lack of backup copies of X-related genes, may have driven the divergence between male and female brains. The same factors could explain, some researchers believe, why the human brain has tripled in volume over just the last 2.5 million years.

    Who can doubt it? It is indeed desire that makes the world go round.

     

    Birds Do It. Bees Do It.

    John Hersey

    April 10, 2007

    Birds Do It. Bees Do It. People Seek the Keys to It.

    Sexual desire. The phrase alone holds such loaded, voluptuous power that the mere expression of it sounds like a come-on — a little pungent, a little smutty, a little comical and possibly indictable.

    Everybody with a pair of currently or formerly active gonads knows about sexual desire. It is a near-universal experience, the invisible clause on one’s birth certificate stipulating that one will, upon reaching maturity, feel the urge to engage in activities often associated with the issuance of more birth certificates.

    Yet universal does not mean uniform, and the definitions of sexual desire can be as quirky and personalized as the very chromosomal combinations that sexual reproduction will yield. Ask an assortment of men and women, “What is sexual desire, and how do you know you’re feeling it?” and after some initial embarrassed mutterings and demands for anonymity, they answer as follows:

    “There’s a little bit of adrenaline, a puffing of the chest, a bit of anticipatory tongue motion,” said a divorced lawyer in his late 40s.

    “I feel relaxed, warm and comfortable,” said a designer in her 30s.

    “A yearning to kiss or grab someone who might respond,” said a male filmmaker, 50. “Or if I’m alone, to call up exes.”

    “Listening to Noam Chomsky,” said a psychologist in her 50s, “always turns me on.”

    For researchers in the field of human sexuality, the wide variance in how people characterize sexual desire and describe its most salient features is a source of challenge and opportunity, pleasure and pain. “We throw around the term ‘sexual desire’ as though we’re all sure we’re talking about the same thing,” said Lisa M. Diamond, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Utah. “But it’s clear from the research that people have very different operational definitions about what desire is.”

    At the same time, the researchers said, it is precisely the complexity of sexual desire, the depth, richness and tangled spangle of its weave, that call out to be understood.

    An understanding could hardly come too soon. In an era when the rates of sexually transmitted diseases continue to climb; when schools and parent groups spar bitterly over curriculums for sex education classes; when the Food and Drug Administration angers both religious conservatives and women’s groups by approving the sale of the morning-after pill over the counter but then limiting those sales to women 18 years or older; and when deviations from the putative norm of monogamous heterosexuality are presented as threats to the social fabric — at such a time, scientists argue that the clear-eyed study of sexual desire and its consequences is vital to public health, public sanity, public comity.

    “Sexual desire may be complicated, but that doesn’t mean it’s chaotic,” said Julia R. Heiman, director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction in Bloomington, Ind. “We can make an honest attempt to understand what sexual desire is and what it is not, and that it is important to do so.”

    Meredith L. Chivers, a researcher at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, concurs. “Sexuality is such a huge part of who we are. How could we not want to understand it?”

    Unabashed about acting on their academic appetites, sexologists have gained a wealth of new and often surprising insights into the nature and architecture of sexual desire. They are tracing how men and women diverge in their experience, and where they converge. They are learning how and why people pursue the erotic partners they do, and the circumstances under which those tastes are either fixed or fluid.

    Some researchers are delving into the neural, anatomical and emotional mechanisms that modulate and micromanage sexual desire and sexual arousal; others are exploring the role that culture plays in plucking or muffling the strings of desire. The pragmatists in sexology’s ranks are seeking better bedside medicines — new ways to help people who feel they suffer from an excess or deficit of sexual desire.

    One recent standout discovery upends the canonical model of how the typical sex act unfolds, particularly for women but very likely for men as well.

    According to the sequence put forward in the mid-20th century by the pioneering sex researchers William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson and Helen Singer Kaplan, a sexual encounter begins with desire, a craving for sex that arises of its own accord and prods a person to seek a partner. That encounter then leads to sexual arousal, followed by sexual excitement, a desperate fumbling with buttons and related clothing fasteners, a lot of funny noises, climax and resolution (I will never drink Southern Comfort at the company barbecue again).

    A plethora of new findings, however, suggest that the experience of desire may be less a forerunner to sex than an afterthought, the cognitive overlay that the brain gives to the sensation of already having been aroused by some sort of physical or subliminal stimulus — a brush on the back of the neck, say, or the sight of a ripe apple, or wearing a hard hat on a construction site and being surrounded by other men in similar haberdashery.

