Why do men find the idea of being with many women in a casual/indiscriminate manner, MORE positively than women finding such an idea more positively?

[Anonymous]

Generally speaking

[VIVANT]

I don’t think Women do think negatively of casual sex in cultures where it’s not considered taboo, I think this is more of a “ why do group X seem to more often then group B, think negatively about this activity that puts group X in a social disadvantage with potentially severe repercussions, in ways that group Z is significantly less to experience.

Casual sex can potentially adversely affect women’s relationships friendships career safety reputation, this Over trine can be internalized as the activity is bad divorces from sny require of engaging in the activity.

I've lived in places where casual sex was popular not looked down upon and people trusted each other and there was a lot of it amongst my female friends I’d say more than male at that time. I’ve lived in more conservative places where women were much more secretive about casual sex not that they wouldn’t do it. Also I don't know if you are excluding lesbian sex from your question but in my experience from what I’ve observed, there’s not much squeamishness surrounding purely physical fun. I’d imagine it feels like a safer environment.

I don’t think the hesitancy on sex is about sex as much as all the stuff surrounding it. I don’t know too many women who put sex on a pedestal there’s just a lot of consequence to consider in publicly airing your habits.

[Kas19]

Probably because other men could think highly of them. It feeds their ego.

[GoldenAxer]

The way biology creates the largest consequences to women for having sex indiscriminately makes the most sense to me. I go by the biological view. Some people say it shouldn't matter in an age of contraceptives but I don't think technology can erase an entire history of evolutionary programming. It's like we live in an age of grocery stores and fast-food restaurants where we should no longer be consuming as much sugar as we can get our hands on but people are still psychologically wired to be tempted to do it regardless of the changes to the environment/technology.

[GoldenAxer]

If the reproductive functions reversed, so to speak, and men had the burden of pregnancy then I think we would also face evolutionary and corresponding societal pressure to be more discriminatory about who we sleep with. The societal pressures in this context correlate with the evolutionary ones.

[GoldenAxer]

You know, we largely still think like we're foraging and hunting for food in some wilderness. It's like why is a bodybuilder with a low-paying job largely considered cooler than some ubergeek millionaire like Bill Gates? It doesn't make that much sense if we look at modern civilized society and what makes a successful man but it makes perfect sense if we were thrown in the jungle having to forage and hunt for food again. The majority of people and what they think is cool and not cool is still based a lot on the conditions against which we evolved.

[ThisDudeHere]

Biology. With no obstacles and endless luck, a man can have effectively endless amounts of children at the same time whereas a woman can be pregnant only once every 9+ months.

[MCheetah]

Because women can (and usually do) date a lot more men, then men get to. Women get partners super easily; men get them sparingly unless they're rich, extremely cocky/arrogant, or super attractive looking.

[Asker]

That doesn’t really answer the question.

[MCheetah]

It does answer the question. Men find the idea of being with many women in a casual/indiscriminate manner to be a more positive experience because it's a lot more rewarding and valuable to men, where as women take it for granted and get access to do that easier.

[Medlife]

I dont think I understand the question. Men like women. Women like women. Women like men. Men like men. If u are a couple and want to share than go ahead. If a dude wants many women then he should be prepared to share with many men too.

[NathanDavis]

because, generally speaking, the consequences of doing such things, are more likely to negatively affect women and more profoundly as well

[Ninani]

What do you mean?

[Asker]

Why do men, generally, like the idea of hooking up with a lot of different women, in a more casual/no strings attached sense, whereas women don’t feel nearly the same way towards this as men. Quite the opposite for women actually. Generally speaking.

[Ninani]

Don't know, I'm not one of the women opposed to casual sex.

[Asker]

That’s why I said “generally speaking.” The majority of women seem to be less open to such a thing as opposed to men.

[Ninani]

I think more women romanticise sex

[Asker]

Well, that’s certainly true. But why

[Ninani]

Because women romanticise everything. It's an illusion, really, they want life to be the fantasy they believed in as children refusing they natural urges as a part of themselves. Classic denial.

[Asker]

Well, I think that can some explanation/factor What do you think if I told you it was evolutionary biology? Meaning, women, evolved to prefer QUALITY over quantity because the cost of pregnancy is high. Not only does it take several months But imagine being pregnant with a child from a man that you did not want or choose? Whereas for men, there’s no pregnancy. In theory, men can impregnate unlimited number of women at NO cost to the man. Men want to spread their genes as often and as far as they can. Women want to spread GOOD genes as well, but not as a numerical high number, which is why they are pickier. Also why women romanticize sex. They want someone to stay behind to help raise the child with them. Sex is simply not a thing people do to feel good. It’s something deeper.

[Ninani]

Yeah, in today's age, that's bull.

[Asker]

What do you mean today’s age? Evolutionary biology has been the vast majority of human existence. “Today’s age” cannot rewrite those deeply instinctual/neural pathways that have developed within men and women… How did I know that talking about biology would not sit well with you? Lmao……

[Ninani]

I'm talking about options. Women can choose to use birth control which (almost) removed the risk of pregnancy.

[Asker]

I know, you’re right, but that still doesn’t remove the centuries upon centuries of evolution that make women different from men. Birth control is a very recent thing in the span of human existence. Perhaps in the future, far into the future, women will be completely different from the women now. Perhaps men & women will be more similar in the future, in all ways, specifically what they want out of sex.

[Ninani]

Actually before Christianity made monogamous marriage mandatory people were polyamorous and were more community than family based.

[Asker]

Well, to whatever extent that is true, it still doesn’t mean women were into that. Especially if you’re talking about back then, where knowledge of birth control and safe sex was infinitely less than it was now. It could be that MEN inclined/forced that model upon societies throughout the world because back then or until recently, men had control and power in almost all facets of life within tribes, cultures, etc. Nowhere except today in civilized society, do women have just as much say/power as men in numerous areas in society. All of this is relatively new.

[Ninani]

You're right, men did run the communities to make women feel safe from danger, so women could focus on giving nurture. That was the natural way of things, neither men nor women questioned that or had a problem with that structure. Only later when jobs outside of the primal needs arose did the gender difference start to inflict problems.

[Asker]

I think most civilizations inclined towards monogamy because it just seemed to be the most stable way of raising a family and children. I think evidence suggests that this manner of relationship is the best for family and children development.

[Ninani]

Have you ever seen studies on child development in community based homes or do you just assume that because it's been the standard for so long and all our knowledge of child development stems from two-parent households vs split homes in a monogamy-normative society?

[Asker]

No, haven’t seen a lot of research on that. I have heard that research seems to suggest the best or most ideal way is within a two-parent household. A contrast between a more masculine/feminine figure. Not saying it has to be a man and woman specifically. Just a differentiation between a more masculine figure and more feminine figure. Community based homes can be good.

[Ninani]

This is my personal opinion, but I think a two-parent household holds a greater risk of abuse or false role models because the parents have monopoly on how to raise the children. Having more people involved gives more perspective and nuance to the upbringing.

[Asker]

Well, that is all possible.

[Ninani]

Wish there were more studies, so I wouldn't have to speculate.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Women value fidelity more and aren’t usually into indiscriminate casual sex

[Gwenhwyfar]

There’s a difference between an occasional hookup and the kind of indiscriminate casual sex a lot of guys would have if they could

[humanearth]

Dont understand

[Ninjazzed]

One word: hypocrisy.