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 GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

91
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.

-ben

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.

GET CHASE’S ONE DATE SYSTEM

Comments

uForia's picture

Summed up with one sentence: Correlation is not causation.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Indeed!

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."

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Neal-

I believe what you're looking for is this:

How to Photograph the Female Nude

There are guys whose seduction approaches (to get the penis in vagina, not just to get the pictures) revolve around this method.

I just talked to Ricardus the other day about a friend of his who pulled of a truly epic 15 new lays in two weeks in a large U.S. city doing primarily photographer game with one of the large modeling and photography websites.

I suppose if the only thing you wanted was the pictures you could specialize in this type of game. That's probably where my focus would be if I was you.

And yes, pregnant women still photograph themselves. Just do a search for "pregnant woman selfie." Pregnant women are every bit as vain as nonpregnant women are ;)

Chase

Chase

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.

In
https://www.girlschase.com/content/why-i-quit-dating-girls-who-club-part...

You leave two comments
https://www.girlschase.com/comment/11519#comment-11519

and
https://www.girlschase.com/comment/11520#comment-11520

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.

In
https://www.girlschase.com/content/why-her-past-matters-if-you-want-some...
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"

In
https://www.girlschase.com/content/womens-forgotten-past

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.

In
https://www.girlschase.com/content/how-many-partners-has-your-girlfriend...
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.

Aside:
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:

Abuse:

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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.537 ,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. 
-ben

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Ben-

My comments:

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.

That is not a fair comparison. Cocaine is something it's easy to do, that you are not going to question the other guy's motives for giving it to you (it's an expensive party drug he's giving you for free... he's probably your buddy or just a cool guy who wants more people partying), and that runs the risk of instantly hooking you into a massive addiction if you have the wrong personality profile, by providing a hit in the social bonding center of the brain 2x to 3x more powerful than what even highly orgasmic sex with a sexually talented lover will do (and few women will have highly orgasmic sex their first night with a guy, even if he's very talented, excepting those few girls who are highly orgasmic already).

A fairer comparison might be "doing your best to get a guy at a party whom you know likes old sports cars to come to your place and buy your old sports car that you want to sell tonight." Better captures the nuances of it.

Then the question will be, if a guy buys too many old sports cars, is that the cause of him becoming a spendthrift? Or is him buying too many old sports cars a symptom of him being a spendthrift? Sure, if he has a good uncle who's looking out for him and convinces him to limit his sports car buying, that may help him be less a spendthrift. But one sports car dealer saying, "I'm not going to sell to this guy. I don't want him to become a spendthrift," isn't likely to have much impact (there are plenty of other places he can buy sports cars -- both dealers and private sellers -- and you'll never get them to all agree on a moratorium on selling sports cars because you want them to think that "selling sports cars is irresponsible").

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.

Let's say for the sake of argument that if Jack has sex with Jane, he negatively impacts all her future pairbonds at the moment his glans crosses the threshold of her vulva. And I'm not arguing that's definitely not the case, either. Let's say it is.

Let's also now look at all the other reasons people have sex. The deep reasons, not the "I just wanted to" or "it was fun" reasons.

Primarily, let's look at these reasons:

If Jack and every other male in his city decides to become a conscientious objector to sex, and "Just say 'no' to sex before the six-month mark of dating", and they're able to construct a giant wall around the city to keep out males from the rest of the planet from streaming in and keep females from the city from streaming out, what happens to our mating market? It's impossible to say, but some likely outcomes would appear to be:

  • A breakdown in the ability of individuals to assess mates in urban environments

  • Widescale inaccuracies in self-evaluation in terms of mating value

  • Widescale abstinence from dating, because hanging out with some random person you barely know (due to your crowded, fast-paced, anonymous environment) and aren't having sex with just... is not an appealing prospect, when there are so many other things to do, like play sports or play video games or hang out with your buddies, who are a lot more fun to talk to than some girl you won't even be having sex with

  • Widespread lesbianism among women and homosexuality/pedophilia among men, the same as what you see in societies that actually do enforce no premarital sex rules (see: Egypt, Afghanistan, any other highly religious Middle Eastern nation with anti-fornication laws, where "Women are for children, boys are for pleasure" is the rule... where guys will insist they're not homosexual and hate homosexuals while they chase after you and beg you for man-man "no-homo" sex)

I don't think you'd even get people to be able to date with sex off the table.

It's a pretty pointless discussion, really.

What you're talking about is a kind of aescetism. I have an aescetic friend, who lives a minimalist lifestyle, doesn't fly on airplanes, doesn't eat meat, doesn't buy anything with packaging, and only throws away his garbage once every two years or so because he produces so little waste. It's great, and I think it's really cool, but the vast, vast majority of people just are never going to do it. Even if it would be beneficial for the environment if they would (and, you know, of course it would), they're not going to do it.

