Why are so many women put off by casual sex?

[Stung]

 

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.

 

As a budding scientist, you should know better than to present your subjective opinion based on your personal experience as objective fact.

 

As it happens, my experiences have been largely contrary to yours. Neither of us is possessed of the final word on the subject.

[Flesh Eating Virus]

I'm a molecular biology student, and evolutionary science goes hand in hand with my major.

 

Looks like you need to study harder then.

 

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.

No they didn't. The modern day !Kung of the African Savanna never starve. The Nenet women of the Siberian tundra don't freeze if they can't find a man. Women in pre-agricultural cultures don't need men to commit; in fact it would be counter-productive to their genetic survival.

 

You are repeating an urban myth, a tall tale, about what prehistoric life was actually like. Prehistoric cultures were not like us. They were hunter-gatherers, and hunter-gatherers do not live in nuclear families and the women do not depend on individual men for protection. Hunter-gatherers live in egalitarian nomadic bands of 50-100 people who all share resources or else they would die. A hunter-gatherer woman does not require the commitment of a man to protect and provide for her, because everyone in the band shares their protection and food with everyone else. This is the way all hunter-gatherer peoples operate today.

 

The same goes for reproductive resources. Modern day hunter-gatherer cultures are not monogamous either. Since the entire human race was hunter-gatherer until 10,000 BC, monogamy probably did not exist during our evolutionary history. Women (and men) are, in fact, evolutionarily designed for promiscuity. What is actually to the woman's genetic advantage in a nomadic egalitarian band is to hide the paternity of her children by having sex with everyone, so that every male in the band has a stake in protecting her children. The woman who tried to get one individual man to "commit" to her would be dooming her children to a mere 1% of the protection all the other women's were getting.

 

That this was the sexual history of our species is proven by all the various genetic adaptations human male naughty bits exhibit, which are designed to seek and destroy the semen and sperm of other males already in or expected to soon be in the vaginal canal. If various males' sperm had not been in direct competition with each other inside females' vaginas during our evolutionary history, then there would be no adaptive value to producing 75 zillion sperm, or of having the last ejaculatory spurt be spermicidal, or of having a unique penis designed to suck pre-existing sperm out of the cervix during copulatory thrusting.

 

I assume most of the women here live in semi-prosperous 1st world countries, so you and your children aren't going to starve.

Actually, hunter-gatherer tribes don't live on the brink of starvation. We do. The work of collecting food takes them about 1 hour per day, compared to 8-12 hours a day of work for agricultural cultures such as ours. There is a reason there is a prejudice against native Americans and Australian Aborigines for being "lazy." It is because the European colonists never saw them working particularly hard to obtain food. Starvation really only exists in agricultural cultures, which are susceptible to famine (=radical loss of stored food, which is logically impossible when you're a hunter-gatherer who doesn't have any to begin with) and whose members can't move to better territory when drought hits.

 

This staunch opposition to casual sex I see so many women possess is meaningless and obsolete. It's nothing more than an evolutionary vestige.

It is not an evolutionary vestige. It is utterly contrary to our evolutionary heritage. Why do you think cheating is so common, after all? It's because we're programmed to do it. Strict monogamy is a modern (i.e. within the historical period) cultural response to the pressures of large (>150 people) agricultural societies.

 

Bemoan your lack of play all you like, but don't lay your lack of lay at the feet of our slutty ancestors, okay?

[florence of suburbia]

Brilliant post.

[Stung]

Looks like you need to study harder then.

 

No they didn't. The modern day !Kung of the African Savanna never starve. The Nenet women of the Siberian tundra don't freeze if they can't find a man. Women in pre-agricultural cultures don't need men to commit; in fact it would be counter-productive to their genetic survival.

 

You are repeating an urban myth, a tall tale, about what prehistoric life was actually like. Prehistoric cultures were not like us. They were hunter-gatherers, and hunter-gatherers do not live in nuclear families and the women do not depend on individual men for protection. Hunter-gatherers live in egalitarian nomadic bands of 50-100 people who all share resources or else they would die. A hunter-gatherer woman does not require the commitment of a man to protect and provide for her, because everyone in the band shares their protection and food with everyone else. This is the way all hunter-gatherer peoples operate today.

 

The same goes for reproductive resources. Modern day hunter-gatherer cultures are not monogamous either. Since the entire human race was hunter-gatherer until 10,000 BC, monogamy probably did not exist during our evolutionary history. Women (and men) are, in fact, evolutionarily designed for promiscuity. What is actually to the woman's genetic advantage in a nomadic egalitarian band is to hide the paternity of her children by having sex with everyone, so that every male in the band has a stake in protecting her children. The woman who tried to get one individual man to "commit" to her would be dooming her children to a mere 1% of the protection all the other women's were getting.

