Why are so many women put off by casual sex?

[U1987]

Don't get me wrong, I kinda understand the scientific reason behind why women are so openly put off to casual sex. I'm a molecular biology student, and evolutionary science goes hand in hand with my major.

 

Basically, every woman is born with only a few hundred egg cells, which die off at a rate of one a month when her menstrual and ovulation cycles begin at puberty (while men, on the other hand, produce more sperm every second than a woman produces eggs in whole life)

 

Since a woman has so few precious eggs, her female ancestors, over hundreds of millions of years, developed an endocrine system (which controls hormones and emotions) that told her brain to NOT to sleep around; to save her tiny few eggs for a man that will stick around and commit to protect and provide for her and her child, so that her lineage will be preserved and her genes passed on to future generations. Women's ancestral aunts and female cousins that DIDN'T do that either starved in the African savanna, froze in the Siberian tundra or got eaten by a saber-tooth tiger, along with their babies.

 

The thing is, it's the 21st century. There are no more saber-tooth tigers. We no longer chase woolly mammoths across Russia, and I assume most of the women here live in semi-prosperous 1st world countries, so you and your children aren't going to starve.

 

This staunch opposition to casual sex I see so many women possess is meaningless and obsolete. It's nothing more than an evolutionary vestige, like our tiny tails buried in our pelvises, or some the facial muscles that don't do anything, or our appendices.

 

I've learned that guys just have to live with it and find ways to work around it. But seriously, what gives?

[Mad Max]

I think it's a front. Most are not put off by it and many participate in it and you'll never know.

[durkadurka]

I think it's a front. Most are not put off by it and many participate in it and you'll never know.

 

Bingo. Most girls I know are 'prudes' in public, but sluts behind closed doors.

[Crazy Magnet]

Read the book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.

[beyondhope]

You're over-generalizing. Women are not put off by casual sex. Most of the women I know are ravenous for sex and would love to have it more often, maybe even with more partners. The problem is, women have a lot more to lose. For one thing, the consequences of many STDs are more pronounced in women than men (for example, pelvic inflammatory disease can cause us to be sterile, or HPV can cause cervical cancer). We could get pregnant, which at best means a very expensive abortion. Our partners could also violate us by doing things we don't consent to, or not stopping if we decide we don't feel comfortable going through with the act. There is also the general patriarchal dynamic...if you had been oppressed by someone all your life, would you really want to give it up to them so easily? Another aspect is that I, personally, enjoy communication and conversation as part of the experience. Casual sex is so sloppy, usually drunken, and typically there's no room for humor or dialogue because you don't know much about the other person.

[musemaj11]

Imagine for a second if you didnt have a penis. Do you think you would still be as interested in sex? I know I probably wouldnt.

[Els]

Same reason as why so many guys still consider it a blow to the ego when a woman is their superior or beats them at anything, even though it's the 21st century now. :/ Old ingrained habits (or genetics, whichever you prefer) die hard.

[Surrealist]

Mate chicks are doing the 'star fish' all the time out there, its a sex fest, only problem is that people like me and you aren't getting any of it.

[xpaperxcutx]

Imagine for a second if you didnt have a penis. Do you think you would still be as interested in sex? I know I probably wouldnt.

 

:lmao:

 

Joke of the day, joke of the day.

 

I like to point out the double standards of women who participate in casual sex. Men tend to lose respect for women who give it up too early and they are branded disrespectful names. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of women who are sexual and freaky in the bedroom but they tend to reserve that aspect of themselves for relationships.

[sugarmomma]

I don't like screwing virtual strangers who I have no connection with. Its stupid for a woman to engage in meaningless sex w strangers when she can just buy a vibrator and cum in 10-15 seconds.

[U1987]

:lmao:

 

Joke of the day, joke of the day.

 

I like to point out the double standards of women who participate in casual sex. Men tend to lose respect for women who give it up too early and they are branded disrespectful names. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of women who are sexual and freaky in the bedroom but they tend to reserve that aspect of themselves for relationships.

 

Yes, but I'm not talking about saving it for relationships; that's the millions-of-years-old paradigm.

 

And I've noticed that women are far, far more likely to label promiscuous women "skanks" or "sluts" or whatnot. I believe that also is nothing more than an evolutionary vestige; "easy" women are a threat to more reserved women's germ lines.

[U1987]

:lmao:

 

Joke of the day, joke of the day.

 

I like to point out the double standards of women who participate in casual sex. Men tend to lose respect for women who give it up too early and they are branded disrespectful names. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of women who are sexual and freaky in the bedroom but they tend to reserve that aspect of themselves for relationships.

 

Also, what about the double standard for men as well? Men who DON'T attract mates are labeled "losers" or "geeks," and become LESS likely to attract women. I've actually met girls who admitted to being attracted to guys simply for no other reason that lots of OTHER girls were attracted to him as well.

 

And what about the male's evolutionary biological duty? To pass his trillions of cheap gametes to as many females as possible with as little time or effort each? Isn't that worth anything?

[U1987]

Imagine for a second if you didnt have a penis. Do you think you would still be as interested in sex? I know I probably wouldnt.

 

Would I still have testicles? Because sexual desire comes from testosterone and the stimulation of ganglia (concentrated nerve cells) when seminal vesicles become full in the testes.

