# Women: Does objectification = degradation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677 "2014-12-08T18:04:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/121 "2014-12-11T18:16:38Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > Then you neglected to read my earlier post where I cited a website with plenty of papers supporting this viewpoint. What evidence do you have that it’s culture driving our sexuality when it comes to men pursuing women? I have definitely not seen evidence there. Your papers are not convincing. For one thing, there are cultures in which women pursue men. And in most modern cultures today, more and more women pursue men (as well as women pursuing women, and men pursuing men). In fact, I think it’s very likely that various cultures act to _repress_ many natural behaviors – including, very likely, that women might be just as likely to pursue men as vice versa. > [@](#): > > The chemicals in our body that drive all these behaviors hasn’t changed. The effects of testosterone and estrogen haven’t changed, and each gender seems to have more of their respective chemical than the other. Why fight it? For many people, there’s nothing to fight. You’ve presented no evidence that refutes the idea that these sorts of behaviors come from nature. Many women are finding their most “natural” expression of themselves is to pursue, and many men to be pursued. These sorts of behaviors are changing. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/122 "2014-12-11T18:20:27Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/123 "2014-12-12T00:52:22Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > Then you neglected to read my earlier post where I cited a website with plenty of papers supporting this viewpoint. What evidence do you have that it’s culture driving our sexuality when it comes to men pursuing women? I have definitely not seen evidence there. Cue [Playboy](http://www.playboy.com/articles/playboy-interview-with-dan-savage). Those guys know what they’re talking about! > [@](#): > > Pussy is hard to get, and it’s hard to get because of disease, pregnancy and violence. I don’t think women are naturally any less horny. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/124 "2014-12-12T10:42:06Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > “First, do no harm”. Depression is a great example of a disorder that we rushed in and tried to treat when we didn’t have ANY well supported theory of what caused it, and so we used all sorts of things (exorcisms, lobotomies, electroshock therapy . . .) to treat it that exacerbated the problem and caused untold pain and suffering. To be fair to ECT; We still use this as a method of treating depression, and it has been demonstrated to be the safest and most highly effective treatment for depression, so this wasn’t a very good example. Regardless, I’m not suggesting we rush into **anything**. It’s your position that we should change the social structure based on a theory you have absolutely no scientific papers to support. So, I would agree with you that it’s best not to rush into anything. > [@](#): > > There is a magic point where it becomes strong enough to base social policy on, and the untestable musings of evolutionary psychologists do not rise to this level. I’m glad your educated enough in Evolutionary Psychology to be able to call the scientific papers in the field “untestable musings”. In the meanwhile; You haven’t provided any links to peer-review papers or quotes from relevant scientists to base your ideas on. > [@](#): > > Birth rates have risen, all over the world, over and over again, as having lots of children became beneficial (i.e, when people shifted to agriculture and land was plentiful) and dropped again when people shifted to situations where having them was more expensive (urbanization). With the EXCEPTION of China, this has happened, over and over again, without central control. This suggests that biological imperatives are pretty quickly overshadowed by cultural forces. So people act pragmatically, and have more kids when it benefits them, and less when it hurts them, and you’re saying it’s cultural forces at work? What were you saying about untestable musings again? > [@](#): > > What specific social structures are you proposing we put in place so that we can “love women as they are?” How are we currently running society that you think is “contrary to science?” Now you’re just strawmanning me. There is absolutely nothing in this paragraph that represents anything I’ve proposed. I don’t propose any new social structures, and I don’t claim we are currently running society contrary to science. > [@](#): > > That’s what I am trying to do: you seem to feel that it is a biological imperative that all men, on some level, feel a visceral disgust toward sexually active women and that that disgust is involuntary and immutable. A sexually active woman could be a faithful spouse. At the least I think that a woman with multiple partners will usually be devalued as a mate, and since men are programmed (on a basic level) to always be looking for mates, and seeing women as potential mates, then they will probably be devalued frequently. This may make it’s way into the culture, and that’s where the moral disgust would come from, but at least culture’s attempts to completely