 

That this was the sexual history of our species is proven by all the various genetic adaptations human male naughty bits exhibit, which are designed to seek and destroy the semen and sperm of other males already in or expected to soon be in the vaginal canal. If various males' sperm had not been in direct competition with each other inside females' vaginas during our evolutionary history, then there would be no adaptive value to producing 75 zillion sperm, or of having the last ejaculatory spurt be spermicidal, or of having a unique penis designed to suck pre-existing sperm out of the cervix during copulatory thrusting.

 

Actually, hunter-gatherer tribes don't live on the brink of starvation. We do. The work of collecting food takes them about 1 hour per day, compared to 8-12 hours a day of work for agricultural cultures such as ours. There is a reason there is a prejudice against native Americans and Australian Aborigines for being "lazy." It is because the European colonists never saw them working particularly hard to obtain food. Starvation really only exists in agricultural cultures, which are susceptible to famine (=radical loss of stored food, which is logically impossible when you're a hunter-gatherer who doesn't have any to begin with) and whose members can't move to better territory when drought hits.

 

It is not an evolutionary vestige. It is utterly contrary to our evolutionary heritage. Why do you think cheating is so common, after all? It's because we're programmed to do it. Strict monogamy is a modern (i.e. within the historical period) cultural response to the pressures of large (>150 people) agricultural societies.

 

Bemoan your lack of play all you like, but don't lay your lack of lay at the feet of our slutty ancestors, okay?

 

And this, too. Thanks for the anthro tutorial, FEV.

[fishtaco]

I thought it was because other women will call them sluts.

[threebyfate]

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)

This is inaccurate. A woman is born with a couple of million potential eggs where by the time she hits puberty, the numbers have reduced to around three to four hundred thousand.

 

Microbiology, huh?

Edited December 3, 2010 by threebyfate

[Els]

This is inaccurate. A woman is born with a couple of million potential eggs where by the time she hits puberty, the numbers have reduced to around three to four hundred thousand.

 

Microbiology, huh?

 

Well, technically, a microbiologist's business isn't really to know the human anatomy, although he probably should've done some research before saying that...

[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, technically, a microbiologist's business isn't really to know the human anatomy, although he probably should've done some research before saying that...

 

The few million oocytes a woman is born with aren't viable. The vast majority will die. I am certain that the number of viable eggs that a woman produces is only a few hundred. Think about it; only 1 egg a month in the 30 to 40 years between the first menstration + ovulation and menopause. For a woman to produce THOUSANDS of viable eggs, she would have to live to be hundreds of years old, or release a lot of eggs every month and risk having dectuplets every time she has sex.

[pandagirl]

To me, a man that engages in regular, casual sex -- without history of long-term relationships -- tells me that he isn't capable of a meaningful emotional connection.

 

And that is a big turn off to me.

[threebyfate]

The few million oocytes a woman is born with aren't viable. The vast majority will die. I am certain that the number of viable eggs that a woman produces is only a few hundred. Think about it; only 1 egg a month in the 30 to 40 years between the first menstration + ovulation and menopause. For a woman to produce THOUSANDS of viable eggs, she would have to live to be hundreds of years old, or release a lot of eggs every month and risk having dectuplets every time she has sex.

Out of 3 - 400,000 eggs that are left when she hits puberty, many have the potential to be viable eggs, reliant on how many are released. It happens all the time that more than one egg is released per month. That only so many get released doesn't mean they're not viable. To suggest so, is to suggest that egg donors are giving up non-viable eggs which would be inaccurate.

[Citizen Erased]

I like to have sex with the man I love, not the entire football team I love. So sue me.

[that girl]

U1987, If you actually are a science student you should know better than to chalk up women's sexual behavior to their "precious few eggs."

 

Most women will release an egg every month between roughly 13 and 43 if they are not already pregnant.

 

Even men don't want thousands of children, so there is no reason for women to be upset that they don't have millions of eggs.

 

Flesh Eating Virus gave you a pretty good overview of the anthro side of things too.

 

I think the bottom line is that your pissed that lots of girls don't want to have casual sex with you, so you're looking for biological reasons to pity women. It is a reach.

 

The risk of pregnancy is more of a concern for women than it is for men, that is one reason why women might be less willing to have casual sex.

 

There is often more stigma attached to female promiscuity, so there is another reason for women to be less interested in sleeping around.

 

But I think the biggest reason is that no one is impressed when a woman sleeps around. Even if someone is non-judgmental about promiscuity, no one is impressed by a woman who sleeps around. But there are some men who are impressed by a guy who gets around like Tiger Woods. Even if the sex is mediocre, some guys are impressed by a guy who gets lots of play and some guys want to impress other men.

 

Why are you U1987 so obsessed with finding the magical, non-existent formula that will get you lots of random sex? It isn't just not wanting the hassle of a relationship, lots of people manage to have more casual on-going relationships. You're putting a lot of work into this and it isn't just about getting laid. My guess it is ego boost.

