Actually, Good Charlotte, girls DON’T like cars and money—as much as they like boys who know how to “please” them…
One of the oldest and hoariest tropes in our culture is idea of sexual drives differing in men and women; men are—so the idea goes—hot blooded, almost bestial and totally at the mercy of their libidos. Dudes are so horny that they just can’t control themselves; arousal means that they must satiate it at almost any cost. They’ll stick it in just about anything that offers the right combination of friction, suction and heat—and they’re pretty flexible about their standards for all three. Deprive a man from sexual release for long enough and just about anything becomes fuckable—how else can you explain sailors mistaking manatees for mermaids?
Women on the other hand are less erotic and primal; they are slow to arouse, quicker to turn off if everything isn’t just so, and simply aren’t as interested in sex. Women may like sex but men need sex. One of the oldest jokes in the world1 is that women could rule the world if they got together en masse and decided to hold the Great Fuck-Out until they were given control.
Never is this more apparent when it comes to the idea of casual sex. Ask the average man on the street about who’s more into sex—or who’s more likely to go home with a relative stranger—and you’ll be told over and over again: men like sex more.
There are all sorts of reasons given for this apparent dichotomy. Some people will insist it’s because women know they have the power—(s)he who cares less has the most leverage, after all—and enjoy wielding it over men. Others will hoist the old canard about alpha males and assholes. Others will insist it’s all about status; women only sleep with the highest status males they can find. The wild and wonderful world of evolutionary psychology—which is usually thrown around by people who don’t understand it—will tell you it’s because of sex’s evolutionary purpose of procreation. Women, according to evo-psych, are guided by the unconscious need to ensure the survival of their genes. This, in practice means that they are driven to be especially picky about the potential fathers of their children, giving preference to men who are more likely to care for the child or be able to provide for it’s welfare and help ensure it’s future success at propagating it’s own genes. Men, on the other hand, are driven by the need to spread their seed far and wide; women can only give birth every nine months while men can potentially father children several times a day.
The actual reason, as it turns out, is slightly more complicated than that.
♦◊♦
“So, You Wanna Go Back To My Place And Bang?”
One of the most common arguments held up that “proves” that women don’t like casual sex as much as men is an infamous study conducted 1989; the study had a male and female participant go up to random members of the opposite sex and ask “Would you like to go out tonight?”, “Would you like to go back to my apartment?”, and “Would you like to go to bed with me?” Men and women were equally likely—50%—to go on a date, but when it came to sex, the results weren’t terribly surprising; upwards of 75% of men said yes to sex while absolutely 0 women agreed that yes, they would like to go to bed with a total stranger who propositioned them in the middle of the day on a college campus.
“How dare you ask a lady that … without buying her a drink first?”
There were a couple other interesting aspects to this study that usually get ignored, but the gist is women are not as receptive to casual sex as men are. This study has been held up repeatedly as “proof” of the disparity between male and female sex drives, which is unfortunate, considering that it has a number of rather glaring flaws.
To whit: the study ignored a number of issues that might affect a woman’s willingness to have sex with a complete stranger with absolutely no previous interaction beyond “hello” and “hey, let’s fuck!” It focused entirely on heterosexual response, not controlling for the possibility that the respondents might be homosexual or bisexual. They did not control for whether or not the subject was single, married, asexual or practicing abstinence. And—by it’s own admission—did not even begin to scratch the surface of any number of sociological issues that might affect somebody’s response to an offer of anonymous sex by a stranger.
While it’s almost impossible to identify or control for every possible variable that might affect a person’s receptivity to sexual offers, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t be measured.
Unfortunately, it took a while before someone tried.
♦◊♦
Sperm is Cheap, Eggs are Expensive
Considering that 1989 was near the beginning of the AIDS crisis, it’s not entirely surprising that college students might be a little wary of anonymous sex; HIV was still in the early stages of being recognized as something other than just a “gay” disease. In fact, the researchers in the Clark/Hatfield study speculated that men and women might become even more conservative vis-à-vis casual sex in the years that followed. A follow-up study in 2009, utilizing similar methodology by Clark and Hatfield found similar results; once they controlled for people who were in relationships, 60% of men and 0 women were receptive to an offer of casual sex from an attractive stranger.
So. Case closed, right?
Not so much.
In 2011, a paper published by Terri Conley examined the results of four concurrent sub-studies (the study doesn’t seem to be available online at the moment; you can read a very comprehensive summary here) regarding potential influences on a person’s receptivity to casual sex. She made several tweaks to the Clark-Hatfield study’s methodology; in her first study, she asked informed subjects to fill answer a questionnaire regarding being approached by an attractive stranger and rating their likelihood of responding on a 7 point scale. She also asked them to fill out other seven point scales about issues that would affect their potential acceptance or refusal including social status, potential STD infection, sexual satisfaction, likelihood of getting gifts, etc. Another variation of this randomized the gender of the theoretical propositioning person; men had as much of a chance of being asked whether they would consider going to bed with an attractive man as they would a woman.
A third variation asked for their perception of a man propositioning a woman, while a fourth asked bisexual women specifically about the likelihood of their being receptive to a woman approaching them as opposed to a man.
