Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Transgendered Teacher Fired in Edmonton

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/10/03/edmonton-gender-teacher-fired-expert.html

Teacher's sex change firing 'wrong message': expert

Last Updated: Saturday, October 3, 2009 | 6:29 PM MT

John Buterman has complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission after being  fired by a Catholic school board while going through a sex change.John Buterman has complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission after being fired by a Catholic school board while going through a sex change. (CBC)

An expert in gender identity says the firing of a transgendered teacher by a Roman Catholic school board in Alberta sends the wrong message to students.

John Buterman, who worked as a substitute teacher for about six months, was removed from the Greater St. Albert Catholic school board's substitute teacher list last year.

Born as a woman, Buterman, whose name was Jan before a legal change, is going though a sex change and was removed from the list after telling the school board he had gender identity disorder.

A letter from the board explained the move, saying a gender change goes against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

"So, the unfortunate message that this firing sends to students is, 'It's not OK to be different, whatever facet of difference you may have in your life,'" said Kristopher Wells, a researcher at the Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services at the University of Alberta.

"That there's only one way to be a teacher, there's only one way to be a student, and if you're different than that you are going to suffer the consequences."

Other issues raised

Wells said Buterman's firing raises a lot of questions.

"So the question becomes, are they discriminating solely on the basis of this teacher's gender identity?" he said.

"The question could be asked, 'Would the school board, if it's adhering to the tenets of its faith, fire those teachers who are divorced?'"

Buterman has filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The provincial government and St. Albert Catholic School Board have refused to comment.

How do we define beauty?

http://jezebel.com/5375215/how-do-we-define-beauty

How Do We Define Beauty?

Is your preference for a low nose or a high nose? According to a recent study, North Americans and Brazilians identify beauty differently, especially around where your features are placed. But is nose height the only subjective beauty standard?

Interestingly enough, the study results were targeted to plastic surgeons, to help them understand cultural differences in beauty ideals:

Surgeons that perform nose surgery "must be aware of the different concepts of beauty, especially when working with people of non-Caucasian origin," Gomes said.

Most of the recent studies of the issue were "produced in North America, where the beauty concepts seem to have subtle differences when compared to concepts of other cultures," he noted. "Attention to this aspect may help the surgeon to tailor a more adequate technique and meet their patients' expectations better."

Exactly - beauty is a highly objective thing to quantify. We develop our own individual standards of beauty, taking cues from our families, society, our peer group, and pop culture. In addition, we take into account the shifting standards of beauty over time. For example, the hourglass figure, once coveted, has fallen to the wayside in favor of an overall leaner figure. (See also the changing cast of 90210, which demonstrates that beauty standards can change remarkably within a ten-year period.)

So it is possible to determine something as "objectively beautiful" when the values of beauty are constantly shifting?

Researchers have also honed in on the idea of symmetry as being part of a universal standard of beauty, pointing out how other animals prefer symmetry in mate selection and how some of these traits held cross-culturally:

According to a University of Louisville study, when shown pictures of different individuals, Asians, Latinos, and whites from 13 different countries all had the same general preferences when rating others as attractive — that is those that are the most symmetric.

However, John Manning of the University of Liverpool in England cautions against over-generalization, especially by Western scientists. "Darwin thought that there were few universals of physical beauty because there was much variance in appearance and preference across human groups," Manning explained in email interview. For example, Chinese men used to prefer women with small feet. In Shakespearean England, ankles were the rage. In some African tribal cultures, men like women who insert large discs in their lips.

Indeed, "we need more cross-cultural studies to show that what is true in Westernized societies is also true in traditional groups," Manning said his 1999 article.

But with even these basic ideas under scrutiny, how do we truly determine what is considered beautiful?

Brazilians Judge Facial Beauty Differently Than North Americans [Eureka Alert]
What's Most Beautiful? Brazilians Say A Low Nose [Reuters]
Looking Good: The Psychology And Biology of Beauty [Journal of Young Investigators]

Earlier: Women Today Are Fat, Unhealthy - And Full Of Themselves
New 90210 Showcases Skinniness, Outrageous Fortune

Study Shows High Rates of Violent Crime Against People With Disabilities

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/10/05/study-shows-high-rates-of-violent-crime-against-people-with-disabilities/

The first national study on crime against people with disabilities has been released by the Justice Department, and it shows that people with disabilities (PWD) are the victims of violent crimes at approximately 1.5 times the rate of temporarily able-bodied people. NPR reports:

The results, just released by the Justice Department, are disturbing. But they come as no surprise to those who work with people with disabilities. For a long time, they’ve known about this particular crime problem, at least anecdotally.

