Male Sexual Response
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/male-sexual-response/As I stated in Women & Sex, until a woman lives in 12.5 to 17 times her present testosterone levels 24/7 she cannot ever understand male sexuality. And since she lives in a fem-centric reality (both personally and socially) her awareness and expectations of male sexuality is defined by the only terms she has a frame of reference for – female sexuality.
So it should come as no shock that women are bewildered (and disgusted) by a male sexual response that is incongruent with their own. They want to force fit it. In the Feminine Reality I stated:
For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one.
One of the reasons I repeatedly assert that women lack a fundamental appreciation for the sacrifices men make to facilitate their reality finds its roots in women’s lacking a male frame of reference. In general, Men are far more self-controlled than any woman can realistically understand. When we analyze the realities of the male sex response and the underlying biology that contributes to it, the control men exert over it is actually a triumph of evolved psychology and social directive.
Women are shocked that men are literally, neurologically wired to see them as sex objects. The parts of our brains that are attuned to using tools is stimulated when we see scantily dressed women. Women may be horrified by this, but one thing you will never hear them utter is a word of how astounding it is that men (largely) have such psychological self-control over it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
evidence for a link between testosterone and a strong sex drive (duh) of a variety* not normally experienced by many women given their low but not nonexistent testosterone levels. This anecdotal evidence comes from FTM transsexuals who have related their experiences upon beginning testosterone therapy. I remember one article in the SF Weekly by a man, who had been a woman, relating how "all of a sudden I was noticing women all over the place- wanting to have sex with them, thinking about sex constantly", that sort of thing.
I want to add this about the whole "sex objects" thing, because I really think this terminology is unhelpful, unscientific, and at the end of the day, ridiculous. Because it purports, in most cases, to make a totally arbitrary distinction between sexual attraction to a person as-a-person, and a person as-a-(so called) "sex object". Well, look- I can't speak for anyone but me
(and I've already been told that NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU FIND ATTRACTIVE, BUDDY 
)
but, I am attracted- sexually attracted- to women. Female human beings. In fact, in my entire history of sexual attraction, I have ONLY been attracted to female human beings. That is my own orientation, of course I celebrate and accept the spectrum of orientations my brothers and sisters have as well. That said, I have never been attracted to, say, a shoe or a tree or a rock or a blender. I have never been sexually attracted to, what is commonly considered in the parlance, an object.
So; how is it that sexual attraction to a woman, because she's a woman, is "seeing her as an object"? If I saw her as an object, I wouldn't be attracted to her. It's because she's a woman, that's what's attractive, sexually.
It's fucking nonsense, and it's driven (as I've posted before) by a sociological agenda from people who want to categorize the way that many people -men and women- in our society feel attraction based on perhaps superficial physical characteristics, as somehow "bad" or "misprogrammed", some societal "problem" that needs to be "cured".
Are some people attracted, like I said, sexually to others on superficial basises? For sure. And do some people experience a failure or a deficit of empathy in their sexual interactions, as well as other social ones? Of course. The height, to my mind, of empathy and interpersonal connection is being able to as much as possible if not completely see oneself through the other person's eyes, and vice-versa, and it's no coincidence, to my mind, that some of the BEST sex comes with that level of connection. Of course.
But that does not mean that lower chakra, lusty, purely physical or superficial attraction is somehow "bad" or even "objectifying". It just is, it's what people often do, and it's natural.
* note I said "variety". This does NOT mean that testosterone is the only chemical driver of desire, or that women don't experience strong sexual desire as well.
I found that whole "he thinks he's entitled to sex" grousing around the OK Cupid stuff pretty ridiculous. Like, isn't the whole point of putting up an ad on a dating site, after a fashion, believing that you are somewhat "entitled" to sex, or love, or a partner, or something?
Never mind that it borrows the whole right wing framing about "entitlements"; the words "entitled", and "entitlements" are like "arugula" or "elite", or like talking about women "demanding" abortions and birth control- it's a dog whistle, a cue for a 15 minute hate.
"ZOMG O NO teh menz iz errntitled!" 
No, they're lonely, and maybe at times not 100% happy with the response they're getting. Probably like many, if not most of the people on those sites.
reported by FTM Transpeople.
The interpretation laid over some of it, I'm not so sure I agree. I certainly don't agree that somehow it's a great accomplishment for men to control themselves, or that men deserve some sort of prize or cookie for not being cauldrons of uncontrollable id.
On the rest of it, the stuff about the guys who acquiesce to the hot girl 100% of the time- here, let me run down another anecdote... Way back before my wife and I were married, when we were still dating and even had some periods, due to conflicting responsibilities, educational environments, etc, that we were spending periods of significant distance apart... Well, let me rewind even further, and mention that, as a young man, well before she and I got involved at all, I did have trouble remaining faithful in relationships. I got it out of my system probably by 25 or so, but the experience of cheating- and being cheated on- (not to be confused with being in an open, non-monogamous relationship, mind you- not the same thing) the emotional fallout and how that dishonesty can poison a relationship, really grounded in me an appreciation for -not faithfulness per se, but honesty and transparency.
So, FFWD to when my current wife and I were dating, during one of the distance periods. During that time I was thrown into several situations with an absolutely gorgeous, incredibly hot woman who, it quickly became apparent, was real interested in me. Who was having relationship problems of her own, many of them pertaining to her sexual dissatisfaction, which she proceeded to tell me in great and intimate detail. And she was coming on to me, directly and aggressively.
Any other time in my life up to then, I would have been all over it. Had I been single, for sure. Had I even been a few years younger- for sure. But even though my then-gf and I were, at that particular time, in a rough patch, throwing the future of the relationship into question; even though we were far apart, even though there was a part of me that really, really wanted to get together with this person (attendant drama and all)... I knew that the person I was involved with, was possibly-probably-someone I wanted to make a major commitment with and to. And I didn't want anything to potentially get in the way of that, even if, as was likely, we probably could and would have worked past it.
So, I said 'no'. And I guarantee this opportunity was at least as sexually enticing as ANYTHING they threw at those "100%" guys in that study. She was hot as hell. I hope she didn't take it personally.
