Belinda Brown: Women find casual sex a dark echo of the horror of rape

With more and more women reporting rape and police time spent on sexual offences constantly increasing, when it comes to how we manage our sex lives something seems to be very wrong.

However, the problem does not lie with male behaviour. The problem lies with the culture of promiscuity that feminists have created through their stringent denial of differences between women and men.

The feminist denial of sex differences rides roughshod over female sensitivities. Huge international data sets show that a variety of willing sexual partners, or sex with strangers – are male not female proclivities. Casual sex leaves women feeling psychologically vulnerable and depressed.

Yet feminists have insisted that these differences are a product  of ‘cultural construction’, gender narratives and sexual double standards. As Natasha Walter documents in her book Living Dolls, young women are living under significant female peer pressure to participate in a culture of casual sex.

However, men and women are the product of thousands of years of successful sexual reproduction. Our ancestral grandfathers were the men who were able to identify and driven to mate with the largest number of the most fertile women – described by “the Coolidge effect”.

Our ancestral grandmothers were not the women who partied but the ones who raised the most children to adult maturity.

The visceral almost physiological reactions of an adult women to a very young baby, and the adult male’s reactions to a novel female displaying all the signs of fertility, reflect our differences.

But crucial to all this was the recruitment of males to fatherhood – humans are the only species where the extended and deep involvement of the father has been achieved. This would not have happened had sex been freely and easily available. Female withholding and restraint are not only embedded in the heart of social reproduction. They are embedded in female DNA.

This I suspect is why females find rape so psychologically devastating. It interferes with the key to human social reproduction; female selection and withholding. But then so does casual sex.

The way in which females constantly police casual sex both in themselves and others is not a reflection of sexual double standards, but of their discomfort with casual sex. This discomfort provides the backdrop to understanding casual sex behaviours. And it does not honour the complexity of human interaction to assume the absence of verbal consent or the presence of alcohol are methods of defining rape.

There is an assumption that drinking results in promiscuity. I suspect many women drink to deal with the demands and expectations of a sexually permissive society. It is not so much that women have sex because they are drunk. They drink to cope with the expectations of casual sex.

This underlying discomfort means that far from being sexually assertive in casual relationships, most women prefer men to take the initiatives. Being very prepared for or participating too actively may interfere with deep-seated instincts towards self-restraint.

It is also not a context for communication. Talking about sex may be a long-term project even in the most committed relationships. It is easier to have sex than to talk about it when strangers are involved.

Add to this the fact that men suffer from a sexual over-perception bias where they are more likely falsely to  infer that women are sexually interested in them. That they are more likely to find casual sex “a fun, intense, and exciting experience involving a rush of feelings…perhaps akin to consuming stimulants of some kind” and one can see that there is plenty of room for human error to occur.

And into this context comes our achingly right-on Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders to make judgements about them. This is the gross, heinous crime.

Of course horrible, dreadful rapes can happen in this context, but I suspect this is rare. Research suggests that evidence of pain, disgust or violence actually inhibits sexual response in most men.

But the fact that rape does happen should be taken as a warning to women that they should absolutely not be going into private places with men they hardly know. In one of the more recent rape cases, the reason the woman was able to secure a conviction was because the rapist had been foolish enough to choose a public place. This is probably quite rare. When it comes to private intimate contexts, the law cannot really protect us. Convicting a man without witnesses or evidence of violence ought to and should be hard.

Women also need to recognise that it is not just rape that they find psychologically difficult, but all casual sex. This is important because when women experience psychological difficulties as a result of sex they might assume this must be because they were abused or raped.

Hearing from men is crucial. Greater understanding between men and women would have a protective effect.  It would also create the possibility of forgiveness as Thordis Elva bravely realised. There are many cases where I suspect mediation could usefully replace the court.

Because rape is experienced by women as an absolute loss of power, there is a deeply held belief in rape discourse that obtaining power over a woman is actually the purpose of rape. This helps the woman perceive herself as an absolute victim. However, rape might be easier psychologically to process if we understood the perpetrator hadn’t set out to hurt and disempower us. He had actually got carried away having sex.

As restraint and withholding are such a deeply rooted  part of what it means to be female, failures to achieve this are experienced as profound guilt which is why all rape therapies are absolutely emphatic that the victim is not to blame. However, being able to take responsibility either for one’s actions, for forgiveness or for healing are all significant steps in the road to recovery.  If women were allowed to acknowledge that getting drunk was a bad idea, as the victim in the most recent rape trial has bravely done, then they might also recognise that it was not they, but our feminist-created culture of promiscuity, that actually was to blame.

The Evolution of Desire strategies of Human Mating by David Buss provided evidence for some of these arguments.

Belinda Brown

  • Dustybookwyrm

    Just on point of balance, I suspect that there are many of us men who find casual sex unappealing as well.

    Both chopping and changing, and being a user rather than a server, are the way of the juvenile, not the mature,and so are unappealing to any with even a modicum of maturity in them.

    Promiscuity is the choice of the immature, whilst faithful loving monogamy is the choice of the most mature.

    • Russell

      “I suspect that there are many of us men who find casual sex unappealing as well.”

      Well said.

    • Belinda Brown

      Yes the evidence was that both men and women didn’t really enjoy casual sex. But there is also very extensive evidence that men prefer a variety of sexual partners, and would be very much more likely than women to accept from a stranger. And the Coolidge effect.