Another study asked about their receptiveness to specific individuals: in this case, Johnny Depp, Donald Trump, Brad Pitt, Carrot Top, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez and Roseanne Barr. Another specifically asked about the likelihood of being receptive to a proposition from their best friend of the opposite sex while yet a third was directed specifically at homosexual men and women.
The results were interesting to say the least.
It became clear early on that the Clark-Hatfield study’s methodology was flawed; it wasn’t a matter of whether women were less interested or receptive to sexual offers than men were—it was that they were less interested when those offers came from men. In fact, hetero-identified women were more likely to be willing to go to bed with another woman. Even gay men—propositioned by an attractive gay man—were less likely to accept.
When it came to the celebrities, the studies got interesting: men and women were equally likely to go to bed with the attractive celebrity and equally less likely to bed the unattractive one. Yet, when it came to opposite-sex friends, the gap re-established itself; men were more likely to go to bed with their female friend than women were with their male friend.
So what made for such a difference in the responses?
♦◊♦
What Women Want (When They Want To Get Laid)
It came down to two issues: personal safety and potential sexual prowess in the proposer.
Contrary to the idea in evolutionary psychology that women will instinctively respond to outward signifiers of social superiority like money or status, women are far more motivated by the likelihood of sexual pleasure than any other factor.
The better the lay the man was perceived to be, the more receptive the women were to the possibility of a fling.
According to the results of the study, women consistently thought that men were potentially more dangerous and far less likely to be good in bed. Men and women (gay, bi and straight) on the other hand, consistently thought that women were likely to be at least a decent lay (at the median for the study), warmer and less dangerous.
In short: the it came down to a question of potential risk vs. potential sexual pleasure. Social status and finances—signs of a potential good provider, according to evolutionary psychology—didn’t move the needle. It was the perception of whether a guy was a decent lay or not that made her more likely to sleep with him; in other words, was he worth the risk? The differences in women’s response to an attractive stranger versus an attractive celebrity had less to do with fame than with familiarity; when theoretically propositioned by both Brad Pitt and an equally attractive unknown man, women were more likely to pick Brad because they felt that they knew him well enough that it mitigated the potential risk.
♦◊♦
So Why Aren’t Women Having More Casual Sex?
Actually … this is a somewhat misleading question. Women are far more open to casual sex and short-lived flings than we suspect; in fact, a fourth study by Conley found that approximately 40% of women who had been propositioned in real life (as opposed to the scenario played out in the Clark-Hatfield study) had accepted the proposal. Women weren’t refusing casual sex in the Clark-Hatfield study because they didn’t like sex or were instinctively searching for higher status men; they were refusing the offers because the scenario and the proposer were an ideal set-up for making the prospect of casual sex less attractive, even among people predisposed to casual sex with men.
Women are interested in seeking out sexual pleasure, just as men are. However, they’re trapped between opposing forces; while on the one hand they want to get laid, on the other, society and gender roles tend to shame women who take ownership of their sexuality. Our society still puts emphasis on the commodity model of sex: that men are the aggressors (the purchasers), women are the pursued (the vendors), and sex has a “price”. If a woman gives away her goods too “cheaply”, it devalues her as a person. Because so many men measure themselves by their sexual conquests, the “easier” a woman is, the less glory there is to be had by sleeping with her; as a result, she is only as valuable as the sex she doesn’t have. When you add in other factors—the risk of pregnancy is borne entirely by the woman, it’s much easier for women to contract an STD from a man than vice versa, the risk of violence from men is far higher than the reverse, etc.—more often than not, the possible sexual pleasure isn’t worth the potential fallout.
In other words: in a culture of slut-shaming, blaming rape victims for their own assault, increasing restrictions on contraception and abortion, a man has to be pretty impressive to make it worth a woman’s time for a fling.
Now if all this sounds daunting … well, it is. It will require a long-term societal solution—working to build a world of true equity, where women feel safer and more secure and aren’t demonized for their sexuality.
In the short term however, you need to learn how to be that impressive sort of person who is worth the risk.
Next week, we’ll talk about just why and when women say “yes” and how to be the sort of person they say “yes” to.
1. Literally. The Lysistrata, performed in 411 BCE, is the story of how the women of Sparta and Greece forced an end to a war by refusing to sleep with their menfolk.
Originally appeared at DoctorNerdLove
Stay tuned for On Women and Casual Sex, Part 2.
♦◊♦
—Photos:
adronicusmax/Flickr
orphanjones/Flickr
epSos.de/Flickr
About Harris O'Malley
Emma Sayle of Killing Kittens (Elite Casual Sex/Orgy Party– female centric) had a really interesting interview with London Real (youtube) recently….the rules for her parties, which occur in London, NYC, and LA are that (1) only women are allowed to approach men, (2) men can only come if part of a couple, and (3) etc.
The woman at her parties feel safe in such an atmosphere and feel free to experiment with other women and/or men….
Interesting interview….BTW Emma Sayle herself does not participate in the casual sex….she just hangs out or tends bar!
Single men usually pay more to get into swinger clubs than couples and single women walk in for free. Male sexuality is cheap, female sexuality is valuable.