    In a series of studies at the University of Amsterdam, Ellen Laan, Stephanie Both and Mark Spiering demonstrated that the body’s entire motor system is activated almost instantly by exposure to sexual images, and that the more intensely sexual the visuals, the stronger the electric signals emitted by the participants’ so-called spinal tendious reflexes. By the looks of it, Dr. Laan said, the body is primed for sex before the mind has had a moment to leer.

    “We think that sexual desire emerges from sexual stimulation, the activation of one’s sexual system,” she said in a telephone interview.

    Moreover, she said, arousal is not necessarily a conscious process. In other experiments, Dr. Spiering and his colleagues showed that when college students were exposed to sexual images too fleetingly for the subjects to report having noticed them, the participants were nevertheless much quicker to identify subsequent sexual images than were the control students who had been flashed with neutral images.

    “Our sexual responsiveness can be activated or enhanced by stimuli we’re not even aware of,” Dr. Laan said.

    By reordering the sexual timeline and placing desire after arousal, rather than vice versa, the new research fits into the pattern that neurobiologists have lately observed for other areas of life. Before we are conscious of wanting to do anything — wave at a friend, open a book — the brain regions needed to perform the activity are already ablaze. The notion that any of us is the Decider, the proactive plotter of our most lubricious desires, scientists say, may simply be a happy and perhaps necessary illusion.

    The new findings also suggest that in some cases, the best approach for treating those who suffer from low sex drive may be to focus on enhancing arousability rather than desire — to forget about sexy thoughts and to emphasize sexy feelings, the physical cues or activities that arouse one’s sexual circuitry. The rest will unwind from there, with the ease of a weighted shade.

    Researchers have also gathered considerable evidence that the sensations of sexual arousal, desire and excitement are governed by two basic and distinctively operating pathways in the brain — one that promotes sexual enthusiasm, another that inhibits it. An originator of this novel concept, Erick Janssen of the Kinsey Institute, compares these mechanisms to the pedals of a car.

    “If you let go of the gas pedal, you’ll slow down,” he said, “but that’s not the same as stepping on the brakes.”

    In any given individual, each pedal may be easier or harder to press. One person may be quick to become aroused, but equally quick to stifle that response at the slightest distraction. Another may be tough to get started, but once galvanized “will not lose sexual arousal even if the ceiling comes down,” Dr. Janssen said. Still another may be saddled with both a feeble sexual accelerator and an overzealous sexual inhibitor, an unenviable pairing most likely correlated with a taste for beige pantsuits and the music of Loggins and Messina.

    Dr. Janssen and his colleagues have developed extensive questionnaires to measure individual differences in sexual excitability and inhibition, asking participants how strongly they agree or disagree with statements like “When I am taking a shower or a bath, I easily become sexually aroused” and “If there is a risk of unwanted pregnancy, I am unlikely to get sexually aroused.”

    The researchers have also explored the physiological, emotional and cognitive underpinnings associated with high scores and low. In one recent study, they recruited 40 male undergraduates and determined by questionnaire the subjects’ relative degree of sexual excitability and inhibition. Each participant was then ushered into a plush, private room with low lighting, a comfortable recliner and a television monitor and instructed in how to place the aptly named Rigiscan device on his genitals.

    Thus outfitted, the student s watched a series of erotic film clips, some classified as “nonthreatening” and depicting couples engaged in mutually animated consensual sex, others of a “threatening” variety featuring coercive, violent sex.

    Analyzing the excitability and inhibition variables separately, the researchers found that the men who had scored high on the questionnaire in sexual excitability showed, on average, a swifter and more robust penile response to all the erotic films than did the low scorers, regardless of the comparative violence or charm of the material viewed.

    More intriguing still were the divergent sexual responses between men who ranked high on the inhibition scale and those who scored low. Whereas both groups reacted to the nonthreatening sex scenes with an equivalently hearty degree of tumescence, only the low scorers — those whose answers to the questionnaire indicated they had scant sexual inhibition — maintained an enthusiastic physiological response when confronted with film clips of sexual brutality.