If men and women decided they didn't want to have sex with each other except in committed relationships, and they somehow didn't turn to rampant homosexuality as an outlet, or any other outlet, and they for some reason continued to court each other despite the conditions of the modern world and sex not being on the table, that would probably lead to healthier long-term relationships.

But just like most people giving up flying, meat, and any and all forms of packaging, none but a few select monks are going to do that.

So I guess in theory it's nice to talk about, but nobody actually does that.

And women do it less than men. I know guys who choose to remain celibate because they don't want to have sex before marriage. I don't know any girls who do that.

With regards to your quotes of me:

Yes, I'm saying partner count is tied to infidelity risk and declines in long-term relationship stability. "Tied to" does not mean "causative of." There's probably some element of causation, but how much, I don't know. I don't think it's nearly as high as you think it is. There are all kinds of twin studies that find identical twins raised in completely different circumstances end up having almost identical outcomes, in terms of careers, socioeconomic station achieved, age at first marriage, even name and look of spouse and number of children. Saying "Well if we could just lock this girl in the basement and keep a chastity belt on her for a good 10 years extra before we release her into the wild will ensure she remains pristine for wifehood and motherhood, despite her inherited horniness and exploratory nature" does not seem like something anyone particularly knowledgeable about women would say. Women will find ways to get the things they want, whether that is a good man as a husband or it's a stiff hard cock.

I'll give you another counterpoint: Saudi Arabia.

In Saudi Arabia, every wife is a virgin wife.

By your logic, Saudi Arabian marriages should be the safest, most stable, longest-lasting marriages on Earth.

So, what do you think?

Is that the case?

...

...

...

"Saudi Arabia has one of the highest rates of divorce in the world."

Why?

Primarily infidelity.

Turns out a large portion of those covered up virgin brides are just dying to sample more man before they're truly ready to settle down.

Despite the penalty for adultery being that the adulterer is stoned to death, despite the fact that women can't even file for divorce in Saudi Arabia (and in countries where women can, they represent 2/3 of all divorce filers), there are still this many cases of adultery and a 30% divorce rate.

Women are going to do what they are going to do.

Even if you lock their sexuality down, police them with male relatives, tell men to not have sex, and stone to death anyone who doesn't listen, even if you make everyone marry as virgins, they still do what they are going to do at the same rates they are going to do it.

Human nature is a tidal wave against which no man can stand.

You can control your own behavior. You cannot control another's. Choosing not to put your penis in her is probably not going to impact her much, unless it is a particularly emotional moment for some reason (maybe you avoid shagging her when she is vulnerable and would've regretted it, and it puts her on a good path; maybe you fail to shag her when she was vulnerable and desperately needed it, and it puts her on a bad one).

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.

This is a bad analogy when used like this. There's a claimed bad effect that everyone has, that does not account for the other person affected by the supposed bad effect.

In actuality for the movie theater, the 'bad effect' is the minimum wage guy who cleans up the cookie crumbs, who would not have a job and would be stuck out on the unemployment line if moviegoers weren't so sloppy. That guy may not like cleaning up crumby, sticky messes, but he likes it better than the alternative.

But anyway, having sex is not like eating a cookie, or doing cocaine.

If you want to compare it to eating food, a more apt analogy might be going over to your friend's house, eating a sandwich, and then either cleaning up after yourself or leaving a mess. Some guys are assholes and they leave a mess. And you know what, some friends won't care, they'll clean up themselves and keep inviting over more people to make messes. Some friends will get hurt by that and stop inviting people over. Just like that, some guys are dicks to women, and women don't care and keep taking more dicks. And some girls get hurt by that, and get into serious relationships and settle down not long after. Likewise, some guys treat women well, and women seek out more guys like that, or settle down with said guys.

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.

See, you're concluding with this as if it's some kind of wisdom not already discussed again and again on this site, and in this article. When you are just saying what I have already said again, and again, and again.

The difference between you and me is you think men are the problem and need to be stopped.

I don't. I think if a girl wants to go and hook up with 50 guys before she settles down, how come another girl only wants to hook up with 5 guys before she settles down?

Did the 5-guy-girl not meet the right guys to properly corrupt her, like the 50-guy-girl did?

It's not what's happening. I have met a lot of (and dated a few of) low count girls who had complete dick ex-boyfriends, or highly sexually talented ex-boyfriends who did all sorts of things to them sexually and taught them all kinds of things, yet who did not go sleeping around. I have also met high count girls who did not encounter a particularly good lover until around Guy #20 (or higher), and who reported nothing but positive, affirming relationships with men throughout their lives.

I know you think women are these precious, agency-devoid angels being corrupted by the fallen men of the world and caused to become fallen themselves.

Everything I have seen, and everything I know, and everybody in Saudi Arabia, begs to differ with you though ;)

Chase

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com