Why most men think that girls who had few/many One Night Stands were generally 'used'

[Timshel]

It's a very interesting phenomenon. There is mutual consent for a ONS but if a guy is dating a girl for 2 years and she tells him that she had 7 ONS, he would generally feel that she was USED. Logic tells us it shouldn't be like that, both partners enjoyed but still there is something deeper than this that tells men that she was used. Why is that happening? Any ideas what generates this feeling of a girl being used no matter she agrees to have sex?

 

My opinion:

There can be a mutual consent for ONS and still the girl to be used as in guys get more pleasure and benefits out of ONS wheres the girl would feel guilty/used/ashamed/weird. Also if we accept that girls are programmed to search for serious relationships and choose only one man who's worth it, then ONS don't make sense at all, so it makes them look used when having ONS.

Thus we can conclude : Girls who have many ONS are not in tune with their deepest selves and generally there is something wrong with them. Girls who had 1-2 ONS and felt bad about it are okay, and it can be taken as a mistake done and lesson learned.

 

 

'Used' is quite on topic.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Timshel

[Timshel]

I think the word used does not fit the OPs question.

 

Ten toes. JS

[fryingpan]

Its pretty common for women to think they have been used after having sex.

[bachdude]

For me, whether it is a male or female, I would wonder if the promiscuous person would be able go without the large variety of sexual partners they have become accustomed to.

 

In other words, I would be concerned about their ability to be content with one sexual partner for the rest of their life.

 

Would boredom eventually set in?

[casey.lives]

As a person who frequently initiated the one night stands, the only way i would consider it being used is if i was misled. Making love is making love; Having sex is having sex; Being raped is being raped; and being used is being used.

[RedRobin]

I don't believe in double standards or gender stereotypes.

 

 

I believe that lots of people spend a certain period of their lives exploring their sexuality and where their values are. This is expressed in different ways and different settings.

 

 

I believe people should form relationships with those who share their values, whatever they are, and that deception on either side is a waste of time.... not a moral issue. Pragmatically, just a waste of time.

 

 

I believe that most men and women will more or less behave similarly in the absence of consequences and that there is no biological imperative that determines who is or is not interested or capable of ONS or relationships. Again, not a moral issue.

 

 

I believe men who are plagued by the Madonna/whore dilemma ought to focus on their inability to achieve satisfactory relationships in a different way.

[Phoe]

I have never had a one night stand. Just not in line with what I'm comfortable with, so I do what works for me.

 

Despite that, I have a very high sex drive, and am ALWAYS horny... but have been known to go several years without sex.

 

I am no different than women who do have ONS. They do what works for them, they do what's in tune with what they're comfortable with. And that's precisely what I do too. It just happens that we are all comfortable with different things.

[gen66]

I think the word used does not fit the OPs question.

 

 

Having a ONS does not mean she was used.

 

 

Being in a long relationship does not mean she was not used.

 

 

A woman can of dated 1 man for 1 year, then she dated another man the next year before she got married and had sex 200 times. Then she met and married man #3.

 

 

A woman had 10 ONS over 2 years. So she had sex 10 times with 10 men before she got married.

 

 

Who was the good girl and who was the slut.

 

 

All that matters is her number. But which number matters more?

 

Well, officially the slut would be the one with the ONS. It doesn't matter how many times a woman had sex what matters is how many partners she do it with, that's from a slut-shaming male point of view, which I may not completely agree with, but I know where most men are coming from, we do have this instinct to stay away from women with many partners, we sense something is wrong there.

 

Further thoughts - What was wrong with this girl with the ONS that she couldn't get a relationship? No-one can convince me that we are happier with ONS and single rather then in a relationship, we are the happiest in a relationship. It's just how we are designed, there's nothing more satisfying than having sex with a person you care and love and trust and know, it's the best experience ever. So, what's her issues that the only thing she can get is an instant one night satisfaction with a stranger rather then bond with a quality man and be truly happy? What's her issues? That's why I would stay away may be, there are some issues....Issues that are preventing her from achieving her potential to be truly happy in a relationship....