In normal nightclubs it’s not that different. You try to get slightly more women than men. I used to organize parties for a living and we always tried to have a 60/40 gender ratio in the venue. Women feel uncomfortable when they walk into a club filled with men. For men it’s the opposite. Entering a club and a dozen of women checking you out is awsome.
Fees for Killing Kittens (members have to submit an application and photos!) in London, I think, were 150 pounds for a couple and 100 pounds for a single female…
Interesting how Emma figured out the party fee (it’s a business after all!)…
I remember in NY there used to be clubs, like Plato’s Retreat, which would get written up in the Village Voice….those clubs seemed sleazy and scummy…and then downright dangerous when the AIDS hysteria started in the 80s…..
I would also guess the reason that Killing Kittens have the stringent rules they do is to protect themselves from possible litigation.
Don’t forget that a lot of women feel safer hooking up with a man who’s part of a couple already. He’s validated socially, sexually, and adds a thrill of naughtiness. He’s like a certified pre-owned Corvette.
You know he’s made at least one woman happy, so chances are he’s got some clue about what he’s doing.
He’s also easier to let go of, ’cause she’s there.
Let’s face it, single men are only sexy if they offer a hint of potential disaster. It’s society and evolution getting together to play a great cosmic joke on women and men at the same time, as if to teach a lesson neither can learn without the kind of help the other will never be there to give.
Sarah
More often than not, its not sex thru which men make women happy in relationships.
Its thru other things like being a good companion, friend, father to kids, good provider etc.
As someone said earlier, for women, sex with the long term partner is not a high priority any longer. Her strongest sexual desire was for the other men (with whom she had casual sex and flings with)
I dunno, I’ve never been married or had kids but I’m in a long term relationship and I want sex more than he does. And I’m in my 40′s. I’ve only slowed down a little since my 20′s.
There was a survey on OK-cupid.
It showed that women rate 80% of men as physically unattractive
while men rate only 20% of women physically unattractive.
It is really amazing how unforgiving and harsh women are to men on their looks. Its also painful to see that men are regarded as the ‘shallower’ sex.
Since physical attractiveness is a prime criteria when choosing casual sex partner, it tells us why men are at a huge disadvantage in this realm.
Unfortunately I fear you are true. Women seem to hold women to higher standards as well. People complain about the unrealistic standards women are held to by showing images of super skinny women in magazines, and blame men. Personlay I think it is down to women having too high expectations of themselves and of men. Most men I know like women to look “normal” (for want of a better way of describing the natural look). You just need to look at porn, or film and TV celebrates men find attractive, as apposed to those ones we are told we must like.
Normally they are not the model size 0, yet you look at the men women so often seem to want, for all the talk of “I like a sense of humor” they are football players and men with 6 packs. This is not to say women never like men who are not conventionally attractive, but just that I think the conventional wisdom that men are shallow and want skinny big boobed stunners and women are “all about the personality” is completely wrong.
Strangely the accusation of men being “shallow” is one I have often thought to have stemmed from a perceived male preoccupation with stereotypically attractive females. As you point out here, this is groundless. Quite to the contrary, I find it refreshing to see the variety of females men express as viewing as beautiful. Personally as a woman I wish I could look at most men the way heterosexual men view the female populace. Few men would ever critique a woman’s appearance the way other women do.
That same exact study ALSO showed that women were far more likely to message the less attractive men than the men were willing to message the less attractive women. So while men may rate men lower overall, women still message the “plain” guys at a similar rate of the more attractive men. Where as men consider more women attractive but tend to only message the women they deem most attractive, leaving the less attractive women to fend for themselves.
This is at least the tenth time I’ve seen the first conclusion of the study mentioned and not the second conclusion. Ya’ll need to read to the end of the article. The point of the study was to show that everyone is shallow. Which is not news to me.
Wasn’t that same study also saying men did the majority of first contacts n women rarely messaged first, and the women that did message were far far fewer than those who rated men as mostly unattractive?
And single women wonder why they are still single, their standards are too high for 80% of men.
Actually … this is a somewhat misleading question. Women are far more open to casual sex and short-lived flings than we suspect; in fact, a fourth study by Conley found that approximately 40% of women who had been propositioned in real life (as opposed to the scenario played out in the Clark-Hatfield study) had accepted the proposal. Women weren’t refusing casual sex in the Clark-Hatfield study because they didn’t like sex or were instinctively searching for higher status men; they were refusing the offers because the scenario and the proposer were an ideal set-up for making the prospect of casual sex less attractive, even among people predisposed to casual sex with men.
The thing is, we don’t know how many propositions these 40% women got until they said yes. For example 10 different men proposed to one particular woman and she deemed one of them acceptable for casual sex. In the Hatfield study 0% of women accepted *a single* offer for casual sex. So there is no contradiction to the Hatfield study like Nerdlove suggests. It’s also not clear that the 40% of women from the Conley study are predisposed to casual sex. That’s just wild speculation from Nerdlove. Imho, having had a drunken hook up once doesn’t make you predisposed to casual sex.
“Its also painful to see that men are regarded as the ‘shallower’ sex.”
You can’t ask “who do you find attractive, based on looks?” and then complain about shallowness.
I’m sure that those women who found 80% of men unattractive, based on their photos only, would have no problem dating many of them once they knew more about them.
