Why do girls hate on guys looking for casual hook-ups and then insist that they like sex as much as any guy?

[the_rake]

there seems to be this really weird feminist dating misconception that women are just as promiscuous and enjoy sex just as much as men do?

realistically they are either considerably more selective about their sexual partners to the point of either demisexuality (sexual attraction only when there has been a long term emotional bond established) OR hypergamy (sexual attraction only to the most high status minority of the male population).

in the case of demisexual, the enjoyment is not so much the pleasures and sensitivity / sensuous nature as much as it is the forging of an emotional bond. in my experience there has to be this really hyper - almost euphoric - energy before a basis for sexual attraction can even BEGIN to develop here. it's like some sort of volume knob where you have to navigate a maze at every little turn.

for the hypergamous women, it's not even sex she enjoys. at best it's the company of and validation from a high status, physically attractive and confident male. at worst, it's his money she's after and she could care less if it was hugh heffner she was banging.

asexual women don't even care about sex fullstop. it is all about rapport and long-term relationships.

the demisexual is the only kind of woman I can conceive of that even begins to have some kind of sexual energy or vibe and the process towards that attraction is long and tedious. it is totally different to and nothing like the libido a typical man has.

surely, if women enjoyed sex as much as, and as frequently as, most men do, they would not create so many barriers and say things like,

"there is only one thing on his mind"

"ugh, player... so repulsive"

"why does he have so many kinks? blowjobs are so degrading for me, i would never do that (even if when he is willing to return the favour and go down on me)"

"he just wants to USE me for sex... I am NOT an object"

nobody said you were an object, the assumption was that you are confident in your sexuality and enjoy sex as much as I do and therefore would not consider a casual encounter to be 'obejctifying'! it is only true that you are being 'used' for sex if you do not enjoy it as much and therefore do not wish to participate.

therefore, women cannot POSSIBLY enjoy sex as much as men do, being at best demisexual or hypergamous and at worst, totally asexual.

[mistixs]

I think the difference is that women are just pickier about who they have casual sex with. Men will have casual sex with pretty much any woman, at least average or above, whereas women will only want to have casual sex with the most attractive guys. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Men have nothing to lose from having sex with a random woman, but if a woman has sex with a random guy, and he's not going to stick around to provide, she wants to at least get the best genes from him as possible.

There was one image I saw once that said something like "Male sexuality: 1 male attracted to 5 females. Female sexuality: 5 females attracted to 1 male." I think it's true. There's evidence that the most physically attractive men get the most casual sex partners. & There's also evidence that the top reason listed by women as reasons for engaging in casual sex is due to becoming horny about the guy's appearance. So the difference is that women are attracted to a lesser # of guys.

[mistixs]

And as for this statement: "nobody said you were an object, the assumption was that you are confident in your sexuality and enjoy sex as much as I do and therefore would not consider a casual encounter to be 'obejctifying'! it is only true that you are being 'used' for sex if you do not enjoy it as much and therefore do not wish to participate."

There's evidence that women orgasm much less often than men do during casual sex. It's not due to lack of emotional connection, but due to the fact that men tend to care less about "giving" during casual sex than during relationship sex (this has been proven), there's less emphasis on cunnilingus (men tend to receive oral more than women do, even though men can also reliably orgasm more often during PIV than women can), & men who know you better also tend to know your pleasure spots better.

[the_rake]

ok, so most of your arguments would correlate with the hypergamy theory which I've adjusted since writing this article to account for sexual desire:

'for the hypergamous women... at best it's the company of and validation from a high status, physically attractive and confident male. at worst, it's his money she's after'

I would add that she could be sexually attracted but only to an elite minority of extremely attractive men, whereas men on the other hand are more likely to settle for average women because they have higher desire for sex on the whole.

Beta males whom she 'settles' for into a monogamous relationship are going to get the 'short straw' when it comes to having sex.

[the_rake]

'due to the fact that men tend to care less about "giving" during casual sex than during relationship sex (this has been proven),'

this may have something to do with the fact she's typically choosing alpha male bad boys from the top 20%.

