• endhits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t think you understand my point.

    Let’s break this down by making up a hypothetical sexual history for the woman in question:

    Guy 1 - Committed relationship, waited 3 months

    Guy 2 - Casual fling, no waiting

    Guy 3 - Committed relationship, waited 2 date

    Guy 4 - Casual relationship, no waiting

    Guy 5 - Hookup, no waiting

    If, now that she’s seeing guy 6, she magically decides it’s time to be responsible and wait for a while. Any guy that has self respect isn’t going to tolerate that. Why is this new guy so different than than the previous ones? Why does she make him wait, but none of the previous men?

    Anyone is going to figure that she is 1. Not attracted to him and is settling down after having fun to secure stability, or 2. Has cognitive dissonance about her past. A guy not accepting that and being skeptical of her intentions or level of honesty is fully justified.

    And for the record, I apply my principles evenly between men and women. Casual sex is disgusting and a long sexual history is a sign of impulsive, irresponsible behavior or placing no value on your body or relationships. Man or woman.

    • MacN'Cheezus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It sounds like we agree then. As I’ve already said: the only winning move is not to play.

      Yes, holding out for sex until you’ve secured commitment clearly works best if both partners never had sex.

      However, the basic problem remains that there is and always will be a certain amount of fundamental asymmetry between sexes: it’s (relatively) easy to check if a woman has never had sex, but its nearly impossible do to so for a man. Even if she remains a virgin until marriage, a woman will have to take a man’s word that he is, or accept that there is a possibility that she is not his first conquest even if he is hers.

      On the other hand, if both of them DO have other sexual partners beforehand, it cuts the other way around, because now the man has to take the woman by her word about the number of sexual partners she’s had, and everybody knows that it’s very likely to be more than him and equally impossible to conclusively prove, which makes lying about it not only easy but desirable, since there’s a good chance that the truth may drive him off.

      So for women, the dilemma is between either waiting until marriage and accepting that he might be lying (in which case he may end up cheating on her), or not waiting until then and dealing with the fact that he’ll be constantly suspicious about her past and/or potentially accuse her of cheating.

      Meanwhile for men, it’s between choosing a woman with no past who might be more faithful but also suspicious of him, and one whom he’ll have to trust about having learned her lessons from her past, but while he might be suspicious of from time to time.

      So for men, it’s generally advantageous to look for the lowest number of sexual partners in a woman, while for a woman, it actually makes some sense to preload the cheating, so to say, in order to understand her power and acquiesce her latent insecurities about cheating, but the price she’ll pay is having a far more difficult time finding a partner that’ll actually want to stay.