[musemaj11]

Would I still have testicles? Because sexual desire comes from testosterone and the stimulation of ganglia (concentrated nerve cells) when seminal vesicles become full in the testes.

Exactly my point.

 

You answered your own question.

 

Women arent sex maniacs because they dont have BALLS!!!

[U1987]

You're over-generalizing. Women are not put off by casual sex. Most of the women I know are ravenous for sex and would love to have it more often, maybe even with more partners. The problem is, women have a lot more to lose. For one thing, the consequences of many STDs are more pronounced in women than men (for example, pelvic inflammatory disease can cause us to be sterile, or HPV can cause cervical cancer). We could get pregnant, which at best means a very expensive abortion. Our partners could also violate us by doing things we don't consent to, or not stopping if we decide we don't feel comfortable going through with the act. There is also the general patriarchal dynamic...if you had been oppressed by someone all your life, would you really want to give it up to them so easily? Another aspect is that I, personally, enjoy communication and conversation as part of the experience. Casual sex is so sloppy, usually drunken, and typically there's no room for humor or dialogue because you don't know much about the other person.

 

Can't sex be enjoyed just for the sake of sex (not for who it is with or how close you are to the person)? Except for the possibility of rape, condoms, the pill, spermicides and Gardasil eliminate those fears.

[xpaperxcutx]

I don't like screwing virtual strangers who I have no connection with. Its stupid for a woman to engage in meaningless sex w strangers when she can just buy a vibrator and cum in 10-15 seconds.

 

 

And sells of vibrators just gone up through the roof.

[Ruby Slippers]

Fear of STDs is my #1 reason.

 

#2 is that it's just not as good. I've had a few one-night stands, and the quality of my pleasure was FAR, FAR lower than it was when I was having sex with a man who loved me. To me, masturbation exactly the way I want it is much better than an awkward casual encounter.

 

Basically, it's high risk, low reward.

[Ruby Slippers]

And what about the male's evolutionary biological duty? To pass his trillions of cheap gametes to as many females as possible with as little time or effort each? Isn't that worth anything?

I see. So... women should defy their nature, but men should be ruled by theirs?

 

You have illustrated perfectly the concept of the double standard.

[Green]

Read the book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.

 

Reading books and posting on here is exactly his problem. I get the picture this guy is a lot more into theory then actualy applying (trying asking girls out ect)

 

SO, why do beautiful people have more daughters?

[Els]

I don't like screwing virtual strangers who I have no connection with. Its stupid for a woman to engage in meaningless sex w strangers when she can just buy a vibrator and cum in 10-15 seconds.

 

This illustrates the point. I think that while men and women have similar, or at least near-similar urges for orgasm, intercourse (usually vaginal) with a partner is a man's ultimately preferred way to achieve one, whereas it isn't the case for women. In fact, from what I read, if we only consider orgasm and not the other factors enmeshed in sex (emotional intimacy, deep bonding, etc), most women would orgasm better with just direct clitoral stimulation than penetrative sex.

 

If society stops putting women down for having multiple partners, and if we overhaul the thinking that sex necessarily = vaginal intercourse , I think there would probably be more women looking for casual sex.

[U1987]

I see. So... women should defy their nature, but men should be ruled by theirs?

 

You have illustrated perfectly the concept of the double standard.

 

Well I certainly do not think men who chose that path are "slimy" or "scummy" like so many girls claim, same as I do not think guys who rarely get women are "losers" or "nerds" nor women who have sex easily are "skanks" or "sluts."

 

If society stops putting women down for having multiple partners, and if we overhaul the thinking that sex necessarily = vaginal intercourse , I think there would probably be more women looking for casual sex.

 

 

Like I said, women enforce the double-standard far more severely and harshly than men, for the simple reason that like I said, women's germ cells are far fewer and far more fragile than men's. A woman's lineage is in constant danger from "scum-bags," "nerds" and "sluts," so she lashes out at them based on that fear.

[Els]

 

Like I said, women enforce the double-standard far more severely and harshly than men, for the simple reason that like I said, women's germ cells are far fewer and far more fragile than men's. A woman's lineage is in constant danger from "scum-bags," "nerds" and "sluts," so she lashes out at them based on that fear.

 

Both sexes are involved in this. You just need to read the threads where men insist that a woman with many previous partners is 'a good fling, but not wife material' to see proof of that.

 

What do you think of my second point?

[Els]

Well I certainly do not think men who chose that path are "slimy" or "scummy" like so many girls claim, same as I do not think guys who rarely get women are "losers" or "nerds" nor women who have sex easily are "skanks" or "sluts."

 

 

I think what she means is that while you wonder why women are still 'ruled by their biological instincts' despite it being the 21st century, you defend men's prerogative to be ruled by theirs: 'And what about the male's evolutionary biological duty? To pass his trillions of cheap gametes to as many females as possible with as little time or effort each? Isn't that worth anything?'

[Ruby Slippers]

If society stops putting women down for having multiple partners, and if we overhaul the thinking that sex necessarily = vaginal intercourse , I think there would probably be more women looking for casual sex.

Good point. The best one-night stand I had of those three was the one where kissing and him going down on me were the headliners of the evening.

[florence of suburbia]

Because there are layers and layers of intricate parts that can be stimulated. Not just body parts, and if it's casual, it's only about body parts.