“I’m sure that those women who found 80% of men unattractive, based on their photos only, would have no problem dating many of them once they knew more about them.”
Oh realllllllly?
Actually Archy–yes. I initiated contact with a guy on a dating website. His pictures were nothing to write home about. You know why I did it? Because his profile was incredibly well written and it looked like we’d have a lot in common.
And another guy I’m interested in. I didn’t notice him at all for months in that way, despite seeing him all the time. Once I got to know him and his worldviews better, he suddenly became very sexy.
That’s unusual, isn’t it – that a woman would be sexually attracted to a man because of knowing him? Where does prowess fit in? Where does being a good lay?
And responding to a dating profile because it’s well written? You’re a rare woman if words can move you that way. Men are to act, and speech is not an act unless you’re a linguistics major.
@Aya….
Without sounding judgmental, just what is the point of cycling through all these men?
Jules–It’s dating. Trying to figure out who and what situation works best for you. When you’re young, you date. You don’t settle for the first person that comes your way. You test connections, chemistry, and day-to-day life.
Aya…..
I am not suggesting you settle for “the first person that comes your way.” But, in the grand scheme of things, there is always something better out there. I guess you just keep going until……
I think this is the fundamental difference between men and women. Women, as with shopping, always want to see and visit one more shop. But, in life, you can never sample all of them.
But, I respect you view. If that is what is necessary to find the BEST (though there is always one better), then by all means indulge yourself.
It’s also about place in life. Not all men and women are truly ready to settle down at every point in life nor do they know what they want. If you truly love someone, there actually isn’t “better” out there. He/she is number 1 and making each other happy is one of the most wonderful feelings in the world. It’s just getting to the point and finding the person and lifestyle that fits you. There can be some growing pains at times.
So he wasn’t anything to write home about, but still attractive? or was he unattractive and then magically his personality makes him attractive? Neutral is different to unattractive.
Actually its no different for men either. Men only care about looks is just the biggest myth ever in my opinion. Men and women are not so different. because as a guy I have several times being attracted to women i dont notice first , even I have known her for years, beause before I didnt know her personallity and charm. The bigggest killer for me is woman who are kind. Even if I dot find her attractive first, she could became hundred times prettier after.
You dont even notice that I also mentioned in the same survey, men rated 80% of women physically appealing atleast to some extent !
Why dont you talk about this difference, instead of talking about ifs and buts?
When in comes to LOOKS ALONE, women are much more shallower than men. They find the vast majority of men unappealing. Men are more forgiving to women on looks and find the looks and bodies of most women appealing.
@Keith…
Correct. Most men are viewed as unattractive by most women.
When it comes to just sex, it is all based on attraction. If the man is deemed attractive or if her girlfriends have put the word out that he is a great lay, then that is all that matters. Women do share men like this whom they are not interested in dating but just having sex with. It happens rather frequently.
I have seen women who are having sex with complete derelicts. Why? In here mind he is “attractive” or the dick is good. So, it is not always the most conventionally attractive men. Usually, those men are sexing anyone who they wish, including other conventionally attractive women.
But, yes you are correct. Most women find few men attractive. The opposite holds true for men.
But, yes you are correct. Most women find few men attractive. The opposite holds true for men.
Absolutely.
Growing up, I was taught that men are shallow objectifiers, in contrast to women. But the more I study women, the more I realize that’s not the case. If anything, I’ve reached the conclusion that women are the shallow ones.
@Bay Area Guy,
I do not like to use the word shallow. I just has this judging connotation to it.
What is really going on is a bit more complex. Women put men into categories. So, if a man is rejected for dating, he might be OK for her just have sex with – if only once! This is what men need to understand about women. When a woman meets a man, she usually knows in rather short order where she is going to put him. Most of us are going to be deposited in the unattractive category.
Clearly, when women seek out long-term partners they are anything but shallow. Gawd, they have a list of requirements coming out of the rear. Also, the priority of the items on the list are different than for short term dating.
Why women find so few men attractive? I have no idea. But, what is ironic is most women also think other women are 5 or 6, but see themselves as 9 or 10. Now, how can that be? Well, you and I know it cannot be. You have to pretend!
I believe a lot of this has to do with the sexist fact that boys are taught that almost any girl is sexy to get, while girls are taught that boys are hideous and will ruin your life.
Doc, let’s interrogate what makes a man [i]perceived to be a good lay.[/i] About as far as you get into it is “Brad Pitt.”
I’m going to guess it’s a sense that a man is physical and fully embodied – not just comfortable in his own skin, but really lives in his body. Doesn’t have to be a perfect physical specimen. But he can’t just be using his bod for hanging clothes on and carrying his head around.
Some of the signs might be not being a talker or overly animated, being a little deliberately scruffy in appearance, occupying space (say in a chair or standing at a bar) with a look of entitlement, and being deliberate in his movements, even a hand wave or a facial expression.
“women are far more motivated by the likelihood of sexual pleasure than any other factor.
THE BETTER THE LAY the man was perceived to be, the more receptive the women were to the possibility of a fling.”
Why are these people desperately trying to sugarcoat the bitter pill that women have higher requirements of physical appearance of men, when looking for casual sex? That they find fewer men physically and sexually attractive?