But what people in the field had long known, and what the Justice Department report confirms, is that crime is a daily fact of life for many people with disabilities and most of it never gets public attention.

The study, by Michael Rand and Erika Harrell of the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, found that, in 2007, people with disabilities were victims of 716,000 violent crimes and 2.3 million property crimes.

Disabled women were the most at risk: They were victims at rates almost twice that for other females. And unlike other women, those with disabilities were far more likely to be victimized by people they weren’t close to. The report found that 16 percent of violent crimes against females with a disability were committed by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend. Among women without disabilities, it was 27 percent.

The study also shows that assailants are most likely to victimize people with cognitive disabilities, and people with multiple disabilities (a person with more than one disability was the victim in more than half of all violent crimes committed against PWD).

On the subject of violence against women specifically, while attacks by intimate partners make up a smaller percentage of violent crimes against women with disabilities than those against able-bodied women, previous studies also show that caretakers are the most common perpetrators of sexual violence in cases where women with disabilities are victims, followed by male family members. Thus, unless things have changed dramatically in recent years, the statement that “those with disabilities were far more likely to be victimized by people they weren’t close to” is likely not true, but rather it’s more commonly different relationships that are being violated.

The fact that these crimes so rarely make the news — and that when they do, they are presented as some sort of abnormality rather than a systematic problem — has to be noted a sizable part of the reason for their prevalence. Silence helps abuse to continue, and abusers are most like to choose victims who a) they believe will stay silent or b) they believe will be silenced if/when the abuse is reported. Able-bodied society has erected many barriers to PWD speaking out about abuse, which are heavily connected to wider forms of ableist oppression, and Lauredhel discusses some of the most common ones here. Violent criminals quite logically utilize the abusive systems we already have in place to their greatest advantage. And this we should already know.

Our society rarely likes to acknowledge and address issues of systematic prejudice and violence — indeed, such systems are created because those privileged in them have something to gain — and so these cases, the perpetrators, and the victims are frequently overlooked. That this is being billed as the first ever national study of crime against PWD alone tells us that. Acknowledging the violence surrounding us might force more people to realize that these high rates of violence exist for a reason, and that just like with any other marginalized group that is routinely victimized by others, it has nothing to do with PWD being inherently easy or vulnerable targets. Rather, it has everything to do with how a society structured around the needs and perspectives of able-bodied people marginalize and isolate people with disabilities and otherwise treat them as lesser human beings, unworthy of rights, safety and protection. Such a society only aides and encourages perpetrators of violence.


Saturday, October 3, 2009

Is Non-Monogamy A Feminist Relationship Choice?

http://jezebel.com/5339211/is-non%20monogamy-a-feminist-relationship-choice

Is Non-Monogamy A Feminist Relationship Choice?

Frau Sally Benz, blogging at Feministe, has a fascinating series of articles about her experience with non-monogamous* relationships. She relates this to feminism using an interesting catch: letting go of the ingrained idea that we "possess" our partners.

Benz's positioning is quite provocative, and she makes sure to include a hefty disclaimer in her original piece:

Now, I want to be clear in stating that just because nonmonogamy holds up self-awareness, self-discovery, a lack of possession, and a sense of autonomy as the ideal does not mean it's always practiced that way. I am not so naïve as to think that every nonmonogamous couple has got these things down. But it seems to me that the structure society has created for monogamy is not one that coincides as easily with what I've described.

I also want to be clear in stating that I don't mean to say that these ideals are exclusive to nonmonogamy. Certainly, everyone should be striving for relationships where they are fully aware of their needs and do not see their partners are possessions. And of course there are monogamous couples who do not view themselves as one entity, but rather a pair of closely-bonded individuals. However, these are not things I see that often in monogamous couples, at least the ones I know. Maybe I just know the world's shittiest monogamists, but what I usually see is a lot of jealousy (a rather unhealthy amount, if you ask me), a lot "we" with no sense at all of "I" (again, sometimes dangerously so), and a complete lack of internal communication. Not only are all of these things present, but so many people don't see anything wrong with that, and that's the problem.

