You're welcome! Keep in mind that it is written by a female, and it is a female outlining the nature of females manipulating men...to male readers being the target audience, who the woman would want to manipulate. I had noted that it does not say more than a few words on this topic, but it is a ~4 page chapter specifically on this and not literally 'a few words'. Here is that chapter: >**The Female Libido** >As it is difficult to test or classify the degree to which woman feels sexual stimulation, or to define the exact nature of a female orgasm, men get into considerable difficulties when they try to analyze her capacity for sexual excitability and orgasm. If they make any attempt to come to conclusions on the subject, they are forced to rely to a large extent on the information women volunteer to them. And since women have no respect for exact scientific data and are interested only in what is of immediate benefit to them, they will say what seems to be convenient or opportune at the time. Consequently, any facts acquired on the subject of a woman's reactions - whether, for instance, she is frigid, to what degree she can enjoy sexual intercourse, or whether her own orgasm can be compared to that of a man - tend to be extremely contradictory (it is supposed that even Masters and Johnson did not get an average woman onto their test bed). As a result, man vacillates between the conviction that woman has no true sexual drive and the fear that she is more highly sexed than he is - but refrains from telling him so out of pity. He will spend days working out bigger, better, and subtler questionnaires in his efforts to come to some conclusion. And, in the interests of science, he expects women to answer his questions truthfully. As if she could - or would. > >It is probable that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. Certainly women are not all nymphomaniacs or there would be more male prostitutes. On the other hand, women do not feel an intense aversion to sex, as has so often been maintained. > >Women live an animal existence. They like eating, drinking, sleeping - even sex, providing there is nothing to do and no real effort is required of them. Unlike a man, a woman will rarely make an effort to get her partner into bed. If, however, he is already there, and she hasn't planned to set her hair or undertake some other form of large-scale beauty repair, and there is no TV program she wants to see, she will not be averse to making love, provided he is prepared to be the active partner. But even the euphemisms “active” for the male partner and “passive” for the female do not conceal the fact that woman allows man to serve her in bed just as he does in every other sphere of her life. Even though intercourse may give a man pleasure in the long run, it is nothing more than a service to a woman, in which the man is the better lover, arousing desire more skillfully, quickly, and making it last longer. > >Men suspect that women tend to exploit them during intercourse and have developed a certain fear of female sexual appetite. Signs of this appear in the rites of ancient cultures, in philosophical works of men such as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, in the novels of Balzac or Montherlant, in plays by Strindberg, O'Neill, Tennessee Williams. Since the discovery of oral contraceptives, this fear has reached almost hysterical proportions. Whole books are devoted to the question whether a man needs to worry about woman's sexual demands, and, if so, to what extent - and at the same time, advertising has discovered new opportunities to make money by selling men advice on how to achieve sexual dexterity. In truth, reliable oral contraceptives (invented by a man, naturally) have robbed man of the only triumph left to him in his state of sexual subjugation. Previously, woman was always to a certain extent at his mercy. Now she is suddenly in control. She can have as many children as she wishes. She can even select the father (if possible rich). If she has no intention of having children, she can indulge in intercourse as often as it appears advantageous to her. > >Man cannot do that. He had always claimed that his sexual potency was without limit and that he only needed an unreserved woman to prove it. Today this is impossible. Any woman can read for herself in popular magazines exactly how potent men are. She will know how active he will be at any given age, whether his best time is afternoon or night, if he is a better lover before or after a meal, and whether his prowess increases in the mountains or at the seashore. She knows how often he can make love on any one occasion in order to satisfy her. What is more, she can be sure of her statistics, for men would never cheat when giving information of this kind; a masculine man would consider it a sign of weakness to lie in any situation at all. So women can rely absolutely on the figures given and know exactly what a man should be able to achieve. He has provided her with charts to determine any man's potency at any given stage in his life: and, thanks to efficient birth-control methods, she can experiment with different kinds of men and compare their sexual performances. Contrary to men's fear, women do not, however, weigh one man against another and choose the most virile - far from it, as she herself is not all that keen on sex. In view of that, and provided all other conditions are equal, she is likely to prefer the less potent man because she can always blackmail him with her intimate knowledge of his weakness. > >In the realm of sex, more than any other, man is a victim of the principles of efficiency according to which he is manipulated. Indeed, he sets his own standards: three times in a row, very good; twice, good; once, satisfactory. If he fails as a sex machine, he is, in his opinion, a total failure. Even if he is a brilliant scientist he will never again be really happy. Women know this and take advantage. For example: > >- a. She can pretend she is unaware of her husband's lack of virility and continue to praise him for his prowess. (Probably the most frequent method applied.) >- b. She can make a man believe his sexual failure is a real handicap, so that he considers himself lucky she stays with him. >- c. She can threaten to expose his sexual inadequacy unless he does everything she wants; since a man would rather be called a thief or a murderer than impotent, he will bow his head to his fate and do what he is told. > >Man's sexual potency depends on psychological factors more than any other of his bodily functions. Once he has begun to doubt his potency, he gradually finds himself in more and more difficulty. His fears of becoming useless to a woman increase because, as a result of women’s manipulation, he identifies his masculinity with his dependence on them. For this reason, he will resort to every possible means to remain dependent. One really should reflect on the absurdity of this situation. Aphrodisiacs, once hidden discreetly under the counter and usually prepared by quacks, have long since become socially acceptable and are among the best-selling products of the pharmaceutical industry. Even in serious publications the number of articles on sexual difficulties is increasing; and men’s room jokes, which, as we all know, are the result of man's castration anxiety, are heard more frequently, though they are usually quite humorless. And men certainly do not buy pornographic magazines for pleasure - there are so many better and more sophisticated ways of amusing themselves. Their interest lies solely in the hope of finding, in such powerful stimulation, some means of retaining this mythical level of masculine virility. > >All this serves to make man once again the victim of his habit of thinking of women in terms of his own standards. He really believes that women, now safe from the dangers of conception, are thinking about nothing but how to make up for lost time, to spend the rest of their lives making love. This is a natural assumption, since he has been manipulated to think that sex is the height of all pleasure. He is, of course, quite mistaken. A woman will certainly feel happy when she has an orgasm - but it is not the most intense pleasure she knows. A cocktail party, or buying a new pair of aubergine-colored patent-leather boots, rates far higher. > >Man's fear of losing ground at the sexual or physical level, as a result of woman's newfound freedom, is, of course, quite absurd. No matter how much a woman enjoys making love, she will never let the man who supports her tire himself so that he might be late to work the next morning. > >That is too big a risk to take. Even the most passionate woman will reduce her sexual activities if she thinks nights spent in making orgiastic love are beginning to affect his work. Nymphomaniacal women exist almost solely in films and plays. Just because they are so rare in real life, the public is carious about them (for the same reason, so many films and novels are about extremely rich people, who form such a small percentage of the total population). > >There is only one aspect of a man's sexual potency that concerns a woman - whether he is capable of fathering children or not. Children, as we shall see later, are essential to a woman if she is to bring her plans to fruition. It is probable that many women would be pleased if man’s need for sex dried up after she had produced two or three children. It would do away with numerous small inconveniences. > >That sexual competence in a man is a matter of indifference to the majority of females is shown by the number of highly paid men who marry, and stay married, despite the fact that they are impotent (it is inconceivable that a woman without a vagina would have any expectation whatever of marriage to a normally sexed man).