    The results suggest that having a good set of sexual brakes not only dampens the willingness to commit rape or sexual abuse, but the desire as well, giving the lie to notions that “all men are the same” and would be likely to rape their way through the local maiden population if they thought they could get away with it.

    The researchers have also found a link between sexual inhibition and sexual risk-taking: men who are low in inhibition do not necessarily engage in more or kinkier sex than do their high-inhibition counterparts, but the odds are greater that they will forgo condoms if they indulge.

    Most of the studies on the autonomy of sexual brakes and accelerators have been done on men, but scientists lately have begun applying the dual-control model to their studies of female sexuality as well. At first they used a slightly modified version of the excitement/inhibition questionnaire that had proved valuable for assessing men, but they soon realized that their menu of sex situations and checklist of physical arousal cues might be missing large swaths of a woman’s sexual persona.

    What was the feminine equivalent of an erection anyway? Was it vaginal swelling and lubrication, or something else entirely? Women are generally smaller and less muscular than men. What might the feeling of being physically threatened do to enhance or hamper a woman’s sexual appetite?

    “We started putting together focus groups, asking women to tell us the various things that might turn them on and turn them off sexually, and how they know when they’re sexually aroused,” said Stephanie A. Sanders of the Kinsey Institute and Indiana University. “They mentioned a heightened sense of awareness, genital tingling, butterflies in the stomach, increased heart rate and skin sensitivity, muscle tightness. Then we asked them if they thought the female parallel to an erection is genital lubrication, and they said no, no, you can get wet when you’re not aroused, it changes with the menstrual cycle, it’s not a meaningful measure.”

    Through the focus groups, Dr. Sanders and her colleagues compiled a new, female-friendly but admittedly cumbersome draft questionnaire that they whittled down into a useful research tool. They asked 655 women, ages 18 to 81, to complete the draft survey and scrutinized the results in search of areas of concurrence and variability.

    The researchers have identified a number of dimensions on which their beta testers agreed. For example, 93 to 96 percent of the 655 respondents strongly endorsed statements that linked sexual arousal to “feeling connected to” or “loved by” a partner, and to the belief that the partner is “really interested in me as a person”; they also concurred that they have trouble getting excited when they are “feeling unattractive.”

    But women’s tastes varied widely in many of the finer details of seduction and setting. “Some women say they find the male body odor attractive, others repulsive,” Dr. Sanders said. “Some women are turned on by the idea of having sex in an unusual or unconcealed place where they may be caught in the act, while others have a hard time getting aroused if they think others may hear them, or the kids will walk in.”

    Conventional wisdom has it that a woman’s libido is stifled by unhappiness, anxiety or anger, but the survey showed that about 25 percent of women used sex to lift them out of a bad mood or to resolve a marital spat.

    Women also differed in the importance they accorded a man’s physical appearance, with many expressing a comparatively greater likelihood of being aroused by evidence of talent or intelligence — say, while watching a man deliver a great speech.

    The researchers are now trying to correlate women’s sexual inhibition and excitement ratings to their sexual behavior and sexual self-image— whether they are likely to engage in risky sex, dissatisfying sex or no sex at all.

    Other scientists have devised surveys of their own to plumb the depths and contours of sexual desire. Richard A. Lippa, a professor of psychology at California State University in Fullerton, for months invited anybody with the time and interest to take his online survey, in which he asked people to rate their reactions to statements like “I frequently think about sex,” “It doesn’t take much to get me sexually excited,” “I fantasize about having sex with men,” “I think a woman’s body is sexy” and “If I were looking through a catalog with sexy swimsuits, I’d spend more time looking at the men in the pictures than the women.”

    Dr. Lippa has collected responses from more than 200,000 people around the world, and, though he has yet to complete his analysis of the data, a number of salient findings shine through. Whether the test-takers live in North America, Latin America, Britain, Western Europe or Japan, he said, men on average report having a higher sex drive than women, and women prove comparatively more variable in their sex drive.

    “Men have a consistently high sex drive,” he said, “while in women you see more low sex drive and more high sex drive.”

    Women’s sexual fluidity extends beyond the strength of desire, he said, to encompass the objects of that desire. In his survey, heterosexual women who rated their sex drive as high turned out to have an increased attraction to women as well as to men.

