Some women can be detached from casual sex
Some women consider themselves progressive, and claim that sexual liberty is a must for women. Yes, it is. But on an overall percentage, more women than not will experience some suffering after casual sex (if the man isn’t committed).
The trouble is that women usually have sex with men that have actual value.
Research has shown that when women are looking for short term sex, or casual sex; they get very choosy and usually mate with the better men because there’s no shortage of willing men for just sex.
Women usually don’t have sex with deadbeats, and that very perception we make in our minds that the man isn’t a deadbeat (ie: that he has mate value) is dangerous, because a woman’s body has already formed an internal feeling about him; and going ahead and having sex with him just heightens the potential loss she will feel when he doesn’t show signs that he cares for her after the sex.
Losing the commitment or investment of a man we already decided was good in some way, or even just good looking, can be devastating.
Yes, there are women out there who use men for sex, and I am starting to consider the possibility that mostly, these types of women are oriented towards the clitoral orgasm and prefer to get off rather than connect and commit themselves deeply.
I could be wrong though. What do you think?
(To have anything other than a clitoral orgasm, such as a cervical orgasm, you have to be a lot softer, more relaxed, a lot more trusting, and emotionally open. That kind of orgasm in itself will demand some form of emotional connection with the man, which renders the woman terribly vulnerable to the man).
What happens when you give away your goods for nothing?
Would you sell or give away your home for 1% of the market price? No?
Under what circumstance would you sell your home for 1% of the market price?
You’d do it if you desperately needed money. ANY money. Any money will do, and then you get paid that 1%, lose your house and feel miserable about it. You feel used.
This is the same reason many women have such pain and suffering after this very thing happens. They are suffering, sometimes crying at the drop of a hat, because they opened up to a man, and he left.
And we think it’s not something to regret because “it was good sex”. I have mentioned cognitive dissonance in part 1 of this series, and I think that’s relevant in this context (of when one looks back and thinks it is good sex).
Here is PART 1 of The Secret Cost for Women When They Have Casual Sex.
Good sex is just good sex. Sure, for someone who feels like sex is lacking – good sex means everything. I understand that.
But perhaps what’s lacking is not “sex”, perhaps what is lacking is our willingness to be vulnerable to ourselves. To feel beyond the horniness in to our heart. Because in that place, we can potentially attract something more permanent, and sex won’t be lacking. And we will not just attract physical intercourse – but attract invisible sex, like the energy of attraction, playfulness, and polarity that you can experience when you are vulnerable and therefore become more polarised in to your unique feminine energy.
(To explore and increase your own feminine energy, see more here.)
If you’re wondering how naturally feminine you are, you can take this quick quiz I created here.
I imagine that good sex with just some man is nothing like good sex with the man who peels you open in trust for him, the man who belongs only to you. And you to only him.
Casual sex seems all fine and good and gives women so much freedom, until they actually do it. Read some of the comments on this post to get an idea of how women feel after casual sex.
As one honest commenter says: “Hooking up works in theory – it’s more exciting, every experience is new, all the first kisses and first touches, but when an activity ends with me alone in my bedroom crying my eyes out because I’ve been charmed, bedded and forgotten about, it cuts to the core. I’m in my late 20’s and have only just started to realise there might be some logic in this lifelong commitment thing after all.”
The reality is that for many women, their biology hasn’t caught up with our current social norms.
So whilst less people are going to outwardly show judgement for a woman for being promiscuous (because it’s considered acceptable and even awesome to be promiscuous these days), inside, many women are suffering from being intimate without emotional investment from the man.
What’s worse is when women can’t talk about their feelings honestly.
Men get a good deal, women get hurt?
Men get a good deal, women get hurt?
I suggest not always. Sometimes, men get hurt in casual sex situations (such as his reputation gets hurt, but nothing like the deep heartbreak and emotional turmoil a woman can feel).
Men can feel guilt over using someone just for the sex – but that’s about it.
Men get emotionally hurt, but much less than women (IF the sex is purely casual). Casual sex hurts men differently to how it might hurt women.
How DOES casual sex hurt men anyway?
What do MEN risk through casual sex?
Men risk their families for it (the wife finding out somehow), they risk getting STDs, they risk their reputation if their social group finds out, and especially if the social group finds out he slept with a woman whom they do not consider to be attractive.