A GOOD LAY is a man with a great body, is preferably tall, handsome and well endowed, with plenty of experience and confidence (that cannot be pulled out of the ass)
I guess then, women like to divide men into 2 groups. The good lays (20%) , the mediocre ones (80%)
That might just just explain why its more difficult for men to get laid. No? Not likely? Tell me the chances of this are too remote.
Well said Keith. I feel the “good lay” wording is a fairly clumsy way of articulating the concept of initial attraction. I’ve been on the receiving end of drunken chat-ups that consist of a great deal of hot air about how good the guy is in bed, when the truth is that no promises of a mind-blowing time in the sack will ever make me want to go to bed with someone I just don’t fancy.
The studies cited also don’t follow a terribly realistic example. Casual sex is one thing, but accepting an offer from a complete stranger with NO prior introduction, conversation or flirtation is another. If a person is going to hook up for the night, they tend to do so after some degree of interaction with the other person, establishing a mutual physical attraction and chemistry, in order to spark that interest. Without that chemistry, you really ARE just judging based on initial physical attractiveness, which as you stated above in your post citing the OK-Cupid survey, is weighted very firmly in the favour of females. So really a study founded in sexual propositions made without so much as a “hi my name is….” is really judging initial physical attraction rather than anything to do with attitudes or willingness to enter into casual liaisons of any kind. It bears no semblance to reality.
It seems Doc doesn’t really want to get into what makes a man perceived as a good lay. As you suggest, it’s probably got nothing to do with talking about it.
I’ve heard it described as “the kind of confidence you can’t pull out of your ass.” IOW, it’s not a positive mind game – it’s the ability to not need one. Unspoken, unthought confidence. Which supports my theory that only a very narrow slice of men are worth a one-night stand to most women.
As a woman who has had casual sex, I have to say I totally agree with it being about “being a good lay”. I’m actually really surprised how little this comes up, because amongst me and my female friends, many of whom have had casual sex, a LOT of how we chose someone is definitely about “will I get enough pleasure from this encounter for it to be worth the risks?”
Now, I will also add, that yes, looks are a PART of whether someone might be a good lay. If I find someone really unnattractive, I probably won’t enjoy sex with them. Neither would a man go home with someone he finds ugly. But simply being attractive physically isn’t enough for me to go home with them. It’s not always the hottest guys who are getting the most sexual partners. Looks do help but if you act like selfish prick, it’s gonna turn women off.
A woman who’s interested in sex is still gonna think: What if they’re selfish in bed and hate foreplay, don’t last very long, etc.? What if they’re violent? I need to spend at least enough time with them to get a feel for whether they’re safe. Then, if I think they’re safe enough, I also need to know if they’re the kind of person who will care about my pleasure. This you can tell to a certain extent by their character and body language.
What I’m amazed at is how little it comes up that women are harder to get off than men. Women do not come as easily as men. Most women don’t have an orgasm the first time they are with a man, though most men DO have one the first time. So why would a woman go home with someone unless she thinks there’s a chance of an orgasm? The man knows that he will probably have one as long as he has a willing partner, but a woman has no guarantee of pleasure. she needs to suss out if they guy has the type of personality and behaviour that point toward someone who will want to please her in bed. If he’s not, there’s no point. She would rather go home and give herself an orgasm with no risks.
Yes, looks are important to both men and women, but I dont see a whole lot of women dating men who are way more attractive than them, so I don’t see how women are any more picky than men when it comes to looks.
This is all a foreign world to me. I won’t speak for the collective of women, because I am one woman and I have female friends who are just as abnormal as me. But I have never even considered the thought of casual sex as being appealing. Everyone’s talking about women being picky or whatever. For me it’s just that there is nothing I’d rather do LESS than follow some strange guy home and get stark naked with him. That is about as an attractive prospect to me as going to a greasy bar to find said strange man to get stark naked with (big introvert talking here). Maybe it speaks to me having a low sex drive. Or maybe I’m just a horribly shallow and picky woman who hates mankind or whatever.
Even if it marks me as shallow or frigid, I’m glad I’m not a part of it, cuz clearly people have some serious hang-ups, men and women. And when casual sex is supposed to be FUN, I’m starting to wonder why anyone even looks for it. Seems to me it makes everyone miserable. There were a lot of arguments I wanted to refute, but then I was like, “You know what? I don’t care. I don’t go to bars. I don’t want casual sex. So I’m just gonna keep my mouth shut and go buy a dog to cuddle.”
Clearly I didn’t keep my mouth shut. OOPS.
I do think this article is a good one though. I agree with all of it, even if none of these reasons are why I personally don’t do casual sex. I think in the end, there is a 99% chance of the man getting off and about a 40% chance of her getting off, just cuz women take more time, patience, and context. And if you were going into casual sex with a 40% chance of getting off, I don’t think men would be too hot on it either.
I’m a guy and I don’t like casual sex too. For me its not about the chance of getting off. I know If I have casual sex most likely I would have an orgasm. But that’s make me want to go from bar to bar looking for a chance to have that orgasm with strangers? Well I could get my orgasm from easy and fast masturbation . Or I can get that orgasm from fun, loving and meaningful sex with woman I care and I love, my girlfriend.
