People who enjoy having multiple sexual partners are almost always socially dominant, but tend to be either very friendly or quite antagonistic, LiveScience.com reports of a study from Villanova University and Rutgers University. Friendly, extroverted people sleep around because they enjoy being with others, while antagonistic people are promiscuous to avoid a meaningful, monogamous relationship, as well as to avoid rejection or being treated poorly.
Now I'm the first to admit to being a flirt. I'm incredible friendly and dominant and while I don't act on my impulses I have to admit if I weren't afraid of the social and professional ramifications I would probably be a slut. Of course that term in and of itself irritates me. If I were a man and managed to bed 4 women in a week I would be some sort of procreation g*d. As a woman, I'm a whore. Now the traditional part of me, while balking at the double standard, thinks that the fear of the label is a good thing. Maybe it keeps young, naive, insecure women from sleeping around for the wrong reasons. But the modern mature woman in me (the largest majority) thinks that because I am educated, mature, and careful that who and how many I sleep with is my damn business and no one else's. Which leads me to wonder if one should continue to perpetuate the double standard. Is it exploitation of the woman if she is a willing and active participant? Does it make her a "slut" if it is her well thought out choice to refrain from a monogamous relationship?
Realistically there is something like 10 species int he entire world that mate for life. Humans, it goes without saying, are not one of them. So why is it acceptable for the male human to act on his impulses but not for the female? I certainly don't advocate careless sex, especially to those too young to be having any kind of sex. But for those of us who are "older" and more emotionally capable of making a sound decision, why should we be branded with a scarlet "S"? Women are, in my opinion, the dominant species. If we were to go uniformly topless and drive sports cars, we could rule the world. Lets face it, a nekkid man just isn't as purty as a nekkid woman. Never has been, never will be, I don't care who ya are. Any human that can be reduced to drooling puddle of waste upon sight of a healthy pair of mammary glands just isn't at the top of the food chain. So why is it they they get to make up the rules about how the feminine half must act in order to be deemed a "proper women?" I call bullshit.
No one should be able to dictate my sexuality but me. If, as a woman, I enjoy sex, and choose to have relations with a man that I have zero intention of pursuing a meaningful relationship with, it really is no one elses business. So for all of you women who are "either very friendly or quite antagonistic" I vote you decide what's right for you! Healthy sex drives shouldn't be limited to the *knuckle draggers.
*Note- this is in no way a man bashing post. I love men, especially those in a uniform. ;)
6 comments:
I agree with you on the double-standard concept and at one time in my life I made the mistake of acting on those beliefs. Demi Moore's little tirade at the mediation table in "Disclosure" was more or less my motto.
Bad idea.
Social ramifications aside, there is still that inner biological wiring that makes a woman who acts in that manner actually wind up not liking herself too much and then it becomes either a self-perpetuating vicious circle or she takes stock of herself and the situation and makes some changes. Add to that the whole biochemical stuff going on, with oxytocin (the bonding hormone) released with skin-on-skin contact, and you wind up with a mess on your hands.
And then there are even the GUYS who can't let go, even if you can.
Bottom line, the old-fashioned way is best. Know and respect a person, know and respect yourself, and make sure that person knows and respects you. And don't accept the whole "boys will be boys" nonsense. A Man knows how to not act on his immediate impulses and how to delay or forego immediate gratification for the greater good/bigger picture/long-term benefit.
There just aren't that many real men left in the world, is the problem.
I agree with you to a point. However I wasn't suggesting that a woman sleep with whom ever she likes, whenever she likes and not deal with the ramifications of her actions. I was instead thinking that the societal pressure to marry is so overwhelming that many women forgo ANY kind of exploration before settling down. And, as the divorce rate shows, marrying b/c you're *supposed to and think that companionship is enough is a BAD idea. Women are discouraged from dating or sleeping with "too many" men. So instead of "playing the field" in a physically and emotionally responsible way, they avoid the stigma of being a "slut" and settle for something they wrongly assume will be enough. The idea that 30 is too old to still besingle and 35 is too old to have children is a stigma that's doing a lot of damage in and of itself. I don't think that sex should be viod of emotion. I do think that you can like, respect, and admire someone, sleep with them, and not be madly in love with them. Maybe I just have too much faith in women to be mature enough to handle such a relationship.
Okay, I agree with you on that.
I think you do might have too much faith in women overall, as you mention. There are some of us out there but at least around here, most are trying to use sex to win a man's affections and try to reel him in that way - destructive, to say the least. And it is true that women do often feel that remorse and try to make a relationship out of a one-night stand to ease their consciences.
The catch, though, is that if there is that respect and that emotion involved in the act itself, it can be VERY easy to bond beyond that once sex is introduced, with the hormonal influences that are taking place at the same time and to think they've "fallen in love". Which is exactly why I am a big skeptic of the whole ball of wax to start with.
But (and I'm just proposing an idea here) if there were no double standard in the world of procreation, would women still feel guilty about having sex with a man they liked and respected but didn't want to marry? If there were no pressure on a woman to settle down, would they be more likely to have fun and productive but less-than-meaningful relationships? If there were no one looking over their shoulders holding an age timer, would women then be able to have a relationship, that may involve sex, and understand that, though there is always a possiblity that he is "the one", that even if he isn't you're not "wasting time" on him? I think that there is potential to learn something from almost everyone we come in contact with. Maybe by having a relationship that you know really isn't going anywhere, but it's fun,and you like him and are enjoying his company, but still keeping your eyes open, you learn something about yourself and maybe you learn more about what you DON'T want than what you do. But at least you learn SOMETHING other than how expensive divorce is.
Well I don't see the guilt thing when it's men we don't necessarily want to marry. Marriage isn't the be-all and end-all of life.
However, if I'm involved exclusively with someone and it's not going to last, yes it IS "wasting time" on them because it's robbing me of the years of time, energy, and emotion that I could be spending doing something more productive and at the same time, open and available to someone who might actually BE "right".
This realization, of course, came only after a sequence of such waste which has left me just as jaded as I am now. Truly while it has its blessings in terms of strength and discernment, it also has its most definite pitfalls - some I really wouldn't wish on others.
....just to clarify, not every woman is capable of being intimately involved with a man and still "keep her options open." A lot of us are still "one man women".
Me included.
Post a Comment