Poll: Casual Sex, Feminism, and You!

[TiefBlau]

Let me first start off by saying that I'm by all means a feminist because, by definition, I support equality for women and don't buy in to the thinly-veiled "alpha male beta male" bullshit made up by people who think using first-year biology terms will make their thoughts on genetic superiority any less subjective.

Now, I bring up this topic because I considered interesting a conception that society has. Why is it that sex without any intention of romantic relationship seen by society as such a male, chauvinistic thing? No one proclaims superiority over another gender. It's simply a decree that sex isn't this sacred ritual that everyone makes it out to be. It's just sex, and it's not like it's not supposed to be enjoyed. Self-indulgence in anything else is seen with less disgust. People eat tons of food all the time. A lot of people sit on their ass and watch TV all day sometimes. But the moment you make the claim that someone has lots of sex, they're pigs that see women as nothing more than something to fuck.

I'm not trying to preach here so much as I'm asking a question of genuine curiosity. I want to know what the Escapist thinks.

Now, obviously there are biological and evolutionary things that add to the cultural context. The hormonal changes and stimuli in sex are more closely linked to romance than that of, say, ice cream. The actual mechanics of reproduction make it more feasible that a male impregnates a lot of women and not vice-versa. But from a purely logical perspective, casual sex and the objectification of women are completely unrelated.

So, uh, what do you think?

 

[Saelune]

Ever heard of the word slut?
Men are pigs
Women are sluts
Thats basically the bad words.
Casual sex is casual sex. Men do it. Women do it. As long as both people know its casual sex, there is no issue.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Men are pigs, women are sluts. It's a feminist issue, certainly, but in kind of a "false double standard" way.

Personal opinion: I don't really care about casual sex; it's just not for me.

 

[Littlee300]

I think that saying women shouldn't have casual sex if they want is against equality. Are they suppose to squeeze a few dinners out of the man first?

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Spoiler: In b4...

In all seriousness, if two people consent to have sex as soon as they meet and then never actually do anything else together, that's totally fine by me until they start wearing it like a badge of pride right up in my face.

 

[KefkaCultist]

Firstly, I don't think that casual sex leads to the objectification of women. The objectification of women is caused by assholes who think that its okay to objectify women. People can have casual sex and not objectify women.

As for supporting casual sex: I don't really care what other people do. It's not really my thing, but if others wanna get laid a lot then they can go do that. As long as they're not tools about it and getting 50 women within a 5 mile radius pregnant then by all means.

 

[Damien Granz]

I would think that giving women separate sexual taboos would objectify them more than letting them be adults and do whatever they want (er, or I guess whomever they want?) without social stigma.

Yes, there are risks involved, and yes, you should always be honest and safe in dealing with sex. In the same way that you should probably not drive a motorbike upside down.

No, casual sex isn't for everybody (like myself). But, neither is baseball.

Yes, I think the act is better when there's an emotional attachment, but so is like, everything? And some people don't really need or particularly want that, so, not my place to judge.

Now, obviously there are biological and evolutionary things that add to the cultural context. The hormonal changes and stimuli in sex are more closely linked to romance than that of, say, ice cream. The actual mechanics of reproduction make it more feasible that a male impregnates a lot of women and not vice-versa. But from a purely logical perspective, casual sex and the objectification of women are completely unrelated.

So, uh, what do you think?

The idea that we're evolutionarily built for monogamy or that we're built for one male, many females is also largely outdated, and the current theory is in favor of more sex. Females do not openly display evidence that humans can pick up that they're fertile; therefor it encourages a large number of males to court a single female and constantly have sex with her in hopes that they'll hit the 'right time'.

Those males can leave in search of better pastures, but won't be guaranteed that she'll be fertile either, where as a female can be pretty sure that a male is fertile like.. always, and can pick and choose her mates much more carefully.

Female orgasm greatly increases the chance that a woman can get pregnant, but typically with just intercourse, a woman needs more than one partner to achieve it.

Male's penis head and foreskin are shaped to both get a female to orgasm faster and collect the semen of their rivals on their way out, to help better the chances of the later guys in the act to getting her pregnant.

Human females can have 2 children with separate fathers, but neither father can be instinctively sure which kid is his, so both are more likely to raise (and say, not eat like a tomcat) their rival's kid.

Human children typically need more attention to raise than a single father and mother can provide alone, especially in the wild, and thus it's to the woman's benefit to have multiple partners around, a small harem of attentive males who raise children, and the occasional large burly guy she has more sex with to pass on his genes to be attended to by the responsible males.

 

[Dags90]

Men are pigs, women are sluts. It's a feminist issue, certainly, but in kind of a "false double standard" way.

Personal opinion: I don't really care about casual sex; it's just not for me.