Even when I’m single, I don’t really think about getting a casual sex either. I’m too desperate and lonely for girlfriend, real partners than worry about have to try getting that 99% chance of orgasm with some woman from the bar.
What, are you really a guy, because all men only want sex!!!. lol, I dont know if I’m the minority or abnormal or shallow, because like you, I also know many male friend who are the same as me. And I’m not even have low sex drive. I just not really into casual sex.
It’s probably a good thing, in the long run. I mean, it seems like less of a hassle to just stay at home and watch/read porn. XD And in the end, you’re probably going to wake up alone whether you have casual sex or stay home with porn/masturbation/sexual frustration/chocolate ice cream. I know I have personally avoided AAAALL of these bitterness problems men AND women seem to have because I’m willing to stay at home and not worry about it. People are free to have all the casual sex in the world and that’s great for them. But yeah, with you on this one. Not appealing whatsoever.
But people will react with shock when you say that. It’s like I tell people I didn’t drink or go to parties in college and they’re all “WHAT? IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU?” and I could attempt to explain it to them– that I hate large groups of strangers, that loud music prevents interesting discussion, that standing puke puddles and drunk men harassing me strike me as kind of gross– but in the end, it’s just best to say that I’ve never been interested. But if any woman or man (especially a man) say that drinking/casual sex are unappealing, people tend to think there’s something wrong with you.
It’s not a guarantee that men would “get off” as you say, but men are more likely to consider the opportunity since women rarely ask for sex at all.
I may have to revoke my feminist card for saying this, but I honestly don’t think women are just that into casual sex as men. Women are aroused in different ways, often ways that need context, a story (which is why romance novels sell far better for women than porn– because there’s a story, context, and its longer than three seconds). Women do like sex as much, but casual sex just lacks what entices many women. So honestly, all the bitching kind of just leads to nowhere when you’re standing up against a wall of biological incongruence. But then again, the women I befriend don’t seem to be very sexual, so maybe I’m making assumptions based on the small group of people I know. But it does explain why romance novels are much better sellers for women than porn– they need some sort of emotional investment.
The author seems to be attempting to make the point that women do indeed hold their own to men libido to libido when it comes to casual sex.
To my mind, the fact that in the rare eventuality that the necessary 990 of 1000 mental toggle switches are in the “on” position women THEN hold their own for needs of casual sex means they do NOT like casual sex as much as men.
The reason I say this is that most men may measure womens frigidity in terms of obstructing the mans chance of getting laid.
A more objective standard would be to measure womens frigidity in how often it obstructs HER getting laid.
From a lot of the conversations I have had here on tgmp and with women elsewhere, there own reservations often lead to an undersexed life.
Saying that women hold their own in libido regarding casual sex ONCE all the dozens of mental switches have been thrown reminds me of the scene in the movie “The Jerk” in which Steve Martin is working the “guess your weight” stand. He declares that you can win any prize on the shelf. When people actually play, he says you can win any prize between this high and this low, and between this left and this right.
It turns out that the allowed prizes are only 8% of the total shelf space of stuffed animals and other goodies.
Saying that 8% of the time women hold their own is very misguided.
It’s very interesting that the author seems to be trying to lay out a tortured web of obstructions (both internal and external) for women to embrace casual sex (i.e. gender differences) to try and make the argument to ERASE gender differences and claim women have always liked casual sex after all!
You can hardly get more ironic than that!
I think this has a great deal to do with the culture of men to initiate.
I have been on both sides (though maybe close to neutral in both instances) of the attraction scenario.
In my teens I was a quiet, introverted, bean stalk with wild thick crazy hair and bad teeth.
In my 20′s I filled out, got caps on my teeth, and my never having acne problems caught up as others had problems or scarring from bad acne. My crazy head of hair became a full head of wavy brown hair as I learned to use various hair products. As I filled out my face became a classic rectangular face. I was still quiet, but I could now engage in long and spirited conversations about most anything (though I was still not initiating conversations that much).
I went from a social pariah to getting indications of interest maybe 3 or 4 times a year (which based on some frank discussions with men seems like a lot for a man).
Just this little taste of sexual interest did a lot for my ego. I can only imagine the position (a great deal of) women must be in where they get DAILY attention and interest.
Getting hit on, or just subtle indications of interest makes you feel like hot shit. Having this feeling on tap all day I’m thinking would make a lot of women feel very entitled.
Women may not be as interested in casual sex because they feel like A) they’re hot shit and they’re entitled to GREAT SEX (not just sex) and B) if they refrain from expressing interest they probably didn’t lose much as they will have another interested man in the next 40 minutes.
Women feel they are entitled to GREAT SEX whereas men scrape and scramble just to get ANY SEX.
Women are analogous to dieters in the west who have to screen carbs and other bad foods, while men are analogous to starving ethiopians who will not pass up the chance at a meal no matter what.
For me, there is great sex and there is mediocre/bad sex that is not worth having. I love great sex, but masturbation is way better than mediocre sex. I am very good at giving myself great orgasms. I don’t need sex with a man unless it’s really good. And by the way, that has nothing to do with the man looking like Brad Pitt. It has everything to do with a sense of connection, chemistry, mutual attraction and a guy who is interested in our mutual pleasure and not just getting his own rocks off.