'there's less emphasis on cunnilingus'

probably because most men are worried about contracting oral herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, etc. from giving oral sex to a stranger. on the other hand, use of dental damns would be considered 'unsexy'.

[mistixs]

It's not that women are only after the validation and company of a high status male. It's just that women are only aroused by the top males.

I also want to add that attractive men are very scarce which may lead to women seeming not to want casual sex. OkCupid showed that most women find most men ugly, whereas men view most women as average.

[the_rake]

'It's not that women are only after the validation and company of a high status male. It's just that women are only aroused by the top males.'

How do you distinguish the two?

I have heard conflicting information regarding whether women prefer looks over (socioeconomic) status. Other sources suggest confidence, e. g. in this video, Owen Cooke who is a short, balding, ginger man has success using his ability to charm women (look towards the end of the video because the first approaches are showing how a pessimistic mindset can have a negative impact on results):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3rkgqTWJ8

This is why I usually say 'high status' because it includes a variety of attributes not limited to physical attractiveness but also including confidence, socioeconomic status, wealth, popularity/people skills, etc.

In short, heterosexual attraction in a male is significantly more straight forwards than heterosexual attraction in a female.

[the_rake]

'OkCupid showed that most women find most men ugly, whereas men view most women as average.'

Well, it does seem that whatever factor it is that triggers attraction in women (like I said it is not straight forward and women are probably more likely to call unconfident suitors 'ugly' than a male), women are significantly more selective on the whole.

[the_rake]

* not the end of the video, 5 minutes in.

[mistixs]

Regarding looks vs status. Both are a factor. A hot guy will be hotter if he's rich or powerful, and seem less attractive if he's poor.

However, Bill Gates has a net worth in billions, in comparison to Channing Tatum who has a net worth in millions. Who do you think more women are masturbating to? I can guarantee not many women masturbate to Bill Gates. You have to have some degree of physical attractiveness for women to be aroused by you.

Anyway. Evidence shows that men who are physically more attractive get more casual sex partners. Hold on, let me get the study

[mistixs]

Look up a PDF of "Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis."

[the_rake]

a few things: status is more than just wealth (or at least the way I am defining it), so Channing Tatum would have status in many areas that Bill Gates does not. another thing, fantasy isn't always the same thing as reality, so women are likely to hook up with male initiators in reality that they wouldn't necessarily be fantasising over. that's partly because you don't always have access to the person your fantasising about (not many women will be able to have sex with a man like Channing Tatum) but also because the fantasy doesn't always match up in reality (e. g. a woman might fantasise about having sex with a really attractive man, but when she meets this same man in person, she finds him aloof, awkward, unconfident, etc.).

[the_rake]

'Evidence shows that men who are physically more attractive get more casual sex partners.'

I can agree that all things being equal (i. e. you get equally successful and confident men together and test based on differences in attractiveness only) that yes, the more physically attractive men will probably be more successful, simply because the woman has more options related to confidence, socioeconomic status, etc. But in real life 'all things' are never 'equal'. So you can dig up the survey if you like, but you'd have to find a survey that controls a AWFUL lot of variables to disprove this theory.

I've known extremely physically attractive men to be unsuccessful with women.

[the_rake]

probably it would be more useful to get four sample groups:

first sample group of physically attractive men by conventional / societal standards

second sample group of economically successful men - lawyers, entrepeneurs, doctors, etc.

third sample group of socially savvy / popular men with good people skills that are used to making small talk with and flirting with girls from an early age

fourth sample group - a control group

then see who fairs best.

[the_rake]

even then there would be issues - e. g. factors like physical attractiveness are subjective, some of the successful men may also be physically attractive, some of the men with good social skills may see drastic improvements if they just had slightly better looks.

also attractiveness effects confidence, so just because an attractive man is successful, it doesn't mean that it was the physical attractiveness alone that scored brownie points. in short, if you look good, and society tells you that you look good, you feel good.