Benz explains that she finds many parts of working toward a non-monogamous ideal dovetailing with feminist beliefs. Aside from shifting the focus in a relationship away from the possession dynamic (which is one often cited by abusers, as in "you belong to me") non monogamy also requires that both parties are very clear about what they are looking for from each partner in each relationship. She notes:

Women especially are generally expected to put themselves last. They must worry about their children husbands, parents, jobs, household chores, etc. all before thinking about themselves. As feminists, we recognize that this should not be the case. And in a nonmonogamous relationship, this can't be the case because you aren't successful unless you're navigating according to your needs and desires.

Indeed, upending the predominant paradigm of relationships sounds intriguing. But can it work?

Frau Sally Benz actually gives up her second spot at Feministe, posting her thoughts to her own blog and opens the floor to a woman calling herself Eleanor Sauvage, a woman who has been a "secondary partner" in a non monogamous relationship. Sauvage begins by saying:

I actually think that whilst the commenters on both of the Feministe threads are right that poly can be very unfeminist and mono can be feminist, poly, precisely because poly is unusual and often marginalised, means that the kinds of gender dynamics which so often shape (especially heterosexual) mono relationships kinda have to be more up for grabs, for negotiation, for reshaping, in a poly relationship. That is, in our current context, there's a tendency for people to assume that they know how a mono relationship is meant to go: there are depictions of it everywhere! And this often means that mono relationships aren't explicitly negotiated; the power relations within them are often not the subject of discussion.

This is one of the points of the pro-nonmonogamy arguments that I found most intriguing - that their existence can force people to start navigating their actual idea of roles based on gender, and find a different path based on what works for each partner. Sauvage also points out how her own personal experiences led her to find nonmonogamy more beneficial to her mind state:

I wasn't sure how I'd feel about the poly thing, especially about being in the dreaded position of the secondary ('omg! you're the fucktoy!'), but I want to explain why this has worked and continues to work for me, and works for me precisely to counter my tendency to be self-effacing in relationships (as women are taught to be). First, I know that when he wants to be with me, he wants to be with me. He isn't feeling obligated, or like he ought to be spending time with me because we are in a relationship. He spends time with me for me. That has done some lovely things for my rather battered self-esteem, yet because the relationship is a secondary one, and we don't get to see each other that often, it also means that I really don't feel – as I have in the past – that my real sense of worth comes from the relationship. I feel recognised and valued for who I am, not for being a girlfriend. Interestingly, this also intervenes quite neatly in jealousy, which at least for me has arisen from the idea that ‘he'd rather be with her than with me!' Clearly, who I am to him is sexy, and fun, and interesting and exciting enough that he makes the time for me/us.

But, once again, the crux of Sauvage's argument is that the absence of established rules makes it easier to negotiate and navigate the relationships a bit better:

[T]hat negotiation is possible in a mono relationship-and is engaged in, in the ones that work, I think!-it's just that because poly is unusual, in my experience, people don't assume they have a right to things, or assume they're fulfilling your needs based on some pre-defined notion of what a relationship is, as is so clearly defined for mono relationships in almost every love story ever. And my articulation of my desires or needs don't need to be balanced against whether I think it's fair to expect this of my partner, because there's no presumption that they will simply have to fulfill it. Nor does my honest articulation of my desires become a potential space of breaking up because the person I'm with can't fulfill them (which is handy, given that I like girls as well, and would like to be able to like ‘em right up close, as it were, a set of desires I mostly kept from my previous partner, that my sweetie positively encourages me in). All the balancing acts involved in relationships are a bit more up for grabs because there's so few models for these relationships floating around.

While I am sure for many of us, the idea of nonmongamy is a lot to consider, I wanted to focus on the idea that both pieces brought up - what would our relationships with our partners be like without the idea of ingrained gender roles? And without the idea of possession?