[Lots0fLove]

ur right we are in the 21st century and everything is so commercialized and sex is boring when its just sex to be honest i did that whole fling thing casual sex but at the end of the day it just dosn't matter and woman today i guess we are being put back to the past and we want romance, respect we want some sort of fairytale before we have any sexual encounters cause woman catch more feeling while having sex than men do for woman remember ur going into our temple our body thats a precious thing and to do that and for it to mean nothing its just not a good thing wonder why us woman are such emotional creaters lol.

[zengirl]

I know men who don't care for casual sex either. Some people see it as an intimate act that is more enjoyable when you know and care for the person. I don't really want someone I don't know well inside of me. The idea creeps me out.

 

However, I don't feel it should be stigmatized, for men or women (it is far more stigmatized for women currently, which might be why so many profess not to care for it and yet engage in it). They need to be responsible, of course. But so far as I'm concerned, people can do what they want. Just isn't my thing.

 

Someone else already debunked the "evolutionary" stuff you said, so I won't be repetitive; it is likely more cultural and personal than evolutionary or biological, though the way our bodies work to a degree would factor in, I suppose, but both men and women need to feel stimulated to have comfortable sex.

 

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.

 

That's not a double standard. Ever heard the term Old Maid? Women who don't find mates often feel labeled "losers" as well. That's just human nature, much more so than men, actually. The term "bachelor" is much kinder than any classic term for a single woman. We are just now, in this era, attempting to come up with kind words for perpetually single females.

 

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?

 

We've surpassed the stage where we are slaves to our biological evolution and have evolved culturally. Are you going to move outside, live in a tree, hunt for your food, and follow the seasons nomadically? Probably not. Biological evolution in human society has essentially slowed to such a point it is almost still, mainly because we've been able to evolve culturally to live in any environment in very different ways than we did when we were evolving biologically. It's silly when people want to pick and choose on things like this----if someone wants to sleep around, and they find people who are willing, fine. But studies don't show this to produce any more happiness---or even any more chemical happiness---than monagamy.

 

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.

 

Precisely.

[theBrokenMuse]

Meh. Simply does not appeal to me. I mean, if there are no feelings involved, I may as well use a vibrator or something as I'd get the same result... What's the point?

[Arbitrariness]

We've surpassed the stage where we are slaves to our biological evolution and have evolved culturally. Are you going to move outside, live in a tree, hunt for your food, and follow the seasons nomadically? Probably not.

 

That's a fairly poor example, who says that being culturally evolved makes you any less enslaved. We, the culturally evolved, are living in an unsustainable manner. Hunter gatherers such as the Australian Aboriginees, lived sustainably off the land for over 40 thousand years.

 

As an aside, I would like to state that its silly to think that more women in modern society wouldn't want to engage in casual sex because they have 'evolved' to not want it. Women want more sex, environmental factors have influenced how they want it.

 

I personally do not see the draw in absolute emotionless sex, but to each his own.

[AlektraClementine]

I don't know about the scientific reasons.

 

Personally, I just never really got anything good out of casual sex. It usually made me feel bad. The residual feelings weren't worth a 5-10 minute tryst with no orgasm. I won't speak for all women, but I've NEVER had an orgasm during a one night stand. So for me it was a "what's the point" kinda thing.

[Eclypse]

I think what we all need to remember is that we have evolved a lot since caveman times, especially culturally. Our intelligence is much greater than the people living in those ancient times. Sex is no longer just about passing your genes on. It's a deep, intimate act that brings 2 partners closer together. Gone are the days of the caveman who beat his chest after eating the raw meat of the animal he had just caught and skinned with his bare hands getting the woman to mate with. People now value different traits in their partners, it's a result of our advancements.

 

For me anyway sex is a very deep, personal act. I would not get the same with experience with other girls. I'd feel empty and unfulfilled. Part of the reason it's so great is because it's with the woman I love.

[sally4sara]

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.

 

You'll see this more in not so platonic friendships. Girl likes the guy but won't speak up, hoping he will take interest. Guy talks about interest in some other girl. If that other girl is providing him with sex, the silent girl with interest now has to downplay the sex offered by the other girl (ooohh that's nasty, I heard about her; total slut) and leverage by offering something else the guy isn't getting from her (I'm a loyal one man kind of girl who waits for the right guy to come along). If he is already getting sex from her competition, she can't use sex as an enticement unless she is willing to be just one more source of sex to him.

 

This is to have him believing that he can't value what he is getting with the other girl because so many other men are supposedly gaining access to it. And it also implies that for him to be Mr. Right, he should value someone more like the not so platonic female friend he is having the conversation with.