I would say that men and women get hurt just as much as each other when the sex is not just purely casual – i.e. they are involved in friends with benefits situation or in a fuck buddy situation; because men get emotionally involved too, when the sex isn’t just casual.
However, in casual sex where the man is not emotionally invested in her, women almost always lose something of value.
Let’s repeat that: women almost always lose something of value.
And that value that is lost, is not necessarily the fact that they let the man have sex with them.
The value they lose is the man’s commitment.
Even if she doesn’t need a man to survive anymore (hardly any of us do in the developed world), she still needs him emotionally. We still need each other emotionally.
And the trouble is, that society doesn’t warn women of this – they just tell women that it’s their body and they should (technically) be able to do anything they want with it.
But research has proven over and over, even in this day and age, that men desire fidelity highly in a wife (the woman he commits to). And if a woman opens up to him sexually without her asking for much of his investment in her, then it will feel to him like she is easy.
So, no, I argue that women are not empowered by giving themselves sexually in a casual way. Maybe one day in the (far away) future of evolution, that will be the case, but it’s not the case for now.
Don’t men lose “mate value” when they have casual sex?
Just in case you thought women were the only ones who lose something from having many sexual partners….
From just a biological perspective, a man risks nothing of value.
From just a biological perspective, women risk more value, because of the loss of paternal investment, and even if she has all the money in the world, she still loses the paternal investment in an emotional way – which can make or break a child’s future.
And if she’s lost the paternal investment of a high status man then she’s also lost the chance for her child potentially conceived with him to inherit his status. A child with two caring, committed parents arguably has more resources on his or her side than a child with one parent.
Although, of course, a child with two parents in an unhealthy relationship could be worse off than they would be with just one involved parent.
From the perspective of his long term mate value (relationship value), the more women a man sleeps with without an emotional investment, the more he loses value.
Do you want to know if the man you’re dating is committed or not? This quiz will help you!
So this is not just a woman’s thing. But remember, we’re not talking from a biological perspective now. We’re talking about this from a social perspective ie: mate value.
So, the more we (as a woman or a man) open ourselves to be sexually intimate and to intertwine with another human casually, the more we potentially lower our value.
This is because, even with men who sleep around a lot, women don’t like it and end up thinking they’re douchebags who just look to take value from women (and risk nothing emotionally), and this word spreads fast among friends and extended social groups.
Consequently, the man loses social value and mate value: he becomes damaged goods. The more a man gets involved with lots of women, the more jaded he can become, and the less innocent, which makes him less fresh and valuable emotionally (for a long term relationship).
And I theorise that we think this way because when we keep letting in the wrong people over and over, we lose valuable emotional energy and innocence to be spent in the higher value mates.
This is what it’s like when we give away access to our bodies sexually, without a commitment.
Both men and women risk getting a bad reputation. Yes, men suffer from engaging in casual sex too, because they become known as a womanizer, and women are less likely to invest emotionally in them.
But we often forget that. We forget that this isn’t just a cost that women have to foot – men have to foot costs too. Such as – risking a retaliatory affair by his wife, risking being assaulted or murdered by the woman’s husband or socially rejected by other men.
Men are also potentially risking costly divorce, risking getting STDs, risking a little bit of money, time and maybe a little bit of energy. (haha)
But still, often, men will be congratulated and will be encouraged for doing casual sex. The reason for that is simply biology – men got easy access to something that’s expensive.
Men get congratulated because they got a good deal. It’s no different to us women congratulating each other on a fantastic bargain on a new dress.
Sometimes women get a good deal from casual sex, I’m sure – such as really good genes for their offspring. But that doesn’t remove the enormous risk she took to get those genes for her offspring.
Men get congratulated for having lots of sex with women, not just because people are sexist per se, but because they got a fantastic bargain. Whereas, women let something valuable go, at not even a fraction of the price. I talk about why this is in PART 1.
Can you see how it is disempowering to encourage women to do it with no strings attached, when she always has to open in some minimal way, in order to let the man into her?
And we encourage women to be sexually liberated and have casual sex?
Isn’t that ridiculous?
Isn’t it disempowering?
Sure, we should be sexually liberated – but when a man has gained our trust.