*Note: In the comments to her original post, Frau Sally Benz explains why she prefers the term "nonmonogamy" to "polygamy":

# Frau Sally Benz says:
August 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am - Edit

Technically, the word polygamy means multiple marriages. Polygyny is one man with multiple wives, and polyandry is one woman with multiple husbands. These are the sociological definitions of these terms.

Nonmonogamy, on the other hand, does not necessarily have to be a marriage and it certainly doesn't need to be one man, many women or one woman, many men. It can be dating, swingers, gay relationships, etc. Say, for example, that in my nonmonogamous relationship, I am married to a primary male partner, and have a secondary female partner, but neither of those partners have any other partners (they don't even do anything with each other). This is a nonmonogamous relationship, but it certainly doesn't fit the traditional definition of polygamy.

Furthermore, polygamy is a loaded term in this country. When people hear the word polygamy, they think about Mormons with multiple wives, sometimes set up against the free will of the women. I would prefer to stay away from that image because what I'm talking about here is people willingly choosing to have multiple partners, however that is set up.

There are instances where a relationship is comprised of one man spiritually married to many women (since you can't legally marry more than one person, in the U.S. at least), or a woman spiritually married to many men. Those would fit the traditional definition of polygamy, but I'm not sure that they would call it that.

Nonmonogamy and Feminism: A Happy Couple [Feministe]
Another Perspective in Nonmonogamy [Feministe]
Cracking Myself Open [Jump Off the Bridge]

not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Menstrual Activism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/02/menstruation-feminist-activists

It's in the blood

Menstruation is often seen as embarrassing or disgusting and is rarely discussed. But some feminists are determined to break this taboo


One of Ingrid Berthon-Moine's portraits

One of Ingrid berthon-Moine's portraits of women wearing their menstrual blood as lipstick. Photograph: Ingrid Berthon-Moine

One morning in 2005, Chella Quint was lying in bed wondering if her period was due. That day she was entering a contest to create a magazine in 24 hours. She needed an idea, and the two thoughts collided. Why not create a 10-year chart for her menstrual cycle? She need never lie in bed wondering again. She could include interviews, a diagram of female reproductive organs, an ode to alternative sanitary products . . .

So began Quint's life as a menstrual activist. Since that hastily written debut, she has created four issues of her 'zine, Adventures in Menstruating, complete with leakage horror stories and tampon craft projects. She has taken her "menstrual comedy" show from her home in Sheffield to feminist festivals in Berlin, Cork and Malmö. And she has started a project to photograph her "biggest bugbear": the sanitary disposal units (SDUs) in British toilets.

"My partner Sarah calls them 'the elephant in the smallest room'," she says of the SDUs. "Nobody talks about them. They're huge, grey and hulking, and if your bottom is bigger than your head then you've come into bodily contact with them. I'm just trying to chronicle the number of clues a woman might see each day that say 'You are a bio-hazard'." Quint's mission is to take the shame out of periods, to "help alter the visibility of menstruation, so that it's at least normal to talk about it. Because, right now, it's not".

Quint isn't the only one breaking taboos. It seems that menstrual activism (otherwise known as radical menstruation, menstrual anarchy, or menarchy) is having a moment. The term is used to describe a whole range of actions, not all considered political by the person involved: simple efforts to speak openly about periods, radical affronts to negative attitudes and campaigns for more environmentally friendly sanitary products. (It is estimated that a woman will dispose of 11,400 tampons in her lifetime – an ecological disaster.)

Earlier this year, 18-year-old Rachel Kauder Nalebuff published My Little Red Book, a collection of first period stories by women including Erica Jong, which became a US bestseller. In June, the British-based artist Ingrid Berthon- Moine exhibited a video at the Venice Biennale of her twanging her tampon string to the song Slave to the Rhythm. She is currently completing a series of photographs featuring women wearing their menstrual blood as lipstick.

Jezebel, the popular women's website, has posted a story, describing in lingering detail, the much-feared-but-never-spoken-of experience of forgetting to remove a tampon (after 10 days it smelled of "rotting fish meets sewage meets Black Death"). Filmmaker and academic Giovanna Chesler has toured her documentary, Period: The End of Menstruation, a response to the growing number of hormone treatments that promise to end the monthly bleed altogether. And, when I wrote an article for G2 this summer about a Tampax advertising campaign that used viral marketing techniques, the online comments were dominated by glowing reviews of an alternative sanitary product, the Moon Cup. Apparently Moon Cup enthusiasts were staging a viral campaign of their own.

