How Guys Really Feel About the Girls They Hook Up With
It’s been expressed by numerous women here, most recently by Sara, the writer of the letter in yesterday’s post, that sitting out the casual sex scene in college means getting very little male attention. She said:
Guys I feel no attraction to creepily hitting on me constantly simply trying to sleep with me that night, I don’t think I will meet a truly nice guy at a bar or a party…At this point, I think I will be waiting until after graduation to really meet the guys I even want to date at all. I am fine with it, but it is hard to choose that road when all of your friends are dating and crushing on boys, and it does get lonely. I know that choosing this road I will be stronger in the long run, but I often-times feel left out of the whole thing.
Sara is not alone; her feelings are typical of many young women in college who want a relationship, not a random hookup. It’s not surprising that many frustrated young women wind up dropping panties while drunk, hoping for the best, just to be included, part of the scene, having a normal college experience.
What many women fail to realize is that being “chosen” by a guy for the purpose of hooking up says little about her worth, or her attractiveness relative to her peers, even in his eyes. Men’s standards for hooking up are extremely low, as they will readily admit.
Consider the following question I came across on a guy’s poker forum two days ago. The writer is apparently a college hockey player. It’s not pretty, but it’s an interesting peek behind closed doors.
Here’s how guys really feel about the girls they hook up with:
From: BigEarn
HOW BAD IS THIS, HOOKUP WISE?
So I have always prided myself on having standards. I haven’t had a gf in years but I like to think that I consistently hook up with 7s or so on a pretty regular basis.
Anyways, lately I have been hooking up with this girl whose probably like a 5.5-6 but we only hookup when I am completely hammered and if nothing else pans out for me during the night. Is this ok? Should I stop this? I wouldn’t want people to see me out with this girl, shes tall,skinny, decent body but her face is kind of a disaster. She has summer-teeth… Some go this way, some go that way. (Pauly D – Jersey Shore reference). Her performance in bed is definitely solid but I think I need to just delete her number.
I’m looking for some thoughts on the situation here.
Ouch. The responses:
1. do we even have to say?
2. seriously wtf is your problem. pics or stfu/gtfo etc
3.
4. standards are for high schoolers
5. Beauty is a lightswitch away
6. If you arent trying to marry the girl and she knows that then who gives a fuck?
7. Plan B:
8. ewwww a 5.5-6?? if she was 6-6.5 I’d say mayyyyybe, but anything below a 6.75-8.2384 I say gtfo you ugly whorebitch.
9. keep on banging, justify it as << giving back to humanity>>
10. If you both understand this is drunken weekend happy time and you’re not involved….And you think it’s better than rubbing one out….And she thinks it’s better than rubbing one out….Then who fucking cares?
11. If she’s a 5 then I bet 90% of us would hit it
BigEarn responds:
Eh, I clearly said this one wasn’t hot and I bang 7s or so, not claiming to be tagging supermodels here. I make these posts because i’m sure most of you have been in similar situations and I like to hear what others have to say. I guess I just enjoy giving advice/responding to posts like this because quite frankly I find women and dealing with them very interesting.
I’m not insecure but I do get some self-satisfaction out of trying to work new girls, but then again who doesn’t? As I’ve posted in the past (years ago) my one real relationship was a complete disaster and I ended up heartbroken and after that hurt finally went away I guess i’m just a lot wiser and somewhat jaded when it comes to females.
If you didn’t already know, now you do. Clear eyes, full hearts, can’t lose.
Swearing Off Players, Once and For All
The Soul of a Player
Dear Susan,
I’m a nineteen year-old college sophomore, and at school I have found myself to only be attracted to alphas. Just so you know, I’m very independent and driven, both in school and work. I don’t drink much because I like to be in control of my own behavior. In other words, I’m a serious person, not someone who is looking to party and hook up every weekend. Just so you know, I’m a virgin waiting for the right relationship.
The summer before I started college, I friended a bunch of fellow freshmen on Facebook, including this guy named Joe. He messaged me and we started talking. I thought he was really cute, and pretty soon we were talking every day. He was going to be playing lacrosse at school, and of course I’ve always found athletes intriguing. He was funny and interesting but I could tell he was a player. I started to have feelings for him even though I knew it was stupid. When I met him in the fall, sparks flew. We made out once, which I thought was OK because we had been talking all summer, and I felt like I knew him pretty well.
Pretty soon he had a reputation as a total player. I had never been one to be dicked around so I pulled away. Nobody really knew about our little past, and as his reputation as a manwhore got around, I laughed with the crowd. I disliked him and was mad at myself for ever thinking he was cool. We were in one large class together, and after a couple of months he started waiting for me in the hallway. He texted me more and more, and after a while he started trying to make plans to hang out. My feelings for him were creeping back in, and my friends thought I should give him a chance because behind the manwhore there was a nice guy.
We went out a few times and one night he confessed how much he liked me. He said he hadn’t felt that way about anyone else at school, and he begged me to be his girlfriend, so I said yes. The next weekend we spent the day in the city and had a great time together. By this time finals were approaching. I didn’t hear much from him during that week, which I thought was odd, but chalked it up to the stress. I was hurt that he barely said goodbye when we left for winter break.
The day after Christmas, he texted me that he was done. I learned that some girl he had dated briefly in high school wanted him back. She renegged, though, and he called me to apologize. I spent the entire rest of break in agony over this idiot, who told me that girls are stressful. He expected us to be back together at school, and was annoyed that I wasn’t all over him. I was extremely angry and upset, but I had such strong feelings for him and we made out. Soon I heard that he had been telling everyone I gave him a blowjob, which was not true. When I tried to confront him about it he was “too busy” to talk. The next weekend he was all over another girl at a party, and even came up to me and said he can always get another girl blah blah blah.
We have many mutual friends, and over time we fell into a sort of friendship. He wanted to talk all the time about what a jerk he was in the past, and how he is trying to change his ways. I know better than to believe him, but the old feelings are still there, I just never admit them. We hung out over the summer sometimes, and he was always sweet and a really good friend. One night he mentioned that he needed a date for some dinner, and invited me. He acted like a total jerk that night, though. He later told my friend that I didn’t seem that into it. Since then he’s been kind of rude and distant. I’ve seen him once on campus, but he avoided me even when we were in the same room.
I absolutely can’t figure out why I like him or how to get over him. I don’t understand why he wouldn’t like me, or more importantly, why the hell I like him! I want to move on, but school has started, and I know I’ll be seeing him around a lot. Please shed some light on what I should do!
Sara
Dear Sara,
First of all, I give you credit for having the objectivity to know exactly what’s going on here. You aren’t deluding yourself about the kind of men you find attractive. Nor are you harboring unrealistic expectations about what Joe can offer you. For the past year, you have stayed strong and maintained your dignity. You have been played by Joe, it’s true, but it could have been a lot worse. In fact, while you continue to struggle with feelings of attraction and sexual chemistry, there’s little doubt in my mind that Joe leaves a string of broken hearts in his wake wherever he goes. You sensed from the start that Joe was a player, and it didn’t take him long to prove you right.
In my view, not all players are created equal. There are varying degrees of player behavior, and what separates them is generally the degree to which they knowingly deceive women. Some guys are born with considerable natural attractions. They’re good looking, conforming to society’s ideal for male beauty. They are often, though not always, athletic. They are generally gregarious, and seek the limelight. They’re often fussed over by their parents, who benefit vicariously from their sociability and athletic prowess. When a young man has had this experience growing up, it’s hardly surprising that he would attract others – both women and men. His character determines how he relates to others, and what his relationships look like. In my experience, players fall into three general categories with respect to character.
Player I
The most benign kind of player is the guy who knows he is good with women, and considers himself lucky. He is among the most desirable males, and enjoys the privileges of his rank, but he isn’t out to hurt anyone. He may be a genuinely good man who is responding to his good fortune. He grew up knowing how to please, and has smooth moves. Two generations ago, this young man would have “gone steady” with a pretty girl, and enjoyed the envy of his peers due to his regular access to sex. Today, he is free to hook up with as many women as his calendar allows, within reason. Often, little effort will be required on his part. He is naturally socially conspicuous, and he need do little more than respond to the sexual aggression of young women. He does not promise women a relationship, or imply a future connection if he knows that he is not interested. He is the only player who may be perfectly friendly the weekend after a hookup, even as he has his arm around someone new. He has nothing to hide, and nothing to be ashamed of. Women will know him for his high number, but not for his douchey behavior. This makes him somewhat dangerous to women, because they may feel that he would be the perfect boyfriend if they could get him to commit. Men who learn how to be successful with women, and apply their knowledge ethically also fall into this group.
Player II
More common is the player who adopts a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” approach. He will generally be evasive about his friendships, relationships, history with women, etc. He understands that most women would prefer a relationship, and his goal is to get in and out before drama ensues. Drama is likely with Player II because he leads girls on and implies an emotional investment on his part when there isn’t one. Indeed, this type of player is often pursuing several women with this strategy at the same time. His goal is “multiple,” so he must juggle the rising expectations of women and manage the rumor mill so that his supply of sex with any one of them is not cut short. His goal is to maximize his sexual variety and experience, and he has little concern for the pain of others. Many of the men who fit into this category are not naturals, but have worked their way into the ranks with attitude and determination. Here you will also find the naturals who did not develop good character, either due to a lack of proper instillation of values, some kind of family dysfunction, or both. He’s best avoided, and is known for hurting women. However, he often has good guy friends, who will assist him by reassuring young women that he’s a great guy. He often misuses his friends, having them advocate for him with women, convincing everyone that this time he really, really likes the girl.
Player III
The worst possible sort of guy to get involved with, this player is an all-out cad. He has no inhibitions about lying to get what he wants, and has zero empathy for the women who fall into his trap. In fact, he enjoys ridiculing and demeaning his conquests. He may profess feelings of love and pursue a woman ardently, only to turn on a dime and lose interest overnight. He may be incredibly charming, but can turn ugly in his demeanor when challenged. He is manipulative and narcissistic. The worst of these players are true sociopaths. Men who dislike or even hate women, usually due to some early personal experience, generally fall into this category if they have natural or learned womanizing abilities.
