The New York Times doesn't get deliverd to my door anymore so sometimes I miss an article or two. This past week, I missed a magazine piece on desire in women that for once, didn't upset me very much. Previous articles have definitely irked me. After at least one other feature piece about the topic of female desire, the New York Times is finally getting somewhere. This article did several things I thought were important and that make it worth reading:1. It complicated the idea that low desire is automatically a disfunction2. It explored multiple ways that women experience their sexuality, introducing a new model that is circular intead of linear3. It actually used women's voices to describe not only how they were feeling but what they wanted4. It considered societal expectations as part of the issue5. It left room for a multitude of different experiences6. It acknowledged that many women want to wantThis article wasn't perfect - I would have loved to read about masturbation as it relates to desire instead of the implicit assumption in the article that only partnered desire matters. Also, like most articles in the world, it assumed that there are two genders and that people in each category are pretty� much the same. However, given their history with this topic, I thought it was pretty good. Give it a read if you haven't already and check out the above model for female desire - what do you think of it?To read more about different models for female desire and orgasm, click here.