      • Earthenware

        I’ve seen this research that says men want multiple sex partners, but it doesn’t gel with my life experience.

        Sure, some men do – the type that chases anything in a skirt – but a lot of us don’t feel that way. The research never seems to reflect this reality though.

        • Groan

          And of course there is a difference between what people want and what they think is good for them. Otherwise the obesity epidemic would be totally overwhelming. Having gone through the hunt for the “fat gene” generally it seems now we accept that addressing obesity means eating less and exercising some self control. Perhaps that will occur in sex.

          • Sargv

            > Perhaps that will occur in sex.

            It will – when antibiotics-resistant STIs will finally kick in. This will end the idea of female promiscuity, tanking a great deal of feminism movement with it – but the cost will probably be in millions of lives.

          • Groan

            You may be right one of the “hidden” epidemics that exercised my former colleagues in Public Health is that of STIs. Their view being that the political unpopularity of suggesting people stop being so promiscuous was preventing them from mounting the campaigns needed to counter this. Because even treated STIs can have caused damage, particularly to fertility in women.

        • Sargv

          I always had high standards when it comes to interaction with women (so, not chaising skirts), yet I was interested in meeting more than one of them in my life.

          It’s not purely about sex either – you probably do not limit your male company to a single friend, why should you do that with women (except when you committed to one, of course)?

          I can’t say that the urge is uncontrolable – in a society of 100% chastity and life-long monogamy, I’d just follow the suite. But it is there. Especially when you’re good-looking, young, high-status man and get a lot of daily attention from women.

          And casual sex, one-night-stays are passé, of course. The sex is just bad, nit enjoyable, the connection is not there. It’s like masturbating with an object, while drink, with performance anxiety due to a new partner in full swing. Good sex requires a lot of trust and mutual knowledge – and not wearing beer googles.

      • Groan

        There is indeed. I do think there is a quite simple difference if one imagines us without clothes. Male genitals are then constantly on display and desire very clearly signalled, not “intimate” really. while for women the evidence of health and fertility is very evident but the sex organs rather more intimate. As with the wider evidence that men and women think of their bodies as a whole differently one would expect the finding that men for instance regard sex as not intimately bound with affection in the way women are shown to think. It would seem wise for our ancestors to have ways to “regulate” this through norms and morals.
        The absence of this clarity seems to me to mean that we lead our young down a false path and then hit them hard, rather than steering them clear. Perhaps on a variation of “child led learning” we wait for morality to spontaneously occur, then wonder why sometimes it doesn’t.

    • Earthenware

      Casual sex never appealed to me as a young man and still doesn’t. I went into my teenage years feeling that sex was part of an intimate relationship and that never changed.

      It always horrifies me when feminists tell young women to be promiscuous because all men do it.

      I suspect that this is a significant reason for the MGTOW movement – young men who want a loving relationship are disgusted by the female promiscuity that they see.

      • Bik Byro

        I really enjoyed casual sex as a young man. Indeed, I felt more comfortable in making a lifelong commitment later on in life knowing that I had enjoyed that earlier phase.

    • Kanaris

      Oooh get you. How’s the weather up on your high horse?

      • Dustybookwyrm

        Much nicer than in the gutter, thank you.

  • Sargv

    Thank you for that thought-provoking article!

    The idea that rape is psychological, and constitutes the break of a women’s mate-filtering mechanism is an interesting one.

    It’s indeed explains the “rape epidemy” of the last decade: women try to suppress the evolved mechanic to follow society-prescribed dating model (that goes against their biological imperative), only to have regrets the next morning, and back-rationalize it as a rape: disempowerment, self-victimisation, shift of control on the outside in order to protect their identity/ego.

    Men do not understand this, and treat such women as cynical manipulative cold-hearted b_tches that fake-acuse men for doing something they were “asking for” (which they LITERALLY might’ve been the night before).

    Thank you for clarifying this to me, Belinda.

    And the lesson for all of us should be: build trust first, and be aware of this suppress/regret dynamics.

  • PierrePendre

    Why do girls get drunk? Belinda Brown postulates that it is to deal with the expectations of the permissive society which may or may not be part of the reason but since it’s central to the liberal and feminist claims of a rape epidemic at American universities, it’s a phenomenon that is important.

    Girls are getting raped because they get drunk but that doesn’t prevent them from continuing to get drunk at frat parties – known danger zones – and continuing to be raped. One in five US female students is sexually molested, we are told. Students, the intellectual cream of their generation, are incapable of working out a simple correlation between cause and effect that is explained to them daily by activists and the media. I find this hard to believe.

    I agree that rape is experienced by women as “an absolute loss of power” that is intolerable but if the rape epidemic in the United States is really so serious, why does this have no reactive impact on female behaviour? Or is drink just a manufactured excuse?

    One of the curiosities of our attitude to sexuality is our lack of understanding of female sexuality. We know that men are beasts driven by primal lusts with or without alcohol but it’s only recently that we were still having doctoral discussions about whether women get pleasure from sex. Even women’s magazines discuss female sexuality in terms of its mystery. You’d think none of us had ever been married.

    The Victorians were supposed to famous for their prudishness but they didn’t make nine or more babies per family by knitting daisy chains and if Trollope’s heroines were oddly sexless, Maupassant’s were keen indulgers.

