Submitted by Alex Birch on Sat, 06/28/2008 - 22:49.

The sexual and feminist revolutions were supposed to free women to enjoy casual sex just as men always had. Yet according to Professor Anne Campbell from Durham University in the UK, the negative feelings reported by women after one-night stands suggest that they are not well adapted to fleeting sexual encounters.
Men are more likely to reproduce and therefore to benefit from numerous short-term partners. For women, however, quality seems to be more important than quantity. Also for women, finding partners of high genetic quality is a stronger motivator than sheer number, and it is commonly believed that women are more willing to have casual sex when there is a chance of forming a long-term relationship.
The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been “used”. Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out. Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships.

Feminist: Men and women are free and equal--anything that conceives of us as different destroys my freedom.
Corrupt: No, men and women are fundamentally different, and this difference constitutes a part of the natural mechanism of life. Instead of undermining what it means to be a woman by assuming it is inferior to the roles and functions of men, we should embrace this difference as a beautiful working whole and work towards recognising the importance of the inherent characteristics of women -- that is, reality!
Casual sex without love is stupid, for women just as for men.
Thanks To Kalle J.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Men not "wired" to be promiscuous
Just because men don't normally suffer the same psychological trauma as women from casual sex, doesn't mean men are "wired for casual sex". It doesn't confer any psychological advantage to them, and in fact has some important disadvantatages such as the risk of venerial disease and the decreasing chance of experiencing a bonding love as this aspect of the mind is suppressed and over-ridden.
Also, who would it be that men would be "wired" to have this casual sex with? Women who likewise enjoy it? Male animals are programmed to maximise their reproductive opportunities, but in humans things are different. These residual urges remain to varying extents, but we are more complicated and more highly evolved.
My apologies, in my last
My apologies, in my last comment, I believe I wrote pluralistic where I intended to say parallelistic.
If casual sex is not
If casual sex is not something that women are naturally wired for, isn't the idea, in a naturalistic sense, that men ARE wired for casual sex a corollary? If so, I do not understand how the broad based value judgement of "casual sex without love is stupid, for women just as for men" applies is a pluralistic sense.