Why are women less open to casual sex? is it because of evolutionary psychology?‏

[LovePrevails]

Doesn't look like it

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/

 

looks like they don't go for it because they aren't sure it's safe and don't think the man is going to get them off

[Psychophant]

They could pop a pill beforehand and be honest about it if they would want to. Women in general are more into conformity than men that makes them more susceptible for redicule and mockery. They don't want to be perceived as sluts. Let me make an analogy. In case you'd make the most expensive vodka on the market. Would you rather enjoy it yourself or make a big buck out of it, in case you'd love to enjoy vodka on your own?

[NotDarkYet]

To take the pregnancy and "getting off" issues off the table, let's think of the gay community:

 

 

If women were just as open to casual sex, why are there very few lesbian bath houses relative to gay male bath houses?

 

 

 

The empirical evidence is men are naturally inclined to want commitment free sex.

[Pepin]

When partnership is on the rise, it becomes more advantageous for females to sleep around and this behavior increases. When sleeping around begins to take over, partnership then becomes advantageous, and this becomes the norm. There isn't a single state reached in this model, rather it is like a pendulum that goes back and forth between opposing ends. Though the study doesn't really address this, it is important in understanding that sexual behavior at any given time will be between to extremes.

 

This reply on the page voices my confusion about this article better than I can. The reasons people come up with are not exactly relevant to the theory. Even if they were, there are large issues in identifying sexual motivations through questionnaire granted four billion years of evolution. There are many studies which demonstrate that people just make up reasons for their answers, and with sexual attraction being a highly evolved and rather unconscious activity, the propensity to make up answers is far higher.

 

With that said, I am not doubting the results of the study, but I am doubting the supposed refutation it is supposed to have made.

[PatrickC]

They don't want to be perceived as sluts.

 

Well this is the evolutionary biology. Women that protect their eggs are always going to be of higher value to men.

[Mr. Roth]

Evolutionary psychology indeed. From that perspective, the male's objective is to spread his genes wherever able, and can do so at any time. The female can only do so every 9 months, at the risk of her life, at the cost of many resources, and whilst being pregnant is close to incapable of fending for herself and gather her own resources. Hence, the female must be far more selective about who she gets impregnated by. 

 

However, many studies show that women, during ovulation, are more attracted to stereotypical 'alpha male' types, both physically (such as a physique that indicates high testosterone) and behavior that reveals "toughness". When not ovulating, they are more attracted to nice guys with more feminine traits. The theory is that they want their offspring to have the "strongest" genes, but since the "alpha" males of primeval times had access to many women through superior force, these males were unlikely to commit to any single one female, except perhaps the 'alpha female', while still having sex with the rest. So the women want the genes of the alpha males, yet also require a reliable nice guy to help them through pregnancy and help them raise their offspring.

 

So, the pre-coitus hesitancy stems from not wanting to get impregnated without certainty of access to resources. 

 

You could say that pre-coitus anxiety in females is equivalent to approach anxiety in men. Both are taking a risk. Men risk, by approaching stranger women, that they are intruding upon another man's tribe or hitting on a female who is 'taken', which could very well be lethal. For most, the approach anxiety males feel is totally out of propotion to the risk they are actually taking in our modern world, but back in the day, it was an easy way to get killed, so those who weren't hesitant probably tended to get wiped out. It's similar to public speaking anxiety which also used to be a potentially deadly risk. 

 

Of course there are many other reasons in every individual for what they feel and do based on their life experiences, but this is the evolutionary perspective.

[Pepin]

The empirical evidence is men are naturally inclined to want commitment free sex.

 

To expand upon this, both sexes have this preference, but the male is usually more capable of achieving this result. Evolutionarily, if the offspring is capable of surviving with a single parent and they know that the other will take care of the offspring, both the mother and the father have an incentive to take off and produce more offspring.

 

It is common for mothers to trick males into helping offspring which are not his. Females will often take advantage of this when partnership is common, as it is likely the male will commit. Similarly, there are certain birds which will lay their eggs in another bird's nest, and that bird will then be tricked into taking care of the offspring.

 

The commitment is in raising the offspring, which no organism prefers to do, but it tends to be the female that has to for various reasons. In humans, these reasons are multiplied.

[J. D. Stembal]

To expand upon this, both sexes have this preference, but the male is usually more capable of achieving this result. Evolutionarily, if the offspring is capable of surviving with a single parent and they know that the other will take care of the offspring, both the mother and the father have an incentive to take off and produce more offspring.

