Casual sex is no more 'bad for women' than sex-with-commitment.

[solidgoldbrass]

Actually, casual sex in many ways is better for women than committed sex. Just like a lot of other stuff surrounding sex and relationships, the recieved wisdom is not necessarily true and might actually be another tool of the patriarchy.
Because women who are encouraged to 'save' sex for relationships are women who are going to have to wash the bloke's shitty pants and cook his dinner and stroke his ego as well as having sex with him. And prioritising The Relationship often means having sex you don't really want, with a bloke who isn't very good at it, because you 'love' him and therefore it's all about keeping him happy.
Whereas if you have sex with a bloke you just met, or only see from time to time, you don't have to do his housework or listen to long rambles about how his day at work went, and if he isn't any fun you can just bin him and move on.

[only4tonight]

Sgb. I respect your views and your choices to do as you wish. But your life is not for everyone, just as my life isn't for you.

I am monogamous and happy that way. Sex with my husband fills me with self worth and self confidence where once there was none. Casual sex would never have been good for me. Also dh does the washing in my house as we both work full time but I do slightly more hours at the mo and bring in more money.

Different strokes for different folks.

[solidgoldbrass]

Only4Tonight: I entirely agree that people should do what suits them. I've just seen a rash of stuff lately insisting that casual sex is inherently bad for women and I do think that there is too much insistence that women should pursue commitment and that those who don't are either victims or have something wrong with them.

[only4tonight]

Casual sex IS bad for SOME people though. A blanket statement helps no one. Sex, as in most other areas of a persons life should be down to personal choice. I think the thing that should really be pushed is having more respect and less judgement over the choices made by individuals (as long as no one is getting hurt, misled or lied to). No a a blanket casual sex is great/bad, monogamy is great/bad.

[ColdTruth]

I agree with you but it really depends on the person, I have seen so many threads where women talk about how they are developed feelings for men who are only interested in keeping it casual. For people who are prone to do that casual probably isn't very good for them since they will keep getting hurt.

[Hoebag]

I depends why it is being done though,

people who shag anything that brushes up against them are possibly doing so in a 'well lots of people shag so I must be good' desperation or desperately trying to portray to others that lots of people desire them.
In that situation have and would suggest they calm down and perhaps search for someone they actually like and get one with, before thinking of sex.

[higgle]

SGB, In general ( and yes, I know there are exceptions to every rule) I'd agree with you. There is another thread in progress at the moment about how women get "put upon" re domestic tasks. If I were to find myself single again (and I'm very happily married) I'd go down the route of several friends with benefits - a man who is technically good at sex and really enjoys pleasing women is a rare find.

[Spiritedwolf]

There's a heck of a lot of assumptions in the original post about what monogamous relationships are like.

Just because a woman chooses to only have sex in a relationship doesn't mean she has to:
a. launder soiled(?!) clothes
b. cook dinner
c. stroke partner's ego
d. have sex with them (which somehow has been turned into a negative here )
e. have sex she doesn't want
f. with a partner who isn't 'good' at sex
g. because love = keeping him happy

And you've compared that with having casual sex where the woman:
a. gets to have sex (now a positive )
b. doesn't have to do partner's housework
c. doesn't have to listen to partner drone on about work
d. if partner isn't fun (euphamism for good in bed?) then she can end it and move on.

What a load of rubbish. You may as well have written "casual sex with a series of quiet, tidy but raunchy strangers with no commitment is better for women than a monogamous relationship with a partner who pressurises her into sex she doesn't want (er... rape), isn't 'good' at it anyway, is a slob who treats her as a domestic servant and requires her to stroke their ego".

And we'd all agree :) but it's absolutely meaningless to try and derive from this that casual sex is better than sex "with commitment" in general.

Not all monogamous relationships are abusive and not all casual sex encounters are 'fun'.

I just don't recognise the picture that you've drawn up of a monogamous relationship at all. I am in a committed relationship with someone. As we share a household, we have shared chores and he pulls his weight (sometimes more than ) in making meals, laundry etc. He would be mortally offended and ashamed if I ever had sex with him when I didn't want to, as he (like most men) is not a rapist.

I don't really know what people mean when they talk about being 'good' at sex, because to me its a physical and emotional relationship which becomes deeper and more satisfying with a partner who you know so well.

Sex with a stranger could be fun, because they may be lucky or unlucky in working out what there partner enjoys, or doesn't in 15 mins, they might be more or less adventurous, more or less sensitive to their partner's pleasure. But how can that possibly compare to having a sensitive partner who really knows what you like because you've had years of exploring each other's bodies and who you are deeply connected to emotionally? Novelty and experience with a partner are different kinds of pleasure, and maybe they appeal to different people.

