The simplest answer, to my mind at least, is that it can be inconvenient to perform such studies. Rather it is easier to lump all results into a single unit and dismiss outliers that might be caused by sexual factors to be dismissed as merely outliers. In medicine for example, there seems to be different results based on genetic gender in many species, including humans, but such complicates the ultimate conclusions and is thus far easier to just ignore instead of adding as an additional factor such as weight. The same problem can extend over a vast number of fields of study

Alfred Kinsey and his team spent over a decade researching human sexuality. No one quotes from his work today because his findings were hugely unpopular. The same is true for Shere Hite. Both researchers talked to women and published the results. Women are not nearly as responsive as men would like to believe. But also there are woman who want to assert that women are men's sexual equals. There is denials of the fact that men look for erotic rewards while women look for emotional rewards with a lover. The political objective of portraying women as sexual beings overrides any scientific objectivity. Masters and Johnson are quoted because their research relied on the assumption that a small sample of women have orgasms during intercourse. But this was just an assumption. They measured the physiological responses of men and women when copulating. But they did not measure the psychological impact of sexual activity. No one can name any female erotic turn-ons and women themselves talk of emotional connection with a lover. Clearly they are not having orgasms. But this obvious fact can never be admitted by scientists (other than Kinsey and Hite) due to the emotional and political element in the population and among researchers in sexology. The only money to be made from sex relies on promoting male fantasies. This is not science. It is purely politics.

Because society romanticizes sex, commodifies it, and sells it as essential to identity and fulfillment—when in truth, it’s not biologically required for individual survival.

Sex is necessary for reproduction, not for existence.

Sex is not a need of the brain.

Sex is not a need of the body.

You can live, think, create, and thrive without it.

It doesn’t fuel cognition. It doesn’t stabilize emotion.

It only matters biologically if you're reproducing.

Everything else? Psychological attachment, cultural obsession, hormonal noise.

Jane Elizabeth Thomas

Sex information is provided to reassure people's emotional beliefs based on ignorance. Erotic fiction is much more popular than the facts of sexuality especially those relating to female sexual response. You are clearly writing from a female perspective. A woman does not need sex ever. But a man does. If men did not have a sex drive, the human species would die out. If men did not have a biological sex drive (that cannot be consciously controlled), they could masturbate and to without penetrative sex. The male animal of all species is strongly motivated to mate regardless of culture. Kinsey showed that when men live without any contact with women, they experience little erotic arousal. But women's behaviour of displaying their bodies for male admiration enhances male arousal and causes men to want penetrative sex. This sexual urge is strong enough for men to take considerable risks to obtain penetrative sex. It is not a mere whim. The fact that women don't understand this fact, is evidence that women do not have a sex drive. Women are passive receivers of male thrusting and ejaculate. So naturally, women don't have a sex drive. No one can be driven to be penetrated by a penis or other object. Sex drive arises in the mind of the penetrating male. Before he can engage in intercourse, a man needs to have an erection, which relies on mental arousal. But women can provide an orifice for a man to ejaculate into without ever being aroused.

Jane Elizabeth Thomas Ah, what a bold theory: that only men awaken the "sex drive,” while women stand by as motionless receptacles! If sex truly “arises in the mind of the penetrating male,” then women must be some rare breed of biological mime, existing only to be… well, penetrated. How delightfully convenient!

But let’s gently pop that balloon of absurdity:

So while your theory makes for an eye-catching headline (“Men: the Only Animals with Feelings!”), it collapses under even the lightest scrutiny. Women do indeed have sex drives—dynamic, complex, and every bit as biological as yours.

In the spirit of genuine inquiry, let’s base our next debate on actual data rather than zero-sum stereotypes. I look forward to seeing what the “passive receivers” have to say about that!

My question relates to research findings. There are no research findings to support your hypothesis. You clearly do not understand how a biological drive operates. It is not a conscious choice. It is a significant urge. No woman volunteers for intercourse without the protection of reliable contraception. If women had intercourse as readily as men, they would never know who the father was and would not obtain support to raise a child. Families would not exist. Women respond to men's sexual needs for the rewards that men offer and for emotional bonding. Sex keeps men tied into relationships with women. You know nothing about this topic and your profile is empty. Please take your sexual ignorance elsewhere.

To be human is to have a sex drive. It varies in intensity to be certain, each individual, regardless of physical gender, has their own level of sexual urges. Human females are not so distinct from all other species as to deny this simple fact. Nor is the assumption that mating would be indiscriminate justified. Numerous species are known to form monogamous pairings or groupings of limited sizes, and this is true even among primates. Now men, especially at certain levels of maturity as observable indicators of sexual drive are consciously controlled, collectively show less ability to control their sexual drive than women collectively, but that is not the question. Research into the matter seems to fail based on researcher's assumptions and/or funding. It is more troublesome to properly conduct research as is shown in many areas.

There are numerous examples of such discrepancies in medical research. In drug trials distinctions made on the basis of biological sex are not always carefully observed, nor distinctions based on ethnic background nor even on economic status. Yet when these factors are included, quite often predictable changes in outcomes are discovered. Why would someone assume that similar outcomes would not appear in sexually oriented research?

Jane Elizabeth Thomas William Mayor First, the claim that “no woman volunteers for intercourse without contraception” is patently false. Female sexual behavior, desire, and agency are well-documented across evolutionary biology and clinical psychology. Libido in women is hormonally modulated, neurologically mediated, and deeply responsive to context and internal drive—not merely transactional. As Kinsey et al. (1998) observed, “Since the frequencies of masturbation depend primarily on the physiologic state and the volition of the female, they may provide a significant measure of the level of her interest in sexual activity” (p. 279).

In fact, female sexual desire demonstrates that sexual motivation in women is not reducible to male pressure or resource exchange; women experience desire independently of contraception access. Kinsey et al. (1998) further documented that “about 58 percent [of all women in the sample] had masturbated at some time to the point of orgasm,” a finding that underscores sexual initiative without male involvement or procreative intent (p. 275).

Neuroendocrine studies confirm that the limbic system and hypothalamic-pituitary axis regulate arousal and sexual pursuit in both sexes. Kinsey et al. (1998) supported this with physiological evidence, stating, “Orgasm in the female matches the orgasm of the male in every physiologic detail except for the fact that it occurs without ejaculation” (p. 878), and noting that “Orgasm is a phenomenon which appears to be essentially the same in the human female and male” (p. 885).

Your framework—that men are driven and women are passive—is scientifically indefensible. Kinsey et al. (1998) documented female sexual motivation, arousal pathways, and orgasmic variability, all of which operate independently of male-driven initiation or reproductive utility. In their own words, “We fail to find any anatomic or physiologic basis for such differences [between male and female sexuality]… males would be better prepared to understand females, and females to understand males, if they realized that they are alike in their basic anatomy and physiology” (Kinsey et al., 1998, p. 886).

If you would like to have a serious conversation about neurobiology, endocrinology, and evolutionary psychology, I welcome that. However, let us move beyond claims rooted in social control and lacking peer-reviewed grounding.

References

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1998). Sexual behavior in the human female. Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1953)

Thanks William for commenting. It is important to differentiate between erotic fiction and reality when it comes to sexuality. There is no research to indicate that women have a sex drive. In Nature, as well as in Humans, it is the male who initiates the genital union and drives the reproductive act. Intercourse relies on male arousal - erection - and male orgasm - ejaculation of sperm. A woman has little to do with it. She may be amenable to allowing a man to ejaculate into her vagina or not. Either way, the male is capable of impregnating her. But this act has nothing to do with female sexual response, which emulates the male response of stimulating the phallus - the clitoris for women and the penis for men.