[gen66]

As I'm thinking more about the topic, I realized more things about me which many other men share as I read online....

 

What's the problem for having a serious relationship with a woman with many ONS.

Problem is that she gave her most intimate and precious to a person she doesn't know, this speaks for herself and her values and how she perceives sex and her body. As nothing special. That's the whole issue, if you give your most intimate and private to a stranger without much effort from his side, you are basically lowering your value, you are cheap.

 

What's the difference from a woman who makes the guy wait? Well, we guys as hunters, we like to get the best deal, so just knowing that the woman made all previous guys also wait and deserve the sex with her, it makes you feel as if you are getting a good deal and that it's worth it, the woman is not viewed as cheap. She values her body and sexuality and gives it to the one who deserves and spends time with her.

 

For me if I sleep with girl who gave sex to guys many times easily, I would feel like I'm getting a leftover, that it's not worth investing my time in it. It's like, all other guys got the sex right away, so why should I be the one investing more time with her? She is cheap anyway.... I would get especially annoyed if she makes me wait to have sex on 3-4 date wheres other guys got it right away, it would create a feeling that there's something wrong with me.

 

Now here is the psychology part and why things are the way they are. Why women don't feel the same way about guys? Why woman wouldn't feel bad about a guy who gave his most intimate easily with a prostitute or any other girl. Why girls don't care about the number of partners? Because we are different. It all comes from girls GIVE sex, men WANT sex. There is a reason why if a man goes on the street and asks 100 women for sex as in "would you like to have sex with me, now' he would most probably get 100 rejections. The reverse situation a girl would get most YES, let's do it. There is a reason for this to happen and it's not only about social programming, part of this social programming comes naturally from the needs and the nature of a woman. It's not like she really wants it but she says NO because of social morals etc. It just doesn't feel natural and normal as per her nature. That's the main reason.

 

So, having this in mind, men are the one who actively chase sex, while women are the one who should say YES and allow the men to get what they want. That makes it like a kind of deal, and we are humans, we like to get the best deals.

The harder the woman gives it in, the more value in her.

 

Just like Phoe, she was horny, she is very sexual, but didn't give it in easily to the first hot guy who asked her to go to his place, she went for serious partners. She instantly earns the respect of all men just because of that. Her value is good compared to girl a who gave it easily many times.

Edited August 11, 2015 by gen66

[Els]

It's due to traditional societal values about sex - traditionally women are expected to be the 'gatekeepers'. Many people feel that this is an antiquated and biased notion, though, so I definitely don't think that 'most' men feel this way. It depends on how old-fashioned the individual guy's mindset is and what culture he was raised in.

 

Edit: Also, I just read your last post. Be honest, are you actually looking for answers or did you ask this question just to be able to post that as an 'answer' to your own thread?

[autumnnight]

So basically, men want to have sex with lots of women...but they do not women to have had sex with a lot of men.

 

If one cannot see the problem with that, one needs some very deep self-examination.

 

For the record, I was a virgin when I married in my mid/late 20's. My marriage was crap.

 

My close friend "slept around" in late high school and college. She has been faithfully and happily married for 25 years.

 

People generalize what they want to generalize.

[jen1447]

I take it gen66 didn't read pteromom's posts.

[Grumpybutfun]

Again, women are human beings...they get to make all the same choices men do. The judgment involved is more your issue, not theirs.

G

[gen66]

So basically, men want to have sex with lots of women...but they do not women to have had sex with a lot of men.

 

It may look like a double standard, but it's not, because we are different genders, since many other things are different : behavior, sexual behavior, psychology etc. It would have been a double standard only if it's applied for the same thing, e.g. group of guys, group of girls, but when we apply it to different genders, it's not a double standard since the basis is not the same, it's totally different. So yes, just because we are different, it kinda of is ok for men to sleep around but for women not. Women and Men are not the same thing, otherwise it would not be interesting, we are different and should be judged differently when it comes to such specific details. Or you think that no matter we are different gender, we are absolutely the same, it's just visual difference? No difference in behavior, psychology, sexuality etc?