But yes, I enjoy sex with my partner, and wouldn't have sex with him if I didn't.

You've got a really skewed idea of love in a committed relationship if you think that it's all about keeping him happy. You are certainly missing the advantages of splitting the housework between two people, looking after each other (including keeping each other happy), enjoying a satifying long term sexual relationship etc.

I can see that being in a committed relationship with someone who takes advantage would be a horrid situation. But I don't think that it's any more likely, than finding yourself with a casual sex partner who does the same. Both situations involve trust, and therefore can result in a betrayl of that trust.

Either way, it is possible to end the relationship if it becomes abusive.

This is a complete straw man argument. Those who enjoy monogamous relationships aren't advocating abusive relationships (if they do, I'd disagree with them ). There are positive monogamous relationships and negative ones, there are positive casual relationships and negative ones. The fact that negative monogamous relationships exist doesn't mean that casual relationships are somehow superior.

Of course one can have satisfying sex in casual relationships. But committed relationships can have satisfying sex too, as well as lots of other things like the companionship of someone who wants to share their entire life with you, not just one bed or one night.

(I am possibly a bit soppy )

[blackcats73]

Well said spirited wolf. I agree with everything you've written. Nothing more to add except i love my husband, love having sex with him. As a part time worker i do the lion's share of the housework and childcare but I'm happy with my life and wouldn't change it for the world.

[Bue]

Well, with DH I am pretty much guaranteed to have 'technically good' sex. The same cannot be said for most of my casual encounters over the years. Long term relationship sex may lack the same frisson and excitement of the no strings attached variety, but at least I am confident he can find all the relevant bits and knows what to do with them!

Most definitely, casual sex is not bad for all women. But it was terrible, both sexually and psychologically, for me.

[McFluffster]

Well said, Spirited Wolf.

I've enjoyed my share of both but now I'm married I don't miss casual sex. When I was single I occasionally missed having someone to collapse in front of the tv with after work and rub my manky feet with no expectations.

[McFluffster]

My husband is a lucky, lucky man!

[Spiritedwolf]

I am not suggesting BTW that monogamous relationships suit everyone and people who just enjoy casual relationships shouldn't be looked down upon.

Its just that you seem to reckon the more time you commit to someone, the more likely you are to find they are unpleasant and abusive and so you keep your relationships short to avoid this.

Whereas I would find even a one-off sexual encounter with someone unpleasant and abusive damaging, and so am quite content to stick with someone I know is neither of these things (amongst other more admirable qualities ) rather than constantly expose myself to the risk of new sexual partners who may be horrid.

Or it could be that you don't think its realistic to find someone who is both enjoyable during sex and a great companion the rest of the time. Therefore you seperate out sex from anything else others might expect from a committed sexual partner (close friendship etc) and get those things from other people that you don't want a sexual relationship with or you find you don't need those things personally (say if you prefer solitude etc).

Fair enough, but what happens when you meet someone who you could imagine more than a brief fling with. Do you decide not to even try to persue it, because you don't believe in commited relationships, even if it means you end a perfectly enjoyable relationship then go on to have others that aren't as 'fun'?

[LesAnimaux]

"Because women who are encouraged to 'save' sex for relationships are women who are going to have to wash the bloke's shitty pants and cook his dinner and stroke his ego as well as having sex with him. And prioritising The Relationship often means having sex you don't really want, with a bloke who isn't very good at it, because you 'love' him and therefore it's all about keeping him happy. "


Er...no!

This certainly isn't the way my life is, and not what I am raising my DD to believe.

[DuelingFanjo]

"Because women who are encouraged to 'save' sex for relationships are women who are going to have to wash the bloke's shitty pants and cook his dinner and stroke his ego as well as having sex with him. And prioritising The Relationship often means having sex you don't really want, with a bloke who isn't very good at it, because you 'love' him and therefore it's all about keeping him happy. "



that's a massive generalisation.

I have only had sex within a relationship.

sure there must be some women who just want to have sex a lot and never have a relationship but there are others who want to have a relationship and just don't want lots of sex with different people and with no connection.

[solidgoldbrass]

Yeah yeah blah blah, plenty of people have pleasant, non-abusive, life-enhancing relationships and good luck to them. But plenty of women do find that the committed relationship they have been encouraged to pursue and make the centre of their lives is a poor deal for them: the man either expects them to do the vast majority of the domestic work and be sexually available whenever he's in the mood, or he is actively aggressive and damaging.
Casual sex doesn't suit everyone, either but this insistence that women not only shouldn't engage in it but can't do so, well the level of pressure on women to avoid casual sex suggests that making women seek commitment is something that benefits the partriarchy.