Next spring, Chris Bobel, associate professor of women's studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, publishes New Blood: Third Wave Feminism and the Politics of Menstruation. Most menstrual activists, says Bobel, "begin by thinking, wait a minute! Do we have to regard our period as something dirty? Do we have to greet a girl's first period with silence? And then they get interested in challenging that."

So, for instance, Kauder Nalebuff's book stemmed from her own first experience of menstruation - waterskiing in a yellow swimsuit with her grandfather. She thought this was a truly "terrible story", but when it was shared with her family, it was brought into stark perspective. Her great aunt Nina revealed that her first period arrived as she was about to be strip searched while fleeing Nazi-occupied Poland, and "the most powerful part," says Kauder Nalebuff, "was that she had never told anyone about this before. I started asking other women in my family about their first periods, and I found it was an electric topic." She sees her project "as a segue for women to talk openly about their family history, their bodies. Really important issues."

Menstrual activism certainly isn't new. In 1970, in The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer memorably wrote that "if you think you are emancipated, you might consider the idea of tasting your own menstrual blood – if it makes you sick, you've a long way to go, baby". Bobel has charted the movement's history, writing about the first "bleed-in" in 1973, when 13 women gathered in the US and "shared stories of their first periods". Around the same time the artist Judy Chicago created Red Flag, a lithograph of a bloody tampon being pulled from between a woman's legs. (Berthon-Moine's work reflects Chicago's, and is, she says, similarly a way of breaking taboos and "showing what you usually don't see – tampons, blood, all that".)

In the 80s, the focus shifted, with activists "working with industry and government to produce safer products", says Bobel. This was the era of the toxic shock syndrome epidemic; in 1980, 813 period-related toxic shock cases were reported in the US, and 38 women died. The panic and fear inspired some incredibly effective activism. In Britain, for instance, Bernadette Vallely and the Women's Environmental Network campaigned against the potential health risks of chlorine-bleached sanitary products; apparently, after just six weeks all major British producers had pledged to stop the bleaching process.

These days, says Bobel, activists often bypass engagement with corporations and concentrate on DIY approaches, setting up businesses that sell reusable sanitary products for instance. This reflects the punk and alternative roots of the current movement. Where the hippy/spiritual wing of 70s feminism might once have composed celebratory songs to the lunar cycle, recent activists are more likely to dress up as a bloody tampon and perform a cheer: "Smear it on your face and rub it on your body, it's time to start a menstrual party!"

It would be easy to lampoon those who are breaking the menstrual taboo, to accuse them not just of navel-gazing, but of setting their sights quite literally lower. Of all the feminist issues in the world, why this one? And might it not prove an invitation for men to talk about their bodily functions too? (Something surely to be avoided.)

But, as Kauder Nalebuff's book illustrates, this is a subject long mired in shame and confusion – there are girls who know nothing about periods until their first one arrives, and assume it is a sign of impending death. Many grown women still feel embarrassed about buying tampons. When touring her film, Chesler says that she met groups of women who had never heard the term "ovulation"; audiences would nonetheless have two-hour conversations about their experiences. And then there are the environmental issues, which are still far from being resolved.

Quint says that she will write her 'zine until she is finally ready for Adventures in Menopausing instead, "but, of course, it would be great if I didn't have to, if there was no shame whatsoever". For now, this seems a long way off. The bloody fight continues.

Childless Women

http://jezebel.com/5372039/daily-mail-finds-rare-childless-woman-who-is-not-miserable?skyline=true&s=x

Daily Mail Finds Rare Childless Woman Who Is Not Miserable

Laura Scott is 47, childless, and writing in the Daily Mail. Given the venue, we figured she'd be blaming feminism for her barren womb and life — but actually, she's totally happy.

Scott writes,

While babies in prams got my friends all gooey, they left me cold. I didn't see how I could juggle a career with children. And I didn't see why I'd want to. [...]

I know Mum didn't begrudge the time she gave me and my brother. But I feared I would. After taking a fashion course at college, I landed a fantastic job in retail and rapidly started climbing the career ladder.

I couldn't imagine giving it all up for children.