[the_rake]

so you see, it is complicated :P

[mistixs]

Good points. There are many factors that go into how physically attractive someone is to a woman.

As for the thing about fantasy vs reality... I can't speak for all women, but I MIGHT have sex with Bill Gates IF he gave me a LOT of money... but that doesn't mean I find him hot or arousing, lol. It's just for the money. I'd probably eat shit for a million dollars but that doesn't mean I like eating shit lmao
Rhys Wakefield, on the other hand, can get this pussy any day, no money required, lmao.

"women are probably more likely to call unconfident suitors 'ugly' than a male"
It was only based on profile pictures.

Anyway, yeah, it takes more to make women 'tick' than it takes a man.

[the_rake]

'Good points. There are many factors that go into how physically attractive someone is to a woman.'

Right, and not all of them are physical.

In fact not all of them are even attributes (intrinsic or extrinsic) because their are logistics (where you live what you do), lifestyle (certain interests and hobbies will make you more personally compatible with women), preferences (lower standards = broader range of women to choose from), culture (certain religions, morals or cultures can attract or repel different women), boldness (the more women you approach, the greater your odds of success) and luck (sometimes all it takes is to meet the right woman at the right time).

[the_rake]

but thanks for the study: it elucidates different body types and how women react, because the conventional muscle freak men set as their target is not necessarily the most appealing.

'I can't speak for all women, but I MIGHT have sex with Bill Gates IF he gave me a LOT of money... but that doesn't mean I find him hot or arousing, lol.'

Sure, I was just showing how fantasy matches up to reality and how it might be a question of more than looks, e. g. a more economically successful and confident attractive man might have more success with women than an economically unsuccessful and unconfident but attractive man.

[the_rake]

posting this here for personal reference: foxhoundstudio.com/.../

[nymous1234]

Lol women do enjoy sex just as much as men do. It is just there are many societal and cultural factors put in place to shame a women who wants sex as much as a man. Not to mention in turn women are admonished for having had too many partners etc. But the norms which dictate a woman's sex life is stronger than men realise.
p. s hey :)

[the_rake]

hello :P :P

but, but... we talked about some of these societal and cultural factors last time we talked (e. g. slut-shaming) and while I agree that some men might disapprove of the idea that long-term partners, by and large it is not really a SOCIAL phenomena if the woman dates / sleeps around outside of her own familiar circles. also, I believe it is important to date / marry a partner that accepts you for who you are, including the fact that you are a sexual person, and yes... you have had sexual partners before him.

but yes, it is true that as a man, I am not going to feel the full brunt of whatever cultural forces the opposite gender faces. nonetheless, I have still had to deal with situations that tested my confidence and personal ethics when the way society believed I should be did not coincide with the way I believed that I should be. in the end I decided it was more important to accept oneself.

if there are people that really are so stuck in their old fashioned ways that

[the_rake]

they cannot accept you, perhaps it is wise either to cut those people out of your life or adopt a 'don't ask don't tell' policy for those acquaintances who are not particularly close but whose judgement could affect you in other ways.

just my two cents.

[nymous1234]

I dont know i think i enjoy sex as just as much as men do :(
I do what i think i can emotionally deal with so i may not do a causal hook up/one night stand but more a friends with benefits type of thing and only with a certain kind of man.
So a girl may want to have sex as much as a guy but knows that in the long run she may not handle it well, that is develop feelings, want a commitment, become physically attached, jealous etc.
And this actually goes for guys too but generally men may not think or have to think about the emotional consequences sex may have on him.
Also note that even though women have to consider the emotional consequences that guys are less likely (i know generalization) to experience, women still do enter into casual hook ups etc.

[nymous1234]

lol women like sex as much dammit!

