Casual Sex: Men, Women Not So Different After All. I’m guessing in anticipation of the reaction of some men – than why do they strike out so often, they get straight to the reason there is not more casual sex,
Writing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Conley describes a series of experiments that refine the results of a seminal 1989 study widely cited in articles and textbooks. 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.
[ ]…So why did the young men and women in the 1989 study — and in a repeat of that experiment that Conley conducted — react so differently to the offer of casual sex? After conducting a series of follow-up experiments, in which she tweaked Clark and Hatfield’s sexual-invitation scenario in different ways, she came up with an answer sports-conscious men should be able to easily grasp: The playing field isn’t level.
Men, after all, can almost be guaranteed a pleasurable sexual encounter if they’re with someone they find attractive. But Conley points to new, yet-to-be published research by sociologist Elizabeth Armstrong which finds “women orgasm only 35 percent as often as men in first-time sexual encounters.”
“Women’s perception that their heterosexual casual sex partners will be unlikely to give them pleasure is not unwarranted,” Conley states.
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.
Just as men have been thought to be following some evolutionary imperative to spread their seed, this new data on women may still have evolutionary roots. Women are making judgments by appearance. In the Conley study, women are much more likely to say yes to someone rich and famous, or just known to be wealthy. Probably because they know, should the relationship last beyond the first encounter, these men display an obvious ability to have the resources to take care of her and any offspring. That women are not solely motivated to have sex just to procreate should not be too much of a surprise. Over the years I have met very few men who have had more sexual partners than equally attractive females. This is not in the 1989 survey or the new one, but men and women both have conquests. Whether it is deserved or not ( another survey anyone?) popular culture portrays men as seeing sex as a conquest, but women who have just as many encounters seem to think of each one as a romantic tryst. Maybe in reality there is a mix on each side. Some individuals, regardless of gender seeing each temporary mate as a coup. While others have more wistful, romanticized ideas about each person. The latter using some discrimination and discretion. Each experience a bookmark worthy of less than shallow remembrance. Let’s call them the romantics or romantic wannabes for who the actual encounter may not be as much about evolutionary processes or racking up scores, as they are about the quality and joy of the experience.
With apologies to Mr. Andrew I doubt anyone will download this pdf- THE UNWORTHINESS OF NIETZSCHEAN VALUES. The philosophy is pretty deep and dry, as is the history. Though this observation about the history of values as a cultural and intellectual reference caught my attention,
Kant thought economics a part of moral and political philosophy, and were aware that values
only manifest themselves through market exchange or the price system, a view that prevailed until the time of John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. The category of value only enters into Mill’s Principles of Political Economy at Book III, “Exchange.” Values-discourse only entered philosophy in the mid to late nineteenth century in the neo-Kantianism of the Marburg and Heidelburg schools of Geistwissenschaft; Rudolph Hermann Lotze was the dominant figure in exporting Wertphilosophie to the French and English-speaking philosophers, and through the German sociologists inspired by them.4 Although Lotze’s central categories were Werte (values) and Geltung (validity), Lotze knew nothing about economics or money (Geld). Although Nietzsche was not the first philosopher to know nothing about economics, he was the first political philosopher to be sublimely ignorant or gaily unaware of the “dismal science”; “to know nothing about trade is noble.”5 Nietzsche was also the first political philosopher to use the language of values outside the realm of market evaluation.
We take the language of values for granted and tend to represent our experiences of the
holy, the good, the beautiful and the true as religious, moral, aesthetic and cognitive values. We tend to forget how recently the language of values has become hegemonic in our world of discourse. After the First World War, Harvard-educated social scientists spoke of walues,6 indicating the German origin of their professors that taught them this key term of social science that Max Weber borrowed from Nietzsche. The etymology of value, from the Latin valeo, to be in good health, strong and able, and related to validus, sound or healthy, is suggestive of Nietzschean vitalism. However, I wish to indicate how talk of our values is symptomatic of an unsound and unhealthy culture, and will be using Heidegger’s critique of Nietzsche’s evaluative philosophy in this project. Truth, beauty, goodness and holiness have converses; “values” do not.
One can say a Nazi is evil but one cannot say he lacks values. One can say an objective is
valueless (having zero value but not negative value) or one can say that a person lacks values
(usually meaning that the person is wholly preoccupied with her interests, or is Madonna’s
material girl) but values-discourse deprives us of robust antitheses to truth, goodness, beauty and sanctity. Perhaps conditioned by the etiolated neo-Kantian idealism from which the language of values originated, “values” distort human life by idealization, by presenting what people live for as lofty ideals we present to others. We may say that we live for wine, women and song, and may find multiple orgasms, medium rare roast beef, ot the scent of the sea important components of the good life, but we don’t say that they are our values…
“Values” did not get off to a good start. Since western culture has a difficult time quantifying values even in terms of the dry science, the corruption of the word in regards what is moral has only lent itself to further corruption. Value is a great accounting term. Even a good ecological term. Often times the values army has an ironic and tragic sense of what constitutes goodness. While in my head I often strive for virtue, what I am actually striving for is goodness or to do no evil. Secularists thus need to brave into the world of the language that religion stole centuries ago and claim words such as redemption, virtue and truth as a part of their vocabulary. “Values” is not a neutral word in popular culture and that is the level on which the vast majority of our discourse takes place.