    “This is not to say that all women are bisexual,” Dr. Lippa said. “Most of the heterosexual women would still describe themselves as more attracted to men than to women.” Still, the mere presence of a hearty sexual appetite seemed to expand a heterosexual woman’s appreciation of her fellow women’s forms. By contrast, the men were more black-and-white in their predilections. If they were straight and had an especially high sex drive, that concupiscence applied only to women; if gay, to other men.

    Dr. Diamond of the University of Utah also has evidence that women’s sexual attractions are, as she put it, “more nonexclusive than men’s.”

    One factor that may contribute to women’s sexual ambidextrousness, some researchers suggest, is the intriguing and poorly understood nonspecificity of women’s physical reactions to sexual stimuli. As Dr. Chivers of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health and other researchers have found, women and men show very divergent patterns of genital arousal while viewing material with sexual content.

    For men, there is a strong concordance between their physiological and psychological states. If they are looking at images that they describe as sexually arousing, they get erections. When the images are not to their expressed taste or sexual orientation, however, their genitals remain unmoved.

    For women, the correlation between pelvic and psychic excitement is virtually nil. Women’s genitals, it seems, respond to all sex, all the time. Show a woman scenes of a man and a woman having sex, or two women having sex, or two men, or even two bonobos, Dr. Chivers said, and as a rule her genitals will become measurably congested and lubricated, although in many cases she may not be aware of the response.

    Ask her what she thinks of the material viewed, however, and she will firmly declare that she liked this scene, found that one repellent, and, frankly, the chimpanzee bit didn’t do it for her at all. Regardless of declared sexual orientation, Dr. Chivers said, “with women, there’s a discrepancy between stated preference and physiological arousal, and this discrepancy has been seen consistently across studies.”

    Again, the why of it remains a mystery. Dr. Chivers and others have hypothesized that the mechanism is protective. Women are ever in danger of being raped, they said, and by automatically lubricating at the mere hint of sex, they may avoid damage during forced intercourse to that evolutionarily all-important reproductive tract.

    Regardless of gender or relative genital congestion, people attend almost reflexively to sexual imagery. In an effort to trace that response back to the body’s premier sex organ, Kim Wallen and his colleagues at Emory University in Atlanta have performed brain scans on volunteers as the subjects viewed a series of sexually explicit photographs. The researchers discovered that men’s and women’s brains reacted differently to the images. Most notably, men showed far more activity than women did in the amygdala, the almond-contoured brain sector long associated with powerful emotions like fear and anger rather than with anything erotic.

    Heather Rupp, a graduate student in Dr. Wallen’s lab, tried to determine whether the divergent brain responses were a result of divergent appraisals, of men and women focusing on different parts of the same photographs. “We hypothesized, based on common lore, that women would look at faces, and men at genitals,” Dr. Wallen said.

    But on tracking the eye movements of study participants as they sized up erotic photographs, Ms. Rupp dashed those prior assumptions. “The big surprise was that men looked at the faces much more than women did,” Dr. Wallen said, “and both looked at the genitals comparably.”

    The researchers had also predicted that men would be more drawn than women to close-up views of genitalia, but it turned out that everybody flipped past them as quickly as possible. Women lingered longer and with greater stated enjoyment than did their male counterparts on photographs of men performing oral sex on women; and they noticed more fashion details. “We got spontaneous reports from the women that we never got from the males, comments like ‘I would have liked the photos better if the people didn’t have those ridiculous ’70s hairstyles,’ ” Dr. Wallen said.

    He proposes that one reason men would scrutinize faces in pornographic imagery is that a man often looks to a woman’s face for cues to her level of sexual arousal, since her body, unlike a man’s, does not give her away.

    Some researchers say that on average, male sexual desire is not only stronger than women’s, but also more constant from hour to hour, day to day. They point to a significant body of research suggesting a certain cyclic nature to female desire, and some say women only begin to attain masculine heights of lustiness during the few days of the month that they are fertile.

    Studies have indicated, for example, that women are likelier to fantasize about sex, masturbate, initiate sex with their mates, wear provocative clothing and frequent singles bars right around ovulation than at any other time of the month. Women obviously can, and do, have sex outside their window of reproductive opportunity, but it makes good Darwinian sense, Dr. Wallen said, for them to have some extra oomph while they are fertile.

    Men, by contrast, are generally fecund all month long, and they are theoretically ever anxious to share that bounty with others, a state of perpetual readiness that Roy F. Baumeister, a psychology professor at Florida State University, described as “the tragedy of the male sex drive.”