I get where you are coming from Sarah.
I don’t see anything in what you wrote that disagrees with the idea that women refrain from pulling the trigger on casual sex until they reach a much higher level of attraction (which was my point and seems to be the point of the article).
If that great attraction for you is connection, mutual attraction and men respectful of your pleasure too, that’s great.
However, I do not believe that this applies to all women (and maybe not even a majority). If your thinking were true of all women then thugs, players, and criminals would not be swimming in female attention.
If women want equality, then they are going to have to step down from the pedestal and stop (falsely) idolizing their behavior and misguidedly attributing noble motives to their behavior.
I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe that for most women (and maybe not even a majority), the reason they are not attracted to 95% of men is due to the men’s selfishness and only thinking of his pleasure.
The reason women are not attracted to the vast majority of men (enough to engage in casual sex anyway) is due to *their own* selfishness and only thinking of *their own* pleasure.
@John D.
The majority of women are probably attracted to around 20% of men, sexually. I think 5% is too low.
Yes, the problem with too many women is their flagrant lack of honesty. They like to pretend…Most women place men in either the: 1) long term partner bucket, 2) dating bucket, 3) sex only bucket, or ) no bucket (unattractive). Most men (80%) are in bucket #4 (unattractive).
Now, lets look at #s 1, 2, and 3. Number one is when she is ready to find a long-term partner/husband. Lots of requirements here. Sexual prowess is not a primary here at all.
Most of them men who are lucky enough to be deemed attractive will be placed in buckets #2 and 3. These men will be for dating and/or for sex only. Physical attractiveness is paramount. The thugs, degenerates, derelicts, etc will get plenty of action. In a woman’s mind, since it is all about sex and sexual prowess, these men are viewed as superior for sex.
As a man, the worst place to be is a husband. It is always better to be a lover. Married men just are not treated well sexually by married women.
Most will will deny this reality. But, as I stated, women love to pretend.
What I disagreed with in your earlier comment is the idea that women think they are such hot stuff that we are “entitled” to great sex. My point is that I simply don’t enjoy meciocre or bad sex. It doesn’t do anything for me. I’d rather masturbate myself. If the choice is bad sex or no sex, I’ll take no sex.
Yes, mutual attraction is key to great sex but a big part of that is having an emotional connection and being able to communicate.
Personally I don’t know any women who are involved with derelicts. All the women I know have boyfriends and husbsnds who are normal hardworking guys.
@Sarah…
What percent of men do you think are capable of giving a woman “good sex?”
I have no idea. I haven’t had sex with nearly enough men to have a statistically valid sample. The best sex I’ve had, has been in relationships with guys I cared about.
Sarah
yes, husbands and boyfriends they probably wouldnt have considered for a fling in their wild days.
I’m curious. Why would the husbands WANT to have been considered for a fling? The men I’ve been truly into–I wouldn’t have wanted them to consider me for a fling while they were sowing their wild oats. I would want them to take me seriously.
Because sometimes casual sex is fun n exciting, especially if you aren’t ready to settle down for monogymy or marriage/etc? I wouldn’t mind a fling, I’d prefer love but I’ll take a fling in the meantime.
I get that, Archy, but I’m not sure it answers my question. If I’m married to a guy, I don’t really want him to have wanted me as a fling. I have no problem with casual sex. It happens, and as long as it happens honestly, there’s no worry.
Aya : “Why would the husbands WANT to have been considered for a fling?”
Because a mans sexual worth is validated much better thru a fling than marriage.
Not so for women.
OHH, I misread. If I have a fling and we fall in love and then get married then hooray, the feelings would progress. And by that I mean starts off casual, then we date, then married, etc. If a woman first wanted me as a fling and we fell in love, got married, I wouldn’t care. Feelings change, would you be crushed by a man who wanted you only as a friend first?
@Aya:
Because a fling, a little bit of attraction, and (maybe) some casual sex, is most often better than receiving no attraction, or even attention, at all.
If you can get the instantaneous “hots” for someone, why wouldn’t you want that someone to take you seriously? Or phrased another way, why do so many women only want to be taken (and *not* in the sexual way…) seriously by men that they have no particular sexual attraction to?
FlyingKal–you made me think. When a woman gets attention and attractions, she’s easy, sl*tty, cheap. All she has to do is be a woman and dress/act a certain way. So that attention is worth nothing. I’m extremely popular with men, for relationships, casual sex, and serious relationships (although I know this will fade as I get older). I’ve even been called addicting many times. It doesn’t make me feel any better, and I get shit for it to boot, and bullying–from men and women. A fling, a little bit of attraction, and some casual sex–it often does more harm than help, emotionally. It’s just a different perspective.
Aya – I’m not sure I get your point. Unless you’re trying to say that even with a good thing, too much of it will often just wear you down? If so, then I’m totally with you.
I’m not saying that it’s true for all women that “All she has to do is be a woman and dress/act a certain way.” I’m pretty certain there are women who also struggle for recognition, and who are happy for the occasional “fling” with a somewhat attractive and decent person.
Aya writes:
“When a woman gets attention and attractions, she’s easy, sl*tty, cheap. All she has to do is be a woman and dress/act a certain way. So that attention is worth nothing.”