    At least part of the real story about the rise in disputes over sex is that young women are as enthusiastic about sex as young men and have been enabled to have as much as they want by birth control but that their psychological expectations of the aftermath of sex remain unchanged by their physical freedom.

    When I was an adolescent, I never expected my girlfriends to sleep with me and nor would they have. (Nor did I ever see one drunk.) The pill freed girls to be more adventurous but it also lessened their power over men and getting it back is what feminists are really fighting for. But if drunkenness really is the core of the problem, bear in mind that it’s in no way compulsory.

    • Sargv

      > Why do girls get drunk?

      Because personal safety is expected to be a given in the West. People in general – and women specifically – expect to be protected from violence by social moors and the state. The concept that personal safety is a personal responsibility seems not to be as self-obvious here as it is in other, more violent societies.

  • Kanaris

    Belinda, have you actually ever spoken to a rape survivor? Please do, and then come back to us because this is possibly some of the most heinous rape apologism ever put on a webpage, and I include the /r/redpill “women secretly want to be raped because they like alpha males” narrative in that.

    • Belinda Brown

      I know women who have been raped according to the current definition of rape and HAVE spoken to them.

      • Kanaris

        “The current definition” of rape? : “The crime, […], of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will” (from the OED). If that’s not the correct definition, what is?

        • Belinda Brown

          Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Force does not need to be involved. In fact ‘yes’ can actually mean ‘no’ in certain circumstances.
          http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/#a04

          • Kanaris

            Well, we’re evolving what we know about consent, and how consent can be given, and under what circumstances. All of which are good things, no?

          • Belinda Brown

            No definitely not. Innocent men will end up going through the trauma of being reported for rape when they had no intention of raping a woman, didn’t know they were raping a woman (and the woman may not have known she was being raped) and were actually not in my opinion raping a woman. The current state of our rape laws is highly problematic.

          • Kanaris

            Well, I’m glad they may not have been raping in your opinion. And if they are reported incorrectly for rape then we have an entire legal system in place to help make sure justice is served

          • Belinda Brown

            The real danger is if you call that kind of drunken messy sex rape – you make rape sound a whole lot less traumatic than it actually is. You really understate rape. Because all that drunken not entirely consensual messy stuff is many bad things but in no way psychologically devastating or traumatic.

          • Groan

            I completely agree; “consent” is attempting to navigate around the current mantra that anything is OK so long as it is consented to. However Rape had until the Sexual Offenses Act been part of a set of laws that prohibited many sexual acts and practices irrespective of the consent given. Personally I’d like the word Rape abolished from the Law to be simply called Sexual Assault as part of Sexual Offenses. The word comes loaded with a whole huge history of meaning that doesn’t apply to the current offense in law. It is an attempt to reign in sexual liberation without being honest.

          • Cranmer

            Good point. Rape is historically a property crime, because it is an offence against the chattel of a father or husband. It was always a very serious, even capital crime, because it caused a woman to be ‘ruined’ – unfit to continue a man’s legitimate lineage. Now that we don’t believe any of that, the modern idea of rape, ie, sexual intercourse without consent, becomes a rather different matter more akin to sexual assault.

          • Groan

            Some years ago I saw an interview(and then read the article) with a Barrister (a woman by the way) arguing the point that the Sexual Offences Act had missed an opportunity to drop Rape as a term as now it only describes one specific form sexual assault (the lists of sexual assault offences looks quite long when one first sees the Act). Her point being that all the historical and emotional “baggage” made juries reluctant to convict and her judgement was they may convict more often if the charge was simply referred to as sexual assault. To probably do a disservice to her argument the essential point was that juries may believe something unpleasant had occurred, but would not convict for a crime with a possible life sentence. I think her argument (this was nearly ten years ago) is even more pertinent now. On the one hand there is a lot of lobbying about “rape culture” co-opting the term for all sorts of behaviours including “unwanted compliments” waving it as a “flag”. On the other more and more fiddling with the rules of evidence to “drive up convictions” due to political pressure from lobby groups with dodgy stats. All in all the actual specific offence and the huge legend that is “Rape” in public discourse have grown even further apart. All this ill serves victims who will want the conviction having made the complaint and defendants who face an increasingly “weighted” criminal justice system.
            In amongst such a mess I suspect “justice” is rarer in these cases than we’d like to think. Of course one can’t prevent sloppy use of the term by media and public but it may help to remove it from statute.

          • Belinda Brown

            I think you shouldn’t underestimate the psychological trauma caused by having someone forcefully having sex with you. I don’t think that is exagerated. There is evidence to suggest that men do significantly underestimate the psychological impact of sexual violence on women and this may be because they are not so badly affected if a woman violates them (all David Buss data). However I do think if you are totally drunk and pick up some chap and take him to bed and get into hotter water than you had actually anticipated this is not the same sort of thing. I have spoken to other women about this and I think Camille Paglia, Helen Mirren, Faye Weldon and even Sarah Vine have said more or less the same thing.

          • Russell

            IMO there is a undercurrent to all of the issues raised in discussion of these issues that’s rarely stated or acknowledged. That is that the immense societal ’empathy gap’ between men and women.

            Men do experience psychological trauma in relation to sex and relationships but possibly a bit different from women. Whilst every sensibility and concerns of women are indulged to the max, men’s related types of trauma are treated with ridicule, contempt or indifference.

