Not very accurate I’m afraid. The author is referring specifically to Early Modern European sources and developments in sexuality/gender, which happens to be my area. I’m afraid I don’t have time for a very detailed response at the moment, but I’ll try to do some quick points as to the flaws in the article.

• The first major problem with highly narrative accounts like this is their failure to question the validity and biases of their primary sources. She cites a scholar who produced, and I quote, “a laundry list of ancient and modern historical sources ranging from Europe to Greece, the Middle East to China, all of nearly the same mind about women’s greater sexual desire.” But with literacy rates amongst women what they were (at least in Pre-industrial Europe) I guarantee you that at least 95% percent of those sources are written by men. Thus we have to understand that there is a discrepancy between literate men living in patriarchal societies who write about female sexuality, and the actual historical behaviours of men and women. To say nothing of the cultural differences inherent in their understandings of sexuality.

• She has no contemporary citations that support such an incredibly broad assessment. The aforementioned study comes from 1903, and is written by a psychologist not a historian. Without going into detail about the difference between current academic practices and those of a hundred years ago, I’ll just say that if I were to base an argument on a source that old/subjective it would never get approved, published, or accorded any legitimacy. And that is the most recent critical source she provides for supporting the foundation of her argument that “women were seen as very sexual”.

• As mentioned in point one, there are problems with taking period-specific literature as indicative of actual behaviour. Female sexuality was a source of both fascination and fear for male authors or moralists, and a strong theme within my own research on libertine literature is the depiction of very sexually empowered women who embody the idea of “sexual insatiability” while at the same time not actually compromising any patriarchal societal norms. Yet these are entirely fictive accounts that tend more towards masturbatory aids then social analysis. This isn’t to say women weren’t seen as sexual beings, or having the capacity for sex, but to suggest it was a ubiquitous concept across society, or that it didn’t apply just as much to men, is pretty ahistorical.

• The author takes facts about a small historical demographic and assumes it indicates very broad trends. Her section about the work of Nancy Cott and the Protestant women’s conscious adoption of “virtue” is actually a pretty solid summary! But the problem is that, from this single instance of what she acknowledges to be something exclusive to middle-class, white, protestant women in 18th and early 19th century England, she assumes a massive historical trend across all women in Europe/North America as a whole. For every middle class English woman who tried to adopt the 18th century ideals of “sensibility” there was a French countess discussing atheism at a dinner party, or a bunch of drunken prostitutes carousing in Gin Lane. Demographics are tricky and nuanced historical subjects, and to try and create historical narratives for the social perceptions and behaviours of an entire gender is a massive undertaking that (I believe) would always have room for error.

I'm aware this is a little scatter-brained. Feel free to ask me any questions you like to help clarify this.

Edit: Alfonsoelsabio raises a good point about clarifying historical "belief" versus "behaviour". There are definitely moments and places where you could make very convincing arguments that women were perceived to have greater sexual appetites then men. (including my own period actually!) But the absurdly broad scope of the article just doesn't make that possible. There is no way we can assign values or narratives to historical "beliefs" about female sexuality to multiple cultures and societies over the span of hundreds of years.

There is certainly evidence, as your article claims, that women were believed to have a greater sexual appetite then men, far back into ancient history, or at the very least certainly ancient Greek history. However this does not mean that women indeed, did have a greater sexual appetitie, or that this belief was consistent throughout history and different cultures.

Evidence of this theme can be found in Euripides' tragedy Medea, produced 431 BC, where Jason (of the Argonauts) claims that "You women have sunk so low that, when your sex life is going well, you think that you have everything". Throughout the play, it is reinforced that Medea has been sexually slighted, and that as sex is of the highest priority to women, it will drive her to the extent of killing her own children.

Reasons behind why it was a cultural belief that women further enjoyed sex over men could be attributed to a famous story in Greek mythology featuring Tiresias the prophet. A quick summary of the myth can be told as follows: Zeus and Hera have a dispute over which gender enjoys sex more, each believing the opposite gender does. In order to solve this dispute they go to Tiresias who they chose because he had experienced life as both genders. He had previously been turned into a woman for 7 years after watching two snakes mating, and then killing the female snake. Tiresias reported that sex as a woman was 7 times more pleasurable than as a man. **

Tiresias is a character who features in a selection of Greek myths and plays - namely Sophocles' Oedipus the King, produced 429 BC, (judged by Aristotle as the play which best fit his guidelines) and so it is evident that as a fixture in ancient Greek culture, the story of his judgement about sex would also be popular.

** R.G. Buxton, The Complete World of Greek Mythology has a wide breadth of Greek myths, including this particular one.

In order to focus this question, I've heard that women in ancient Greece were considered to be naturally more promiscuous than men, and men were expected to be chaste and focus on more important matters such as science, art and war.

What is the validity of this, why did this view of sexuality exist (if it did), and what other cultures may have had similar views of female promiscuity?

I don't see how this could be proven either way? What kind of metric do we use for "sexual appetite"? How do we account for the underrepresentation of women in the written record? How many millions of women were shunned for being as sexually active as their male counterparts that we just don't know about?