A psychologist who reported last year that women can be just as interested as men in casual sex pinpoints one reason they hesitate: a justified fear of being judged.
As a society, can we please get over sex as a stigma? Its a fun activity to be enjoyed by two people. Sometimes those people don't want to be in a relationship for whatever reason, sometimes they just want to knock johnsons. Or part the pink sea. You're like the anti-Moses babe. Just turned my snake in to a hard ol' staff. That's rather contrived but I think I can make that work. Also, a fundamental flaw of the argument over women and sex at this point is that they are taking evolutionary psychology as an incredibly serious, academic field. IIRC evolutionary psychology is about as credible as, oh, astrology, Otherkin, and ghosts.
Or three. Or more. Or, arguably, by one. I'm interested in why you feel that evolutionary psychology has such a low credibility. I'm not deeply well-read on the subject, but I wouldn't have said that it was significantly less-credible than psychology as a whole (which, of course, produces testable theories, although it's often incredibly difficult to isolate biases). As far as I understand it, evolutionary psychology is simply about the study of the possible evolutionary reasons for psychological phenomena.Its a fun activity to be enjoyed by two people.
As far as I like feminism ( I wrote a fun thriller about an overweight policewoman who sleep with whoever she like, and doesn't care... actually top100 in french amazon)
As far as I consider women should have sex as they please without being judged, I think the study is bullshit. Women fucking around are labeled slut cause they take some sort of physical risk. Sleeping with an unknown man could be dangerous. While sleeping with an unknown women is probably less risky for a man.
So anyone willing to take even a slight risk for sexual pleasure is logically labeled a Slut. It's more or less a stupid move. A correct procedure in the testing would, imho, involve lesbian and gay:
Are lesbian having casual sex (less risky than heterosexual sex) still labeled 'slut' ?
Are gay men having casual sex (more risky , with my premise, than straight) still NOT labeled 'slut'?
With such a testing we could see if the stigmata of girl fucking around is really about gender education and machismo, or , as I suppose, about judging people for the amount of risk they're willing to take for some sexual pleasure. As it is, the study tell us some evidence: girl are more badly judged than boy. What the study doesn't tell, and should, is why.
That's an interesting response - we need to ask why. But I think that while your 'why' might be applicable some times, most of the 'why' (at least in my experience) is not articulated as having anything to do with physical or sexual risk, but is articulated in terms of an a priori "women shouldn't have as much sex as men" kind of thing. There's an assumption that men are natural pursuers of sex but that women shouldn't "give it up" as easily, and I don't think it's reducible to a 'risk' factor at all.
That's striking.Conley and her colleagues describe four experiments examining attitudes towards, and experiences with, casual sex. In the first, 195 volunteers recruited on a university campus read a short scenario in which one student approaches another, introduces him or herself, and asks if they could have sex that night. The second student agrees.
Half the participants read a version in which the second student was named Lisa; for the other half, he was named Mark. Afterwards, all filled out a questionnaire in which they offered their perception of him or her.
The result: “Women who accepted a casual sex offer were viewed as more promiscuous, less intelligent, less mentally healthy, less competent, and more risky than men who accepted the same offer,” the researchers report. That’s a particularly striking finding, given that the views are those of students and other members of the university community—people usually thought of as tolerant in their thinking on sex.