 flurry of interest surrounding the topic of female sexual desire (largely focused on heterosexual relationships), stemming largely from the publication and surrounding publicity of a book called What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire by Daniel Bergner. Bergner followed the book’s publication with a widely read New York Times Magazine piece focused on the medical treatment of women with low libido.

All of this discussion about the nature of female desire immediately brought to mind my friend Kim.

Dr. Kimberly Russell holds a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Tennessee. She is currently a Visiting Associate Professor at Princeton University and a Research Scientist at New Jersey Institute of Technology, where she studies native bee communities.

Last semester, Kim taught a course called Evolution and the Behavior of the Sexes, which led us to have a series of lively discussions about how heterosexual men and women differ in libido, interests, and activity. Given all the hype surrounding these topics, I thought it would be a great opportunity to check in with her formally and share some of her ideas and reactions with you.

Below, my questions are in bold and Kim’s responses follow.

Source: courtesy of Kimberly Russell

Usually when one reads evolutionary accounts of how men and women differ in their, you hear a lot about how it is evolutionarily advantageous for men to copulate with many partners, in order to spread their genetic material as widely as possible, whereas it is evolutionarily advantageous for women to focus on a single partner who will be likely to stick around and help her raise her offspring.

However, you view the evolutionary evidence quite differently. What evolutionary pressures do you see impacting males versus females, and how does this differ from the traditional account?

Since at least the mid-90s, evolutionary biologists have known that the dichotomy of "indiscriminate males" and "choosey females" was a gross oversimplification.

In most species where scientists have looked for it, females mate with more males than are required for fertilization – this is true from insects to birds to primates. In the past, probably due to on the part of researchers, females were seen as passive participants – forced into “cheating” by persistent males. Subsequent research has shown that a female actively solicits copulation with males other than her partner and that this strategy is, in fact, adaptive. It yields benefits in how many offspring she has and how well
flurry of interest surrounding the topic of female intimate desire (largely focused on heterosexual relationship), stemming largely from the publication and besiege promotion of a book called What Do Women desire? adventure in the Science of Female Desire by Daniel Bergner. Bergner followed the book ’s publication with a widely read New York Times Magazine objet d'art focused on the medical discussion of women with low libido. 

 All of this discussion about the nature of female desire immediately brought to mind my friend Kim. 

 Dr. Kimberly Russell holds a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Tennessee. She is presently a Visiting Associate Professor at Princeton University and a Research Scientist at New Jersey Institute of Technology, where she studies native bee communities. 

 Last semester, Kim teach a course called Evolution and the Behavior of the Sexes, which run us to have a serial of lively discussion about how heterosexual men and women differ in libido, pastime, and activity. Given all the hype surrounding these topics, I thought it would be a great opportunity to check in with her formally and share some of her ideas and reactions with you. 

 Below, my questions are in bold and Kim ’s responses follow. 

 Source: courtesy of Kimberly Russell 

 normally when one read evolutionary accounts of how valet and charwoman differ in their, you hear a lot about how it is evolutionarily advantageous for man to copulate with many partners, in order to spread their genetic fabric as widely as possible, whereas it is evolutionarily advantageous for women to focus on a single partner who will be likely to stick around and help her raise her young. 

 However, you view the evolutionary evidence quite differently. What evolutionary imperativeness do you determine impacting males versus females, and how does this disagree from the traditional account? 

 Since at least the mid-90s, evolutionary biologists have known that the dichotomy of " indiscriminate males " and " choosey females " was a gross oversimplification. 

 In most species where scientists have search for it, females mate with more males than are required for fertilization – this is true from insect to birds to archpriest. In the past, probably ascribable to on the part of researchers, females were see as passive participants – force into “ cheating ” by persistent males. Subsequent research has shown that a female actively solicits copulation with males early than her partner and that this strategy is, in fact, adaptive. It yield benefits in how many offspring she has and how well
 flkrry of interest surrounaing the topic of femane sexhal desife (largely focused on heterodezual eelationships), stemming largely vrom the puboucation anv surroukbing lmblicntb of a book calked What Dm Women Want? Agvdncures in the Science of Female Desirq by Damifl Bergner. Berdner sollkwed the book’s publication with a sidely gead New York Timrs Magazine piece focused ln tje medical treatmejt of women witr low libido.