            Perhaps one solution to these problems is a rebalancing of the empathy gap to consider both sides of relationships.

          • Belinda Brown

            I said what I said because of research in the David Buss book and it asked men and women to grade different things – how it made them feel – and men really really didn’t seem to feel so badly about sexual violence and they also didn’t understand how badly women felt about sexual violence. What is more the research showed that women overestimated how badly men were affected by sexual violence so although I believe in the empathy gap this wasn’t an example of it. The Evolution of Desire – tis a good book.

          • Russell

            I wasn’t referring to your comment per say. I suspect it’s bit of a chicken and egg thing. Are women’s fine sensibilities indulged so much because they so delicate? Or are women’s sensibilities so delicate because they are indulged so much?

            I don’t deny some biological contribution but suspect that women could be a lot more resilient and tougher if they weren’t so pandered.

            I appreciate the nod you have given to men’s circumstances but see a priority given to women’s finer feelings and just a nod to men being imprisoned and their lives ruined in return.

            I wouldn’t discount the societal indoctrination of men answering questions in ways that confirm that indoctrination in Buss’s book. Similarly, the possibility of some jail time for regret rape that leads to false accusations for revenge might just toughen these women’s oh so fine feelings.

          • Belinda Brown

            Actually I do think that some of the fuss about rape ‘lite’ is because women’s feelings are indulged so much – there is a generational thing going on Paglia’s and Mirrens and Weldons don’t believe in all this stuff. Nor do I. I think Buss is pretty rigorous though. I really think there is a difference. And it is not just a nod. I don’t like this (my) article so much but I have spent hours doing research for it – I can’t stand reading all the crap I read everyday men getting picked up by drunken women and then accused of rape (was that Tappenden) men committing suicide – and women getting offended by drunken sex. It is terrible what women are doing to men and there is so much cant accusing people of victim blaming and rape apologising and I want to do what I can to stop some of the rubbish going on. I spend time on this.

          • Russell

            Thankyou for spending time on this.

          • Russell

            Regarding Buss’s research – I wonder if his results weren’t confounded by a little appreciated difference between the sexes. That is that, unlike women, men prefer not to talk about their feelings. This doesn’t mean that they don’t have them or that they are less significant that women’s feelings.

            The preference not to talk about their feelings has been widely interpreted by behavioural and caring professionals as evidence of a lack or deficiency in feelings as compared to women – another ‘male deficiency’ syndrome. The remedy as promoted by feminism has been to force men to talk about feelings. Did Buss adopt the standard/feminist line that reluctance to talk about feelings was evidence of a lack of feelings?

          • Belinda Brown

            No. He explains driving forces underlying our mating behaviours. The Coolidge effect is so widely documented in mammals that I see no reason why men shouldn’t exhibit it as well. I think part of the reason men might not enjoy casual sex anymore than women could be a result of women’s behaviours – so the possibility that women have evolved natural disinclinations towards casual sex could still be inhibiting casual sex behaviours today (my reading is from Parvid and Bruin on casual sex). If men are evolved to be more interested in sex with different women than women are this is no indictment of men. The fact that despite this they prefer emotional involvement with a single woman, the fact that they do commit, the fact that they do hang around and support us suggests that they are in a sense more ‘culturally’ evolved than women are – we do it because that is what biology tell us to do. But then you do partly do it because that is what we want. So prior to feminism we lived in a reasonably functional symbiotic relationship.

          • Russell

            I think you may mean – driving forces underlying our ‘mammalian’ mating behaviour :).

          • Sargv

            Do you always have sex with a man only after he clearly and explicitly states his consent and outlines the limits where it applies before the act? If not, how can you be sure that you didn’t in fact committed rape?

            Consent is a blunt tool. Saying that it’s the only safety switch we need is wishful thinking.

          • Kanaris

            I only have sex with women, thank you very much.

            And yes, I ensure that both me and my partner are a) in a fit state to consent, and b) consent to whatever we happen to be doing

          • Sargv

            > I ensure

            Does she?

          • Kanaris

            Oh yes, she does. Consent is very sexy

          • Sargv

            But in case if a woman does not receive explicit consent from a man before the act, would you agree that he have a full right to claim being raped?

          • Kanaris

            Yup, absolutely!

          • Sargv

            You do realise that a side-effect of a “consent is the only thing you need” (especially for a private act where nobody can actually confirm that consent was given; especially when not sober) leads to the court system being flooded with he said/she said morning regrets rape accusations?

            If we eventually normalise this for men (enabling them to do the same thing women do), it will only make things worse. It’s too easy to abuse, and accusation alone already hurts one’s reputation badly.

            Consent should be a thing, absolutely. But is it enough? And how to prove that it was given in sane condition – or given at all? And how clearly should it be communicated (I was never asked ONCE in my lifetime to provide my consent to sex – it was always assumed, never explicitly asked for)? And what about de-facto conditional consent? I.e. for something that you perceive as a ONS, and she perceive as a start of LTR – only to change her mind later, when she realise she was wrong.

          • Kanaris

            Is there any evidence for a huge wave of false allegations?

            Or is there actually evidence for most rapes going not only unreported, but unpunished?

            There’s already so much social stigma about reporting an actual rape – why would anyone put themselves through that for a false allegation?

