Does Sex Damage Women's Long-Term Potential? | Girls Chase

Does Sex Damage Women's Long-Term Potential?

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.

sex damage women
Do you make a woman worse as a future girlfriend, wife, or mother when you go to bed with her? Many people think you do.

On my article about player guilt, Ben asked:

Could  you address the final issue that you bring- that sleeping with women  damages their ability to have long term relationships?

You made a fairly convincing case that emotionally, assuming you are  going to flirt and go out and attract women, not sleeping with them  isn't doing them any favors.

Maybe we really shouldn't be going out and flirting with most girls  (excluding the ones who need an emotional escape or similar i guess)  from an emotional standpoint?

More importantly though, how do you justify flirting with girls then  sleeping with them, knowing it damages their ability to have long term  relationships? This bothers me more than the emotional aspect.


The issue he's talking about was where I paraphrased some 'web wisdom' thrown about about women. Some of it says sex is liberating to women. Some says sex is violent, oppressive, and patriarchal. Some say sex is empowering. Some say it ruins women for the long-term. Those aren't my opinions; they are however common tropes you will run into on the Internet.

Ben's question, though, is one worth exploring... particularly as it ties into the concept of player guilt (which that article Ben commented on was about). If you sleep with a woman, are you damaging her future potential as a girlfriend, wife, and mother?

A growing movement online seems to have arrived at the conclusion "yes, sex damages women's futures."

The men who arrive at this conclusion though follow a chain of logic that proceeds thus:

  1. Women with higher numbers of sex partners are, on average, worse partners and mothers

  2. Therefore, when men have sex with women, they degrade women's abilities to be competent partners and mothers

While we do have plenty of evidence that women are less faithful the more partners they have, and we've all heard anecdotes of irresponsible man-crazy single mothers ditching their kids to chase the homme du jour, there's a big causal jump between those two points. This casual leap of faith is where guys trip themselves up.

That is to say, women with high partner counts are (on average) worse as mothers and partners. This is true.

Yet their partner counts are a symptom of what makes them worse in these roles -- partner count is not the cause.

And when you take a woman to bed, you are also not 'the cause'.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his One Date System.



uForia's picture

Summed up with one sentence: Correlation is not causation.

Neal's picture

Okay Chase weird request.

This website is mostly for aesthetic guys - guys who love sex, oral sex, etc. But what about articles for visual guys? Visual guys that like to see. Aesthetic guys won't mind sex or oral sex if a woman were fully clothed.

So can there be any articles on how to take a girl home to get her to strip for you, or better yet, where they send erotic pictures of you, or where they allow you to take pictures of them? How bout messaging girls, getting them to send inappropriate selfies of themselves.

If the answer is just go look for porn, unfortunately vast majority of porn are from lesser-attractive women, due to supply and demand and other laws.

Heck, as an insider-female mentality question, do single pregnant women even take photos of themselves??

I think there's another sense of pride other than "this woman allowed me to have a 1-night stand with her" but, "this woman allowed me to take erotic photos of her."

Ben's picture

Hey Chase, thank you for taking the time to address this topic. That said, I'm not convinced that casual sex doesn't damage women's ability to pair bond long term or that it's okay to sleep with women you intend not to marry.

First off, agency. Doing your best to get a guy at a party (or on his way to work) to do cocaine/buy cocaine from you isn't right, despite his having agency and being an adult who can make his own decisions.

Women having agency doesn't magically absolve us from the responsibility for making bad choices available to women (and casual sex is a bad choice if it damages their ability to pair bond) and making those bad choices as easy and tempting as possible. We have agency as well, and we should use it responsibly.

As far as number of partners being a symptom not a cause, in multiple places on this site you seem to be of the opinion that number of partners does have an effect on women.


You leave two comments


where you point out two mechanisms by which partying would make party girls less suitable as long term partners, alongside referencing the fidelity/#partners connection in a way that seems to imply #partners as cause of infidelity.

You write
"..and of course, the article on how many partners a girl has had, which dove into the research on partner count and fidelity, finding that each additional sexual partner a woman tacks on increases her infidelityrisk by an extra 7%.

I’ve also talked repeatedly on here about the value of being the fastest-to-bed, most dominant, and most memorable lover a woman has had, for the purposes of retaining respect in your relationship over the long-term; it’s simply easier to keep this up if you are the most impressive male reference point a woman has when she compares you to all of her other experiences with men."

"So, we’ve discussed a variety of ways already that:

Her traits and characteristics impact your relationship

The impact of the speed and manner in which you took her as your lover

How her partner count impacts you and her relationship with you"


You write
"I also wanted to discuss sexual awakening in this post, but that’s a post in its own right, and it’s already quite late and I’m already quite exhausted and want to get something up on here as I’m behind schedule as it is. So we’ll save sexual awakening for another time.

Suffice it to say, women are wonderful, passionate, soft creatures who are as eager to experience and explore the world as men are. But because of the double-standard placed upon them by the nature of sexual selection – because women can only bear one man’s child at a time, and because men now look to commit for life (or, that’s the initial intent, anyway), they want a woman they feel reasonably confident has a low percentage possibility of straying. One of the main indicators of that is a woman’s level of sexual awakening – whether she still views sex as something that only two people in love should do, or whether she views sex as something two people do for fun, even if those people are total strangers.Because men are testing and assessing women for a potential lifetime together, women are often compelled to conceal past “indiscretions” to make themselves appear more “chaste” and “virginal”.Simultaneously sad and silly.

Fact is, for many women, men who don’t turn into significant long-term relationships “don’t count” and get forgotten, or scratched from their “record”. These “forgotten lovers” are nevertheless important for gauging a woman’s real views on sexuality, and you should know about them."