In your letter you cite the following player behaviors by Joe:
- After building up what seemed like a promising start to a real relationship, he made out with you after weeks of daily conversation, only to arrive on campus and whore around, ignoring you.
- His manslut status was obvious enough that it became a source of jokes among fellow freshman.
- He made no special effort to communicate for two months.
- Suddenly, he was all about it, texting frequently, waiting for you after class, etc. As you opened your heart, he responded by acting legit, even offering a committed relationship.
- Almost immediately, he withdrew emotionally, though he was not honest about it. You were anxious about things feeling “off.”
- He texted you “I’m done” the day after Christmas.
- You learned that during the time he was your boyfriend, he had been having conversations with an ex, and probably hooking up as well.
- He came back and apologized only after she rejected him.
- He was peeved in January that you were not unconditionally focused on him.
- He lied about your sexual activity.
- Within a week he was hitting on other girls in front of you.
- Actively seeking revenge, he confronted you to make sure you knew he could get another girl.
- He feigned emotional depth in talking to you as a friend about his whoring past.
- When he brought you to a function as his date, he was rude and inconsiderate, but blamed you.
- He continues to punish you by being rude and incommunicative, hardly the behavior of a friend.
In my opinion, this track record definitively gives Joe Player III status. He’s incredibly selfish and manipulative. In fact, you know what? He’s ugly. He’s hideous. He’s a terrible human being. That’s how you get over him. The only way to get past falling for assholes is to look clearly and honestly at who they are, beneath the surface. The charm and chemistry that you feel is really just bait. It’s not real. It doesn’t indicate a person who is genuinely interested, or interesting, or fun, or caring. You’ve followed that path, and it was a dead end. When you look deep into Joe’s soul, there’s nothing there for you. There’s nothing there for anyone. Some players will settle down as they age, and will probably make good husbands and dads. This is most likely with the Player I’s. Some Player IIs will do this as well, but I would be very wary of committing to a man who had ever behaved so selfishly, even when young. Player III’s are unlikely to ever give their hearts to anyone. They will continue to seek conquests and validation throughout their lives, continuing to lack empathy and displaying a complete lack of relationship skills.
The way you get over Joe is to recognize him for the villain he is. Your friends meant well when they gave him the benefit of the doubt, but they were just rationanlizing his behavior because they care for you. Underneath the surface of Joe’s charm and beauty is a toxic soul. I congratulate you for having kept your distance physically from Joe. It will make the next weeks and months easier. Because you have mutual friends, and will be forced to see him, I recommend that you assume an attitude of complete indifference.
In the meantime, I suggest that you make a list of the qualities you are looking for in a man. Dig deeper. Recognize that at best, the men you find most attractive have strong incentives to remain unattached and maximize sexual variety. At worst, they exhibit poor character. Open your mind to new possibilities, but do not compromise on what a man is made of.
You’re offering a lot more than sex to a potential partner. You should expect the same in return.
Recommended Further Reading:
What Women Really Love About Bad Boys
How To Make Sure You Don’t Fall For a Player
This is What a Good Man Looks Like
Does Hooking Up Lead to Relationships?
There’s a new study out that takes a look at relationship quality in a variety of different scenarios. Here’s how the press has responded:
I. Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon:
Surprise! Hookups Can Lead to Love
That one-night stand might turn into a perfectly happy relationship, a new study warns
II. Kay Steiger, Feministe:
Another Defense of Hooking Up – This Time With Science!
III. Anna North, Jezebel:
Yes, Reader, You Can Find Love After All Those One-Night Stands!
IV. Zachary Goelman, Reuters:
Better to Wait If You Want Real Love
Hmmm, my second-grade standardized test-taking memories alert me that one of these headlines does not belong with the others. Let’s see, three women, one man. Three feminist blogs, one worldwide impartial news organization. I hypothesize a) bias, b) analytical ineptitude, or a combination of the two. I decide to go straight to the source material and tackle the analysis before reading any of the articles.
Anthony Paik, a sociologist at the University of Iowa just published a study entitled “Hookups, Dating and Relationship Quality: Does the type of sexual involvement matter?” The full study is not available online, so there’s minimal information, mostly gleaned from the university’s press release, which begins:
Relationships that start with a spark and not much else aren’t necessarily doomed from the get-go, new University of Iowa research suggests.
We may now conclude that bias is a factor in the first three headlines. I proceed with my own analysis of the article.
The Methodology
1. Paik surveyed 642 heterosexual urban adults living in Chicago. In analyzing the data, Paik controlled for marital status, children and social embeddedness.
- The first two factors suggest that the sample group included heads of intact families, as well as single parents.
- The age distribution of the study subjects is unknown.
- No mention is made of students, so we may deduce that at the very least the survey was not targeted to the college population.
- In Paik’s previous study, which assessed the risk associated with concurrent sexual partners, he used 1995 data from 700+ adults in the Chicago area. If this comes from the same data source, it’s very old data, especially with regard to hookup culture, which has intensified dramatically in the last ten years. This data source was considered a limitation in his previous study.
2. The analysis compared two distinct groups of people.
- In Group A were subjects in committed relationships who had delayed sex until the relationship became serious.
- In Group B were subjects engaged in hookups, FWB arrangements, or casual dating relationships.
- Hookups were not specifically defined. The generally accepted definition includes anything from making out to sexual intercourse.
- Casual dating relationships were characterized as romantic in nature.
3. Relationship quality was measured by asking about the extent to which each person loved their partner, the relationship’s future, level of satisfaction with intimacy, and how their lives would be different if the relationship ended.
The Findings
1. Average relationship quality was higher for individuals who waited until things were serious to have sex compared to those who became sexually involved in “hookups,” “friends with benefits,” or casual dating relationships.
This is hardly surprising. One wouldn’t expect high scores for love, future expectations, intimacy or degree of involvement in Group B. However, even within Group B there is potentially much diversity with respect to relationship goals and expectations.
2. Having sex early on wasn’t to blame for the disparity.
The timing of sex did not explain why Group A had higher relationship satisfaction. (On a personal note, I’m relieved to hear this, as I married a one-night stand, as you know.)
3. When Paik factored out people who weren’t interested in getting serious, he found no real difference in relationship quality. That is, couples who became sexually involved as friends or acquaintances and were open to a serious relationship ended up just as happy as those who dated and waited.
Eliminating subjects seeking a casual sexual relationship evened the scores between Groups A and B. In other words, the essential ingredient producing relationship satisfaction is intent to enter a serious relationship. Those who began casual sexual relationships with the hope of achieving a serious commitment were ultimately as happy as those who had waited until they were serious to have sex. This is in keeping with other research, which shows that hookups lead to relationships 12% of the time, and that on college campuses, hookups are the primary pathway to relationships.
4. “People with higher numbers of past sexual partners were more likely to form hookups, and to report lower relationship quality. Through the acquisition of partners,” Paik said, “they begin to favor short-term relationships and find the long-term ones less rewarding.”
Does a higher number of casual partners lead to impairment in the ability to bond? Or does a person incapable of or disinterested in bonding seek a higher number of casual partners? Paik implies that short-term relationships are habit forming, or at least lead to a disinclination to committed relationships. Either way, these folks report lower quality in their relationships.
5. “It’s also likely that people who are predisposed to short-term relationships are screened out of serious ones because they don’t invest the time and energy to develop long-term ties,” Paik said.
Those who pursue a promiscuous, or short-term mating strategy demonstrate inferior relationship skills, perhaps as a result of their disinterest in a commitment, perhaps as a result of little experience with intimacy in relationships.
6. “While hookups or friends with benefits can turn into true love, both parties typically enter the relationship for sex and the expectations are fairly low,” Paik said.
This is hardly an endorsement of a strategy to hook up if you are seeking true love. Yes, it happens, but it requires that both parties share the goal of a serious relationship. If that can be determined early on in the “hooking up” period, the prognosis for a satisfying relationship is high. However, spending time in a short-term arrangement focused on sexual gratification is a waste if the objectives of the parties differ, especially for the party seeking a relationship.
7. In a study of Chicago-area adults published earlier this year, Paik reported that being involved with a friend increased the likelihood of non-monogamy by 44 percent for women and 25 percent for men. Involvement with an acquaintance or stranger increased the odds by 30 percent for women and 43 percent for men.
Clearly, there is a correlation between number of sexual partners and the propensity for non-monogamy.
The Headlines
So who got it right? Do we have a case of bias, ineptitude or both?
I. Tracy-Clark Flory
“It isn’t so much the type of sexual relationship that determines its quality, but the relationship readiness of the people involved. Casual sex doesn’t deaden one to the possibility of falling in love or becoming happily romantically committed. I hate to be a jerk and quote myself, but … as I wrote in my defense of casual sex for Salon: “Like innumerable 20-somethings before me, I’ve found that casual sex can be healthy and normal and lead to better adult relationships…Maybe, just maybe, young women can pursue sex without delaying or losing out at love.”
A fair and balanced analysis. By no means does it advertise casual sex as a means to lasting happiness, but rather a crap shoot that may work out. The content of the article is directly at odds with the headline, and I suspect TCF didn’t sign off on the latter.
B+ Little evidence of bias. No unsupported claims.
II. Kay Steiger
“It shouldn’t be all that surprising that research shows that hooking up after meeting someone by chance at a bar or a party is just another way to meet someone. Sometimes you meet a dud and sometimes you meet someone worthwhile. It’s also worth remembering that this is related to the study a while back from the University of Minnesota that showed casual sex wasn’t emotionally damaging.”
That study was crap, debunked here by moi.