[central]

I think the basis of the double standard is that women can get pregnant. Men don't trust promiscuous women because they cannot be confident of paternity. This is based on millions of years of evolution.

 

Suddenly, women have effective birth control, and can almost always avoid pregnancy if they are careful. The playing field has been made level - but this only started about 50 years ago. Changing attitudes will take another couple of generations, at least, IMO. And while such social attitudes may come to prevail eventually (that women can behave comparably to men when it comes to casual sex and numbers of partners), if the attitudes have an evolutionary component they won't disappear for millennia.

 

Of course, some men adapt a lot faster than others.

Edited August 11, 2015 by central

[gen66]

Thanks for calling me a slowly adaptive conservative old fashion retard :D hahaha, jk :laugh:

[autumnnight]

It may look like a double standard, but it's not, because we are different genders, since many other things are different : behavior, sexual behavior, psychology etc. It would have been a double standard only if it's applied for the same thing, e.g. group of guys, group of girls, but when we apply it to different genders, it's not a double standard since the basis is not the same, it's totally different. So yes, just because we are different, it kinda of is ok for men to sleep around but for women not. Women and Men are not the same thing, otherwise it would not be interesting, we are different and should be judged differently when it comes to such specific details. Or you think that no matter we are different gender, we are absolutely the same, it's just visual difference? No difference in behavior, psychology, sexuality etc?

 

I believe we are very different, and most modern feminists would call me a throwback. Hey, I happily made sandwiches for my ex AND I do not own a single pair of Doc Martins I am very feminine, I was a virgin when I married, and while I am far from perfect I am not a one night stand kinda girl.

 

But the idea that men can sleep around but women should be chaste is because we are different genders is BS. Morals are gender-neutral, and that is what you are basically talking about - morals. If it is not moral for a woman to sleep around, then it is not moral for a man.

 

I know that a certain....segment of men hate to hear these 3 words, especially from a woman, but....you are wrong.

[road]

It may look like a double standard, but it's not, because we are different genders, since many other things are different : behavior, sexual behavior, psychology etc. It would have been a double standard only if it's applied for the same thing, e.g. group of guys, group of girls, but when we apply it to different genders, it's not a double standard since the basis is not the same, it's totally different. So yes, just because we are different, it kinda of is ok for men to sleep around but for women not. Women and Men are not the same thing, otherwise it would not be interesting, we are different and should be judged differently when it comes to such specific details. Or you think that no matter we are different gender, we are absolutely the same, it's just visual difference? No difference in behavior, psychology, sexuality etc?

 

I think the basis of the double standard is that women can get pregnant. Men don't trust promiscuous women because they cannot be confident of paternity. This is based on millions of years of evolution.

 

Suddenly, women have effective birth control, and can almost always avoid pregnancy if they are careful. The playing field has been made level - but this only started about 50 years ago. Changing attitudes will take another couple of generations, at least, IMO. And while such social attitudes may come to prevail eventually (that women can behave comparably to men when it comes to casual sex and numbers of partners), if the attitudes have an evolutionary component they won't disappear for millennia.

 

Of course, some men adapt a lot faster than others.

 

 

 

Being only women can get pregnant, evolution has made men not want women with high numbers. It is man's need to protect his gene line.

 

 

Problem is modern women in trying to out dog the men are losing sight that they must guard their eggs to protect their gene lines advancement.

[gen66]

autumn night, Hehehe, wrong or right, it's good we are discussing this, the more points of view the better So you yourself are not this type of girl but you think it's okay for others, but it seems to me that this is just on a logical level in your mind, reality is reality, and reality is different, it's not always how you think it's supposed to be logically. Logically I can agree, morals should be morals for everyone and both genders but since both genders display different characteristics, including on a sexual level, why would we apply same sexual morals for both genders?

