Regarding having a baby
Also, from the same link
So, I guess that answers that question.
What if Mr. Diggleblop is involved?
Oh, well, in that case, of course, the poor girl could start renting out parking space in her cooch!
I agree with catsix 100%! I don’t think it’s sex that makes woman get attached. I think woman get attached to the idea of a relationship/love and trade sex with the hope of getting it. Despite the feminist movement many woman still base their self-worth through the attention of men. If parents actually taught their daughters to value themselves, they might make smarter choices (like not dating the ‘dirtbag’).
As for the double standard, woman perpetuate this too. We call woman who have casual sex sluts while guys do the same get called players. I agree with
Jonathan Chance “even though we have 40+ years of feminism behind us, there’s approximately 5000 years of non-feminism behind that.” I know of guys who would be uncomfortable with a woman who makes more money, who is smarter, or who doesn’t ‘need’ them in some way. It all comes from the same antiquated notion of what men and women are supposed to bring to the table when it comes to a relationship. People need to stop looking for an image and start looking at people as individuals.
Of course. Females in the family of the nominal male partner often put large amounts of effort into helping raise his babies. They have a very strong motivation to discourage behaviour that may result in them putting effort into offspring not carrying their genetic material.
Everyone has to have a challenge in life. For men, the challenge is getting laid. For women, if they are even just reasonably attractive, that is no problem at all. A guy can spend his whole life chasing nookie and still struggle to make it into double digits. Women, if they wanted to, could probably easily screw about 200 men *a year *without breaking a sweat. This is possible for them solely because they are women. Men obviously see this as cheating, and, being in charge of the game, they try to even the playing field by making up different rules for women. Therefore, for women, the challenge is *not *getting laid, and staying *below *double digits. A lot of women actually go along with this, because they, too, enjoy a challenge, after all.
Of course, men are complete idiots. It should be obvious to them that if they let women play by the same rules as themselves, the average amount of casual humping in society will increase by a factor of at least 200, probably more, therefore making it a heck of a lot easier for the men, too, to get laid.
As soon as everybody realizes this, we shall all be happy.
Apart from that, I’ve got nothing.
Is it at all possible that women generally are just less interested in, and less pleased by, and less satisfied with casual sexual experiences than men?
Whatever its source, nurture or nature, we expect this attitude, and if it doesn’t entirely exist because of our expectation, then our expectations might be based in on the existence of the attitude.
Reality doesn’t need to be politically correct.
Tris
I’m not following you here. Why would the woman in the family be caring for offspring the guy created with other women?
I think it’s to women’s detriment to support this double standard for whatever reason. If casual sex is ‘bad’ then it should be bad for guys and girls.
Maybe I wasn’t being clear. Bear in mind that by “nominal male partner” I mean the female’s life partner eg hubby.
“Other females in the extended family of the nominal male partner often put large amounts of effort into helping raise “his” babies. They have a very strong motivation to discourage behaviour that may result in them putting effort into offspring not carrying their genetic material”
In other words, to put it in more everyday language, if wifey who lives with hubby’s extended family secretly gets knocked up by some other bloke, hubby’s sisters and mother are putting effort into bringing up a child to whom they are not genetically related.
If I can remember a bit of anthropology from about 25 years ago correctly, I seem to recall that the wife moving in with the husband’s family (rather than the other way around) is the most common arrangement in traditional society.
But at what point does civilization overcome the instincts of cavemen? Are we so physically and psychologically hard-wired for survival that logic and reason can never overcome base urges? I kind of read the OP to mean, regardless of whatever animal instincts we may have, it’s time for society to stop condemning 22-year-old women for having the same sex lives as 22-year-old men. I’m not saying it’s right (and I certainly don’t condone) random sex acts with people you have no intention of seeing again – for women or for men. But if a person is going to give men a pass for debauchery, that same person should give women the same pass. Hanging onto bigotry because our ancient ancestors needed it to survive is a poor excuse.
Ok, I follow you know. I was reading it as the women in the extended family caring for hubby’s babies with other woman rather than caring for wifey’s babies with other men. 
I agree, latter is far more likely.
Man have you got myopia. As a rule eligible women outnumber eligible men
Yes, it can. It may not be articulated that way consciously most of the time, but in the 40 years since the cultural revolution we can see the results of pitting ideology against biology. A casual attitude towards sex for men can lead to herpes, some bacterial infections that can be cured, and pregnancies that can be completely ignored. The same attitude in women can lead to a pregnancy that’s impossible to ignore that leads to an, at least, 18 year financial and social burden and a much higher likelihood of viral diseases. There’s a double standard because there are two different results depending on sex.
lowbrass, you’ve got to start hanging out with different women! 
I’ve run into the opposite problem. The men I’ve dated haven’t let me pay for dinner, even after several months of dating. Believe me, I tried, and the only reason I might be paying for dinner tonight is because I’ve got gift certificates.
As for women’s anatomy being stretched, gentlemen, please do keep in mind that you come in variety of dimensions (pun intended) and I can’t see a part of the female anatomy would be damaged or altered by doing the very thing it was intended to do.