“Granted, there are several problems with this study: They only examined 642 heterosexual adults. As we all know, LGBT folks have experiences with hooking up (and not hooking up) too.”
Yup, and studies of hooking up generally focus on heterosexuals, because THEY ARE 90% OF THE POPULATION. Deal with it. Furthermore, let’s take gay males out of the equation, as they invented hookup culture and know better than anyone how it works.
“It is the very existence of this amorphous laundry list of sexual expectations that leads some young women into thinking that sex equals love…The good thing is that I think this narrative is slowly changing. People these days (at least most normal, rational people I meet) are starting to view hooking up as a natural part of their general sexual experiences.”
Oh boy, we’re in trouble here…
“Now that’s not to say that women don’t suffer emotionally sometimes because of a bad hook up. Sometimes they do. (I’d almost argue that encountering an asshole or two in the realm of hooking up is necessary for young women so they can improve their bullshit detectors later on.)”
The rationalization hamster wheel is spinning so fast here, it appears to be a blur…
C- Nonsensical emotional claptrap. No evidence of intelligent thought. However, no nefarious motives either. She’s a rookie.
III. Anna North
“A new study finds that — shocker — people who have casual hookups aren’t destroying their chance of long-term relationship. But that hasn’t stopped the slut police.”
Full Disclosure: Jezebel linked to me with the term slut police. Thanks to my mom and dad, and my fifth grade teacher Mrs. Ryan, who told me to never sell myself short. Thanks to the readers of this blog, who have stood with me through thick and thin, so that I can now enjoy being vilified by Gawker Media. Never in my wildest dreams did I think this could happen to me!
“Paik’s research doesn’t seem to address the fact that many people go through phases of sexual preference in their lives, some of them relationship-focused and some of them not. However, it does back up what a lot of us have been saying all along — in the absence of assault or coercion, people (including fragile ladyfolk) are capable of choosing the kind of sexual behavior that’s right for them. Women don’t have casual sex because they’re desperate and damaged — often, they do so because they want casual sex.”
Right. And Paik says those women are less happy than those in serious relationships.
“…sex and love are incredibly complicated things and we can’t even agree on what a hookup is, so what’s the point of making blanket pronouncements about what sex does and doesn’t mean? As the Iowa study points out, it’s not even always possible to separate casual sex from relationship sex, since one can become the other. So why are we still arguing that the former will destroy your soul?”
“It’s not even always possible” – yeah, I don’t like those odds so much. Typical backdoor, tortured logic.
F The worst kind of deceitful, trashy journalism. Conclusions do not follow from supporting evidence. The political agenda is transparent – not even a modicum of effort is made to objectively analyze the study.
IV. Zachary Goelman
“Most of the 56 percent of 642 adults questioned in the study who said they had waited until they got serious before they had sex reported having a high quality relationship. The number was higher than for the 27 percent of people who had sex while dating casually and the 17 percent who were intimate while in a non-romantic relationship…There’s something about the characteristics of people who wait before sex that is linked to higher-quality relationships,” said sociology professor Anthony Paik of the University of Iowa.
Quotes the stats, a very good start.
“The debate is ‘why can’t we have sex now?’ The expectation is that sex should occur very quickly. But doing so, you’re losing out on some information that might be useful,” he explained in an interview. It’s almost an economic equation, he added. On average, the more costly the process leading into the relationship, the more likely it is to work. That’s what the data would suggest.”
Did someone say economics? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes…..And for the record, let me just say that anticipating sex is incredibly pleasurable, and in my experience heightens sexual tension immeasurably. It’s the difference between a 1 and a 7 on the Richter Scale.
“When he filtered out people who said they had frequent non-romantic or casual dating sexual relationships he found that the gap in relationship quality between serious and nonserious contexts of sexual activity disappeared.”
OK, so there is clearly a correlation between non-romantic relationships and lower relationship quality. Paik is saying that people who pursue non-romantic relationships are not really relationship material.
A- No axe to grind. Just balanced reporting with appropriate attention to the stats, and quotes from the academic who conducted the study. Motives appear professional.
There you have it. In two cases, strong bias and shameful ineptitude. One unbiased male reporter. One hopeful female writer cheering on the sex positive agenda, but unwilling to sell her soul to do it.
Personal Grooming Below the Equator
To all my readers who couldn’t care less about the politics of sex and relationships, this one’s for you.
Pubic hair (def.):
A patch of hair that causes nothing but trouble.
Urban Dictionary
Recently Kim Kardashian shared this grooming secret with Allure magazine:
I am Armenian, so of course I am obsessed with laser hair removal! Arms, bikini, legs, underarms…my entire body is hairless!
This led Leslie Goldman of HuffPo to fret about the cultural implications for women:
“Besides eliciting frightening mental images of a Chinese Crested Hairless, Kardashian’s hair quip made me kind of sad that we live in a society where women punish themselves in such painful and bizarre ways, all in an attempt to conform to some externally mandated definition of what is beautiful or sexy.”
I don’t know about you, but if I were Kim Kardashian I probably wouldn’t be rocking a mustache either. I’m not Armenian, but I am descended from hairy, raucous Celts who were still painting themselves blue in the forest during the heyday of the Roman Empire. (To be fair, they had some awesome pagan mating rituals.) By the age of 5, I was fully aware that my pale skinny calves covered with dark hair was not a good look. And just in case I’d missed the memo, my classmates teased me mercilessly, to the point that I spent my childhood in knee socks, even during the summer. Lest you think I exaggerate, once when I was about 10 I locked myself in the bathroom and shaved a stripe down my shin with my father’s razor. I loved the new look, but just then my mother called us to the dinner table. As I entered the kitchen my mother exclaimed, “Oh my God! What did you do to your leg!!??” My decision to forever avoid the ranks of hairy-legged feminists was probably cemented that night.
The truth is that women have probably been removing body hair, including pubic hair, since our forebears fashioned blades sharp enough to do the job. Some interesting tidbits about the history of hair removal, both general and pubic:
- In North America and Western Europe, it became increasingly common during the 20th century for women to remove some or all of their body hair. The removal of pubic hair by Western women became more common when bathing suits became abbreviated, starting in 1945. Changes in lingerie styles have also encouraged the removal of pubic hair.
- In Ancient Egypt, many people depilated their entire bodies to prevent infestation by lice, fleas, and other parasites. Ancient Egyptian priests also shaved or depilated all over daily, so as to present a “pure” body before the images of the gods.
- Sharia recommends the removal of armpit and pubic hair. Considered a hygienic practice, it was taught by the Prophet Muhammad.
- Hair removal has been used at times to humiliate. During European witch-hunts of the Medieval and Early Modern periods, alleged witches were stripped naked and their entire body shaved to discover the so-called witches’ marks.
- Evidence of pubic hair removal in ancient India dates back to 4000 to 3000 BC.
- According to John Ruskin’s biographer Mary Lutyens, the notable author, artist, and art critic was apparently accustomed only to the hairless nudes portrayed unrealistically in art, never having seen a naked woman before his wedding night. He was allegedly so shocked by his discovery of his wife Effie’s pubic hair that he rejected her, and the marriage was later legally annulled. He is supposed to have thought his wife was freakish and deformed.
- Among the upper class in 19th century Victorian Britain, pubic hair from one’s lover was frequently collected as a souvenir. The curls were, for instance, worn like cockades in men’s hats as potency talismans, or exchanged among lovers as tokens of affection.
OK, seriously, let’s not do that last one for Valentine’s Day. It appears that body hair has always been viewed as masculine, and its absence as feminine. Women removing theirs may indeed be an effort to be more attractive to men, or it may reflect a desire not to be too different, too far from the norm, as it was in my case. I think it’s fair to say that the issue has never been as political as it is today, and that women are doing a considerable amount of hand wringing about the practice.
A few years ago I was at a luncheon with a group of mothers who all had 18 year-old daughters in the same high school class. This topic came up at one point and I was quite surprised to learn that virtually all of the women were vehement in their denial that their daughters would even consider removing their pubic hair. I happened to know for a fact that every single one of those girls had gone bald eagle (this was a frequent topic of conversation around my kitchen table), though I didn’t disclose that fact. One woman present was a pediatrician, and confirmed that one of the most frequent reasons adolescents come in is for the treatment of folliculitis as a result of shaving the pubis. This conversation was profoundly upsetting to many of the mothers, probably because they feared that it signaled sexual activity, and none of them were willing to consider that their daughters might be having sex. I don’t think any of them were actually having sex, but the point is that they were thinking a lot about having sex at some point, and in the meantime, being ready felt adult and kind of sexy in itself. One mother felt so upset by the conversation that she emailed me four years later to let me know that her daughter, a sometime model and University of Michigan student, assured her that no one at Michigan was removing their pubic hair. Yeah, okay.
The current fashion for partial or total hair removal is generally traced to porn, which is really just a way of saying that guys dig less hairy women. In the annual Ask Men survey, here’s how the numbers stack up:
When it comes to hair “below her equator” what do you prefer?
I don’t care 18%
Completely natural 5%
Triangle or landing strip 38%
No hair, Brazilian please 39%
A separate survey of 2000 adults in 2003 produced similar results:
Male Preference re Female Pubic Hair:
No Hair 40%
Trimmed 46%
Natural 14%
Interestingly, the same survey asked women what they prefer. 70% want to see some manscaping.
Female Preference re Male Public Hair:
No Hair 15%
Trimmed 55%
Natural 30%
This may explain the recent fracas when Sasha Grey went full frontal on Entourage, revealing a large triangle of black hair, 70s style. It will be interesting to see whether, as a porn star, she can create a new fashion trend. Initial results, however were not promising. Twitter reactions went viral, and included these gems:
- holy shit. sasha grey in entourage = bush city.
- Can someone tell me why Sasha Grey had a HUGE bush on Entourage? wtf? (tweeted by female)
- why was Sasha Grey in the most recent episode of Entourage have a hairy bush???? did anyone else think that was digusting. ITS 2010!