[EnjoyResponsibly]

I wouldn't have sex with a man who had shitty pants casual or otherwise.

Odd types you must meet SGB.

[ReactionaryFish]

"making women seek commitment is something that benefits the partriarchy."
This seems so obviously true to me that I can hardly believe anyone who is not interested in maintaining patriarchy would disagree.
That's not to say committed relationships are invariably a bad idea; as a very happily married person myself I'd be the last person to say that. But the social pressure on women to seek commitment as their most important goal in life is if anything getting stronger. And there's no doubt that society at large feels very threatened by women who are happy to have sex without that commitment.
unless they're doing it for money of course. Then they can be fitted into a structure people understand.

[LesAnimaux]

I think I live in a parallel universe.

[blackcurrants]

I was about to type what Reactionary Fish ended up writing, really rather brilliantly, so I won't repeat it.

I would flip SGB's assertion on its head and say: the social idea that a woman must have a relationship is BAD for women.

[messyisthenewtidy]

It would certainly explain why media stereotypes/tropes invariably represent marriage and commitment as being something that men run from but which women run to, whilst RL surveys of divorced couples show that men benefit more from marriage than women do and that a lot of divorced women would rather endure financial hardship than stay in an unhappy marriage.

I'm liking the theory, solid!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Who's saying that casual sex is bad for women? Not that I can't imagine/haven't heard the sort of thing you mention, just it's hard to follow the OP without the context.

IMO, people can abuse any situation. Married, single, committed sex, swinging from the chandelier, anything. It's nothing to do with the kind of sex, it's to do with the participants.

My personal experience of people who were into casual sex was pretty unpleasant - because they were unpleasant people.

I do feel it's a little naive to say 'you can just bin him' - you wouldn't say to a woman in abusive marriage 'you can just leave', would you? Obviously there are enormous differences between the two, and I'm sure an abusive partner has much more leverage to abuse.

I've plenty of mates who've been in the situation of going home with some guy, realizing he's horrible - and going on with the sex. Which is awful. But it's too simplistic to say 'why didn't they just leave?', because there's a lot of confused pressure in that situation.

[AliceHurled]

Agree with you in this one SGB. Although I would add into the mix it's also ok to not want to have any, or little, sex. The idea that it is so important also props up the patriarchy.

[maybenow]

i'd agree with blackcurrant's "the social idea that a woman must have a relationship is BAD for women."

i spend a lot of my 20s single, as such i had some casual sex but not actually that much as i found i had a lower sex-drive when not having regular sex.... this enabled me to find somebody who was and is good for me, because i felt ok being single so he HAD to be a pretty good proposition for me to go for him.

[solidgoldbrass]

ALiceHurled: Yes, that too. THough that can be difficult for people in monogamous relationships if one partner has a much lower libido than the other for a long time.

[Lovecat]

Not so much that casual sex is bad for women, LRD, but that it's a bad thing for women to do. That they're sluts, or easy or any of those other hurtful names that get slapped on a woman who enjoys casual sex.

We are constantly sold this story by the media and society in general of finding 'the one', living happy ever after as a couple, monogamy being the desireable thing. I am on the whole very happily married (DH washes his own underwear, I have no idea of its soiled-ness or otherwise) but I can see how the subtle but constant pressure on women is there.

The extent to which this kind of thinking is imbued in us was brought home to me only last week, when I was talking to an American woman in our office who is dating several men at once, this being fairly standard practise in NYC, apparently. It actually shocked me initially that she would do it, the phrase 'but that's two/three/four-timing' came into my head (thankfully remained unspoken!), but then when I thought about my reaction I realised that actually it was my problem that I felt like that and it was because I exist in a society where you are expected to stick to one partner and stay with them.

Conversely, we were watching a programme this week on the Beeb about a nomadic tribe in Niger where the men enter a kind of beauty contest to be chosen by the female judges for a night of passion; even if they're married, it's considered an honour (and a compliment to the wife) if her husband is considered attractive enough to be chosen. The wives/other women in turn can eye up the men and take a lover if they fancy it. We were saying how nice it was to see a society where monogamy wasn't the be all and end all...

Sorry, this is a total ramble. I'm in agreement with SGB and I don't think she's attacking anyone's individual choices (apologies if I've got that wrong!), just recognising that those choices tend to be made in the framework of a patriarchal and sexist society so there are subtle and not so subtle pressures at work to find a man, marry him and not to shag around whilst finding him...

It would be refreshing and quite eye-opening to actually live in a society where monogomous coupledom wasn't promoted as the ideal. Opens up all sorts of other possibilities...