 

It is common for mothers to trick males into helping offspring which are not his. Females will often take advantage of this when partnership is common, as it is likely the male will commit. Similarly, there are certain birds which will lay their eggs in another bird's nest, and that bird will then be tricked into taking care of the offspring.

 

The commitment is in raising the offspring, which no organism prefers to do, but it tends to be the female that has to for various reasons. In humans, these reasons are multiplied.

 

Regarding evolutionary psychology, I also have trouble accepting the theory of commitment free sex as it tends to support the feminist explanation of the "deadbeat dad" phenomenon. I know this is going to sound like a Not All Men Are Like That Argument, but the through feminist subversion of the state, it is now a possible mating strategy for a woman to routinely spread her legs for as many men as she desires, and use the force of the state to extract resources through the taxpayers or directly from the estranged father (or whomever is foolish enough to sign the birth certificate) in the form of wage garnishments. I believe women are just as culpable, if not more so since they legally and philosophically control the means of production of children, for the deadbeat dad/single mother trend of American family life.

 

Also, there is the trouble of women never really being taken to submitting to an honest examination under the evolutionary microscope along-side their male counterparts. If you try to tell a woman that she only want to sleep with you because she's attracted to your evolutionary fitness to provide her with hunted mammoth meat while she's pregnant and helpless, you should expect the result of a smack to the face. Remember, why do women need men when there are no more mammoths and Big Brother State provides all?

 

Interestingly, it sounds like some of you have read The Chemistry Between Us or Sex at Dawn.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813

http://www.amazon.com/Chemistry-Between-Us-Science-Attraction/dp/1591846617/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406674771&sr=1-1&keywords=the+chemistry+between+us

 

To be sure, there is eye-opening information contained within these books, but I'm a little skeptical that we can continuously rely on one-to-one comparisons between our evolutionary roots and modern life as a slave to the state. We need to judge each argument by its applicability and merit.

[Pepin]

Regarding evolutionary psychology, I also have trouble accepting the theory of commitment free sex as it tends to support the feminist explanation of the "deadbeat dad" phenomenon.

 

I think it is a possible explanation for the behavior, but like you said in your post, we ought to be careful in applying evolutionary theory to humans. I attempt to mostly talk about the subject mostly in terms of non-human animals or ancient humans. It is very difficult to not apply the concepts to modern humans.

 

In regard to your response, what I find interesting is that the mother wants to take care of the child when there are orphanages around. If having a child while single is a behavior caused by the urge to reproduce, then the perceived risk of having an orphanage take care of their child seems to be too high. To me at least, it kind of says that there are other factors at work, likely being social.

 

I actually have not read those books. I might check them out at some point. I have quite the reading list.

[Psychophant]

Well this is the evolutionary biology. Women that protect their eggs are always going to be of higher value to men.

 

They still have a choice that's why sluts exists, not the concept but da chicks, who prefer sexual pleasure over cashing in their ovaries. Bold apes have no choice but humans do have. That's why MGTOW becomes increasingly popular among those thinking man who "flip the bird" to gynocentrism and live a life less stressfull, due to less requirements on their income. You own your schedule and can create wealth by needing less money for a living.

 

Gynocentrism is basically men adopting a female mindset to serve women.

Hypergam

[Frosty]

I expect it has its roots in the evolution of our biology, it's an undeniable fact that men are more promiscuous than women when given the chance, you only need to look to the gay and lesbian community to see that gay men tend to be far more promiscuous than lesbians are.

 

I'm not completely convinced conservatism behaviour still exists in women as merely an inability to break free of their biological programming despite modern technology providing solutions for safe sex without risk of pregnancy. I think there's a lot advantages for women keeping sexual availability as a scarce commodity because it keeps the value artificially high and thus makes the value of wealth they can extract from men greater. I think this is the root of why women shame women for being sluts, in my experience it's rarely men that shame women for being promiscuous, it's predominantly other women. This makes sense because promiscuous women drive up the availability of sex and so drive down the value, not just for themselves but for all women, seeking to protect that value is not entirely unexpected behaviour. A humble hypothesis.

[PatrickC]

Gynocentrism is basically men adopting a female mindset to serve women.

Hypergam

 

Yes I would agree with this. It's difficult not to see the average man pining after the ladies, even the alphas too. The reverence that many men give to females is often above and beyond what they actually deserve.

[LovePrevails]

it didn't embed