Men are also "studs" for sleeping around.

Oddly enough gay men are usually in the "slut" category, too.

 

[Damien Granz]

Men are pigs, women are sluts. It's a feminist issue, certainly, but in kind of a "false double standard" way.

Personal opinion: I don't really care about casual sex; it's just not for me.

Men are also "studs" for sleeping around.

Oddly enough gay men are usually in the "slut" category, too.

Hah, yeah. I don't know why. Though bisexuals that are monogamous are often sluts anyways just cause they might be attracted by somebody else.

Because I guess a heterosexual male or female becomes totally asexual towards non-partners the minute they're in a relationship, and that's why cheating has never happened except in mixed gender situations.

 

[Erana]

But the moment you make the claim that someone has lots of sex, they're pigs that see women as nothing more than something to fuck.

If someone's a great lay, then yeah, go ahead and sex it up with consenting individuals.

The thing is, anyone, male or female, who has lots and lots of sex is likely not too discerning in who they do the deed with, which by extension suggests they have a lower standard for the people around them in general.
And then there are a distressingly large number of people out there that view sex in extremes of either a great achievement or a black stain on one's character.
The real kicker, though, is the fact that the knowledge of their sex life would be such common knowledge in the first place. If people are gossiping enough about who nails what all the time, these people are probably petty judgmental fools who call anyone a ***** or slut whenever they get the chance.

If one is around a person who gets around, one may have an opinion about how responsible they are in their in their sex life, but who someone bangs is only a part of who they are, and they should be judged by the totality of their behavior.

But that takes respect and tolerance, something not all that common. Really, its not a feminism issue, its a maturity one.

 

[Liudeius]

I'm against casual sex and definitely do not think it objectifies women.

Well I guess I'm not so much against it as I personally want nothing to do with it, and 80% of the population only valuing sex/relationships for carnal desire makes it kind of hard to find people who don't...

But as for the objectification, if a woman chooses to engage in casual sex, it doesn't matter whether or not you personally feel her clothes are objectifying of women. It is her choice and to suggest that she doesn't have the right to that choice would be the true sexist declaration.

Why is it only objectifying of women anyway? I would say douchebags/tools are about the same to men as skanks/whores are to women.

 

[The Gatherer]

my opinion on the matter is thus, as a male in his mid 20's i've been exposed to the western media's ideas of what a woman should be, i'm the first to say that i don't exactly find these women revolting and i can see the angle of these objectivists even though i dont agree with them. I think the issue won't be resolved any time soon as long as people have independent thoughts and the right to free speech, some women use their objectivity as a tool i.e exotic dancers, while others embrace it and conform to the medias depiction of women as thick cumbuckets all the while blissfully unaware of their role in the degeneration of the human race as smart thinking people. In a nutshell i believe as I previously stated that as long as women have independent thoughts and free will they are free to express themselves any way they wish, only by doing this can women stand next to us on the plynth of equality. after all, your only human

 

[Dags90]

Hah, yeah. I don't know why. Though bisexuals that are monogamous are often sluts anyways just cause they might be attracted by somebody else.

Because I guess a heterosexual male or female becomes totally asexual towards non-partners the minute they're in a relationship, and that's why cheating has never happened except in mixed gender situations.

And don't forget those wacky lesbians.

What do lesbians bring on the second date?

[sub]A U-Haul![/sub]​

---->

 

[Kahunaburger]

The idea that we're evolutionarily built for monogamy or that we're built for one male, many females is also largely outdated, and the current theory is in favor of more sex. Females do not openly display evidence that humans can pick up that they're fertile; therefor it encourages a large number of males to court a single female and constantly have sex with her in hopes that they'll hit the 'right time'.

I think it's more accurate to say that we're evolutionarily built for exactly what you see us doing. The "state of nature" is society, after all. It appears that humans are primarily monogamous and polygynous, but polyandry is not unheard of. And in basically any society you have a healthy dose of sexual relationships that don't fit into that category, which includes casual sex.

Female orgasm greatly increases the chance that a woman can get pregnant, but typically with just intercourse, a woman needs more than one partner to achieve it.

Not exactly what I've noticed...

Male's penis head and foreskin are shaped to both get a female to orgasm faster and collect the semen of their rivals on their way out, to help better the chances of the later guys in the act to getting her pregnant.

Actually, to my knowledge the research reflects the opposite, at least re: the "collecting the semen of rivals" thing. The human penis is shaped like it is because humans are mammals, and will have a lot of features that are holdovers from our evolutionary past in the same way that our skeletal structure reflects the fact that our ancestors used to be quadrupedal. One of the most important ways the human penis is different from that of other apes is the lack of "penis spines," which are exactly what they sound like. The main effect of penis spines is to speed up copulation [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/09/penis-spines-human-genetics-chimps] and remove the sperm of rivals [http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110309/full/news.2011.148.html], and it is not a coincidence that it tends to be more pronounced in more promiscuous mammals. So the human penis is actually less adapted to promiscuous sex than that of other mammals, and the main theory for why this is the case is that we use sex for pair-bonding purposes. It would also explain why we have, at most, a vestigial estrus.