    Yet some experts argue that such absolutist formulas neglect the importance of age, experience, culture and circumstance in determining the strength of any individual’s sexual desire.

    “Baumeister’s ideas may have some validity for people in nonmarried relationships who are under the age of 40,” said Barry W. McCarthy, a sex therapist in Washington and one of the venerable voices in the field. “But as men and women age, they become much more alike in so many ways, including in their sexual desire.”

    For women, Dr. McCarthy said, “sex feels more in their control and safer for them,” while the aging man loses the need to imagine himself the “sexual master of the universe.”

    As one married male photographer and editor in his mid-50s said, “Jeez, when I was 20, I couldn’t walk straight,” but now he is sexually much looser and “unconcerned.” And while he considers his libido to be of standard dimensions for men his age, he also said it “exactly matches that of my partner.”

    Together they walk the line.


     

    Protest in Iraq Demands U.S. Withdraw

    Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images

    Protesters waved Iraqi flags as they marched in Najaf, south of Baghdad, to demand the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Event security was handled by Iraqi troops and police officers, and there were no reports of violence

    April 10, 2007

    Huge Protest in Iraq Demands U.S. Withdraw

    BAGHDAD, April 9 — Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, took to the streets of the holy city of Najaf on Monday in an extraordinarily disciplined rally to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq, burning American flags and chanting “Death to America!”

    Residents said that the angry, boisterous demonstration was the largest in Najaf, the heart of Shiite religious power, since the American-led invasion in 2003. It took place on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, and it was an obvious effort by Mr. Sadr to show the extent of his influence here in Iraq, even though he did not appear at the rally. Mr. Sadr went underground after the American military began a new security push in Baghdad on Feb. 14, and his whereabouts are unknown.

    Mr. Sadr used the protest to try to reassert his image as a nationalist rebel who appeals to both anti-American Shiites and Sunni Arabs. He established that reputation in 2004, when he publicly supported Sunni insurgents in Falluja who were battling United States marines, and quickly gained popularity among Sunnis across Iraq and the region. But his nationalist credentials have been tarnished in the last year, as Sunni Arabs have accused Mr. Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, of torturing and killing Sunnis.

    Iraqi policemen and soldiers lined the path taken by the protesters, and there were no reports of violence during the day. The American military handed security oversight of the city and province of Najaf to the Iraqi government in December, and the calm atmosphere showed that the Iraqi security forces could maintain control, keeping suicide bombers away from an obvious target. In March, when millions of Shiite pilgrims flocked to the holy cities of the south, Iraqi security forces in provinces adjoining Najaf failed to stop bombers from killing scores of them.

    Vehicles were not allowed near Monday’s march, and Baghdad had a daylong ban on traffic to prevent outbreaks of violence.

    During the protest in Najaf, Sadr followers draped themselves in Iraqi flags and waved them to symbolize national unity, and a small number of conservative Sunni Arabs took part in the march.

    “We have 30 people who came,” said Ayad Abdul Wahab, an agriculture professor in Basra and an official in the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading fundamentalist Sunni Arab group. “We support Moktada in this demonstration, and we stress our rejection of foreign occupation.”

    He and his friends together carried a 30-foot-long Iraqi flag.

    In the four years of war, the only other person who has been able to call for protests of this scale has been Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most powerful Shiite cleric, who, like Mr. Sadr, has a home in Najaf.

    The protest was in some ways another challenge to the Shiite clerical hierarchy, showing that in the new Iraq, a violent young upstart like Mr. Sadr can command the masses right in the backyard of venerable clerics like Ayatollah Sistani. Mr. Sadr has increasingly tapped into a powerful desire among Shiites to stand up forcefully to both the American presence and militant Sunnis, and to ignore calls for moderation from older clerics.

    Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an American military spokesman in Baghdad, said that American officers had helped officials in Najaf plan security for the event, but that the Iraqis had taken the lead.

    Colonel Garver and other American officials tried to put the best possible light on the event, despite the fiery words. “We say that we’re here to support democracy,” he said. “We say that free speech and freedom of assembly are part of that. While we don’t necessarily agree with the message, we agree with their right to say it.”