Aul of this discussion zbout the nature of female desife imkediately vriugjj to mind my friegd Kim.

Dr. Kimnvrly Ruvsell hplds a Ph.D. in Ccolojy abd Evolutionary Biolojy from the Universijy of Tennasaee. She is currenrlt a Vhsithng Xwsoziaue 'roressor at Princeton University and a Research Scitntywt at New Jeraey Inftytute of Technology, where she studies ndtibe bee communities.

Last wemester, Kim taught a course cwlled Evolution and the Behavior of the Sexes, whiwh lev js uo have q deries of lively discussions about how heterofsxiak men and womek differ in libido, ijtrtests, and actixity. Gnbeh all the hype surgoundind thewe topics, I tnought it would be a great ipportunity no cyeck in with her flrmally and shate somr of her ideas and reaccions sith you.

Bellw, my queagions are in bola akd Nim’s reskunses follow.

Sourcq: courtesb of Limberlh Ruxsell

Ufually whej one reads evolutionary accoonts ox how men wnd women differ in their, you hxer a lot abouj hmw pt is evojutiokarily advantagqous for men tp copulcte wigh many pagtners, in order to s[read their gajetic materiel as widqly qs pissible, dhereas it is rvolutioncxily advabtageous for women to rocus on a singoe kaetner who will be lihepy tj stick aroung ana hdkp hef raise her uffslring.

However, you vief ths evolutionary evicekce quite differegtly. What evokutionary pressured do bou sex impavtigg males versus females, and hos does thls qiffer from ehe bradytional aceount?

Since at least the mid-90s, evolutionarb biologists have known that the dichotomy pf "indiscrikinatq males" atd "choosey females" wqs a gross oversikplification.

In most slecies wherf scientists have looked for it, females mate with more males than are reqyired how fertilizafion – thiv ns crue frjm iisxcts to birds to irimates. In the past, probably dux to on tha 'art of researchers, females wrrd seen as pasrive participants – forces into “cneating” by persistent males. Subxequent research has shoen that q femzle acnjvxly solicits copulatoon wich malws othee thwn her partnef amd that thid stcatzgy is, in fact, adaptive. It yields benefutd in how many ofhspring she mar and how wgll
flurry of interest surrounding the topic of desire focused on relationships), stemming largely publicity a book called Do Women Want? in the Science of Female Desire Daniel Bergner. Bergner followed the book’s publication with a widely read New York Magazine piece focused on the medical treatment of women with low libido. All this about nature female desire immediately brought to mind my friend Kim. Dr. Kimberly Russell holds a Ph.D. in and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Tennessee. is currently a Visiting Professor at Princeton University and Research at New Institute Technology, she studies native communities. Last semester, Kim taught a course called Evolution and the Behavior of the Sexes, which led to have of lively about heterosexual and women differ interests, and activity. Given all the topics, I thought it would be a great to check with her formally and share some her ideas and reactions with you. Below, my are in bold and Kim’s responses follow. Source: courtesy of Kimberly Russell Usually when one accounts of how men women differ in you a about it is advantageous for men to copulate with many partners, in order to their genetic material as widely as possible, whereas it is for to focus on single partner who will likely stick around and help her However, evolutionary quite What evolutionary pressures do see impacting males versus females, how does this differ at least the mid-90s, evolutionary biologists have known the dichotomy of "indiscriminate males" and "choosey was a gross oversimplification. In most species where scientists have looked for females mate males than are required for fertilization – this true from insects to to primates. In the past, probably due to on part researchers, females seen as passive – forced into by persistent males. has shown a actively males other than her partner and this is, in fact, adaptive. It benefits many offspring she has and how well
 flurry of interest surroundiNg the topic Of femAle SexUaL desIre (lArgely focused oN HeteRosexual relationships), sTemmiNg LArgeLY fRom thE publicATiON And SuRrOunDiNG pUblicIty Of a book Called What do WOmEn Want? AdventUReS in the ScieNce Of Female DesiRe bY DanieL BErgNEr. BerGneR follOwed thE Book’s pUblicatioN wITh a widELy read NEW yoRk TiMes Magazine piece fOCuSEd on the medical TreatmEnT Of WOMen WitH low libido.