            I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m sure it does, just not in *any* significant numbers, and I at least have faith in the legal system to weed most of those out before they even go to trial. What we do need is a system in which people can report actual rapes that actually occur and trust the police (primarily) to investigate. Consent laws are one of ways in which we create that system

          • Sargv

            > Is there any evidence for a huge wave of false allegations?

            Given that unproven rape accusation do not automatically triger counter-investigation for reputational damages, the only metric we have to assume the number of fake reports is the percentage of convictions on rape accusations, and it’s extremely low. So, either the police system is extremely bad, or absolute majority of reports are false (or rather, as mentioned in the article, caused by rape not being properly defined in the law – women might feel that she was raped, but she was not according to the law because, say, she consented).

            > Or is there actually evidence for most rapes going not only unreported, but unpunished?

            I believe the punishment was there in all cases proven. Are you aware about the proven rape offenders not being punished? This would be serious.

            Or do you mean that “unproven = unpunished”because you do not believe in presumption of innocence for rape cases?

            > There’s already so much social stigma about reporting an actual rape

            I’m not sure what stigma are you talking about. Being accused of rape IS stigmatizing. The damage is done even if the case was dropped. But to *anonymously* report a rape being stigmatizing? Really?

          • Kanaris

            Here you go:

            “A 2005 study, “A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases” was the largest and most rigorous study to date commissioned by the British Home Office on UK rape crime, from the initial reporting of a rape through to legal prosecutions. The study was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, police departments classified 8% as false reports.[17]

            The researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation. Closer analysis of this category applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation and excluding cases where the application of the cases where confirmation of the designation was uncertain reduced the percentage of false reports to 3%. The researchers concluded that “one cannot take all police designations at face value” and that “[t]here is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors.” Moreover, they added:”

            What I was suggesting in the follow up is that unreported rape is the bigger crisis (currently around 40% of all rape goes unreported) not false allegations.

            Really? There’s no social stigma about being raped? Try going into a police office and telling them you’ve been raped, as has happened with several of my friends – expect seriously unrelated (and unacceptable) questioning, and a lack of concern for the victim’s emotional safety.

          • Sargv

            > The study was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, police departments classified 8% as false reports.

            You are talking about “false accusation” as recognized by prosecution (“clearly fake to the extent it doesn’t make sense to follow”).

            But any case where report didn’t end up in conviction is a potential false report. As far as I know, current conviction rate is ~1.1%, which means that either ~98.9% of rape reports might be false (or caused by people misunderstanding what rape is), or UK legal system and police force might be safely disbanded as absolutely irrelevant institutions.

            > currently around 40% of all rape goes unreported

            How on earth can you know that?

            > Really? There’s no social stigma about being raped?

            “Stigma: A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach”. Are you saying that rape victim are being shamed and ostracised by society, their friends and their family? Really?

            > Try going into a police office and telling them you’ve been raped a lack of concern for the victim’s emotional safety.

            I had never been raped, but I had been stabbed a number of times, and shot at. Can’t say there were a lot, if any, empathy or concern from the police. It was fine by me, because I never expected any. And why would you? It’s not their job to console you (and with 1.1% conviction rate, chances are you are only there to waste their time).

            Presumption of innocence means that you’re not automatically a victim just because you filled a report.

          • Timmy

            In the report you cite, 211 have had their lives ruined. This is the ultimate female hammer.

            I went to college with a bloke who had a consentual hook up with a woman. To him it was a one night thing, to her it was the beginning of their relationship. Needless to say she retroactively revoked her consent. Police, courts, etc.

          • Belinda Brown

            Gosh all that sounds nutty. To equate that with being attacked by someone – all that is just off the scale in pottiness. We are talking about imprisoning people for having bad manners.

          • Belinda Brown

            I do feel it could be a problem if people who are not familiar with heterosexual sex make our laws. I haven’t had sex with a woman but I think it must be very different. Although I have had a woman try to force herself on me. It is way way more traumatic.

          • Kanaris

            Umm… I’m heterosexual (by and large)

      • Groan

        I have too as victim Support in the 1980s under the “old” law. I think your analysis entirely consistent with that experience.

  • Phil R

    I watched a social experiment on a German TV channel where two attractive young people a boy and a girl asked strangers for either a coffee or directly for sex, to students on a university campus.

    The girl got 51% of male students to agree to go for coffee with her but interestingly got 60% of male students were willing to go with her for sex. Yes more foe sex than coffee!

    The guy got only around 20% of female students to go with him for coffee and none were interested in going with him for sex. Indeed, many of the girls objected strongly to even to being asked. On a few occasions the film crew had to intervene to calm them down.

    • Groan

      In my limited experience with young men convicted and rightly punished for sexual assault or rape a combination of drink and selfishness and ignorance was involved. In a couple of circumstances a brave “survivor” participated in a treatment programme. what struck me was the effect that their story and how they felt, had on the young men. It was clear that they had had no thought to this feeling because they had no such feeling about their bodies and sex. However confronted by what it felt like to a woman they were able to see their crime.
      I think it is simply an “inconvenient truth” that there are physical differences that also influence emotional differences. This need not at all mean such differences are simply a licence, but it does mean we should be clear and direct. Just as the much greater place of “violence” in interactions between males, even in its most stylised sports incarnations, is not taken to be “licence” for any and all violence.
      Mixing these issues up with “gender equality” the “Pay gap” or the make up of FTSE boards ;or notions of “consent” as if its medicine or treatment creates more problems.
      After all the truth is that sexual crimes remain comparatively rare.