curb this will prove unsuccessful. Certainly porn statistics disagree that men feel a visceral disgust toward sexually active women. We both seem to agree that IF a man feels disgust toward a sexually active woman, than the act of viewing her as a sex object is inherently degrading. > [@](#): > > I think the sexual attraction comes first, then the realization that she’s sexually active with multiple partners kicks in. Then she’s not “wife material”; She’s “one-night stand” material. She isn’t necessarily devalued for having sex with, but as a potential long-term partner; She is. > [@](#): > > You then seem to be extrapolating that since these two feelings–sexual attraction and disgust–are inevitable products of biology, we need to craft our social mores and norms around accomodating it. I assume this means by stressing chastity in women if they wish to avoid the extremes of degradation and accepting in men that feelings of intermingled disgust and sexual attraction toward women they see as potential sexual partners is normal and natural, not shameful. I think it also follows from your logic that since all women, even chaste ones, will inspire some feelings of sexual attraction in men, all men will look at all women with some element of disgust/contempt, as the contempt for the thing penetrated is, according to you, a biological imperative, and that women need to accept this as their lot. I think “slut-shaming” is harmful, and uncalled for. There is something called tolerance. Culture is a complicated thing, and one simple change wouldn’t translate cross-culturally even in America. If I were to propose any change; It would be in education, and not at school, but at home. Teach women to have safe sex, and to be realistic about how men view women who have multiple partners. If you can accept that; Then knock yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/125 "2014-12-12T10:44:03Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Cue [Playboy](http://www.playboy.com/articles/playboy-interview-with-dan-savage). Those guys know what they’re talking about! When you’ve got nice cars, millions of dollars, and a mansion; I’m sure women are always horny for you. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/126 "2014-12-12T12:17:40Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > I think “slut-shaming” is harmful, and uncalled for. There is something called tolerance. It turns out that slut-shaming is a thing that is mostly done by women to women. Men however, would be wise to have an eye on a potential girl’s sexual past as there appears to be a strong correlation between the number of her previous sexual encounters and the strength of relationship she is able or willing to form. No such correlation exists for men. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/127 "2014-12-12T12:23:57Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > It turns out that slut-shaming is a thing that is mostly done by women to women. Cite? > [@](#): > > Men however, would be wise to have an eye on a potential girl’s sexual past as there appears to be a strong correlation between the number of her previous sexual encounters and the strength of relationship she is able or willing to form. No such correlation exists for men. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/128 "2014-12-12T12:40:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Nah…not really. > > I think the problem stems from our society having it that traditionally men pursue women in matters dating/sex (to be sure some women pursue men but largely it is men doing the chasing). > > This naturally leads to certain results: > > - If the woman amenable to the guy trying to be with her she will respond nicely and give encouragement. > > - If the woman is not interested in the guy he gets the cold shoulder. > > Seems straightforward but things of course get more complex. > > - Every guy figures he should get at least one shot so hits on the woman. Women of course get tired of guys constantly hitting on them. (NOTE: This is NOT an excuse for catcalling). > > - Sometime perseverance is rewarded, sometimes it is annoying to the woman. Men rarely know which is which. Is she playing coy or just annoyed? > > - Women regularly do their best to look nice but take exception if some guy leers at them (NOTE: This is NOT a case of “She had it coming” rape apology thing). > > And so it goes… > > Some women may take exception and say it should be obvious to men but honestly women rarely make it crystal clear to the guy. Sometimes because they are nice and don’t want to be mean, sometimes because they are playing games, sometimes because they are unsure themselves…take your pick. Of course there is no debate to be had if the woman makes it crystal clear and tells the guy to back the fuck off and of course some guys ignore even that. Those are the easy cases to assess. > > Point is there are a LOT of gray areas in all of this. I can make lewd comments to my GF and it titillates her. If I said the same to a woman here she’d rightly be offended. There is a lot of room between those two positions that allow for a lot of different circumstances. Many women have a lot of signals that she is “not interested” - and yet the behavior of some men remains such that she has to go into bitch mode to get it to