In fact, I’d say that we are only truly sexually liberated when we do it with a man that we trust fully, and when he also trusts us fully.
But if we don’t even have the safety (or the courage) in our life to feel that we actually want to trust a man before having sex with him, then how are we empowered or liberated?
When we live in a society that ridicules a woman for wanting to “trust a man fully first” before having sex, aren’t we swapping one way of oppressing women for another?
We want women to freely have sex, but we invalidate their emotional pain or even trauma related to casual under the carpet? What exactly do we want to achieve here? Free sex for all, but not free support for when it goes wrong?
On the surface, it looks like we are oppressing women when we say they shouldn’t have sex casually. But we are also suppressing women by invalidating the feelings of women who really want to feel trust before sex. Because these women, then go on to feel like their desire for deep emotional connection are wrong; or uncool.
We are empowered and liberated when we are connected to what is real, and what is true of our bodies.
Why do we have such anger over men’s perceived greater power over us that we have to insist that we are just like them?
Does it have to get to the point where we put a penis on to ourselves just to prove we can be them?
Our anger should be towards men wanting sex without trust
No, our anger should be over the fact that a man wants sex with us without ever gaining our trust!
This is insanity (for most women).
No, we are the gatekeepers of our bodies. It’s our body and we are the best person to take responsibility for it. That’s the way it needs to be; if we want to have a trustworthy man in our life who doesn’t just get up and leave the next morning.
What if he buys me breakfast the next morning?
A lovely lady recently said to me, “Oh well, all my friends have had casual sex and one night stands. But my one night stand bought me breakfast, theirs didn’t.”
OK, but that doesn’t mean anything positive. In fact, it could mean the opposite of positive: think about it from a man’s perspective: he’s taken value from you, so what would motivate him to buy you breakfast?
A few possible reasons: because he feels sorry for the woman, because he feels guilty for using her, or because he feels like he should do “the right thing”.
None of these things means he has any emotional attachment at all. It just makes the woman feel a bit better about the night before (which is not a bad thing at all), but don’t be fooled by the breakfast on the morning after. Just because a man spends a tiny amount of money on breakfast (relative to his income), does not mean he is interested in seeing his casual sex partner ever again.
And it is this emotional attachment in a man that most women want. We all want a man to fall in love with us deep down; it’s a whole lot deeper (and some would argue better) than having a string of men who were not attached at all.
A man being in love is the ultimate sign and instigator of his lifelong commitment and devotion.
It is disempowering to throw away responsibility for our body
Our bodies are ours. Do you think it’s good to ask that men match our care level for our bodies and take responsibility for being the gatekeepers of sex just as much as women?
Think about it. A man in love will care, but a casual sex partner? Why does he care about being the gatekeeper for a woman’s body and sexuality? His responsibility at this stage, especially where he has no emotional investment in the woman, is to do the best for the survival of his genes.
This is not to say that men shouldn’t strive to take responsibility for being the gatekeepers of sex, and sometimes they do become gatekeepers of sex, but I suspect this is largely when they truly care about the woman and are invested in her.
So, this is not to say we shouldn’t make men be gatekeepers of sex – this is to give you an objective, intelligent view of how the world is today. It doesn’t mean we can’t try to hold men to higher standards – but realise that men act on their biology – they are here with a built in motivator for passing on their genes, just like women are. Even if they don’t want children.
Ultimately, it’s disempowering to transfer responsibility for our bodies, and for sex over to men.
If you’re a home buyer, do you take it upon yourself to make sure that the seller doesn’t get a bad deal? Would you offer your help to make sure you don’t pay too low a price for the new house you’re buying, and make sure that the vendor (seller) gets a high enough price for his comfort level?
No? Why not? Because you’re in it to get the best deal that you can.
And by the way, imagine for a moment that you are the seller of your home. If the buyer of your home pays 1% of the market price (1% of how much your house is really worth) of the house you are selling, they might drop the house and run because…if they paid so little, might there be a catch? Might there be something wrong with the house?
On Friends with benefits…
I understand that there are cases where a purely sexual relationship is slightly more long-term than a one night stand or casual sex over a couple of days. And, these are the cases where a woman is more likely to be getting something in return for her sexual offerings. And these types of relationships are not what I’m referring to in this article.