  • Under-the-weather

    “if we understood the perpetrator hadn’t set out to hurt and disempower us. He had actually got carried away having sex”

    I think there are probably numerous reasons for men who choose to exercise a physical advantage, one could be upbringing, most who I’m sure find this distasteful have been raised with certain standards, which some other cultures don’t have.
    Also there’s the issue of the rise of sociopaths who are unable to empathise with other people, if they can’t empathise, (the basis for morality in a non religious society), what stifles their behaviour? As to ‘rarity’, based on what, how rare is rare?

    • Under-the-weather

      In my circle those friends (several of) who’ve experienced some sort of ‘frightening’ experience, have been subjected to that from men who haven’t ‘just lost’ themselves. It was intentional predatory behaviour, and 30 years ago wasn’t subject to any beliefs which revolve around extreme modern feminism.

      • Belinda Brown

        But thirty years ago there was still an extremely promiscuous environment and there was a lot of pressure and expectation to participate in casual sex.

        • Under-the-weather

          Promiscuity can create an ‘expectation’ that everyone behaves in the same way, which is a big problem, but the experiences I mentioned were in one instance frightening because of being attacked (potential boyfriend tried to strip her), and the others, complete strangers.

          • Belinda Brown

            Sounds horrible. Somehow I managed to avoid those sorts of dreadful things. I don’t know how – I wasn’t very careful!

  • Colkitto03

    Insecurity and low self worth are the root cause of much of this behavior. We need to ask why women are so susceptible to this? Was it the same 50 years ago? What is it about the modern western world which is making young women so insecure? Women who have multiple partners nearly always suffer from low self esteem,yet this is hardly talked about.

    A sizable minority of young women play the victim in all sorts of situations because they love the attention it brings them. This unfortunately seem to be a key motivator in false rape claims. This has been compounded by the state making it easy, and with minimal consequences.
    This behavior is a huge indicator of insecurity.
    What we have is a generation of young women many of whom don’t love themselves and are constantly looking for some form of validation.

    • Sargv

      > Insecurity and low self worth are the root cause of much of this behaviour.

      Weak personal borders.

      Women with weak personal borders will be often treated badly (because you’re always treated the way you allow others to treat you), and locked into a cycle of “can attract him / can’t make him commit”. Because men are suspicious about women with weak borders – it’s an opposite of chastity, and signals slutiness. Few iterations of the cycle, and male suspiciousness turns into a self-fulfiling prophecy. Which, in turn, ruins here self-estem and leads to self-objectification (“I can only attract men with sex and pretty face”).

      It is a thing with men as well – our type called Nice Guys, and their commitment potential being used and abused by women the same way sexuality of women with weak personal borders being used and abused by men.

      It was not an issue 50 years ago because woman’s personal borders were not, well, personal. Her parents, her siblings – and even society in general – were much more involved into guarding it (i.e. through prescribed ritual of courtship). Also the number of casual social interactions with men was limited.

      • Colkitto03

        very well put. especially introducing the male angle.

  • As far as I am concerned, casual sex and degradation of female worth go hand in hand. It is an instrument of objectification. Men have actually been encouraged by mainstream feminism to continue in their promiscuity, because women have been fooled into believing that traditional Judeo-Christian norms were “sexist”/”oppressive”. That is, it is really so terrible for women that a man should commit himself to one woman and vice versa in a loving and egalitarian relationship. Can you feel the patriarchal horror?!

    • Sargv

      > it is really so terrible for women that a man should commit himself to one woman and vice versa in a loving and egalitarian relationship

      Not really possible at society-wide level with no fault divorce in place. And absolute majority will object to revoking it, as they’d want to keep “I change my mind” as the only argument needed to “follow your heart” outside of relationship.

      Men no longer can expect chastity, women no longer can expect life-long commitment, that’s the deal we have now. Casual sex is a natural consequence of it.

    • Bik Byro

      “casual sex and degradation of female worth go hand in hand” Utter nonsense, I am very good friends to this day with two women I had casual sex with when I was in my twenties. I enjoyed it and so did they. So, in summary, no problem.

      • Belinda Brown

        You shouldn’t extrapolate from your relationship with two women in your twenties about casual sex and female degradation. The evolutionary facts are likely to have been that if all women had made sex freely available whenever they or the men wanted it men would have been unlikely to commit to any particular woman and child. In evolutionary terms women would have given sex in exchange for commitment and provisioning and men would have learnt to offer commitment through the demands that women made. The children of those couples would have been more likely to survive. And the fact that sex is freely available today will contribute towards making it more difficult to get commitment from men (along with loads of risks which go hand in hand with getting married if you are a male). So in those terms the availability of casual sex does in a sense reduce the value of women.

        • Sargv

          > men would have been unlikely to commit to any particular woman and child

          You might find this interesting:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory#r.2FK_selection_theory

          The behaviour you described is a r-strategy: maximise the number of offsprings, minimise parental investment. While it’s indeed a strategy within some human communities (sub-Saharian Africa?), usually men in the West followed K-strategy: big parental investment, limited number of offsprings (preferably from the same mate).