stop. A wedding ring, for instance - it means “don’t hit on me” - yes, its POSSIBLE said woman is up for a fling - but your odds are so low (wedding rings come off), that you are pissing off most women wearing wedding rings you approach. Headphones. Books. Yet attractive women sometimes have to go into “rude mode” on an airplane because these signals don’t work on a small subset of men. As far as catcalls go - were these men raised in a barn. You don’t meet a woman by calling “hey baby, nice ass.” That isn’t a good way for the human mammal to court and spread his genes. Lewd comments to someone you are intimate with is a completely different thing that if my husband were to go up to your girlfriend and my lewd comments. My husband sometimes makes lewd comments which I sometimes respond to positively (its a mood thing with me), but I’ve never responded positively to a stranger or acquaintance. If you don’t like the way the men in your life treat you (your boyfriend, husband, friends), choose different men. But when its a societal problem with the way women are treated by SOME men who they don’t have a choice (or much of one) about (guys on the street or on airplanes, coworkers), we need to address that in a broader fashion. And that is often what women are complaining about. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/129 "2014-12-12T12:45:35Z")
cite cite cite yap yap yap > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Cite? [Cultural suppression of female sexuality](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/6/2/166/) > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Cite? [Women who’ve had more non-marital partners are less likely to be in stable relationships](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QPnsHoU2Pzk/T3GylzESIiI/AAAAAAAAAYI/4USMzLGzm-A/s640/Heritage.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/130 "2014-12-12T12:56:06Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > cite cite cite yap yap yap > > [Cultural suppression of female sexuality](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/6/2/166/) That is behind a pay wall. > [@](#): > > [Women who’ve had more non-marital partners are less likely to be in stable relationships](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QPnsHoU2Pzk/T3GylzESIiI/AAAAAAAAAYI/4USMzLGzm-A/s640/Heritage.jpg) This doesn’t support your point, that “there appears to be a strong correlation between the number of her previous sexual encounters and the strength of relationship she is able or willing to form”. I see no reason to believe that the “strength of relationship” a woman is “able or willing to form” can be judged by whether she has been married for 5 years or more. Further, “non-marital partners” does not distinguish between extra-marital and pre-marital sex. If your point is that women who have had fewer sex partners outside of marriage or before marriage tend to be in longer marriages, then that graph supports your point. But that graph says nothing about the “strength” of a relationship a woman is “able or willing to form”. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/131 "2014-12-12T13:07:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That is behind a pay wall. [http://www.austin-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Cultural-Suppression-of-Female-Sexuality.pdf](http://www.austin-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Cultural-Suppression-of-Female-Sexuality.pdf) > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If your point is that women who have had fewer sex partners outside of marriage or before marriage tend to be in longer marriages, then that graph supports your point. Yes. If a man desires a long and lasting marriage it appears he’d be well served to keep an eye on the sexual history of his intended love. If you want to nitpick over the definition of relationship strength knock yourself out without me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/132 "2014-12-12T13:10:48Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Yes. If a man desires a long and lasting marriage it appears he’d be well served to keep an eye on the sexual history of his intended love. If you want to nitpick over the definition of relationship strength knock yourself out without me. Correlation does not imply causation. Adherence to fundamentalist Islam likely also correlates with long marriages for women, but that doesn’t mean that those who don’t adhere to fundamentalist Islam are less able or willing to form lasting relationships. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/133 "2014-12-12T14:48:38Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > “I’m suggesting men aren’t capable of respecting non-virgins, virgins, other men, or their own mother’s as equals.” What you’re doing is called “equivocating”. You are using a different definition for “equals” and the arguing that men can’t respect women that have lots of sex partners because people can’t relate to each other as equals when everyone is an individual with different socioeconomic and social situations and no two people are exactly the same. This is preposterous. > [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > If you’ll look back at my post you’ll see how that example doesn’t qualify since none of those people are the same as you, therefore, you can’t treat them as equal to you. Equal implies the same and they are all distinct people from you. The idea of equality is based on fairness and respect, but in reality things don’t always translate perfectly. We are talking about viewing people as worthy of the same level of respect and fairness as yourself, not seeing them as identical to you in every way. There are lots of reasons you might view someone as inherently worth less respect - they’re a recidivist armed robber or a child rapist or a _Gasp_ telemarketer. What we are saying is that being a woman who has sex for fun with multiple partners over time doesn’t have to be one of those. > [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > No, we see society try and control that desire to reproduce (like China’s One Child Policy). We also see fathers run out on their children just to make more all throughout society (some communities more than others). You’ve shown nothing that’s mutable; Only controllable. Statistics show that societies that have active birth control and put reproduction control in the hands of women have lower reproduction rates. Urban societies have lower reproduction rates than agrarian ones. China’s one child policy is one example out of how many countries and cultures and societies? “Fathers running out on their children just to make more” - I suppose you’re trying to equate deadbeat dads with divorce? I t hate to break it to you, but the men who are running out on their families and abandoning their children aren’t seeking more children, they’re seeking the fun of sex without the responsibility of family. Yes, the drive for sex has underlying it the drive to reproduce, but it’s not the conscious seeking of children. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > That was a staged video with a paid actress. What the hell is that supposed to mean? That all the catcallers are actors? They’ve been put up to it? Or are all their reactions real, honest portrayals of what those men did in reaction to seeing that woman? Yes, that video was made with a purpose - propaganda if you wish. Yes, it was condensed from 10 hours to a few minutes, which somewhat exaggerates the frequency. I suppose it’s fair to point out that they chose the areas for making the video to be areas more prone to catcalls - urban areas with lots of poor people. So? Does that mean that catcalling doesn’t happen? Or just that poor men are more likely to do it, because they have less class and less training in how to act respectfully in public? > [@](#): > > If you pick up accumulated psychological damage from every such incident, you really just need to stay out of the ghetto because that is almost exclusively where that specific behavior happens. So, really, no woman should be allowed to live or work or visit urban areas, that will fix the problem. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Men are at much more danger of getting killed than women are just by walking through a bad neighborhood but most of us don’t lose any sleep over it. I know plenty of men with concealed handgun licenses and people worried about having that gun ready to go just in case someone breaks into their house at night. “Losing sleep over it” indeed. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > Always remember, true tolerance isn’t just about expounding on the things that you are most familiar with. It is also submitting to the fact that hundreds of millions of people or more live very different lives than you have any experience with. Like being a woman and getting catcalled regularly? And my point for addressing the video was not to say anything about the frequency or likelihood of getting catcalled. It may be very rare in most communities, and only show up in lower social economic situations like the ghetto or with blue collar workers (construction workers is the stereotype, right?). That doesn’t make it any less offensive. My point, though, was to address the comments by the idiots in that video segment. They were saying that most of those comments were not offensive. “There goes a thousand dollars” is not offensive? Isn’t that basically calling her a whore? Accusatory demands for thanks for their intrusive comments - that’s being polite? Getting loud and obnoxious because the woman doesn’t dignify their catcall with a reply - that’s not scary and offensive? Trying to justify catcalls as acceptable because these folks are too poor to hang out in bars and pick up ladies there, that is reasonable? First off, choosing to go to a bar to socialize and potentially get hit on is very different than walking down the street to get somewhere. Second, most of those remarks are pretty slimy even if delivered in a bar to a woman looking for attention. > [@Rune](#): > > Yes. If a man desires a long and lasting marriage it appears he’d be well served to keep an eye on the sexual history of his intended love. If you want to nitpick over the definition of relationship strength knock yourself out without me. Those stats could just as easily show that the women in question who have shorter marriages have more sex with different partners between their marriages. If you’ve been married faithfully once for 20 years, you have fewer partners than if you’ve been married faithfully twice for 9 years each and then had 5 sexual partners during the 2 year window between marriages. That doesn’t say any more about the depth of relationship or ability to form lasting marriages than pointing out the number of marriages that person has had. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/134 "2014-12-12T16:27:52Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Those stats could just as easily show that the women in question who have shorter marriages have more sex with different partners between their marriages. If you’ve been married faithfully once for 20 years, you have fewer partners than if you’ve been married faithfully twice for 9 years each and then had 5 sexual partners during the 2 year window between marriages. That doesn’t say any more about the depth of relationship or ability to form lasting marriages than pointing out the number of marriages that person has had. The graph can show many things and is far from conclusive. It’s just something to keep in mind. I expect the virgin brides are heavily skewered towards conservative Christians - that it’s not really the sex but the religion that makes it a a long-term marriage. It is however interesting that the men’s graph does not show a comparable decline. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/135 "2014-12-13T16:20:12Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > What you’re doing is called “equivocating”. You are using a different definition for “equals” and the arguing that men can’t respect women that have lots of sex partners because people can’t relate to each other as equals when everyone is an individual with different socioeconomic and social situations and no two people are exactly the same. This is preposterous. No, Equivocation is when you switch-reference terms. I was openly arguing against the idea of equality. If the idea of equality isn’t applicable, then why would I argue that men and women can’t be equal because… It would be stupid. It’s like asking you to argue why a round square can’t be red. > [@](#): > > We are talking about viewing people as worthy of the same level of respect and fairness as yourself, not seeing them as identical to you in every way. You’re not getting it. You can’t respect someone exactly as much as yourself unless they are yourself. re·spect a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. > **[Google](https://www.google.com/?trackid=sp-006#q=respect+definition&spell=1)** > > Happy Holidays! #GoogleDoodle No one has the same abilities, qualities, or achievements as you. You will always view someone other than you as different. It’s simple logic that no one thinks about when they throw around the word “equality”. I know what you mean when you say it, and it’s not equivocation; It’s just illogical. The same goes with fairness too. It’s just an idea; It doesn’t exist in the real world. > [@](#): > > There are lots of reasons you might view someone as inherently worth less respect - they’re a recidivist armed robber or a child rapist or a _Gasp_ telemarketer. What we are saying is that being a woman who has sex for fun with multiple partners over time doesn’t have to be one of those. It’s not even necessarily a good/bad dichotomy of respecting. Sometimes you can respect people for different things. I may respect a friend for his resilience at dealing with life’s challenges, but I may lose some respect for him when I catch him lying to me. This doesn’t change the amount that I respect his resilience at life; I just don’t respect his honesty now. > [@](#): > > Statistics show that societies that have active birth control and put reproduction control in the hands of women have lower reproduction rates. Urban societies have lower reproduction rates than agrarian ones. China’s one child policy is one example out of how many countries and cultures and societies? Proof? Scientific papers showing a probable link? > [@](#): > > “Fathers running out on their children just to make more” - I suppose you’re trying to equate deadbeat dads with divorce? I t hate to break it to you, but the men who are running out on their families and abandoning their children aren’t seeking more children, they’re seeking the fun of sex without the responsibility of family. Yes, the drive for sex has underlying it the drive to reproduce, but it’s not the conscious seeking of children. No shit. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/136 "2014-12-13T17:31:41Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Yes. If a man desires a long and lasting marriage it appears he’d be well served to keep an eye on the sexual history of his intended love. If you want to nitpick over the definition of relationship strength knock yourself out without me. I mean, the obvious link here is that women who really like sex are less likely to be satisfied only having it with one man, and are more likely to have extramarital affairs (leading to divorce, etc.). Maybe the problem there is not with the women, but with the way our society conceptualizes marriage? Women like sexual variety, just like men do (probably less so than men on the whole, but they still like it). Maybe we’d generally be better served if we were more tolerant of married women (as well as married men) having sex with people who weren’t their spouse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677.md?page=6)