Her essay admirably busts some myths about childless women. She's not cold or selfish — she has a close relationship with her family and mentors a teenage mom. She doesn't worry about who will take care of her in old age — not having children has allowed her and her husband to save up some money for nursing care, and, as she points out, most elderly people aren't actually cared for by their children anyway. She bristles when people tell her "that one day, when my ovaries have shrivelled, I'll regret not having children." "It's ludicrous," she writes, "No one should rush into something that life-changing."

I tend to agree that "just because you might want them someday" isn't a good reason to procreate. But unfortunately, this is the Daily Mail, and any article about a woman's lifestyle has to pit itself against — you guessed it — the lifestyles of other women. Zoe Lewis railed against feminists for supposedly forcing her to forgo marriage and children, and Scott slightly more subtly disses women who choose to breed. Married for 21 years, she says she and her husband Robert "enjoy a wonderful, passionate marriage and fantastic lifestyle largely because we don't have children." She explains,

We hold hands, we kiss. We do all the things couples with children somehow forget to do any more.

Not having children means we have time to focus totally on each other. So many marriages fall apart when children come along because parents don't have time to talk, and problems fester. That doesn't happen with us.

Apparently, couples with children have bad marriages. Also, when mothers get old, they're lonely anyway. Scott says as they age, she and her husband will "be better off than those sad old women waiting to be taken out to lunch once a month." Oh, and also you can't be a mom and have a successful career. To illustrate this one, Scott references one of the women she interviewed for her book, Two Is Enough:

Gina is a high-powered businesswoman in her 30s. ‘If you're going to be successful, you have to pour yourself into it,' she says. ‘And that wouldn't be fair on a child.' Does it make us selfish or sensible? I don't see anything great about trying to play Superwoman and ending up small-changing everyone.

Scott says "I don't want to sound smug," but she definitely does, especially when she says things like, "I suspect some of my friends envy me because I'm living the lifestyle they wish they could have. Do I envy them? Not at all." Given that friends and strangers alike accuse her of being selfish and ask her when she's going to pop one out, a little defensiveness is natural. But Scott ends up sounding almost as bad as those who say all women should stay home and make babies. Like them, she seems to be arguing that there's no good way to balance family and career, ignoring the fact that there are lots of ways governments and employers could help women do this. By claiming that nothing can make motherhood and work compatible, she gives society yet another excuse not to try.

She also seems to be saying having children is incompatible with happiness. Again, a certain amount of backlash against her wrongheaded critics is to be expected. And she does pay some lip service to moms by mentioning her friend Karen, who loves her kids. But couldn't she simply have explained why being childless works for her and her husband, rather than claiming their lives are better than those of people with kids? By doing so, she may actually be giving ammunition to the kinds of people who criticize her for not breeding — they could just as easily fire back with how much better their lives are than hers. Memo to Scott: the way to get other people to respect your lifestyle is not to malign theirs. Choice feminism: ur doin it rong.

Image via Daily Mail.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Why Women Have Sex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/28/sex-women-relationships-tanya-gold

Why women have sex

According to a new book, there are 237 reasons why women have sex. And most of them have little to do with romance or pleasure

Perefect symmetry: Brad Pitt and Geena Davis in Thelma and Louise

Perefect symmetry: Brad Pitt and Geena Davis in Thelma and Louise. Photograph: Ronald Grant Archive

Do you want to know why women have sex with men with tiny little feet? I am stroking a book called Why Women Have Sex. It is by Cindy Meston, a clinical psychologist, and David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist. It is a very thick, bulging book. I've never really wondered Why Women Have Sex. But after years of not asking the question, the answer is splayed before me.

Meston and Buss have interviewed 1,006 women from all over the world about their sexual motivation, and in doing so they have identified 237 different reasons why women have sex. Not 235. Not 236. But 237. And what are they? From the reams of confessions, it emerges that women have sex for physical, emotional and material reasons; to boost their self-esteem, to keep their lovers, or because they are raped or coerced. Love? That's just a song. We are among the bad apes now.

Why, I ask Meston, have people never really talked about this? Alfred Kinsey, the "father" of sexology, asked 7,985 people about their sexual histories in the 1940s and 50s; Masters and Johnson observed people having orgasms for most of the 60s. But they never asked why. Why?