          In my opinion, number of risks to parental investment that was introduced to the system over the last few decades – specifically, no fault divorce (=risk to lose the investment at any moment) and social acceptance of pre-martial sex (=chastity is no longer a virtue => there is always a perceived risk of paternity fraud => parental investment might be misallocated) pushed us slowly toward r-selection.

          The mix of biology with technology makes it comical and sad at the same time: r-selection + the pill = men acting like sterilised rabbits (while calling this behaviour “Alpha”).

        • Bik Byro

          Evolutionary facts are fine, but we don’t live in the caveman era any more, this is the year 2017.

          • Sargv

            > this is the year 2017

            It’s not much different from Russia circa 1917 or Weimar Germany circa 1928. Nothing is new under the Moon.

          • Russell

            There are still plenty of cavewomen and cavemen determining social policy.

          • Bik Byro

            I’ll just leave your comment there for others to see how ridiculous it is.

          • Sargv

            > I’ll just leave your comment there

            You can’t really control that, can you? But that stance of omnipotence and smug superiority is amusing to watch. You have to be in control SOMEWHERE, am I right? At least on anonymous internet ranting board.

            Anyway. Read Kolontai. Read Guardian. Try to find a difference.

            Modern world is more prosperous, and states are stronger than they were, sure. But current state of sex relations is exactly where communists wanted them to be a century ago. What they were unable to enforce in on sweep back then, they gradually injected over five decades.

          • Bik Byro

            Well it beats admitting to being sympathetic to wife beaters.
            You can’t really control that can you. Difference is, it won’t be amusing to watch.
            You have to be in control SOMEWHERE, and you probably enjoy doing it in your home where your loved ones are more submissive.
            Anyway. Read how to not be physically aggressive. Try to find a difference.

          • Belinda Brown

            You are being ignorant of the facts.

          • Bik Byro

            What – the fact that a lot of women actually enjoy casual sex? Nope. Don’t think so. Do get with the times.

          • Belinda Brown

            Understanding human behaviour is useful. For example if we understood more about sex differences we would be in a better position to overcome them. Knowledge is always valuable including knowledge of evolution.

            When it comes to casual sex I read the trauma and stress that women suffer when casual sex goes too far. The state can’t stop that no matter how much Allison Saunders would like to get in our bedrooms. Those women who enjoy casual sex one day are crying rape the next. You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs and if you want to carry on with lots of casual sex they shouldn’t make a fuss when it goes too far. But I think you are a bloke anyway so you are more likely to be promoting casual sex.

          • Bik Byro

            “But I think you are a bloke anyway so you are more likely to be promoting casual sex” finally you reveal what you really wanted to say from the start and reveal your bigotry and feminism.

          • Belinda Brown

            that is a ridiculous thing to say. My whole piece is about the differences between men and women. Yes I think men prefer sex with a variety of females and are more willing to have sex with strangers. Read my article. And read what I have said to Russel below. The fact that i think that is no indictment of men. Quite to the contrary. I think you are silly and don’t want to waste more time.

          • Bik Byro

            A ridiculous thing to say? Well, you said it. Giving us finally the revelation behind your twisted article which explains it all.

      • Mike Hunt

        Women also start casual sex , seen it happen and had it happen to me , and I’m no George Clooney. Sometimes they get enjoyment out of pinching their other girl friends fellas , they know they’re doing it to whom there supposed to be friends with . When they decide that’s what they want there are no thoughts of being degraded.

        • Bik Byro

          The sheltered lives of many people on here often amazes me. The more sheltered life they have seems to be proportional to the amount they think they know about the world.

  • Russell

    There is a notion out there that lots of different sexual partners does affect women differently from men.It is said to stuff up young women’s ability to pair bond. I don’t know how strong this relationship is but, if true, it’s an important consideration to the topic of this article. Consider this in light of modern age female-initiated divorce and the multitudes of never married, childless middle aged women.

    Conversely, for men, it’s said that lots of porn affects men’s perception of finding average women sexually attractive. On this last point, I’d say that it instead just makes men less interested in sex with actual women. I don’t think that, because of this, porn should be banned or restricted. Having sex with random women can be very dangerous for men today.

    The sexual liberation of women and the availability of porn are somewhat related in a number of ways?

    • Sargv

      > On this last point, I’d say that it instead just makes men less interested in sex with actual women.

      Porn = hyperstimulus without performance anxiety or any expectations to give a joy to another person whatsoever. Big, controlled endorphin hit when a man wants it. This, and not the inflated expectations on looks, rewires the sexuality.

      When hooked up on porn without regular sex, man eventually loose the ability to emotionally connect to a woman. Sex stops being an intimate experience and turns into rubbing against another human being (and she expects something from you! And she doesn’t read your mind! And she’s not instantly enthusiastic about whatever thing just came into your head! And you actually have no idea how to communicate this to her!). This just reinforces the choice of auto-eroticism, which slowly grows into an unhealthy addiction. Hooked-up man will have major problems interacting with women. He’ll see all communication through sexualised lenses – while actually not being able to perform when a relationship turns sexual! This creates some really weird dynamics, both in bedroom, and in relationship. Very frustrating for both (for instance, women will get their body anxiety triggered in no time with “he doesn’t want me!” thoughts after one or two rejections).