 

[crudus]

I don't understand the link here. People who objectify women objectify women. People who like to have casual sex like to have sex. Sure there probably is some crossover, but they are independent events in of themselves. If both people go in saying "casual sex ftw!" then it is just sex. If one partner just lies to the other and just uses said partner for sex, then yes that is probably getting close to objectifying one gender or the other.

Not exactly what I've noticed...

The theory behind that is the female will most likely lay down after sex so sperm doesn't fall out. I don't know how much credence this has, but this is just what I have heard. I just find it confusing.

Men are pigs, women are sluts. It's a feminist issue, certainly, but in kind of a "false double standard" way.

Personal opinion: I don't really care about casual sex; it's just not for me.

Men are also "studs" for sleeping around.

Oddly enough gay men are usually in the "slut" category, too.

Although I have heard the term "man whore" thrown around a bit.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Why is it that sex without any intention of romantic relationship seen by society as such a male, chauvinistic thing? No one proclaims superiority over another gender. It's simply a decree that sex isn't this sacred ritual that everyone makes it out to be. It's just sex, and it's not like it's not supposed to be enjoyed. Self-indulgence in anything else is seen with less disgust. People eat tons of food all the time. A lot of people sit on their ass and watch TV all day sometimes. But the moment you make the claim that someone has lots of sex, they're pigs that see women as nothing more than something to fuck.

So, uh, what do you think?

Hello. Feminist woman here to chime in with... I love casual sex, and I believe it is empowering to women - as long as women are as free to engage in casual sex as men.

The problem I have is the perception of society - men who have lots of casual sex are cool (if possibly chauvinistic) while women who have lots of sex are considered dirty sluts. Being a dirty slut can damage one's ability to get a good job, where as being a hot stud can often make job-hunting easier. THAT isn't fair. And the men who promote that sort of thinking are the true chauvinists, even if they personally keep their peckers in their pants.

Also, on the whole objectification thing, that really only bothers me in the work place. Again, I want the good job with the good pay check - at work, I want to be treated as an equal to everyone else there.

However, when I'm in a night club dancing, hells yeah I want to be objectified. I didn't get all dressed up and looking hot and not want people to look at me and want to have sex with me. That was the damn point! Just like I plan to objectify plenty of hot men and women at that same club when I think about having sex with them. Anyone at the club who isn't one of the friends I walked in with (or met there) are meat to me - sensual flesh that exists only to give me pleasure.

And the fact that I can choose to treat men like my personal meat sticks? THAT right there is empowerment. Of course, being treated as an equal in the workplace (and getting the same paycheck) is also empowerment. I'm a big fan of empowerment, in all it's forms. ^^

tl;dr: I'm a woman and I love me some casual sex - it's empowering and tons of fun.

 

[Dags90]

Although I have heard the term "man whore" thrown around a bit.

To be fair, that's sort of anti-feminist from another angle. Needlessly qualifying "whore" with "man" implies that whores are women by default. Sort of like "lady doctor" and "male nurse".

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Female orgasm greatly increases the chance that a woman can get pregnant, but typically with just intercourse, a woman needs more than one partner to achieve it.

What gave you that idea? The needing more than one partner, not the increased chance of pregnancy.

When you say "just intercourse" - are you suggesting intercourse without foreplay, or that it actually takes more than one male to get a woman off? Cause, unless he's a 30-second man, regular intercourse can get a woman off, repeatedly, within, say, ten minutes.

A strap-on works too. Or any dildo, really.

It's all about angle and position. Any guy, at the right angle, can pull this off (if he can last more than 30 seconds anyway). Personally, I recommend the girl being on her back, with her legs up, resting on his shoulders. This gets everything to the right angle. Well, it does for me anyway. And two other women I know, one of whom I can say this with certainty about (I believe I mentioned that strap on earlier).

So yeah, I have no idea where you got that data, but it is not correct. Not if either party knows what they're doing.

 

[epialesofaergia]

I have a female friend who is very comfortable with casual sex, and has it roughly twice a week. She never has to lie about the kind of relationship she intends to have with the person afterwards. For me, the term 'slut' implies that someone is willing to lie or otherwise behave maliciously in order to have sex with someone, and does it regularly (lying to someone in that regard once doesn't necessarily make you a slut, just trashy).

And yea, I do have a lot of respect for my friend.