It’s apparently a year old, but this Miller-McCune article on women, men, and their differing responses to the prospect of casual sex I found interesting. It first presents a famous Ev Psych study from 1989 revealing that men were overwhelmingly more receptive than women to the idea of sleeping with an attractive stranger more or less right away, sans the get-to-know-you orientation:
That study, by psychologists Russell Clark and Elaine Hatfield, found that when a female college student introduced herself to a male colleague and asked if he wanted to have sex with her, 69 to 75 percent of the guys said yes. When the genders were reversed, not a single woman was interested.
It was theorized that men were obviously interested in spreading their proverbial seed consequence-free, while women were understandably cautious about getting pregnant by just anyone – even an attractive guy if he was a (literally) poor suitor – thus the above results. But a new study by University of Michigan psychologist Terri Conley shows women to be just as interested in casual sex if their chance of actually being sexually satisfied can be assured. (And, of course, if they feel safe.)
The phrase “any sex is good sex” is apparently only applicable to men, but that’s a truism so banal you can read about it in Redbook.
Now maybe the relative difficulty of women reaching orgasm is just a function of the different roles men and women play in the mating game, which wouldn’t really work against the theory used to explain the 1989 study, but based on Conley’s experiment involving actually asking women why they choose to forgo casual sex so often, maybe a method for assuring orgasm could turn the straight dating scene into one more like the gay (male) one. Indeed, bisexual women find the prospect of a one-night stand with a fellow woman to be much more appealing:
This lack of confidence in men as pleasure-givers was indirectly supported by another of Conley’s experiments, which focused on bisexual women. They were “significantly more likely to accept an offer (of a one-night stand) from a woman than from a man,” she reports.
But one of Conley’s surveys seems flawed. To challenge the Sexual Strategies Theory buttressed by the 1989 study, she asked both men and women about the idea of sleeping with a celebrity, in the former’s case Angelina Jolie and Roseanne Barr, in the latter’s Johnny Depp and Donald Trump. And in particular how excited they’d be over either option. Men were found to prefer (no big surprise) Jolie, but women said they’d opt for Depp, supposedly undermining the SST’s notion that a woman would prefer a strong provider.
Now I’m not privy to the contents of either Depp’s or Trump’s bank account, but I’m certain both are way beyond the point of subsistence living and into the realm of the fantastically wealthy. So why wouldn’t a woman choose Depp, even if he’s merely a millionaire and not a billionaire? I don’t think female sexual strategy evolved to be that sensitive to one’s provider status. A more useful juxtaposition would see Trump pitted against someone attractive, widely recognizable, but not wealthy.
I can’t think of anyone, can you?