Whilst there’s nothing wrong with having a series of short-term sexual partners, or even more than one sexual partner at a time, the issue here is that these relationships are usually “fuck buddy” relationships, or mutual agreement relationships where both are in it for themselves, and they are not giving of themselves (their soul, their vulnerability), they are simply involved in an exchange.
They sometimes sell their soul for sex.
An authentic relationship is based on vulnerability. And over time, as each partner makes themselves more vulnerable, the relationship becomes more sacred, more beautiful and more trusting.
But these short-term exchanges? The fuck buddies or friends with benefits? A woman can be involved in these AND receive substantial value back from the man (short term emotional connection, sex, money, protection etc).
These relationships have their own shortcomings along with their short term benefits; and those shortcomings are that unfortunately, we have to know that we’re not risking anything much emotionally.
And when we don’t risk much emotionally, we don’t reap much emotionally – eg: we don’t usually get much commitment or a stable relationship from a man.
So we are reducing ourselves to a human taking what we want for pleasure and comfort; rather than risking ourselves going out into the dating market with a truly vulnerable yearning.
Again, there’s nothing wrong with relationships like this – I’m just hoping that we can all be aware of the risks and costs involved in a relationship that’s really just an exchange (I give you what you want, if you give me what I want), and not a relationship.
Ultimately, sex is not free, and love is not free.
At some point, somebody gets hurt.
The man or the woman is going to become more vulnerable than their partner – and the other person will go: “What is this emotional drama!? I was only in it for the status/sex/company! You were a mean time man! (or you were a mean time girl!)”
Of course, everyone has a sex drive. What we do with that is up to us. Some people just want to orgasm. Some people want something deeper.
We can choose to open beyond the need for an orgasm in to yearning and vulnerability for a high value man, or we can choose to shut off to yearning and vulnerability, reducing feelings of attraction.
But what about women’s rights?
I know everyone wants to believe that women should have the same rights as men when it comes to sex.
Some women want to be able to have the same social acceptance for doing it a lot and often, with different partners.
Apparently, if we don’t fight for sexual equality, then we are allowing patriarchy to infiltrate our world.
Ahem…on that point…
Did you know that in fifty cultures, where “inadequate earnings” is cited as an official legal reason for divorce, only 1 in 50 of those cultures allows a man to initiate divorce on that ground?
It’s only women who can divorce on those grounds. Does that seem fair? It’s not only women who get the short end of the stick here, although many tend to think that way.
Talk about rights…people sometimes think women are the only ones hard done by.
But no culture allows a man to divorce a woman based on inadequate earnings! Why don’t we hear about that more often? So, no, men also have to deal with situations that feel unfair. That’s part of life.
And as much as we want to deny it…the double standard re: sex exists not only because of society, but because of biology. Men’s and women’s bodies are built differently.
Sex with a woman is still something that a woman needs to be the gatekeeper on, why? Because despite logic, women tend to feel “used”, “abandoned”, “low value” if a man has come in, done the deed, and run, after sex. I receive plenty of emails with women feeling this way.
Maybe we shouldn’t fall for the widespread political correctness that’s out there. If we try to make things “fair” and obsess about taking away double standards, we’re also damaging our own chances of having the love that our heart and body truly wants.
Sure, fairness between sexes isn’t a bad thing in many contexts…but wanting fairness does come at a cost, that I believe we should at least be aware of – because we can make better decisions this way.
When it comes down to it – No denying what we want (commitment and devotion from a man), from fear that we might not have it, and no amount of cognitive dissonance will change what biology has done for millions of years.
Sexual equality takes away what women truly want in a man
When there is so called free sexuality, and women are sexually liberated (in a way that makes sex easily available), the value of sex goes down. It becomes easy, a commodity, a vehicle for meeting one’s needs quickly.
We become desensitized to sex.
It is not liberated to approach sexuality without realising that it performs emotional, evolutionary and reproductive functions deep in our body.
These emotional, evolutionary and reproductive functions are deeply rooted in our ancestry and biology; and as such, we can’t be silly and act like we can out think these functions – because sex triggers certain hormones and emotions in our bodies.
See you soon for Part 3…
Please share your knowledge and stories below – where other women can learn and connect with you, too. You’ll be adding great value to the world. I look forward to hearing from you!