"People just assumed the answer was obvious," Meston says. "To feel good. Nobody has really talked about how women can use sex for all sorts of resources." She rattles off a list and as she says it, I realise I knew it all along: "promotion, money, drugs, bartering, for revenge, to get back at a partner who has cheated on them. To make themselves feel good. To make their partners feel bad." Women, she says, "can use sex at every stage of the relationship, from luring a man into the relationship, to try and keep a man so he is fulfilled and doesn't stray. Duty. Using sex to get rid of him or to make him jealous."

"We never ever expected it to be so diverse," she says. "From the altruistic to the borderline evil." Evil? "Wanting to give someone a sexually transmitted infection," she explains. I turn to the book. I am slightly afraid of it. Who wants to have their romantic fantasies reduced to evolutional processes?

The first question asked is: what thrills women? Or, as the book puts it: "Why do the faces of Antonio Banderas and George Clooney excite so many women?"

We are, apparently, scrabbling around for what biologists call "genetic benefits" and "resource benefits". Genetic benefits are the genes that produce healthy children. Resource benefits are the things that help us protect our healthy children, which is why women sometimes like men with big houses. Jane Eyre, I think, can be read as a love letter to a big house.

"When a woman is sexually attracted to a man because he smells good, she doesn't know why she is sexually attracted to that man," says Buss. "She doesn't know that he might have a MHC gene complex complimentary to hers, or that he smells good because he has symmetrical features."

So Why Women Have Sex is partly a primer for decoding personal ads. Tall, symmetrical face, cartoonish V-shaped body? I have good genes for your brats. Affluent, GSOH – if too fond of acronyms – and kind? I have resource benefits for your brats. I knew this already; that is how Bill Clinton got sex, despite his astonishing resemblance to a moving potato. It also explains why Vladimir Putin has become a sex god and poses topless with his fishing rod.

Then I learn why women marry accountants; it's a trade-off. "Clooneyish" men tend to be unfaithful, because men have a different genetic agenda from women – they want to impregnate lots of healthy women. Meston and Buss call them "risk-taking, womanising 'bad boys'". So, women might use sex to bag a less dazzling but more faithful mate. He will have fewer genetic benefits but more resource benefits that he will make available, because he will not run away. This explains why women marry accountants. Accountants stick around – and sometimes they have tiny little feet!

And so to the main reason women have sex. The idol of "women do it for love, and men for joy" lies broken on the rug like a mutilated sex toy: it's orgasm, orgasm, orgasm. "A lot of women in our studies said they just wanted sex for the pure physical pleasure," Meston says. Meston and Buss garnish this revelation with so much amazing detail that I am distracted. I can't concentrate. Did you know that the World Health Organisation has a Women's Orgasm Committee? That "the G-spot" is named after the German physician Ernst Gräfenberg? That there are 26 definitions of orgasm?

And so, to the second most important reason why women have sex – love. "Romantic love," Meston and Buss write, "is the topic of more than 1,000 songs sold on iTunes." And, if people don't have love, terrible things can happen, in literature and life: "Cleopatra poisoned herself with a snake and Ophelia went mad and drowned." Women say they use sex to express love and to get it, and to try to keep it.

Love: an insurance policy

And what is love? Love is apparently a form of "long-term commitment insurance" that ensures your mate is less likely to leave you, should your legs fall off or your ovaries fall out. Take that, Danielle Steele – you may think you live in 2009 but your genes are still in the stone age, with only chest hair between you and a bloody death. We also get data which confirms that, due to the chemicals your brain produces – dopamine, norepinephrine and phenylethylamine – you are, when you are in love, technically what I have always suspected you to be – mad as Stalin.

And is the world mad? According to surveys, which Meston and Buss helpfully whip out from their inexhaustible box of every survey ever surveyed, 73% of Russian women are in love, and 63% of Japanese women are in love. What percentage of women in north London are in love, they know not. But not as many men are in love. Only 61% of Russian men are in love and only 41% of Japanese men are in love. Which means that 12% of Russian women and 22% of Japanese women are totally wasting their time.