Getting back to the OP, I agree with catsix and strawberrygirl. There’s still a strong message that only for women is there a strong connection between emotional involvement and sex. Among the people I know, there are plenty of women who have casual sex, and the men I’ve known both have only wanted to have sex where there’s an emotional commitment.
Pizzabrat brought up the issue of childbearing, but it seems to me I’ve seen a lot of threads and arguments here that it’s inherently unfair that a man can incur 18 years of liability for a child he had no intention of producing. I fully agree that the possibility of pregnancy can and should make women more aware of the importance of birth control but, now that we have readily available, reliable birth control, why shouldn’t women be as promiscuous or monogamous as men? Now that Plan B’s becoming available, women even have an option which can be picked up at a drugstore and kept on hand until one gets lucky, much like a condom.
As for how easy it is for women to find a partner vs. men, I agree that it’s easier for women to find a man who wants to have sex, but I see that as an effect, rather than a cause. If it was as socially acceptable for a woman to have casual sex or multiple partners, surely more women would do so and the number of women looking for casual sex would be high enough for it not to be a big deal.
For many of us they already do, to a large extent. The OP asked for an explanation for why certain attitudes persist, and I gave it.
I didn’t perceive the OP as asking whether equality should reign and I certainly wasn’t answering that question.
Sorry to burst some balloons here but the double standards are down to womens viewpoints themselves.
I ll talk about western society but it applies to others.
Put bluntly women ALWAYS exact a price for sex ,yes men want to raise families ,have relationships etc.but left to themselves ,particulary when young the casual desire for sex without any sort of committment ,even emotional would be several thousand to one on a day to day basis.
But its not a case of a male human walking up to a female human having sex and then walking on ,the female forgotten about and vice versa.
Even on a more civilised homo Sapiens level you just dont see a female strolling up to a bloke in a bar and saying do you want sex?
Nor do you see a women plying a man shes just met with drinks and flattery to get her wicked way.
At the top end the women gets a life long committment ,house ,car ,entertainment ,holidays and subsistence.
At the bottom end some drinks ,flattery and conversation.
A woman can get laid without any effort or outlay whatsoever but a man has to work at it.
So ladies when the day comes that you initiate sexual advances to men that you ve just met casually and expect absaloutley nothing in return ,not even attention, then women wont be considered easy if they have numerous sexual partners and men wont be considered studs .
And now I expect numerous "cake and eat it "feminists.
Feminism covers a lot of ground. Both Andrea Dworkin and Erica Jong were/are feminists, but if you chained them together at the ankles I think they’d both start chewing through their own foot to escape.
Feminists rightly condemn sexual harassment, but sexual harassment is commonly taken to mean anything sexual in the workplace, and they haven’t really gotten the word out that that’s not it. Then there’s the whole porn thing. I try to understand all points of view–I understand both sides of the abortion debate, and if I tilt my head sideways and squint I can even understand the Catholic Church’s problem with birth control–but I can’t for the life of me understand the problem some feminists have with pornography as anything but: “Depicting women sexually degrades them because sex is icky.”
Feminists who treat sex like part of the Evil Male Conspiracy To Keep Women Down don’t exactly encourage thoughtful women to stand up and shout, “I’m a slut and I am proud!” All told, I don’t think feminists have done anything about the putting-out double standard: One of them takes us two steps forward and her “sister” takes us two steps back.
I think you might be on to something with this theory of “Society admires the effort that has gone into the pursuit of sex/love”.
Consistent with this theory is the fact that, contrary to what you might expect with the prevailing double standard, a guy who had a lot of casual sex he didn’t put much effort in (say, a lot of sex with cheap hookers) isn’t admired in our culture either. It just doesn’t take much effort, cunning, talents or hard work to get sex that way, just like it doesn’t take much effort for a woman to have a lot of casual sex.
On the other end of the spectrum, a woman who has a lot of admirers, or a lot of dates (with whom she may, or may not have had sex) is admired by society as well.
While pizzabrat may be right about eligible women outnumbering eligible men, that fact only applies to sex in committed relationships. So her remark doesn’t contradict your theory, Randmcnally.
His remark by itself may not, but he certainly does disagree in general. I think those who think that women in general have all the choice in partnering have got their heads violently up their asses. They’re myopically considering only the most attractive women out there, and disregarding the fact that there are also plenty of men on the far right side of the attractiveness bell-curve.
In general, both men and women do the choosing, but if you insist that one side might have an upper-hand, I’d say it’s the men who hold it. From the fact that men are expected to initiate a partnering, to the fact that women outnumber men, to the fact that men openly judge each other and compete based on the physical attractiveness of their partners, and thus are extremely motivated to be highly critical of women’s looks, to the fact that men can achieve their attractiveness through accomplishments and behavior much easier than women can (in fact, ambitiousness works against women); the facts stand that courtship works in favor of men.
Then what is it?
Nah. The OP’s question is : “Why does it seem like casual sex is still less appropriate for women than men?”
Your “effort in pursuit of sex” thing in no way provides an answer to that question. It only works as an answer to the question of why studs might be admired.
Even if you attempt to stretch your theory to explain negative attitudes to women, it doesn’t work. If it did, women who never had sex and women who had sex with anything that had a penis would be held in the same regard: none, since neither had to work to achieve a fuck.