- Sasha Grey is HOT! But her bush on tonight’s Entourage was NASTY!
- Holy shit for an ep about shaved vag, Sasha Grey on Entourage tonight had an ENORMOUS fucking 70s bush. WTF
- Thanks Entourage – now I’m gonna have nightmares about Sasha Grey’s bush
- Why is Sasha Grey walking around with a full bush. Please shave bitch LOL. (tweeted by female)
- Sasha Grey….please shave your bush. Thank you.
- And one fan:
- I think Sasha Grey might singlehandedly bring back the bush.
SG tweeted the following response:
A lot of bush comments after tonight’s #Entourage episode. If you’re curious…that’s what a grown woman looks like. Besides, I shave where it counts ↓ I’m happy to contribute to making it ok again:) All ‘fashions’ have their cycles!
There you have it, the zeitgeist. Does this mean you should shave or trim your pubic hair? No, not if you don’t want to. I certainly wouldn’t bother if you’re not sexually active. But now you know how most young men and women feel about the issue, and you can make an informed choice. If your partner has a preference, I’d give it serious consideration.
For the women: If it’s any consolation, many men say it’s a factor in their willingness to go downtown. And that’s not something to dismiss lightly. Just saying.
For the men: Seriously, if any part of you wants your balls in her mouth, shave them. Anything else is testicular manslaughter.
The Cracking Foundation of Sex Positive Feminism
Do we think the ladies have gone too far with the sex positive feminism? I mean I know they’re all down with the pornography and the shaved pudenda and what not, but do we really think this is the path to liberation?
Hank Moody
Even Hank Moody Wants the Insanity to Stop
I’ve been claiming that the walls of Sex Positive Feminism are tumbling down. I suppose if I were being conservative I might say the foundation is cracking. No point in getting giddy or anything. I’ve assembled some quotes for you, which generally track the demise of the movement over the past five years. Interesting stuff.
The whole argument that women are choosing this path themselves, and that that makes it OK, doesn’t particularly make sense to me. I mean, I suppose it is a tiny nugget of progress, but it’s like we have taken the cage away from women and none of us is trying to escape, we’re just behaving exactly as we think men want us to. In terms of the Cake parties, I just didn’t think that they were really about women’s sexual pleasure at all. It was like being at your average strip club. And if you’re going to try to sell that to me as feminist, then I’m just going to laugh at you.
Ariel Levy, author, Female Chauvinist Pigs, 2005
Our popular culture, she argues, has embraced a model of female sexuality that comes straight from pornography and strip clubs, in which the woman’s job is to excite and titillate – to perform for men. According to Levy, women have bought into this by altering their bodies surgically and cosmetically, and – more insidiously – by confusing sexual power with power, so that embracing this caricaturish form of sexuality becomes, in their minds, a perverse kind of feminism.
Jennifer Egan on Ariel Levy, New York Times, 9/18/05
Before it curdled into a collection of stereotypes, feminism had fleetingly held out a promise that there would be some precincts of womanly life that were not all about men. But it never quite materialized.
It took only a few decades to create a brazen new world where the highest ideal is to acknowledge your inner slut. I am woman; see me strip. Instead of peaceful havens of girl things and boy things, we have a society where women of all ages are striving to become self-actualized sex kittens. Hollywood actresses now work out by taking pole-dancing classes.
Female sexuality has been a confusing corkscrew path, not a serene progressive arc. We had decades of Victorian prudery, when women were not supposed to like sex. Then we had the pill and zipless encounters, when women were supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men. Then it was discovered — shock, horror! — that men and women are not alike in their desires. But zipless morphed into hookups, and the more one-night stands the girls on ”Sex and the City” had, the grumpier they got.
Maureen Dowd, New York Times, 10/30/05
When Dowd quotes an Ivy League professor on the mysteries of undergraduate women who outperform their male peers every day in the classroom and then capitulate their power at night, not “even getting orgasms … just servicing boys in dark corners,” it’s an observation that is surely unquantifiable and alarmist. But if it’s true for some young women — and if we’re honest, we have to admit that it doesn’t sound that implausible — then we must find a way to address the contradictions of sex-positivity and sexual objectification.
Rebecca Traister, Salon, 11/8/05
There’s a world of difference between being branded a sex object and choosing to be one…I may like to get spanked until I scream, but I still deserve to be treated as an intelligent human being… Feminists are just like any other women, and it’d be a shame for us to hold back in a misguided attempt to live up to the legacies of Susan B. Anthony and Gloria Steinem.
…We can choose to be celibate, or to have someone come on our face. Having a full range of sexual options should be a high-priority feminist goal…Thankfully, many of us are exploring our kinks in all their flavors.
Rachel Kramer Bussell, Fucking and Feminism, Village Voice, 7/11/06
Maybe that is because I have only really engaged in bareback sex with the types of dudes who don’t fear HPV and whose diseases I don’t particularly fear, because the worst thing I can think of about most of them is the ensuing lifetime of awkward conversations, and the worst thing about that is that awkward conversations summon memories, and summoning bad memories every time you’re about to fuck a new person is no way to live, but, if you can smile and say (hypothetically!) “Hey, just so you know, I have [insert STD here], but I got them from this really hilarious guy who is still one of my best friends, so it was kind of worth it,” before you do it with a new person, it’s almost nice. Like: oh yeah, that was a good time.
I actually don’t believe that hook [sic] culture exists. What I do think is cause for worry is the way that conservative and anti-women organizations, writers, and media makers are using this myth of a hook up culture to promote regressive values surrounding gender and to roll back women’s rights.
Jessica Valenti, Feministing, 2/20/09
The death of courtship is very, very widespread. I’ve never spoken on a college campus where people say, “No, no, no, we’re dating. We’re courting. We’re having candlelit dinners.” Even on very conservative college campuses, people are very promiscuous, but they think they’re not having sex because they’re not having intercourse. It’s extraordinary.
It’s like that Woody Allen quote — even bad sex is better than no sex. I think they feel like that’s what they’re stuck with. And given that, it’s better than solitude and frustration. But when I talk about romance and courtship and love, there’s this palpable longing from both genders. I think they wish it were not so.
Young women don’t feel empowered to set the pace or to set the boundaries. Young women’s sexuality is better served by a more gradual approach. And certainly because they are the ones who face pregnancy, they’re better served by not [having] intercourse — there’s other ways of being sexual. Frankly, I think another pressure is that grown-ups have kind of failed them. We talk to them about the mechanics of sexuality, but we don’t talk to them about love and intimacy and desire.
Naomi Wolf, Hooking Up and Losing Out, 2/12/09
While we’re “unfixing definitions of feminism,” may I humbly submit that we unfix this “sex-positivity” shit from the entire praxis? Because if I have to endure another essay on the mysteries of the female orgasm in the name of feminism, I may never have an orgasm again… Of course, there are a lot of feminist issues involved in the porn industry, sex work, and in human sexuality; I just don’t think “sex positivity” is one of them. So you’re a feminist, and you like sex—well, that’s normal. So do a lot of people, including a lot of non- and anti-feminists. So what does that have to do with feminist identity?…If people who like sex see sex-positivity as a part of the feminist movement, maybe they’ll see feminism as less prude and scary and icky and straight-laced and serious and anti-man. And I think it’s condescending to the feminist movement that we have to bring orgasms in to be taken seriously.
Amanda Hess, The Sexist, Washington City Paper, 4/1/09
Liberation always included an element of sexual libertinism. It’s one of the few things that made it so appealing to men: easy sexual access to women’s bodies. (And to their stories about sex, which helps explain why 49 percent of Jezebel’s audience is men.)
But unregulated sexual life also exposes women to the strong men around them, and here, the most visible of the Jezebel writers reflect the risks of liberation. Even if the girls gone wild stories are substantially overstated, the emergence of Tkacik and Egan as brand emissaries of Jezebel, and its attendant increase in popularity—as well as the responsive posts from the community of commenters, who call themselves “Jezzies” or “Jezebelles”—forces feminism to confront their public sexual narrative. How can women supposedly acting freely and powerfully keep turning up tales of vulnerability—repulsive sexual partners, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, even rape?
Linda Hirshman, Slate Double X, 5/12/09
Especially in the college hook-up culture, ‘yes’ has become the default setting for us and any other decision would require a justification. It’s supported by such ingrained beliefs about freedom, progress and rights that people fall into bed together left and right without actively making the choice. Sex is expected and when you consider not having it you are fighting a whole host of other factors. Somehow, we have swung the pendulum back the other way, such that sex is a bit like the new abstinence: it feels like a betrayal to our values and ideals to say no.”
…Even if I should feel comfortable having sex, that doesn’t mean I necessarily want to.
I know. Shocking. It’s total blasphemy to admit this in a column that’s only supposed to titillate you. But it’s true, I am not so sex-crazed that casual sex appeals to me. It took me a while to realize this because I was caught in the implications that accompany the choice to abstain. I was confused by my general sense that people only abstain because they think sex is wrong or dirty, God will judge them, or they’re prudish. Otherwise, the general thinking goes that sex is so fucking awesome, of COURSE you will want to have it as much as possible. It’s a vicious feedback loop with little way out for the rational mind.
Carmel del Amicis, Sex Columnist, UC Berkeley Daily Californian, 6/15/09
There’s another sort of possibly emerging sexual conservatism among younger women that I actually find a lot more understandable and am personally a lot more sympathetic to…I do think that organized feminism or mainstream feminist activists have somewhat missed an opportunity to speak to a lot of young women who find hookup culture and the emotional brutality of contemporary sexual mores to be really unsatisfying…Sex-positive feminism became something in which women were expected to be as casual and callous about sex as the most casual and callous men.