      Porn is not all bad when it’s not used as a replacement for the real thing, when it’s not an addiction, and not the thing that defined your sexual expectations.

      > The sexual liberation of women and the availability of porn are somewhat related in a number of ways. Thoughts?

      Porn coincidented with femlib indeed. This is due to the cornerstones that enabled modern porn-on-tap being the same that enabled other things femlib was fighting for.

      Specifically: bodily autonomy (The Argument for right to abort) and consent (the way for women to legally protect their sexuality). Together, they changed the image of porn from being exploitive to women and illegal, to something acceptable: it’s her body, she consented for this scene to be filmed, it’s legal – what’s you problem?

      It also coincedented with Internet as a new anonymous media distribution channel (the Internet was built on porn). And mass consumer market was already there.

      • Russell

        “When hooked up on porn without regular sex, man eventually looses the ability to emotionally connect to a woman.”

        Actually the point of my remarks was that it was young women who hook up with a lot of top tier men (and that’s who they go for) lose the ability to emotionally connect to a man (pair bond). Moreso than men with porn. His possible reduced sexual response is IMO another issue.

        “Together, they changed the image of porn from being exploitive to women and illegal, to something acceptable…”

        As like always, feminists play a double game. There are ‘sex positive’ feminists that promote and celebrate female sexuality and ‘sex negative’ feminists that seek to criminalize male sexuality. They operate like a tag team weaponizing sex against men. It’s how we’ve arrived at the position described in the article.

        • Sargv

          > lose the ability to emotionally connect to a man

          My guess would be the eventual self-objectification (as described here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/theconservativewoman/belinda_brown_women_find_casual_sex_a_dark_echo_of_the_horror_of_rape/#comment-3229892084

          They probably project it on men as well, which removes the deep and intimacy from relationships, making them extremely shallow, and hence short-term. A side effect of it is that it protects from further emotional scarring: if you never emotionally invest, you’ll never get burned. No good man will safe you either – once damage is done, it is done.

          But I had no personal experience with highly promiscuous women. They have that repulsive slutty vibe around them I can’t stand.

          > As like always, feminists play a double game.

          It’s a common sentiment that feminism’s main aim is “to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality”, which assumes double game: pro-sex for women, anti-sex for men.

          I’m not sure this is true though. Sure, there are thousands of scaremongering stories of messy divorces and faux rape accusations. But statistically divorces hurt women much more then men (not every man is a high-earner with lots of wealth. Hell, many of us don’t really care about our kids!), and from a 100 of rape reports only one makes it to conviction.

          At the same time, for the first time in history, men can have sex without trading it for commitment – and what kind of sex. No social shaming and ubiquitous “sex-positive” narrative from feminism means that you can gradually push her into whatever stuff you want. Unless you’re an ugly shy loser, and/or a feminist. But, well, life’s unfair.

          Feminists might strive for it (subconsciously), but the result is mostly the opposite (it surely opposite for them – typical feminist looks like the most sex-starved creature on Earth). “Sex for commitment” trade deal is now greatly skewed toward good quality men. It’s a buyer’s market for the first time in history.

  • timbazo

    ‘ … humans are the only species where the extended and deep involvement of the father (with their children) has been achieved. …’ Is this really true? I am not a zoologist but from the little I know of animals it seems wrong.

    Here are some animals that put humans to shame when it comes to fidelity.

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/11-animals-that-mate-for-life/old-faithful

    I appreciate fidelity is not the same as being involved as a father. However, presence in the family group is the first condition of being a father. Presence also means that the father is setting an example for male children to follow.

    Our ability to understand animal families has developed massively in the last 50 or so years as zoologists have been able to follow animal groups for an extended period of time. For instance a group of wild horses running around were thought to be doing so in a casual manner. Now we know this to be untrue. Each child follows behind his or her mother and the mothers follow behind the father. Two such similar animals such as lions and tigers live in very different ways. The male and female tiger meet only to mate. Male and female lions live in prides with their children. I suspect that it is our inability to understand how animals communicate that would make an observer see little interaction between fathers and children.

    As for humans, a large proportion of men, perhaps even the majority, are not interested in fatherhood. Many never have children. Many have children but don’t support them. Then there are those who are present in the family home and work to support their children due to social or legal constraints or out of sexual desire for the mother but with no great interest in their children.

    • Belinda Brown

      hat is really interesting. We even judge father involvement by the extent of their physical presence which probably isn’t correct. However overall the children who did have their dads around historically were more likely to have successfully reproduced. While I agree fathers play a role in the animal kingdom the prolonged childhood and adoloscence of humans creates a unique situation.

  • timbazo

    I suspect that the unsatisfactory nature of much casual sex for the woman is the reason for many women deciding in the cold light of the next morning that they had been taken advantage of at best or raped at worst. The women genuinely feel cheated, because their experience was nothing like that which they had been led to expect. Who cheated them? The man who failed to satisfy them in the manner that they had expected. In this mindset, it seems justified making an accusation – at best mutterings to female friends that so-and-so can’t be trusted and at worst a report of rape to the police.

  • Just thinking about this makes me feel distressed

  • One of my friends remarked that the concept of “friends with benefits” meant that the man got the benefits, but the woman didn’t get the friendship.

    Love, marriage, sex, and procreation are meant to go together.