 

But how this same woman will judge her best female friend's sexual behavior, even if it is matching in promiscuity, will be less damning because she isn't after a guy her friend is dealing with. As well, the judgment she passes on his other interest might not even be a true one.

[theBrokenMuse]

You'll see this more in not so platonic friendships. Girl likes the guy but won't speak up, hoping he will take interest. Guy talks about interest in some other girl. If that other girl is providing him with sex, the silent girl with interest now has to downplay the sex offered by the other girl (ooohh that's nasty, I heard about her; total slut) and leverage by offering something else the guy isn't getting from her (I'm a loyal one man kind of girl who waits for the right guy to come along). If he is already getting sex from her competition, she can't use sex as an enticement unless she is willing to be just one more source of sex to him.

 

This is to have him believing that he can't value what he is getting with the other girl because so many other men are supposedly gaining access to it. And it also implies that for him to be Mr. Right, he should value someone more like the not so platonic female friend he is having the conversation with.

 

But how this same woman will judge her best female friend's sexual behavior, even if it is matching in promiscuity, will be less damning because she isn't after a guy her friend is dealing with. As well, the judgment she passes on his other interest might not even be a true one.

and if the FWB thread was any indication, men seem to be more judgmental about women who have slept around anyhow. They were very vocal about considering them to be damaged goods, only worthy of a quick poke and nothing more.

[Disillusioned]

Man here (waves hand)... the idea of casual sex never appealed to me because I'd never want to screw a non-keeper. Casual sex + future = does not compute.

 

I think what we all need to remember is that we have evolved a lot since caveman times, especially culturally. Our intelligence is much greater than the people living in those ancient times. Sex is no longer just about passing your genes on. It's a deep, intimate act that brings 2 partners closer together. Gone are the days of the caveman who beat his chest after eating the raw meat of the animal he had just caught and skinned with his bare hands getting the woman to mate with. People now value different traits in their partners, it's a result of our advancements.

 

I agree, but all one needs to do is look around to realize things have gotten worse. Homo sapiens can't compete with Homo estupidus from a reproductive standpoint, and modern technology is partly to blame. So is our sympathy for less intelligent people. Homo estupidus is a very pleasure-centered creature, and nature has given him a ravenous appetite for sex... if it feels good, he wants to do it, and the heck with the consequences.

 

Now we have machines and meds which can keep a Homo estupidus alive long after his immune system should have conked out naturally... and look where it got us. Stupids making more stupids. But do we control their numbers? Nooooooo, that would be cruel! Even to inject the male stupids with Androcur to put the brakes on their horniness would be cruel and unusual punishment.

 

Heck, I say LET 'EM overpopulate the world and eat themselves out of existence.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Flesh Eating Virus, you are my hero. Thank you for finally putting that stupid mythology to bed here on LS with such a great post.

 

Why are so many guys ready to embrace this particular tale of their biological destiny, or whatever, while completely ignoring all the rest of them? Our primal urges, sperm or egg count, or whatever is not the arbiter of our behavior.

 

To the OP: There ARE women who like to have casual sex. Evidently none of them are having it with YOU.

[sally4sara]

and if the FWB thread was any indication, men seem to be more judgmental about women who have slept around anyhow. They were very vocal about considering them to be damaged goods, only worthy of a quick poke and nothing more.

 

Yes, that this angle gets played isn't so much about women getting angry at other women offering sex to viable males as it is done in line with how competitive men are WITH EACH OTHER as well.

 

The guy is already getting sex. Some women will wonder what is left to offer and how can I show what he already has is not helping him compete very well? Oh, I know! I'll show what he has to be less of an accomplishment in competing with other men! If it works then I will be able to offer him sex too.

 

It has little to do with her attitude about women having sex; she wants to have sex too. She just doesn't want this guy and other guys to think of her as less of an accomplishment in the process. If they didn't think about women and sex this way to begin with, she'd never believe this angle would work.

[ConstantCraving]

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?

 

Before we discuss female evolutionary biology, let's talk about male imperatives.

 

What about the fact that I use contraception and don't ever want children under any circumstances?

 

From the biological point of view, it makes no difference. I still want sex.

 

What about gay guys whose sexual activities don't lead to procreation?

 

Once again, it makes no difference. They still want sex.

 

So it is with women. The circumstances of life that modern human females experience has no relevance to their evolutionary imperatives.

 

Their desire to invest heavily in one meaningful relationship remains. That's not to say that they can't sleep around or even cheat, but their motivations are often substantially different.

[theBrokenMuse]

Yes, that this angle gets played isn't so much about women getting angry at other women offering sex to viable males as it is done in line with how competitive men are WITH EACH OTHER as well.

Absolutely. Women don't give a rat's arse about what other women do sexually in and of itself, they just want to be able to place themselves above their own competition by utilizing a stigma that only exists because of males.