[the_rake]

ok! maybe they do, but if still a lot of the time the way they act and live their life seems to send out conflicting messages. i think most guys prefer not to read into things so much so to them actions speak louder than words:

"if she has sex a lot, she must enjoy it. if she does not, she must not enjoy it"

I mean that's just the way we humans are programmed to think:

"if the sky is blue, the universe must be emitting a blue colour"

rather than

"if the sky is blue, it could be that the universe is purple but radioactive substances in the earth's stratosphere combined with a mirror effect, due to the way stars are arranged in our galaxy)

first explanation is just more simple. it usually requires a scientist to explain how the second thing works, or, in the case of women, a sexologist that has studied their sexual habits over a life time.

even then, nobody has really uncovered the enigma that surrounds female attraction:

www.amazon.com/.../0312662653

[the_rake]

(284? reasons why women have sex, lol, and it was proven that they don't even know when they were aroused when connected to a device that detected pupil dilation and clitoral stimulation)

thing is, it's just damn hard work finding out all this stuff, so i guess that yeah, a lot of men just find it easier to operate on the assumption that women don't really like sex that much. and then the focus during sex is more on themselves rather than the woman and they do things like pay for dates because "sex is something she does to reward me, not herself".

emotional consequences for casual hook-up could be something, so i can see where you're coming from here. realistically though, people don't usually fall in love after one night stands, unless it was absolutely amazing. also, it doesn't seem to factor into account, e. g. why it seems men have a harder time getting dates and relationships (where there is an emotional connection), not just casual sex.

[nymous1234]

lol i guess to me as a female it seems simple cause i think like a woman so i understand better. but i guess to a man it seems complicated and probably is, but it doesn't change that we have as much desire for sex as men. ;)
but i guess i could only speak for myself

[nymous1234]

but it is difficult for women to get into relationships when there is an emotional connection as well. that could just be due to the fact that when it comes to feelings human beings are complicated as fuck lol
but all that makes so much sense that a man would just conclude that women dont like sex, because men do tend to be logical and it is actually a logical conclusion and the complicated truth is a lot to digest cause even i have to admit my decision as to who i am 'intimate' with is not straightforward

[the_rake]

fair enough. i mean i talk about demisexuality - the need for an emotional connection to feel sexual attraction. whether or not this is a common occurrence for women, i don't know because i can't speak for all women myself! nor am i in a position to say that it is right or wrong.

it just seems that whereas for most men, the passion seems to be raw, physical lust (another generalisation), for women the interest is more centred around the man as a person and what her feelings towards him are. i mean that's a good thing in many ways, because it is good to have this connection. i just don't see how the world of feelings and emotions could equate to sexuality and physical attraction.

together they are a deadly cocktail of deep passion, for sure, but isolated, the feelings are no more sexual than the aesthetics or physicality of attraction are emotionally meaningful.

[nymous1234]

I find a lot of girls say that they dont ever have sex with someone they do not have feelings for but at the same time they have had sex with guys they didn't have feelings for but feel guilty for it and would never admit it. The reason they had sex without feelings however may not be the raw lust that motivate men to have sex.
Some girls do experience this raw lust and i have.
But for many women a lot of times sex is intertwined with emotions whereas a man generally could regularly separate them

it just seems that whereas for most men, the passion seems to be raw, physical lust (another generalisation), for women the interest is more centred around the man as a person and what her feelings towards him are. i mean that's a good thing in many ways, because it is good to have this connection. i just don't see how the world of feelings and emotions could equate to sexuality and physical attraction. ... AGREED :)

[the_rake]

'I find a lot of girls say that they dont ever have sex with someone they do not have feelings for but at the same time they have had sex with guys they didn't have feelings for but feel guilty for it and would never admit it. The reason they had sex without feelings however may not be the raw lust that motivate men to have sex.'

I think that this would be an example of the hypergamous afiliation some women have for high status males that I mentioned:

'for the hypergamous women, it's not even sex she enjoys. at best it's the company of and validation from a high status, physically attractive and confident male. at worst, it's his money she's after and she could care less if it was hugh heffner she was banging.'

'Some girls do experience this raw lust and i have.
But for many women a lot of times sex is intertwined with emotions whereas a man generally could regularly separate them'

these are all fair points and I will not dismiss your experience.