Morals in this case are dictated by the reality, men have a more natural need to sleep with many women so it's okay, women do not have a very natural need to sleep with as many men possible, so it's not okay. Simple as that. OR you want to tell me that women have this natural need to sleep as many men possible, and they are natural hunters, and don't care about the guy as long as they get their sexual needs satisfied? Because guys are easily exactly what I just described.....We are so unimaginably different....DOesn't make sense to apply same morals in this scenario, there are also many double standard in regards to genders, where if a guy does something is considered one thing, if a girl does the same, it's nothing. I can give u a Santa Claus list with double standards on a gender basis, and it's normal, and everyone accepts it, because it seems just right.

Edited August 11, 2015 by gen66

[central]

Morals are gender-neutral, and that is what you are basically talking about - morals. If it is not moral for a woman to sleep around, then it is not moral for a man.

 

That's an interesting premise (that morals are gender-neutral), but I'm not sure that I agree with it. I think that for something to be immoral/unethical, there must be a real or potential negative outcome to others from pursuing that behavior (if you willingly harm yourself, I think that's a personal right up to the point it significantly harms others).

 

And contrary to gen66's arguments, just because something is presumably "natural" does not necessarily make it okay. I do think that when possible, we should work with our nature, unless that creates harm for others that isn't a necessary harm.

Edited August 11, 2015 by central

[autumnnight]

autumn night, Hehehe, wrong or right, it's good we are discussing this, the more points of view the better So you yourself are not this type of girl but you think it's okay for others, but it seems to me that this is just on a logical level in your mind, reality is reality, and reality is different, it's not always how you think it's supposed to be logically. Logically I can agree, morals should be morals for everyone and both genders but since both genders display different characteristics, including on a sexual level, why would we apply same sexual morals for both genders?

Morals in this case are dictated by the reality, men have a more natural need to sleep with many women so it's okay, women do not have a very natural need to sleep with as many men possible, so it's not okay. Simple as that. OR you want to tell me that women have this natural need to sleep as many men possible, and they are natural hunters, and don't care about the guy as long as they get their sexual needs satisfied? Because guys are easily exactly what I just described.....We are so unimaginably different....DOesn't make sense to apply same morals in this scenario, there are also many double standard in regards to genders, where if a guy does something is considered one thing, if a girl does the same, it's nothing. I can give u a Santa Claus list with double standards on a gender basis, and it's normal, and everyone accepts it, because it seems just right.

 

I'll be completely frank, which will probably hurt a feeling or two (which I hate doing).

 

I am not a ONS kinda girl. One time in my life I had "casual sex," and I felt...crappy and dirty and cheap. I LOVE sex, don't get me wrong, in fact a sex starved marriage is why I decided to divorce. But for me, the emotion is intertwined. There has to be love there. I actually believe that old abstinence trick where they glue the two pieces of paper together and try to separate them...or stick duct tape to things over and over until it loses its stickiness. I think when we give that intimacy away carelessly over and over, it not only changes us, it cheapens the act. I'm not 100% certain I think waiting for marriage is an absolute, but it makes me sad that it has become as flip and common as shaking hands.

 

All that said.....IF we are going to criticize casual sex, then consistency would seem to demand that it apply to both genders. OR what a man is basically saying is that he will be happy to use the "tramps" but he wants to marry the "ladies." THAT is not only hypocritical, it's kind cruel, as if the "tramps" aren't really valuable human beings. The same endorphin's that are released for a woman with orgasm (the "bonding" hormones) are released by a man as well.

 

I get that for decades (even centuries) we have thought that "boys will be boys and girls should be pure." Bottom line, it's a double standard, and it is not a good one.

 

So no, I do not think having lots of ONS is fine, but I don't think it is fine for women OR men.