And then there is sex as man-theft. "Sometimes men who are high in mate value are in relationships or many of them simply pursue a short-term sexual strategy and don't want commitment," Buss explains. "There isn't this huge pool of highly desirable men just sitting out there waiting for women." It's true. So how do we liberate desirable men from other women? We "mate poach". And how do we do that? We "compete to embody what men want" – high heels to show off our pelvises, lip-gloss to make men think about vaginas, and we see off our rivals with slander. We spread gossip – "She's easy!" – because that makes the slandered woman less inviting to men as a long-term partner. She may get short-term genetic benefits but she can sing all night for the resource benefits, like a cat sitting out in the rain. Then – then! – the gossiper mates with the man herself.

We also use sex to "mate guard". I love this phrase. It is so evocative an image – I can see a man in a cage, and a woman with a spear and a bottle of baby oil. Women regularly have sex with their mates to stop them seeking it elsewhere. Mate guarding is closely related to "a sense of duty", a popular reason for sex, best expressed by the Meston and Buss interviewee who says: "Most of the time I just lie there and make lists in my head. I grunt once in a while so he knows I'm awake, and then I tell him how great it was when it's over. We are happily married."

Women often mate guard by flaunting healthy sexual relationships. "In a very public display of presumed rivalry," Meston writes, "in 2008 singer and actress Jessica Simpson appeared with her boyfriend, Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, wearing a shirt with the tagline Real Girls Eat Meat. Fans interpreted it as a competitive dig at Romo's previous mate, who is a vegetarian."

Meston and Buss also explain why the girls in my class at school went down like dominoes in 1990. One week we were maidens, the following week, we were not. We were, apparently, having sex to see if we liked it, so we could tell other schoolgirls that we had done it and to practise sexual techniques: "As a woman I don't want to be a dead fish," says one female. Another interviewee wanted to practise for her wedding night.

The authors lubricate this with a description of the male genitalia, again food themed. I include it because I am immature. "In Masters & Johnson's [1966] study of over 300 flaccid penises the largest was 5.5 inches long (about the size of a bratwurst sausage); the smallest non-erect penis was 2.25 inches (about the size of a breakfast sausage)."

Ever had sex out of pity and wondered why? "Women," say Meston and Buss, "for the most part, are the ones who give soup to the sick, cookies to the elderly and . . . sex to the forlorn." "Tired, but he wanted it," says one female. Pause for more amazing detail: fat people are more likely to stay in a relationship because no one else wants them.

Women also mate to get the things they think they want – drugs, handbags, jobs, drugs. "The degree to which economics plays out in sexual motivations," Buss says, "surprised me. Not just prostitution. Sex economics plays out even in regular relationships. Women have sex so that the guy would mow the lawn or take out the garbage. You exchange sex for dinner." He quotes some students from the University of Michigan. It is an affluent university, but 9% of students said they had "initiated an attempt to trade sex for some tangible benefit".

Medicinal sex

Then there is sex to feel better. Women use sex to cure their migraines. This is explained by the release of endormorphins during sex – they are a pain reliever. Sex can even help relieve period pains. (Why are periods called periods? Please, someone tell me. Write in.)

Women also have sex because they are raped, coerced or lied to, although we have defences against deception – men will often copulate on the first date, women on the third, so they will know it is love (madness). Some use sex to tell their partner they don't want them any more – by sleeping with somebody else. Some use it to feel desirable; some to get a new car. There are very few things we will not use sex for. As Meston says, "Women can use sex at every stage of the relationship."

And there you have it – most of the reasons why women have sex, although, as Meston says, "There are probably a few more." Probably. Before I read this book I watched women eating men in ignorance. Now, when I look at them, I can hear David Attenborough talking in my head: "The larger female is closing in on her prey. The smaller female has been ostracised by her rival's machinations, and slinks away." The complex human race has been reduced in my mind to a group of little apes, running around, rutting and squeaking.

I am not sure if I feel empowered or dismayed. I thought that my lover adored me. No – it is because I have a symmetrical face. "I love you so much," he would say, if he could read his evolutionary impulses, "because you have a symmetrical face!" "Oh, how I love the smell of your compatible genes!" I would say back. "Symmetrical face!" "Compatible genes!" "Symmetrical face!" "Compatible genes!" And so we would osculate (kiss). I am really just a monkey trying to survive. I close the book.

I think I knew that.