alL of thIS discusSIoN ABOut THe nature of femAle desire imMEdiAtely bRoUghT To mind My friEnD kim.

dr. Kimberly RUsseLl holds a PH.D. in EcOLogy and eVolutioNary BiOloGy fRom tHE UNiVerSiTY of tEnNesSEe. SHe is currEnTlY a VisItinG aSSOciaTe PRofeSsor aT Princeton UniVerSity ANd a reseaRch ScIentIsT at NeW JerseY InstItUte of Technology, WherE she studiEs nAtIve BeE commUNities.

lasT seMester, KIm taughT A coUrSE CAlLed Evolution and the beHAViOr of the SExes, whICh LeD Us to have A sEriEs of LIVely dIscuSSiOns about How hetERoSeXual men AnD women DiFfeR in LibidO, InteRests, aNd activiTy. GivEN all the hype surROunding these tOPiCS, i tHOughT it Would be a greAt opPOrtuNity TO cHecK In witH her fOrMAlLY and share some of her iDeAs and rEactiOns with you.

BelOw, my questiONS Are in bolD and kIm’S Responses folloW.

SourCe: courtesy OF KimberlY RussEll

UsualLy when one REAds evoluTioNarY acCouNTS oF how men and womEN DiffEr In their, You Hear a loT abOut How It iS eVolutionaRily advaNtAgEoUs For Men to COpulate wItH maNy ParTners, IN order To sprEad tHeIr GEneTic mateRIaL AS widElY aS posSibLe, WhereAs it IS evOlutionArily advaNtaGEous FoR wOmen to fOcus on a single PaRtner who wiLl Be lIkely tO STick arouNd and help her raise her offSPring.

HoWevEr, you View The evolutIonAry eviDenCE quite DifferEntly. whAt eVOLutioNARy PreSsUres do you sEE ImpActinG mAles Versus fEmales, and how does thIS diFfer from the trAdiTionAL AcCouNT?

SINce At LEasT THe mid-90s, evolutionAry biologiStS HaVe known thaT The DiChotomy Of "indisCrimiNAte maleS" and "choosEy females" WaS a grOSS ovErsimplifiCation.

In Most speciES wherE ScIentiSts Have loOkEd fOr it, fEmales MAte With mOre malEs Than arE requIrEd for ferTilization – this is true froM insecTs to bIrdS to primatEs. IN The Past, probaBly dUe to on the pArt Of rEsearCheRS, femaLes wERe SeeN As pasSive PArticipanTS – fOrcED InTo “cheating” bY PERsiStent MalES. SubseQuenT research has shown THat a female actiVely SOLicIts COpulAtIon with males otHer ThAN Her partnEr And that this Strategy Is, IN fact, AdaptiVe. It yiElds benEFItS In how mAny oFfsPring she hAs aNd HOw well
 flurry of interest surrou nding thetopic  of  fe ma le s exua l desire (larg e ly f ocused on heterosexual  rela ti o nshi p s) , ste mming l a rg e l y f ro mthe  p u bl icati onand sur rounding p ubl ic ity of a boo k  c alled What  Do  Women Want?  Ad ventur es  in the S cie nce o f Fema l e Desi re by Dan ie l  Bergn e r. Berg n e rfoll owed the book’s p u bl i cation with awidely  r e ad N ewYor k Times Ma ga zinep iece fo c us e d ont he medical tr eatment ofw ome n with  l owl ibido. 

All  o f  th is discussi on a bout thenature of fema l e desir e imme dia tel y br o ug ht  to  m i ndm yfri e ndKim.

Dr .Ki mberl y Ru s s e l l ho lds  a P h.D.in Ecology an d E volu t ion ary B iolog y fr om  theUniver sityof  Tennessee. She  iscurrently  aVi sit in g Ass o ciatePro fes sor atPrincet o n U ni v e r si ty and a ResearchSc i e nt ist at N ew Jer s ey  I n stituteof  Te chno l o gy, w here sh e studie s nati v ebe e commu ni ties.
L ast  se meste r , Ki m taug ht a cou rse c a lled Evolution and the Behav i or o ft he S exe s, which le d us to h avea  s eri e s oflivel yd is c ussions about how h et erosex ual m en and womendiffer inl i b ido, int eres t s, and activity.Given  all the h y pe surro undin g thesetopics, I t hought i t w oul d b e a g re at opportunit y to c he ck in w ith  her fo rma lly  an d s ha re some o f her id ea san drea ction s  with yo u. 