 

Oh, and the bolded is BS.

[central]

I actually believe that old abstinence trick where they glue the two pieces of paper together and try to separate them...or stick duct tape to things over and over until it loses its stickiness.

 

I've heard of that, but it's a false analogy. Duct tape does not get it's adhesive renewed between applications. Hormones are renewed. Sex is a renewable resource, where duct tape is a disposable resource. You can also argue that having sex repeatedly with one person would constantly diminish the ability to have sex with that person again - and while marriage often seems to lead to that outcome, it's not inevitable!

 

As for gen66's assertion that women do not have a very natural need to sleep with as many men possible, that is also false.

 

When women have access to more than one desirable mate, they can sleep with as many as possible in as short a time as possible to promote sperm competition, which leads to more viable offspring in the genetic sense. Of course, they don't have to do so even if it's natural, and the institution of monogamy is designed to prevent both that and male promiscuity. Rightly or wrongly - to me that is (or should be) a personal value judgment.

[gen66]

I am not a ONS kinda girl. One time in my life I had "casual sex," and I felt...crappy and dirty and cheap. I LOVE sex, don't get me wrong, in fact a sex starved marriage is why I decided to divorce. But for me, the emotion is intertwined. There has to be love there. I actually believe that old abstinence trick where they glue the two pieces of paper together and try to separate them...or stick duct tape to things over and over until it loses its stickiness. I think when we give that intimacy away carelessly over and over, it not only changes us, it cheapens the act. I'm not 100% certain I think waiting for marriage is an absolute, but it makes me sad that it has become as flip and common as shaking hands.

 

Well, you do think completely like a woman. I don't know why but at my current stage in my life I share absolutely the same views about sex, I'm definitely not an ONS guy, I want to be intimate, to get to know the person, to have deep and satisfying relation. Also I feel like the more the sex is casual and the more people you do it with, it becomes cheaper and it affects your sexuality in a negative way. Also, I always had problems sleeping with women and feeling good about it after, it felt as if I satisfied an instant need but it had also brought negative effects with this. I always wanted more and always searched for deeper things, and because of what I'm looking for , short term instant sex always made me generally unhappy and not something to look for. So may be I'm not a typical man.

However I do know and I have this MAN part in me, I can understand how other men do behave and why they do it, that's why I'm supporting this 'double standard'. If women looked for sex as much as men do, it would have been a different world. Okay here's challenge , google " Are men more sexual than women" , "Do guys want more sex than women" and etc. How many studies can you find supporting this? Well I found many from many sources...

 

 

"One time in my life I had "casual sex," and I felt...crappy and dirty and cheap. "

Well, then it doesn't do you any good does it ? It's not natural for you to have casual sex? Why did you feel crappy and dirty and cheap? Something is wrong with casual sex then in your case right? Some men, also feel the same, but percentage wise, many women feel like you do, and many men don't. That's because we are different. Men are more adapted to deal with casual sex without feeling crappy/dirty/cheap due to these differences.

Edited August 11, 2015 by gen66

[autumnnight]

I am sorry if I implied that duct tape was a scientific analogy.

 

The whole purpose behind the endorphin release is not because we only have one dose (good grief) but because it promotes bonding. In other words, emotional connection to the one we have sex with. Sex is wried, in part, to bond two people.

 

When you sleep with 20, 50, 100 partners, what you are doing is experiencing and then dismissing or ignoring that bonding wiring. One might argue that if you have ignored it that many times....can you still feel it as acutely? THAT is the logic behind the analogy. It is an emotional thing. It is a personal value, and yes, some people would say we have evolved in that we have dismissed the emotional side of sex. I personally don't consider that a positive evolution. In men OR women.

 

Besides, a man who claims that being able to use and cast aside women without a thought as a "natural" urge he indulges...well, I hope he isn't expressing that thinking it will engender any woman's respect and admiration

[loveflower]

Same apply to men.

 

I would consider the men USED as well.