What about relationships you did enjoy? Were those brought on entirely or mostly by men expressing interest? Then it was not worth nothing.
You did not have to make yourself vulnerable and be weighed in somebody elses eyes as a human being and told yay or nay. At best you can claim the privilege to have men come to you was a mixed bag, but if you got relationships you enjoyed or sex you agreed to (whether you enjoyed it or not) HANDED TO YOU w/out having to risk rejection is a HUGE PRIVILEGE.
At best, it sounds like the grumblings of stars who complain about having to sign so many autographs.
Allow me to quote Dr. Smith from Lost in Space: “OH THE PAIN! OH THE AGONY!”
Aya, I doubt youre so naive.
I meant, many husbands and bf’s are not hot/good looking/Alpha enough to have been considered for a hot fling by the same women, who marry them later.
An average woman can easily have casual sex and flings with hot guys, but for marriage she has to settle for someone her EQUAL.
@Aya….
“The men I’ve been truly into”
That’s the point. You’re not “into” all men. You don’t mind them being YOUR fling. But, you seem to have an issue if they consider you THEIR fling.
Am I wrong?
Jules–I want to be on the same page and honest. Either we’re each other’s fling or we have a deeper connection. I don’t want to be considered a fling for a man I care about. If a man approaches honestly about a fling, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Aya
“I don’t want to be considered a fling for a man I care about.”
but would you rather he didnt even consider you physically / sexually attractive?
And I hope you got the answer to “Why would the husbands WANT to have been considered for a fling?”. Its a dynamic that doesnt affect women. If a man marries you, you can be sure as hell he would have considered you for a fling as well. Thats not how women work
This is the only article which I have ever read that I felt expressed the total truth of my experience as a woman. “Our society still puts emphasis on the commodity model of sex: that men are the aggressors (the purchasers), women are the pursued (the vendors), and sex has a “price”. If a woman gives away her goods too “cheaply”, it devalues her as a person. Because so many men measure themselves by their sexual conquests, the “easier” a woman is, the less glory there is to be had by sleeping with her; as a result, she is only as valuable as the sex she doesn’t have. When you add in other factors—the risk of pregnancy is borne entirely by the woman, it’s much easier for women to contract an STD from a man than vice versa, the risk of violence from men is far higher than the reverse, etc.—more often than not, the possible sexual pleasure isn’t worth the potential fallout.”
This is the first time that I have ever read my emotional experience of casual sex from the woman’s point of view so clearly stated. Of course, there are women who are risk takers, even high risk takers. I think, however, that most of us are calculated risk takers, and the risk of being rewarded by violence and pain, or the loss of social respect if the encounter is shared with the man by others, when you wanted kindness and pleasure is more than most people would endure. Men usually get the pleasure and kindness payoff from their risks with strange women, or at least the pleasure. The risk isn’t the same for females, and women learn that early on. Often times, it is taught to young women as a survival/safety tool. By the age of 25, every woman knows a woman who did not heed the teachings and suffered for it, and sometimes even perished. The consequences for casual sex for females are even greater in non-Western and third world nations.
Thank you Harris O’Malley for this article!! It was such a treat to see this article written by a man.
This is the only article which I have ever read that I felt expressed the total truth of my experience as a woman. “Our society still puts emphasis on the commodity model of sex: that men are the aggressors (the purchasers), women are the pursued (the vendors), and sex has a “price”. If a woman gives away her goods too “cheaply”, it devalues her as a person. Because so many men measure themselves by their sexual conquests, the “easier” a woman is, the less glory there is to be had by sleeping with her; as a result, she is only as valuable as the sex she doesn’t have. When you add in other factors—the risk of pregnancy is borne entirely by the woman, it’s much easier for women to contract an STD from a man than vice versa, the risk of violence from men is far higher than the reverse, etc.—more often than not, the possible sexual pleasure isn’t worth the potential fallout.”
This is the first time that I have ever read my emotional experience of casual sex from the woman’s point of view so clearly stated. Of course, there are women who are risk takers, even high risk takers. I think, however, that most of us are calculated risk takers, and the risk of being rewarded by violence and pain, or the loss of social respect if the encounter is shared by the man with others, when you wanted kindness and pleasure is more than most people would endure. Men usually get the pleasure and kindness payoff from their risks with strange women, or at least the pleasure. The risk isn’t the same for females, and women learn that early on. Often times, it is taught to young women as a survival/safety tool. By the age of 25, every woman knows a woman who did not heed the teachings and suffered for it, and sometimes even perished. The consequences for casual sex for females are even greater in non-Western and third world nations.
Thank you Harris O’Malley for this article!! It was such a treat to see this article written by a man.
I guess there are too many risk taking women these days then, Given the flourishing hookup culture and the Fling/FWB scene.
Its ironic isnt it. Despite all the serious risks women face…
There are more college going age virgin males than females.
The median number of sexual partners for women is higher than that for men. And
More women experience casual sex and hooking up than men.
I’m still wondering whats worse. Having an active and adventurous sex life involving a variety of attractive men and later earning a reputation of being a slut by the age of 25, OR being a 28 yr old guy who loses his virginity to a hooker.