    The protest unfolded as heavy fighting continued in parts of Diwaniya, a southern city where American and Iraqi forces have been battling cells of the Mahdi Army since Friday. Mr. Sadr issued a statement on Sunday calling for the Mahdi militiamen and the Iraqi forces there to stop fighting each other, but those words went unheeded. Gun battles broke out on Monday, and an American officer said at a news conference that at least one American soldier had been killed and one wounded in four days of clashes.

    That fighting and the protest in Najaf, as well as Mr. Sadr’s mysterious absence, raise questions about how much control he actually maintains over his militia. Mr. Sadr is obviously still able to order huge numbers of people into the streets, but there has been talk that branches of his militia have split off and now operate independently. In Baghdad, some Mahdi Army cells have refrained in the last two months from attacking Americans and carrying out killings of Sunni Arabs, supposedly on orders from Mr. Sadr, but bodies of Sunnis have begun reappearing in some neighborhoods in recent weeks.

    The protest in Najaf was made up mostly of young men, many of whom drove down from the sprawling Sadr City section of Baghdad, some 100 miles north, the previous night. They gathered Monday morning in the town of Kufa, where Mr. Sadr has his main mosque, and walked a few miles to Sadrain Square in Najaf. Protesters stomped on American flags and burned them. “No, no America; leave, leave occupier,” they chanted. At Sadrain Square, the protesters listened to a statement read over loudspeakers that was attributed to Mr. Sadr.

    “Oh Iraqi people, you are aware, as 48 months have passed, that we live in a state of oppression, unjust repression and occupation,” the statement read. “Forty-eight hard months — that make four years — in which we have gotten nothing but more killing, destruction and degradation. Tens of people are being killed every day. Tens are disabled every day.”

    Mr. Sadr added: “America made efforts to stoke sectarian strife, and here I would like to tell you, the sons of the two rivers, that you have proved your ability to surpass difficulties and sacrifice yourselves, despite the conspiracies of the evil powers against you.”

    An Interior Ministry employee in a flowing tan robe, Haider Abdul Rahim Mustafa, 23, said that he had come from Basra “to demand the withdrawal of the occupier.”

    “The occupier supported Saddam and helped him to become stronger, then removed him because his cards were burned,” he said, using an Arabic expression to note that Saddam Hussein was no longer useful to the United States. “The fall of Saddam means nothing to us as long as the alternative is the American occupation.”

    Estimates of the crowd’s size varied wildly. A police commander in Najaf, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim al-Mayahi, said there were at least half a million people. Colonel Garver said that military reports had estimates of 5,000 to 7,000. Residents and other Iraqi officials said there were tens of thousands, and television images of the rally seemed to support their estimates.

    The colonel declined to give any information on the whereabouts of Mr. Sadr, though American military officials said weeks ago that they believed he is in Iran. Mr. Sadr’s aides declined to say where he is, but previously they have said he remained in Iraq.

    In Diwaniya, hospital officials said their wards were overwhelmed by casualties. There was a shortage of food and oxygen, and ambulances were being blocked from the scene of combat, said Dr. Hamid Jaati, the city’s health director. The main hospital received 13 dead Iraqis and 41 injured ones over the weekend, he added.

    The fighting started Friday after the provincial council and governor called for the Iraqi Army and American forces to take on the Sadr militiamen. The governor and 28 of 40 council members belong to a powerful Shiite party called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is the main rival to the Sadr organization. Sadr officials have accused the party of using the military to carry out a political grudge, but the governor, Khalil Jalil Hamza, denied that on Monday.

    In Diyala Province, northeast of Baghdad, a suicide car bomb killed three civilians and wounded four others on Sunday night, police officials said Monday. Also in Diyala, a local politician was fatally shot on Monday in Hibhib, and three bodies were found in Khalis.

    Iraqi employees of The New York Times contributed reporting from Najaf and Diwaniya.


     

    Today’s :P apers

    Anniversary Message
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Tuesday, April 10, 2007, at 5:36 A.M. E.T. 

    The New York Times leads, and the Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, with the thousands of Iraqis who answered Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr’s calls for a protest to oppose the presence of U.S. troops on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The peaceful protesters gathered in the southern city of Najaf, where they chanted anti-occupation slogans and burned American flags. The Los Angeles Times leads with more evidence of how the U.S. military is struggling to find the necessary troops for Iraq. Approximately 13,000 National Guard troops were told that they should expect to be sent to Iraq late this year. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is also considering issuing four-month extensions for approximately 15,000 soldiers currently in Iraq.