Michelle Goldberg, author, The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World, 2009
Is a world in which guys rule the result of the so-called man shortage on campus? Fat chance. More likely, we’re enjoying some unintended spoils of the sexual revolution. As authors like Ariel Levy and Jean Kilbourne and Diane Levin have shown, the sexualization of girls and young women has been repackaged as girl power. Sexual freedom was supposed to be good for women, but somewhere along the way, the right to be responsible for your own orgasm became the privilege of being responsible for someone else’s.
…Does that make me a right-winger? Can I still be a feminist and say that I’m against this brand of sexual freedom? I fear feminism has been backed into a corner here. What, and who, are we losing to the new sexual freedom? Is this progress? Or did feminism get really drunk, go home with the wrong person, wake up in a strange bed and gasp, “Oh, God?”
…These letters worry me. They signify a growing trend in girls’ sexual lives where they are giving themselves to guys on guys’ terms. They hook up first and ask later. The girls are expected to “be cool” about not formalizing the relationship. They repress their needs and feelings in order to maintain the connection. And they’re letting guys call the shots about when it gets serious.”
Rachel Simmons, Teen Vogue Columnist, How the Hookup Culture is Hurting Girls, 2/25/10
When people concern troll the hook-up culture, they rarely talk about how young women might want a commitment for reasons outside of Twu Wuv, but as someone who does remember college pretty well as it drifted into this hook-up culture, I can say firmly that getting a capital-B boyfriend was a huge source of social validation and status. But for men doing the validating, there’s not actually much value in monogamy (outside of Twu Wuv). They give something—validation—and instead of getting anything for it, they end up having to pay the price of not having their options open. Who wants that? Plus, power corrupts, as I can tell you from my own ugly college dating experiences and the ones I saw around me. The aching need that women have for validation can make them easy to manipulate, and sadly, quite a few men enjoy doing that. But I submit to you, dear reader, that as sexist as all this is, it’s still better than in the past.
…Of course, that doesn’t do much for young women in the here and now who are suffering from their extreme need for male validation that young men are exploiting. What do we do for them? I’m not really sure that telling them to quit fucking is going to get the job done, because it doesn’t address the underlying issue. If you’re the sole individual, you get no benefit from that, since the guys will just take their validating attention to others who are willing to play ball. If women come together collectively to withhold sex, I still don’t think that’s going to work out, because the underlying issue—that men get to define women in these youth cultures—hasn’t been addressed at all, and you’re still going to have women sobbing into their pillows because lack of male validation is leaving them as social pariahs.
…That [girls] can go out in groups and then perhaps hook up is already better than a system where they have to be selected by a man to even go out. The girls are lurching in the right direction, but what needs to happen now is more attention paid to the boys. How can we discourage young men from validating each other based on displays of misogyny? How can we get boys to appreciate girls more as human beings? How can we dismantle a system where social status in youth cultures is controlled strictly by young men? These are the questions we need to be asking.
Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon, 2/28/10
I am a post-baby boomer who has been handed a sort of Spice Girls’ version of feminism. We’re supposed to be wearing half-shirts and jumping around. And, you know, maybe that’s not panning out.
Tina Fey, Vogue, March 2010
Feminist Web sites advise that is it our “feminist duty to 1) seek pleasure and feel entitled to it and 2) to make the world a more orgasmic place for other women.” And yet there seems to be something else at play in the culture that’s making Klausner (I Don’t Care About Your Band) and Anderson (Chastened) regretful, some new wave of anti-orgasmic sexual conservatism that makes you hate yourself for what you did last night.
Jessica Grose, The Shame Cycle, Slate, 3/3/10
The casual sex backlash is here. Even so-called sex-positive feminists are starting to express their shame and regret over past one-night stands, says Jessica Grose in Slate. This is sure to cause many conservatives to rejoice, but I suspect the report of hookup culture’s death has been greatly exaggerated…As I see it, young women have fully proved that we can have one-night stands, hear us roar –
Maybe instead of signaling a backlash, these are actually signs that we’re slowly inching toward a world where a woman isn’t either good or bad, a wife or whore, a virgin or slut.
…and maybe we’re beginning to also allow ourselves more nuanced feelings about our hookups. …We can now acknowledge regret over a one-night stand, without being considered, or seeing ourselves as, forever ruined women; if there’s been a recent change in my generation’s relationship to casual sex, I suspect it’s that we’re relaxing our defensive posturing.
Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon, 3/4/10
Chen is part of a handful of women bloggers who are sobering up quickly after their youthful indiscretions, and lately, the sober seems far more prominent than the indiscreet. Former Gawker editor Emily Gould (a friend) wrote poignantly about the highs and lows of her post-breakup life a few years ago but has since pulled back and started a much less personal blog where she writes mostly about cooking and eating.
And finally, a quote not directly related to sex-positivity, but rather a general assessment of the way that the feminist blogosphere does business, from a former sex blogger:
It’s a prime example of the feminist blogosphere’s tendency to tap into the market force of what I’ve come to think of as “outrage world”—the regularly occurring firestorms stirred up on mainstream, for-profit, woman-targeted blogs like Jezebel and also, to a lesser degree, Slate’s own XX Factor and Salon‘s Broadsheet. They’re ignited by writers who are pushing readers to feel what the writers claim is righteously indignant rage but which is actually just petty jealousy, cleverly marketed as feminism. These firestorms are great for page-view-pimping bloggy business. But they promote the exact opposite of progressive thought and rational discourse, and the comment wars they elicit almost inevitably devolve into didactic one-upsmanship and faux-feminist cliché. The vibe is less sisterhood-is-powerful than middle-school clique in-fight, with anyone who dares to step outside of chalk-drawn lines delimiting what’s “empowering” and “anti-feminist” inevitably getting flamed and shamed to bits.
Emily Gould, Slate Double X, 7/6/10
I respect those feminists brave enough to take on the Snarky Sinister Sisters of No-Strings Sex. It’s never easy to speak truth to power.
Why Are Jaclyn Friedman and Amanda Marcotte Terrified of Hooking Up Smart?
Just when I thought it was safe to go back to my regular gig writing this cozy little blog, documentary filmmaker Denice Ann Evans tipped me off to more Slutty Shenanigans by Amanda Marcotte and Jaclyn Friedman. I’m disappointed, because today I had a fun post about everyone’s favorite topic – grooming “down there.” That will have to wait, though, because I’ve been described as holding views that are downright terrifying! Call the feminist police! Wayward XX on the loose! Stop her!
In a recent interview on Reality Check, an online forum “committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights,” Marcotte interviewed Friedman and I was the primary topic of conversation (blush). Not surprisingly, there was considerable discussion about my recent post Deconstructing the Sluthood of Jaclyn Friedman, but what was new, and far more noteworthy, was a very straightforward defining of the Sex Positive Feminist agenda. More on that in a minute.
What I find most compelling about the interview is the marked shift in strategy. Until now, sex pos fems have portrayed dissenters primarily as women who are afraid that the “sluts are stealing all the menz.” A favorite theme in their attacks on me was that I fear losing my husband to a woman like Friedman. (Ahem, let’s just say this isn’t what keeps me up at night.) Indeed, this meme – that women who feel that hookup culture serves women poorly are in fact, terrified of losing their own men, is a common one among women like Marcotte. For example, here’s a tweet by Marcotte from last April slamming Tina Fey for daring to question the sex positive agenda:
When I hear a married woman rant about the evils of sluts out there, I tend to wonder who her husband’s been dicking.
Nice talk.
Here though, we see a carefully crafted new marketing strategy, a move away from shaming women who don’t buy into the feminist agenda, to portraying them as frightening, a stand-in for Evil Patriarchy. Ironically, Friedman accused me of being a man-hater, which I confess I found hilarious.
Here are the interesting bits:
Marcotte: Things got ugly when a woman I think none of us had ever heard of before? named Susan Walsh? thought she’d make an example out of you. She has a blog called, what? “Hooking Up Smart?” Where she basically, sort of, promotes the same reactionary theories that the so-called hook-up culture is bad for women and something men imposed on women… What the hell is up with her?
Friedman: Well, I think it’s incredibly – well, I think there’s a lot of reasons she did that. One is for attention, because, as you said, I’d never heard of her! And now she has a post up sort of bragging about all the responses to her and how she’s so tickled by them, and so mission accomplished by her. Congrats, I guess… I didn’t want to say, for a woman that going out and pursuing casual sex is simple, because it’s not. Because the culture makes it very difficult. And sometimes very scary.
…You know, she just sort of totally misconstrued the whole thing, I think quite deliberately, because otherwise it’s a real threat to her thesis for me to be out there saying, “Look. This is complicated. It’s difficult because the culture makes it difficult. It’s not without risk. But it actually has a lot of power and what I’m advocating for is a culture that makes it less difficult, and for a culture that allows there to be less risk associated with it.”
But the other reason I think she wrote the post is to scare off other women from talking about it the way I did.
Marcotte: Let’s talk about gender. Because Walsh is promoting a theory that is incredibly tired and it’s surprising that anyone can make money off of it anymore. [Forced Derisive Feminist Laughter] It’s just this notion that men are all perverted dogs and women are all vanilla monogamists and dating is warfare where only one side can win.
It’s funny, though, I think people like her still have their hooks in us because they give us this nagging feeling that casual sex is still a sham that men push on women. And I think there’s enough of a feeling now out there that women are getting the shorter shrift; that these theories still hold…
**(Note: Here Marcotte reveals her soft underbelly of doubt. She knows that the voices against anonymous, casual sex are growing, reaching new audiences. She’s terrified of being silenced by her own fellow feminists, something that has already begun.)
Friedman: I think you’re right. I think it’s a really cynical, horrible, insulting way to look at people in general. I think it’s very insulting to men, right? That men aren’t capable of love, that we have to trick them into loving us by withholding sex, and of course it’s insulting to women as well, but I think in ways that we’ve elaborated. But I think that – I think that the world is still scary. And I think that the world of sexuality and dating is still scary for a lot of reasons that we probably don’t have time to get into in this format, and I think she plays on that fear.
So, it’s a question of whether or not you can see that you’re living in a framework. So, she’s living in a framework. She’s very explicitly living in a commodity framework of sex. And she says phrases like “the sexual marketplace” all the time… She likes to think of this as an economic exchange with incentives and things like that… She has this economic model, but she doesn’t understand that another model is possible.
Get ready, here it comes! The sexual model promoted by sex positive feminists throughout the blogosphere has finally been defined! It looks like this:
Friedman:
So, there is an entirely other way to look at sex that I think more and more people are turning on to and understanding, which is that it really is just a collaborative performance between two or more people.
And it doesn’t matter what your gender is.
It doesn’t matter how many people are there.
It doesn’t matter if it’s anonymous.
What matters is: are you both having a good time? Are you both getting something positive out of it?
And is there good, healthy communication?
Is everybody being safe? All those basic things.
But outside of it: is everyone having a great time? Then there’s nothing wrong with it. As long as everybody’s on the same page; nobody’s lying, everybody’s playing safe about disease and pregnancy, that we can consider it more, like, you know, a collaborative jam session…
But she – that’s a terrifying frameshift for someone who’s built their whole self-worth on being able to play the economic model game, I think.
OK, let’s discuss. Some questions to think about:
- Is there a place in our society for two people who wish to express love through sex?
- What are the implications of defining sex as a performance?
- Is sex between two people materially different than sex among n partners? How so?
- Is it possible to know during anonymous sex if your partner is having a good time? How?
- Is it possible to judge during anonymous sex if either or both parties will experience negative feelings after the fact?
- Between strangers, what does good, healthy communication look like? Can it occur without trust? Is trust possible between strangers?
- Is it possible to know in group or anonymous sex if everyone is being safe? How does one “play safe” about disease and pregnancy? Are medical reports produced? Or does one trust one’s life to a stranger in good faith?
- Is this model an evolution away from sex as an expression of love, and the means of procreating, toward an orgiastic pleasure principle?
- Does this model reflect a stunted maturation process? According to Freud, “an individual’s id follows the pleasure principle and rules in early life, but, as one matures, one learns the need to endure pain and defer gratification.”
- Is this model viable? What percentage of women would embrace it? Men?
**My next post will lay out the rapidly widening fissures within the Sex Positive camp, which is the real source of terror. I’m the enemy, but the real threat to Marcotte & Friedman comes from growing numbers of doubters from within their own camp.
Update: No voting by dudes! We know perfectly well how guys feel about this issue, ha!
Update #2: At Jaclyn Friedman’s request, I have added five ellipses to her remarks above. In no way does this alter my argument or the meaning of any content. I encourage everyone to go to the linked interview and read it in its entirety. (Link here, again.)
Biology Drives Gender
Just kidding, sorta.
“Except for their genitals, I don’t know what immutable differences exist between men and women. Perhaps there are some other unchangeable differences; probably there are a number of irrelevant differences. But it is clear that until social expectations for men and women are equal, until we provide equal respect for both sexes, answers to this question will simply reflect our prejudices.”
Naomi Weisstein
“In the theory of gender I began from zero. There is no masculine power or privilege I did not covet. But slowly, step by step, decade by decade, I was forced to acknowledge that even a woman of abnormal will cannot escape her hormonal identity.”
Camille Paglia
The definition of gender, according to Miriam-Webster:
2 a : sex
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Even the most radical gender studies academics acknowledge that men and women behave differently. Indeed, it would be impossible to deny it. Anyone who has spent time observing a toddler playgroup can attest to the profoundly different interests and communication styles of the sexes, from an early age.
The question is why. Is it biology? Or does culture create feminine and masculine attributes?
Until recently, little was actually known about subtle physiological sex differences between men and women, and analysis has relied heavily on cultural shaping. A young girl goes for the doll because she has been sent millions of subliminal cultural messages that this is what girls do to become like mom. Boys are fascinated by construction and superheroes because society has shown them this is what boys do to become like dad.
However, starting about ten years ago, “advances in the study of euroimaging and neuroendocrinology began supplying exciting new insights into how women and men use their brains differently.”
So says Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatrist who for 25 years has studied the relationship among mental health, hard wiring and brain chemistry. A graduate of Yale Medical School, she first joined the faculty of Harvard Medical School, and then became the Director of the Women’s Mood and Hormone Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. Her first book, published in 2006 was The Female Brain, and this year she followed up with The Male Brain. (Hat tip: Jade of Tasting Grace). The books provide a fascinating explanation for the layperson; though Brizendine sources thousands of studies, her writing is highly accessible.
Aside from the general pursuit of scientific knowledge, why is this information so important? Dr. Brizendine:
I know it’s not politically correct to say this, and I’ve been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us. But I believe that women actually perceive the world differently than men. If women attend to those differences, they can make better decisions about how to manage their lives.
Indeed, she’s been skewered by the liberal “gender is cultural” crowd. In her review of The Male Brain for the New York Times, Emily Bazelon wrote:
“She is a neuro psychiatrist (the prefix makes any title sound smarter) [SNARK ALERT!!!] who has put her professional training behind a breezy, incautious account of how the brain, urged on by hormones, makes men and women act completely differently. You’d never know from reading Brizendine that beneath the sea she blithely sails are depths that researchers have only just begun to chart…Brizendine nods to the fact that the brains of men and women are mostly alike. But her emphasis is entirely on the “profound differences” between them. This is clearly the best-seller strategy.”
(I find it rather amusing that Bazelon uses the sailing metaphor here, since I’ve accused her and her fellow feminist journalists as being bonafide members of The Flat Earth Society in their continued willful ignorance around scientific gender study.)
The books make a fascinating pair, and contain hundreds of insights that will have you nodding in recognition. I’ve summarized the Introductions of the books here, just to give you a sense of the overwhelmingly fascinating science – there is a method to the madness of sex differences!
Thirteen Brain Sex Differences that Will Blow Your Mind
1. Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Weighs options, makes decisions. It’s the “fear of punishment area” and the area for self-consciousness.
“It’s the worry wart center, and it’s larger in women than in men. (Testosterone decreases worry about punishment.)”
2. Amygdala: Alarm system for threats, fear and danger. Larger in men. Calmed by oxytocin.
“It’s the wild beast within; the instinctual core, tamed only by the Prefrontal Cortex.
3. Prefrontal Cortex: Focuses and makes good judgments. Puts the brakes on impulses from the amygdala. Larger in women and matures faster in females by one to two years.
4. Insula: Processes gut feelings. Larger in women.
5. Temporal parietal junction: This cognitive empathy hub solves problems.
“It’s more active in males, and races towards a fix-it-fast solution.”
6. Hypothalamus: Regulates hormones. Becomes active earlier in women.
“It kicks the gonads into gear.”
7. Medial Preoptic area: Controls sexual pursuit, and is 2.5 times larger in the male.
“This is the part of the brain that starts an erection.”
8. Ventral tegmental area: Manufactures dopamine. More active in males.
9. Mirror-neuron system: The empathy system. Reads facial expressions and interprets tone of voice and other nonverbal cues. More active in females.
10. Periaqueductal Gray: Pain circuits are located here. During intercourse, it’s the center for pain suppression, intense pleasure and moaning. More active in males.
11. Hippocampus: Emotional memory. Larger and more active in women.
“It’s the elephant that never forgets a fight, a romantic encounter, or a tender moment – and won’t let you forget it either.”
12. Dorsal premammillary nucleus: Controls one upsmanship, territorial defense, fear and aggression. Larger in males, and contains special circuits to detect territorial challenges by other males.
“It’s the defend your turf area.”
13. Pituitary Gland: Produces hormones of fertility, milk production and nurturing behavior.
“It helps turn on the mommy brain.”
Still not convinced? Check out Brizendine’s Cast of Neuro-Hormone Characters.
Women (excerpted from The Female Brain):
1. Estrogen: The queen: powerful, in control, all-consuming; sometimes all business, sometimes and aggressive seductress; friend of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, acetylcholine and norepinephrine (the feel-good brain chemicals.)
2. Progesterone: In the background but a powerful sister to estrogen; intermittently appears and sometimes is a storm cloud reversing the effects of estrogen; other times is a mellowing agent; mother of allopregnenolone (the brain’s chill pill).
3. Testosterone: Fast, assertive, focused, masculine, forceful seducer, aggressive, unfeeling; has no time for cuddling.
4. Oxytocin: Fluffy, purring kitty; cuddly, nurturing, earth mother; finds pleasure in helping and serving; sister to vasopressin (the male socializing hormone), sister to estrogen, friend of dopamine.
5. Cortisol: Frazzled, stressed out; highly sensitive, physically and emotionally.
6. Vasopressin: Secretive, background, subtle aggressive male energies; brother to testosterone, brother to oxytocin (makes you want to connect in an aggressive male way).
7. Androstenedione: Mother of testosterone in the ovaries; supply of sassiness; high-spirited in youth, wanes at menopause.
8. Allopregnenolone: Mellowing daughter of progesterone; without her we are crabby; she is sedating, calming, easing, but when she leaves we experience irritable withdrawal. Her monthly departure 3-4 days before a woman’s period is the story of PMS.
Men (excerpted from The Male Brain):
1. Testosterone: Dominant, aggressive, powerful, focused, goal-oriented. Controls compulsion to outrank other males. Drives masculine sweat glands to produce sexy smell of androstenedione. Activates sex and aggression. Seductive due to promotion of confidence and bravery. Can be moody.
2. Vasopressin: Defends turf, mate and children. Promotes monogamy.
3. Mullerian Inhibiting Substance: Strips away all that is feminine, building circuits for exploratory behavior and suppressing circuits for female-type behaviors. Builds male reproductive organs.
4. Oxytocin: Increases empathy, trust, romantic love, attachment. Reduces stress, lowers male blood pressure, helps fathers bond with infants. Promotes feelings of safety and security – cause of postcoital narcolepsy.
5. Prolactin: Stimulates connections for paternal behavior and decreases sex drive.
6. Cortisol: Fires up when angry to fight for life and limb.
7. Androstenedione: The male pheromone.
8. Dopamine: All about feeling good and having fun. Addictively rewarding, especially during rough and tumble play of boyhood and sex play of manhood. Increases ecstasy during orgasm.
9. Estrogen: Runs most of the male brain circuits. Stimulates oxytocin.
Bio doubters like to say that male and female physiology are virtually the same. A Newsweek article states:
“Last year prominent psychologist Janet Hyde examined decades of studies that compared the emotional and behavioral lives of men and women and concluded that most differences between the genders were statistically “close to zero.” “There is no gender-difference phenomena to explain,” she says.”
Again, it is necessary to point out that old studies, from previous decades, have minimal relevance today. The last ten years has produced the technology that allows scientists to read and observe the brain. Future studies of gender will heavily emphasize biology, and outdated diatribes against patriarchy will gather dust in the stacks. As Louann Brizendine stated in 2006, understanding our biology enables us to understand ourselves: our behavior and our moods. That’s invaluable insight for decision making.
It may well be that men and women are 99% alike. But oh, it’s that 1% that makes life interesting!
A Nail in the Coffin Of Sex Pos Ed
An interesting new study looking at sex among teens was presented at yesterday’s meeting of the American Sociological Association. Bill McCarthy of UC Davis and Eric Grodsky of University of Minnesota conducted the study, which looked at the largest teen survey ever undertaken, beginning in 1994.
Contrary to the beliefs of those who believe in abstinence-only sex ed, the sociologists found that the negative relationship between adolescent sex and education only holds when the sex is casual. Teens having sex in committed relationships showed no ill effects in school.
Compared to abstinence, sexual intercourse in committed romantic relationships is often academically harmless, whereas in other types of relationships it is more detrimental. Females and males who have sex only with romantic partners are generally similar to abstainers on most of the education measures we examined.
While abstainers and those having relationship sex did about the same in school, there were several negative outcomes for students who engaged primarily in hookup sex, including lower grades and more school-related problems.
From the article:
Titled, “Sex and School: Adolescent Sexual Intercourse and Education,” the study considers nine education measures:
- school attachment,
- high school GPA,
- college aspiration,
- college expectations,
- problems in school,
- ever truant,
- the number of days truant,
- school sanctions (suspended/expelled), and
- dropping out.
The analysis uses two waves of data from the “National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health” and the “Adolescent Health Academic Achievement Study.” Compared to abstainers who are otherwise similar to adolescents who have sex, youth who have sex only with partners with whom they are not romantically involved are at greater risk on the following measures:
- experiencing problems in school,
- being suspended or expelled,
- being less likely to expect to attend college,
- being less attached to school, and
- earning lower grades.
McCarthy and Grodsky:
Collectively, our results find that the detrimental outcomes commonly attributed to adolescent sexual intercourse occur mostly in non-romantic contexts.
They believe the results can be explained by the fact that teens in committed relationships receive considerable support from their partners, alleviating both stress and anxiety. Conversely, they believe that having casual sex increases stress in teens’ lives. (According to a new federal survey approximately half of high school students reported having had sexual intercourse, and 14% reported four or more partners.)
The critical findings include the following specifics:
1. Teens in serious relationships did not differ from their abstinent counterparts in terms of their grade-point average, how attached they are to school or college expectations. They were also not more likely to have problems in school, be suspended or absent.
2. Compared with virgins, teens who have casual sex had lower GPAs, cared less about school and experienced more problems in school. For example, female teens who have flings had GPAs that were 0.16 points lower than abstinent teens. Male teens who have casual sex had GPAs that were 0.30 points lower than those who do not have sex. Teens who hook up also were at greater risk of being suspended or expelled and had lower odds of expecting to go to college.
There are several things about this study that I find interesting.
- First, the findings hold true for both girls and boys. In fact, the depression in GPA was twice as severe for boys having casual flings.
- Second, the study finds truth in the middle ground between the abstinence and pro-sex agendas. Most conversations around casual sex, especially as practiced by students, tend to devolve into shouting matches between the two sex ed camps.
While conservatives are heartened to see that virgins fare better than kids hooking up, they are also unwilling to sanction relationship sex. The pro-sex crowd has less to crow about here – they could acknowledge the toll on both boys and girls from casual sex, while sanctioning relationship sex, but that seems unlikely. Ultimately, the sex pos types believe in the sanctity of individual choice, regardless of age or distress signals.
As the body of research around hooking up grows rapidly, there will be an avalanche of objective data exposing its dangers to young people. This is critically important, as it will finally put to rest the feminists’ claims that “Old folks can’t understand that girls just wanna have fun!”
- Third, findings such as these have enormous potential to affect parenting strategies. In my experience, parents of even the most promiscuous girls in high school are in total denial. Once they get a load of the fact that GPAs are being affected, they should sit up and take notice. Of course, this only applies to concerned, involved parents. Unfortunately, research also shows that the young people most likely to engage in casual sex are those who lacked good relationship role models growing up.
Recently there was some debate here about a Q&A featured on the front page of Scarleteen, a site that offers “sex ed for the real world.”
zebrastripes111 asks:
I’m 16. I’ve gone through 8 sexual partners in the last year. And 5 of them only in these past 3 months. I’ve only had one boyfriend in my life. I cheated on him. Twice. I feel like I’m easy, maybe I am. I will tell myself that I won’t have sex with a guy, and then I end up doing it anyways.
Heather Corinna, Scarleteen’s Queen Bee, provided the answer. First, Heather’s bio, which gives you her perspective:
Heather is a queer, feminist activist, writer, photographer, artist, educator and Internet publisher and community organizer. She has been considered a pioneer of both women’s and young adult sexuality online, having brought inclusive, informative, feminist, original, creative and radical sexuality content to the web since 1997. She is a former Montessori and alternative classroom teacher, the founder, executive director, and glorified janitor of Scarleteen and the author of S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-To-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and College.
Her answer is exceedingly lengthy (pop out to Starbucks first if you click the link), but here are the bits that speak to what this study addresses:
One tricky bit, especially for women, are strong, sexist messages out there that say women don’t really like sex or casual sex, it’s just something we do or accept when what we really want is love or acceptance…I’m not on board with the idea that sex is any more or less acceptable within or without romantic relationships.
I support you in wanting whatever it is that you want. If what you want are more casual sexual hookups or experiences, if what you want is this many partners or that few, I’m good with that, so long as what you’re seeking out and participating in really is what you want, is something you do with care for others and yourself and that leaves you feeling good before, during and after most of the time. I’m not of the mind that casual sex has to be something that is or feels empty, but if it does or doesn’t have that impact has a lot to do with the way we manage it, the choices we make around it, and being sure that at any given time, it — and who we’re sleeping with — really is best for us and is wanted, rather than being something we do because we don’t feel worthy of other options or because we’re afraid of something, whether that’s about a fear of being alone, being unwanted, saying no (or hearing no) or getting close enough to someone to have them see who we really are, not just who they (or we) might want us to be.
The question isn’t whether casual sex is acceptable to Heather Corinna, one of the self-named feminist Badasses on this issue. (Ms. Corinna was hurt when I failed to include her in my NOW denunciation post, so I’m granting her membership belatedly.)
The question is whether the negative consequences resulting from a 16 year-old having 8 intercourse partners a year should be included in sex ed curricula.
Julie Albright, a sociologist at the University of Southern California remarked on the study:
It might be time to revamp sex education to emphasize the importance of relationships and spell out the consequences of casual sex.
Marie Harvey, professor of public health at Oregon State University, concurs:
The study dispels the notion that all teen sex is bad. The type of relationship really matters.
I hope studies like this one mean that we can look forward to a rapid reassessment of what sex ed should provide. It should be dispassionate, research-based, and apolitical. That would mean a ginormous overhaul of sites like Scarleteen, and apoplexy among Women’s Studies types, so rapid change is probably too much to hope for.
But it’s coming. Yes it is.
Update: This just in from Mary Beth Williams at Salon:
How bad can it get for kids who don’t have “romantic” relationships? “Female teens who have flings had GPAs that were 0.16 points lower than abstinent teens. Male teens who have casual sex had GPAs that were 0.30 points lower than those who do not have sex.” Oh my God, it’s practically statistically significant!
Asking a feminist to speak without being snarky is akin to asking a middle school girl not to use the word “like” more than once in a sentence. When I pointed this out to Jessica Valenti, she retorted that it’s not their fault, they grew up watching Jon Stewart. Note to the Ms.’s: cocky funny doesn’t work so well for women.
The Future of Self-Pleasure May Be Further Away Than You Think
Big Think recently interviewed Rachel Maines on the future of self-pleasure:
“Rachel Maines is a visiting scientist in the Cornell University School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Her principal research interests lie in the history of technology, especially issues relating to technology and the body, such as sexuality, medicine, technological risk, and injury epidemiology. She is the author of three books: “The Technology of Orgasm: ‘Hysteria,’ Vibrators, and Women’s Sexual Satisfaction” (1999), “Asbestos and Fire: Technological Tradeoffs and the Body at Risk” (2005), and her most recent, “Hedonizing Technologies: Pathways to Pleasure in Hobbies and Leisure,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2009.”
Pretty impressive CV, right? I thought so. She’s clearly a smart woman who knows her stuff about the intersection of sexuality and technology. There’s a lot of talk in the manosphere predicting that if the decline of the American male continues, by the year 2020 many men will prefer virtual sex, which will be readily available and high quality. From The Futurist:
As single men arrive home from work on Friday evening, they will simply default into their VR immersion, giving a whole new meaning to the concept of ‘beta testing’.
[A] positive ramification of advanced adult entertainment technologies is that women will have to sharpen the sole remaining attribute which technology cannot substitute – the capacity to make a man feel loved. Modern women will be forced to reacquaint themselves with this ancient concept in order to generate a competitive advantage.
Let’s see what Rachel Maines has to say on the topic.
Big Think: What new sex toy technologies are currently emerging?
Um, I think we’re going to need an extension on that 2020 deadline….
The Essential Truth About Female Promiscuity
I had a laptop disaster over the weekend (Mac says the crash was caused by old liquid damage, ouch. No more wine while writing.) Anyway, I got a brand new computer today, and am up and running once again. It’s good to be back and I learned something important during this period: I’m not indispensable! The discussions continued without me, which is so great. Let’s dig in.
Mating, romance, sex and love are inherently strategic. Our strategies are designed to solve particular problems for successful mating. Though modern conditions of mating differ from ancestral conditions, the same sexual strategies operate.
David Buss, Professor of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin
It didn’t surprise me when there was pushback from sex crazed feminists on last week’s post about Jaclyn Friedman seeking encounters on Craigslist. What did surprise me was the absolute tenacity with which Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon demanded to know how many sexual partners it takes to make a woman a slut. Like a dog with a bone, she growled and defended her turf, wary and distrustful of an interloper who dares to question, much less refute feminist orthodoxy.
@SusanAWalsh What, exactly, do you require of other women? How many sex partners do you think are too many? 3? 10? 2? 50?
AmandaMarcotte
Amanda Marcotte
@AmandaMarcotte I reject theconcept of a #. Women should listen to their own instincts. If it makes you feel like crap, stop doing it.
SusanAWalsh
@SusanAWalsh That's so vague! If you're going to freak out over other women having sex, you need to offer a number. What number is too high?AmandaMarcotte
Amanda Marcotte
@SusanAWalsh Anyway, quit dodging. You believe sluts are bad, so you must have a number in mind. How many is too many?AmandaMarcotte
Amanda Marcotte
@AmandaMarcotte Why the preoccupation with the number? Is that what women are reduced to?SusanAWalsh
@SusanAWalsh was lying when she said she doesn't believe in a "number". http://bit.ly/bBDXZt Point #15. But she still won't say what it is.AmandaMarcotte
Amanda Marcotte
She belabored the point again in her rebuttal:
We got into a Twitter battle over this, and I kept trying to get Susan to define a “slut” for me, based on the universally understood idea belief that you’re a slut once your Number gets over a certain point.
While I suspect that she was trying to bait a trap, so that she could proceed to deride my definition, she lent validation to the concept that sluthood can be achieved after one has climbed (or descended) a ladder of sorts. If sluthood is a good thing, a badge that feminist “badasses” proudly wear, then they must need a metric to know when a woman has met all of the requirements. She needs to have been sufficiently indiscriminate in her choice of sexual partners in order to claim membership in that hallowed sisterhood. When I suggested that for women who want relationships, casual sex may not be the best strategy, Marcotte replied:
@SusanAWalsh Well, that's a straight up lie. Lots of men fall in love with sluts, especially since sluts don't have that desperate vibe.AmandaMarcotte
Amanda Marcotte
Apparently in the femosphere, having a lot of casual sex is a way of communicating that you are confident, and sexy, and have no needs, or at least not any that might be fulfilled by a male. I believe there are less risky ways of getting that message across.
The Sexual Double Standard
Sexual promiscuity has always been a real issue for women. I’ve written about this previously, in The Sex Risk for Women That No One Likes to Talk About. Known as the double-standard, invented and perpetrated by patriarchy, feminists refuse to accept it, which is entirely their right. However, ignoring what is largely a matter of biology is erroneous. The double-standard has historically served a very important purpose in sexual relations, namely that of decreasing false paternity claims, which cost men dearly in emotional and physical resources. Indeed, jealousy is believed to have evolved as a means of discouraging cuckoldry:
“Jealousy, experts agree, is a survival mechanism, although what is most at stake is a matter of debate. The most destructive of passions—it is a leading cause of homicide—and the least studied, it is, like all emotions, born of necessity, with roots deep in our evolutionary past. Its purpose: to help maintain intimate relationships.”
This explains why men have always placed a premium on sexual inexperience when selecting for long-term mating. American men, in selecting among 67 desirable traits, ranked sexual faithfulness and loyalty #1. According to The Evolution of Desire (Buss, 1994):
“Studies demonstrate that women’s preferences for short-term mates include availability as a marriage partner. They strongly resemble their preferences for a husband: kind, romantic, understanding, exciting, stable, healthy, humorous, and generous with resources. In other words, women have high standards for both short-term and long-term relationships, or at least that’s how we’ve evolved thus far.
Conversely, men select for very different traits when seeking short-term sexual partners. Compared with their long-term preferences, men don’t want casual partners who are prudish, conservative or have a low sex drive. In contrast to standards for committed relationships, for short-term sex they want: sexual experience, including promiscuity, and a high sex drive.”
These evolved differences mean that historically, men have not been shamed for having many sexual partners, and indeed they benefit from social proof when women observe their success in attracting other women. In recent years, as the ratio of casual sex/relationship sex has increased dramatically on college campuses, there has been a backlash of sorts, with women indicating that they find extremely promiscuous males unattractive and unworthy. The study is explained more fully in my post It’s About Time: The New Reverse Double Standard.
Men’s natural preference for sexual faithfulness and loyalty in women means that many will reject women who exhibit behaviors that contraindicate for that. A woman’s sexual history serves as a proxy, or indicator of future behavior. It is not perfect, but men can and do make use of this information when selecting partners. This does not mean that a promiscuous woman cannot find a mate, but it does mean that the pool of men from which she may select has shrunk dramatically. A woman may say, “I would never want a guy who felt that way,” and that’s perfectly legitimate. Still, it’s important that she understand the effectiveness of various sexual strategies in mating so that she may make informed decisions.
It’s also true that a woman who is expending energy seeking and engaging in no-strings sex is not wholly available for a longer-term relationship. Halfwaying it always exacts an opportunity cost and distracts from the long-term objective.
Promiscuity is a poor strategy for women who seek a long-term relationship, or life partner.
Other Negative Characteristics of Sexual Promiscuity
Aside from evolved male preferences, there are other risks associated with promiscuous sexual behavior. Most of these apply to men as well.
1. Increased prevalence of STIs, compromised fertility.
2. Research shows that 20% of men and 41% of women strongly prefer dating to hooking up.
“Women more than men seem to want a relationship. They fear, both in dating and hooking up, that they will become emotionally attached to a partner who is not interested in them.
Men more than women seem to value independence. They fear that even in hooking up relationships, which are supposed to be free of commitments, a woman might seek to establish a relationship.”
When those hopes fail to materialize, there is often some degree of emotional distress. Over time, a repeated pattern of post-hookup avoidance makes young people cynical and jaded about relationships.
3. Research shows that children of divorce are more likely to engage in no-strings sex, and to avoid relationships. They hook up earlier, more frequently, and have sexual intercourse during hookups earlier.
4. Risky sexual behavior may reflect genetic personality traits, including a high degree of risk-seeking, high degree of extraversion, and high degree of neuroticism.
5. The use of copious amounts of alcohol before hooking up is commonplace. Indeed, both women and men indicate that they drink heavily in order to summon the courage to hook up. Alcohol use is also a primary factor in sexual assault.
6. Hookup sex is generally rated as lower in quality by participants than relationship sex, due to lack of intimacy and knowledge of one’s partner. This is more true for women, obviously, as men often express that “The sex wasn’t great, but there was lots of it!”
7. Marital stability is correlated with the number of pre-marital sexual partners:
“Consider the 2003 study of over 10,000 women which found that as the number of non-marital sexual partners went up, the probability of marital stability went down. For example, once a woman has had 5 sexual partners, the probability of pulling off an intact marriage dips under 30%; it is under 20% when the number of sexual partners reaches the upper teens.”
What is the Magic Number?
How many cupcakes can you eat without gaining weight? How many sick coworkers will it take to make you ill with the flu? How many drinks does it take to make an alcoholic?
It depends. It’s not an exact science. It’s not one-size-fits-all.
The right number of sexual partners for a woman will depend on a variety of factors, including:
- age
- personality traits
- family history
- relationship history
- relationship goals
- life goals
Some women feel badly about hitting double digits. Others celebrate with a round of tequila shots. Some women are embarrassed to be virgins, or to have had only 1-2 partners. Others love the dopamine high that comes with impulsive, risky, or even dangerous behavior.
Some men object to 5 partners. Men with a great deal of sexual experience themselves may consider 20 rounding error. Some men will judge sexual history depending on the nature of the relationships. As indicated above, men prefer promiscuous women with a high sex drive for short-term mating. If that’s your goal, you should have no difficulty in getting all the casual sex you can handle. If you hope to marry or cohabit and possibly have children, you should understand the tradeoffs so that you can make an informed decision about which strategy you wish to pursue.
In closing, I will share one last thought. This excerpt from the post Marcotte linked to really pissed her off and led her to call me a liar. It’s #15 of the 20 Reasons You Don’t Have a Boyfriend:
Your number is too high. OK, fine, you don’t want any guy who cares about how many people you’ve slept with. Problem is….that’s most guys. You don’t have to tell anyone your personal data. Just be aware that when you’re making the rounds within a certain community or group of friends, word gets out fast. I don’t think there has ever, ever been a guy who got laid and didn’t tell anyone about it afterwards. If your number is high and that fact is well known, you have every right to find a new pack of males and reinvent yourself.
I’ll stand by this. Your sexual history is your personal business. You are not obligated to share it with anyone. I’ll preempt the guys right here who claim they have a surefire list of “slut tells.” If you’re a woman who has been trolling for sex online, that’s bound to come across in a myriad of ways. But if you’re feeling regrets, or like you may have overindulged, there’s no reason you can’t change your behavior and change your life.