[nymous1234]

Lol cool :)

[the_rake]

np :p :p

[nymous1234]

:) thanks for MHO

[mistixs]

I don't know how much I agree with the "women's libido is ties to feelings" etc. Personally I have a romantic crush on someone, but the thought of having sex with him doesn't make me horny. You know who makes me horny? Really dominant TV characters who I can imagine BDSM with. So personally my sexual fantasies and romantic feelings aren't really correlated.

[mistixs]

Plus, if womens libidos were so connected to emotions for their partners, then women wouldn't all experience a steep decline in libido after 2 years in marriage like most women do. Here are some sources on what really gets women going. www.psychologytoday.com/.../what-do-women-really-want mobile.nytimes.com/.../25desire-t.html?referer=

Anyway, women tend to be slower to arousal but that doesn't mean they don't like sex as much.

[SomeOtherGuy]

It just depends on the women.

Demisexuality is far more common in women than men. There's a lot of reasons for that; check out the neuroscience of sex. However, be aware that not everyone has the same brain composition. And just because it is more common doesn't mean you will personally experience it more often.

I've met many women who are allosexual. Drawn primarily to looks and dress and mannerisms and the simple act of sex itself.

Also, a woman who is hypergamous sounds asexual to me if she isn't looking for a partner to have sex with. It's just an asexual with a priority of wealth, not romance. (aromantic asexual)
However, a hypergamous women could probably very well enjoy sex and enjoy using it to get what they want.
(this would be classified as an aromantic allosexual. Doesn't have romantic desires for a partner, but does have sexual desires.)
That kind of women would be fine with an aromantic allosexual as well, if her desire is wealth and he can provide it.

[SomeOtherGuy]

The point is there are so many different types of women out there. Everything from culture to their brain composition can determine their perceptions of sex.
I wouldn't be so quick to write off women not liking sex as much as men. But I do think men are more likely to be comfortable with casual sex than women as a whole.

[Anonymous]

The truth, as any man who has been married more than a few years will tell you, is that women do NOT like sex just as much as men do. Not even close.

[the_rake]

i'm sorry that is the case for you man

[Opinion Owner]

I'm not actually married. I just know a lot of married men.

[mistixs]

Women like sex but they just get bored with the same man. (Indeed, women are less suited to monogamy than men. Check out What Do Women Want by Daniel Bergner.)

[the_rake]

@mistixs

yeah it's true: the beta male will by and large be sexually unsatisfied since he will not be given many opportunities to be promiscuous outside of marriage and when he final does marry, his partner will quickly lose sexual interest.

[Opinion Owner]

@mistixs

"Indeed, women are less suited to monogamy than men"

LMAO! Now that's the best one I've heard in a while.

[the_rake]

when I searched the book, I did find some correlating evidence:

'First, confounding the view of marriage as the female heaven and haven is the fact that marriage actually appears to benefit men more than it does women (link is external). Research has shown that the "marriage benefits"—the increases in health (link is external), wealth (link is external), and happiness (link is external) that are often associated with the status—go disproportionately to men. Married men are better off than single men. Married women, on the other hand, are not better off than unmarried women.

Second, in contrast to the myth that marriage is a woman’s ultimate and sacred fulfillment is the reality that roughly two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women (link is external). This is true not only for the young and hip: A recent AARP survey (link is external) of 1147 men and women ages 40-79 who experienced a divorce in their 40s, 50s, or 60s, found that 66% of women said they initiated the split.'

[the_rake]

'A recent paper (link is external) by Stanford sociologist Michael J. Rosenfeld analyzed longitudinal data from the How Couples Meet and Stay Together survey—a survey of a nationally representative sample of 2,262 adults in heterosexual relations followed from 2009 to early 2015.'

www.psychologytoday.com/.../is-marriage-worth-it-women

Interesting stuff, admittedly.

[dwiller943]

We like sex with ONE guy MULTIPLE times.
NOT sex with MULTIPLE guys.
Or at least, that's what I can say for me.