We see again, how many partners she's had is not just a symptom.

You bring up the 7% rise in infidelity risk per successive partner, and you seem to be implying that the partners are the cause, at least partially, not just a symptom.

You write
"But, as it were, how many partners a woman's had doesn't just impact how likely she is to stray. It turns out, at least from everything I've seen, that it in fact impacts a lot of other things in your relationship, too."

More telling though, you bring up four stages women go through as they have more partners, with stage 2 seeming worse for marriage in general than stage 1 (though obviously you could prefer the extra challenge) as a belief that love =sex seems great for marriage.
Stage 3 and 4 are both quite obviously worse for marriage than stages 1 and 2.

Here you set up an entire model showing that going through a few partners will make a woman less suitable for long term relationships . This again supports casual sex being damaging for women.

More than that, with this piece you show that you don't need a magic wand to do damage, you don't need to be particularly nasty or have a very strong relationship- even 10 partners will likely turn a trusting innocent virgin into a cynical/bitter man hater, even 3 will turn her into a girl who's already losing her (useful for marriage) ideals. Every partner has an effect, and it's not insignificant.

You claim here that number of partners is a symptom, and the root causes are abuse, environment, which you cover how to screen for in other areas on this site (along with screening for really broken women in general), as well as sensation seeking and sexualsocial orientation, and these all cause infidelity as well. So why would did you cover two of the roots of cheating along with a symptom on this site (with warnings that these cause infidelity) but not the other two roots?
Aside over.

My own thoughts on the partners/infidelity connection is it goes both ways- part of it is a common cause, but mostly having sexual partners makes women have a more 'slutty' self image and changes their relationship to sex. Less love=sex and more "I'm the kind of woman who slept with X guys before marriage/this guy" (substitute 'no', 5 , 10, and 50 to get a feel) makes for women less suited to a happy, loving, committed marriage.

This circles back to agency- yes women still have a choice in how to act, but like anyone else their actions are strongly affected by their past, how they see themselves, and how they relate to various scenarios/actions (in this case sex).
It seems odd to claim that having more sexual partners won't affect women's views of sex and themselves (especially when large portions of society make sex a big deal), and specifically in a way that is detrimental to marriage.

I say mostly because a consistent
jump of 7% per partner seems really weird to me if one isn't causing the other.
(Haven't seen the original paper, if it's really 3-11% that would get rid of my 'mostly' claim.)

I've also seen a study showing that the more partners before marriage, the less likely girls are to be very happy with their marriage (simplified). The biggest jump is from 0 to 1. This is another correlation with plausible mechanisms for causation between promiscuity and negative outcomes in long term relationships.

As for the factors you bring here:


I'm not discussing a situation where the sex could be called abuse, that's obviously not okay, and this does seem to be a very real cause.

Sociosexual orientation:

This paper ,from what I understood, showed that it is less likely than before this paper that marriage instability of parents causes higher sociosexuality, not that there is necessarily a strong genetic influence.
Even if there is a strong genetic influece (50% for example) there is still a lot created by environment and experiences/view of self.
Considering the direct correlation between number of sexual partners and sociosexuality, it seems likely that the former is one of those experiences/[things that influence view of self] that would influence the latter directly, while the latter would influence the former indirectly.

Sensation seeking:
(I only read the abstract on this one)
The correlation is what kind of humor you find funny, being conservative makes you more likely to like incongruence-resolution humor, sensation less likely, (or generally like it more/less) and vice versa for nonsense humor. This doesn't seem like a robust negative correlation between conservatism and sensation seeking, if it is one at all, and especially where n=148, kind of low for a genetic study based on externals to prove anything genetic.
When conservatism itself is only partially genetic (I don't know what a robust link means- 20%?50%?75%?), a weak-if-it-even-exists correlation to sensation seeking is weaker than just pointing out that genetics have some influence on everything.
Sensation seeking behaviors are connected to dopamine issues and having lots of sexual partners- my first guess would be that engaging in sex (which probably affects dopamine levels) with lots of new people, with less stability to anchor them could contribute to these behaviours.
(This one actually seems to have a significant genetic factor, but it may require activation or a catalyzing environment/set of experiences).

Environment: You make it seem as though women will sleep with the same amount of guys with or without you. This makes sense with women who sleep with 20+ guys that you pick up in a bar- they're looking to get laid, they will get laid. But that cute bookworm who is a virgin, that religious girl in a suburb, any girl who is under 8 partners (according to one of your articles, but the number is arbitrary, the point is any girl who doesn't sleep around much and doesn't put herself in an environment to get laid), you change her 'score' in a significant way.

So with these factors, I'd say yes, you can have a significant effect on women with low partner counts (if they aren't part of hypersexual environments) by sleeping with them once.

You bring confidence as the only difference wrought by having more partners, but as you've written before, that's not all that changes- her views towards herself and sex do too, and not in a way conducive to marriage.

I agree that men who are being wusses are not our problem, but going around making (or doing your level best to make it tempting enough that they choose to) women less suited to marriage (when most of them want to live a married life) is hurting the women you're interacting with, not just all the guys in society who are stuck with girls who are not only tougher to handle, but less suited to the married life period (which isn't particularly nice either, but we're talking about the girls here).

It's like you're eating cookies in a movie theater, because everyone else is eating something in their seats anyway, and you don't drop things on the floor, so you aren't even the problem. Except you are eating cookies, and crumbs will fall on the floor, everyone else in the theater eating in their seats doesn't matter to your seat (or the next person to sit there) , but the ants that will come for the crumbs you leave do matter.

How many people a women has slept with is an important piece of her life history, and affects her ability to be a good girlfriend, mother and wife negatively. 

Add new comment

The Latest from