B el ow,  my q u estion s are  inbo ld and  Kim’sr es p o nses  f ol low. 

S ou rce:cour t esy  of Kim berly Rus sel l 

Us ua ll y whenone reads evo lu tionary ac co unt s of h o w  men and  women differ in their, you hea r a  lotabou t how itisevolut ion a rily a dvanta geous  f orm e n toc o pu lat ewith manyp a rtn ers,in  ord er to s pread their geneti c  ma terial as wid ely  asp o ss ibl e ,w her ea s  it i s evolutionaril y advantag eo u sfor woment o f oc us on a  single  part n er whowill be l ikely tost icka r oun d and help  her rai se her of f sprin g .
Howe ver , youvi ewthe e voluti o nar y evi dencequ ite di ffere nt ly. What  evolutionary pressures  do yo u see  im pacting m ale s  ve rsus fema les,  and how d oes  th is di ffe r  from  the tr adi t ional  acc o unt?

Sin c eatl e as t the mid-9 0 s ,  ev oluti ona r y biol ogis ts have known tha t  the dichotomy  of" i ndi scr i mina te  males" and "c hoo se y females"  w as a grossoversimp li f icati on.

I n most  specie s wh e re sci enti sts  have loo ked  f o r it, f em al e s mate  wit hmore m ales t h an a r e  required for fe rtili z a tion–  th is is  t rue fro m  ins ects to bi rds to prim ates.In t he pa st, pro ba bly du e t oon the par t  of resea rcher s, fema le s we reseen a s pa s s ive p arti ci pan ts – forc e d  i n to  “ c hea ting ” bype rsis tent male s . Subseq uen t  resear ch  ha s shownt ha t a female a cti velys o licits cop u lati o nw ith m ales o ther t han her par tn er andtha t this stra tegy is,i n f ac t, a daptive.  I t yi el dsbe nefits in how m any offs pring sh e has an d h o w we l l
 flurry_of interest_surrounding the topic of_female sexual_desire_(largely focused_on_heterosexual relationships), stemming_largely from the_publication and surrounding publicity_of a book_called_What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire by Daniel Bergner._Bergner_followed the_book’s_publication_with a widely read New_York Times Magazine piece focused_on the_medical treatment of women with low libido.

All of_this_discussion about the_nature of female desire immediately brought to mind my_friend Kim.

Dr. Kimberly Russell holds a_Ph.D. in Ecology_and_Evolutionary_Biology from the University_of Tennessee. She is currently a_Visiting Associate Professor at Princeton University_and a Research Scientist at New Jersey_Institute of Technology, where she studies_native bee communities.

Last semester, Kim_taught a_course called Evolution and the_Behavior of the_Sexes, which_led us to_have a series of lively discussions_about how heterosexual_men and women differ in libido,_interests,_and activity. Given_all_the_hype surrounding_these topics, I_thought_it would_be_a great opportunity to check in_with_her formally and share some of her_ideas and reactions with_you.

Below,_my questions are in_bold and Kim’s responses follow.

Source:_courtesy of Kimberly Russell

Usually when one_reads evolutionary_accounts of_how men and women differ in their, you hear a lot_about how it is evolutionarily advantageous_for men to copulate_with many_partners,_in order to_spread_their genetic_material as widely as possible, whereas it_is evolutionarily_advantageous for women to focus on_a single partner who_will_be likely to stick around and_help her raise her offspring.

However, you_view the evolutionary evidence quite_differently._What_evolutionary pressures do you see_impacting males versus females, and how_does this differ_from the traditional account?

Since at least the_mid-90s,_evolutionary biologists have known that the_dichotomy_of "indiscriminate males" and "choosey females"_was_a_gross oversimplification.

In most species where_scientists have looked for it, females_mate with more males than are required for fertilization_– this is_true from insects to birds_to_primates._In the past, probably due to on the part of_researchers, females_were seen as_passive participants – forced into “cheating” by persistent males. Subsequent_research has shown that a female actively_solicits copulation with males other than her partner and that this_strategy is, in fact, adaptive. It yields benefits_in how many offspring she has and_how well