    USA Today leads with Iran’s announcement that it is now able to produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale, which would signify a major development in the country’s nuclear program. But no one seems to actually believe Iran’s claims and most experts seem to agree the announcement was more about politics than actual capabilities. The Washington Post leads locally and off-leads a look at the role mortgage fraud played in creating the real estate boom.

    Estimates on how many people were present at the demonstrations yesterday in Najaf varied widely, but, as everyone notes, it once again served to demonstrate Sadr’s power. Conveniently, this comes after there was some speculation that Sadr was losing power over his militia, the Mahdi Army. Sadr didn’t attend the protest, and, in fact, he hasn’t been seen for weeks, but he did put forward a message that was meant to appeal to all Iraqis. The NYT has the best story on the protests and says that the only cleric who has ever been able to call for a demonstration this large is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. But just because Sadr can gather large crowds doesn’t necessarily mean he can still control the Mahdi Army.

    On Sunday, Sadr had called on the Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces to stop fighting each other in the southern city of Diwaniya to unite against the United States. Were his calls answered? Depends on whom you believe. The NYT says the fighting continued, while the LAT says the fighting “subsided” after Sadr’s plea. But what does all this mean? No one is exactly sure, and as the LAT helpfully notes, “[T]he next move of Sadr’s supporters is a riddle.” It is still unclear whether Sadr is calling on his supporters to fight the Americans or if he just wants to show the Iraqi government (not to mention U.S. officials) that he can’t be ignored.

    The announcement that National Guard troops will be deployed didn’t exactly come as a surprise, but it’s significant largely because many of those called have already served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Their deployment, however, would not come until December and is unrelated to the increase in troops that is part of the new security crackdown. That means the Pentagon has to find other troops for that purpose, and that is why the Pentagon is currently considering the four-month extensions for five brigades.

    While everyone goes inside with President Bush officially announcing his latest push to change the country’s immigration policies, the Post fronts an interesting look at what it says is the “fast-growing” number of cities and towns that are trying to embrace illegal immigrants. Much attention has been paid to places that are trying to push out illegal immigrants with local laws, but some communities are doing the opposite. In order to encourage illegal immigrants to come out of hiding, some are providing more services and forbidding police officers from asking about immigration status.

    Everyone goes inside with word that Britain’s Defense Ministry has changed its mind and now says the troops that were held captive in Iran are not allowed to sell their stories to the media. The initial decision to allow it was widely criticized by politicians and families of soldiers who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two of the 15 service members already told their stories in exchange for payment. Meanwhile, Iranian television broadcast images that show the detained sailors and marines playing pingpong and watching soccer to counter the claims that they were treated poorly while in captivity.

    The NYT reefers, and everyone mentions, the decision by CBS Radio and MSNBC to suspend Don Imus’ radio show for two weeks starting Monday. The decision came after Imus spent most of the day yesterday trying to somehow explain why he called the Rutgers University women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.” As part of showing just how sorry he is (or as the WP‘s Lisa de Moraes calls it, “his Walk of Shame”), Imus appeared on the Rev. Al Sharpton’s radio show to apologize.

    In an editorial, the Post says its up to Imus’ employers to decide whether to keep the show but wonders why anyone would want to be a guest and be associated with his remarks. USAT‘s editorial doesn’t call for the radio host’s ouster but does provide a succinct paragraph that goes through some of the more offensive statements Imus has uttered throughout the years. And the NYT publishes an op-ed by journalist Gwen Ifill, whom Imus famously called a “cleaning lady” in the early ’90s.

    Today’s must-read is the first-person account by the LAT‘s former Baghdad bureau chief, Borzou Daragahi, which the paper publishes on Page One. Daragahi first arrived in Iraq more than four years ago and now, as he gets ready for a new assignment, he writes about how during his time in Iraq he often had to pretend to be someone else in order to survive. But the piece is more than just an account of how difficult it is to report in Iraq, as Daragahi talks about how Iraq became his life, an obsession he couldn’t stop thinking about even when he was not in the country. Despite all the carnage (“I even got used to the smell of burnt flesh”), the dead friends, and the risks, Daragahi is honest: “I miss the action.”

    Daniel Politi writes “Today’s Papers” for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *