Women often regret casual sex, not men :) Cultural? Biological?
- Thread starter Lovehobby
- Start date
well considering casual sex will lead to a brutal neanderthal type death sentence in some fucked up cultures and religion. I would say that plays a big role in their regret.
I vote biological. Women are more nurturing family oriented as stability and kids (nesting) is high in their psyche. They are also the gate keepers - they make the choice so they are more inclined to regret bad decisions. Men are typically pigs and barring any social repercussions, would screw any girl who opens the gate. If a guy has any regrets, it most likely the visit to the doctor to find a cure to a resulting itch.
Not true, most men do not like to cheat on their SO. Most males on TERB may have no regrets about cheating. However, are men on TERB representative of the Canadian male population?
Is it me, or is the article missing a clear link between sex/biology and alleged regret? Regardless, how does one disentangle nature vs. nurture? Seems to me this article may have made more sense in the 80s. Thanks for sharing though 
Amber
Amber
I just recently realized how weird and inappropriate it is to lock down another human's sexual activity for the rest of their lives. Get married and thats it, have sex with no one else. And you force them to not have sex with anyone else. It used to seem normal to me but now it strikes me as very selfish and almost immoral. Maybe I'm becoming more free minded as I get older.
+1 :thumb:Is it me, or is the article missing a clear link between sex/biology and alleged regret? Regardless, how does one disentangle nature vs. nurture? Seems to me this article may have made more sense in the 80s. Thanks for sharing though
Amber
I understand the question even though I only skimmed the article.
Amber and I agree "Seems to me this article may have made more sense in the 80s." probably for different reasons.
In the Darwinian sense, sex is the act of procreating. Until a Darwinian blink ago, having sex meant you were, to a greater or lesser extent, going to be a parent with your partner responsible for raising a child or 2.
Men were given a free ticket to ride. Men have the ability to have sex many times a day and make babies many times a day. Women can have sex just as often but Darwin tells us it's the baby making thats important, and women can only do that once a year or so.
If making making a baby without a husband (financial supporter), women were given an life of shame, loneliness and responsibility with little possibility of being given work work to keep them and the child alive. After all, they had made 1 enormously bad decision already, why give them an opportunity to do it again in a work context and on an employers dime.
In that one night of lustful passion scenario, who made the worse decision? tick, tick, tick
Ok times up, ....................... the woman.
Now here come the 1960's, the pill and resultant free sex. Free of what? Commitment. She no longer has the problem of finding a kid 9 months down the road without any way to fend for herself or the child. But she's been emotionally programmed to find both a lustful night AND an economically support father. Thats why a woman still finds it hard (not impossible as this board clearly shows) to separate sex and an emotional bond.
Anyone care to be offended?
Amber and I agree "Seems to me this article may have made more sense in the 80s." probably for different reasons.
In the Darwinian sense, sex is the act of procreating. Until a Darwinian blink ago, having sex meant you were, to a greater or lesser extent, going to be a parent with your partner responsible for raising a child or 2.
Men were given a free ticket to ride. Men have the ability to have sex many times a day and make babies many times a day. Women can have sex just as often but Darwin tells us it's the baby making thats important, and women can only do that once a year or so.
If making making a baby without a husband (financial supporter), women were given an life of shame, loneliness and responsibility with little possibility of being given work work to keep them and the child alive. After all, they had made 1 enormously bad decision already, why give them an opportunity to do it again in a work context and on an employers dime.
In that one night of lustful passion scenario, who made the worse decision? tick, tick, tick
Ok times up, ....................... the woman.
Now here come the 1960's, the pill and resultant free sex. Free of what? Commitment. She no longer has the problem of finding a kid 9 months down the road without any way to fend for herself or the child. But she's been emotionally programmed to find both a lustful night AND an economically support father. Thats why a woman still finds it hard (not impossible as this board clearly shows) to separate sex and an emotional bond.
Anyone care to be offended?
Do you wish to offend people...? This seems to me to be an odd remark. In the 'Darwinian sense', sex is the mechanism used to push Life forward into the future. The question is not a new one and it's been asked in different ways. Clearly there is a difference between men and women(physically, morphologically, psychologically, emotionally, and so on and so on...)and in my view, this is the way it should be. Sincerely, Jon .
I just finished reading Sex At Dawn. It is a long, semi-academic book on prehistoric human sexuality. My take is that in early tribes women thought that babies were a mix of the strengths of the men she had sex with. Some would be strong, some smart, some handsome, some spiritual etc. They knew sperm impregnated women but they did not know it was only one man's lucky swimmer (yay science). The advantage for the women with multiple partners in a small tribe is that she now has a few men interested in her and her offspring's well being.
10,000 years ago humans became agricultural. All of a sudden we decided that we could own the land, own the animals, own your sexual partner. In essence life took on a marketplace mentality of owning and controlling things and people. This attitude is fucking us up psychologically as it is not natural. People are meant to have several ongoing sexual partners that they care about deeply.
10,000 years ago humans became agricultural. All of a sudden we decided that we could own the land, own the animals, own your sexual partner. In essence life took on a marketplace mentality of owning and controlling things and people. This attitude is fucking us up psychologically as it is not natural. People are meant to have several ongoing sexual partners that they care about deeply.
I don't want to offend, but I believe the PC thoughtful are offended by this kind of analysis. It's not liberating.
I am going to argue here that the supposed/real shame felt by these women is more cultural than evolutionary or anything else.
I remember reading in my psych studies about a relatively secluded South American/African tribe (school was a long time ago), where the culturally acceptable norm was to have premarital sex with no stigmatism or shame attached to it. Interestingly, when tribe members did decide to bunker down with someone, they were truly monogamous as they had experimented with/experienced more than enough sex to determine what they like and who they are compatible with.
I also took a psych course looking at differences between men and women in general and the course stressed that there are far more differences in and amongst women or vice versa, than there are between women and men.
I know that personally I have always enjoyed masturbation/sex, have always been bi and have only ever felt bad about any of this, mostly in my youth, when others (e.g. uptight parents, insecure boyfriends, etc.) made me feel that way.
At the risk of offending some, in the words of a high school English teacher I had whose first vocation was the clergy, this guilt is mostly due to teachings of the Bible, which in his opinion was written by a bunch of mysogynist Jews. Before anyone freaks out here, he did not hate Jews nor did he dispute all teachings of the Bible, (e.g. "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself.", etc.) is all good. He did however vehemently, as do I, disagree with the idea that women should be treated differently than men, especially when it comes to sexual relations as we are all created the same. Or like in the Discovery Channel lyrics, "you and me baby (we) ain't nothing/nothin' but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iIx-dQwbPs
To sum it all up, in my opinion, if left alone a lot of women are not that much different than men.
I remember reading in my psych studies about a relatively secluded South American/African tribe (school was a long time ago), where the culturally acceptable norm was to have premarital sex with no stigmatism or shame attached to it. Interestingly, when tribe members did decide to bunker down with someone, they were truly monogamous as they had experimented with/experienced more than enough sex to determine what they like and who they are compatible with.
I also took a psych course looking at differences between men and women in general and the course stressed that there are far more differences in and amongst women or vice versa, than there are between women and men.
I know that personally I have always enjoyed masturbation/sex, have always been bi and have only ever felt bad about any of this, mostly in my youth, when others (e.g. uptight parents, insecure boyfriends, etc.) made me feel that way.
At the risk of offending some, in the words of a high school English teacher I had whose first vocation was the clergy, this guilt is mostly due to teachings of the Bible, which in his opinion was written by a bunch of mysogynist Jews. Before anyone freaks out here, he did not hate Jews nor did he dispute all teachings of the Bible, (e.g. "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself.", etc.) is all good. He did however vehemently, as do I, disagree with the idea that women should be treated differently than men, especially when it comes to sexual relations as we are all created the same. Or like in the Discovery Channel lyrics, "you and me baby (we) ain't nothing/nothin' but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iIx-dQwbPs
To sum it all up, in my opinion, if left alone a lot of women are not that much different than men.
