Research on female sexuality is so anxiety-provoking for feminists; they need to spin everything to look like it supports the sex-positive feminist ideology of empowerment through sluttery and the shucking off of monogamous marriage, but reality is just so darn misogynistic that it keeps coming back to bite them in the bohunkus, requiring faster spinning by the feminist rationalization hamsters. Let us consider two recent studies which would support a return to biblical sexual morality but which feminists have desperately tried to spin as meaning the opposite.
First, we have a recent study out of UCLA and the University of Texas which found that college-aged women are more likely to regret a one-time sexual encounter, whereas men are more likely to regret not taking a sexual opportunity. Women’s biggest sexual regrets were: losing their virginity to the wrong partner, cheating, or moving too fast sexually, while men regretted not making a move on a potential partner and a lack of sexual adventurousness…
Gosh, whatever could be causing women to feel so regretful after casual sex? I would say it is conviction by the Holy Spirit, but secular researchers have another take on it:
One thing that is fascinating about these emotional reactions in the present is that they might be far removed from the reproductive consequences of the ancestral past. For example, we have reliable methods of contraception. But that doesn’t seem to have erased the sex differences in women’s and men’s responses, which might have a deep evolutionary history.
This makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection. Slutty women would have had a hard time securing provisioning and protection from a man because paternity of the children would have been uncertain, and men generally don’t want to invest in other men’s children; men who expend energy to provide for the continuation of another man’s genetic line would be weeded out of the gene pool. Whether you are a Christian or a secular atheist, the conclusion is the same: women do regret slutty behavior and with good reason.
Oh, but that conclusion doesn’t fit with sex-positive feminism. Enter the rationalization hamster of feminist Jill Filipovic; in The only shameful thing about sex is justifying outdated views with ‘science’, she explains why this study got it all wrong:
While evolutionary biology traffics in real, science-backed facts, evolutionary psychology is largely a project of backward-looking guesswork, and often an attempt to chalk up complex social phenomenon to evolution…people love having their biases confirmed, and because alleged scientific confirmation of an “evolutionary” reason for social inequity handily gives us an out for having to deal with injustice. If women have actually emotionally evolved to feel sexual shame absent social context, then what’s the point of pushing back on a social context that sexually shames women?
…even as we study our own motivations and feelings, we are operating within a set of cultural assumptions and values that – being thickly swaddled in them – we cannot fully see. Which helps psychologists who fancy themselves evolution experts to conclude that their own personal preferences, or the current norms of their culture, are universal and explicable by evolution alone.
Her argument seems to be: researchers at UT and UCLA only fancy themselves to be knowledgeable about their subject matter, and furthermore, they probably secretly want to influence social norms to make them more judgy of slutty women; personally, it has not been my experience with professors in liberal college towns that they are secretly trying to dupe women into loving the Patriarchy™. Ms. Filipovic goes on to assure women that feeling miserable after casual sex isn’t due to the fact that we are biologically different from men; rather, it’s just that we’ve been socialized to feel shame:
…the disconnect between a cultural ideal – that sex is best within the confines of marriage – and the biological and social reality – that human beings physically desire sex and that we have had sex outside of the confines of marriage for all of human history – is perhaps a better explanation of any attendant negative emotions attached to premarital sex than an evolutionary guessing game.
Not only that, but if women are feeling ashamed, then what we need is more money for feminist anti-slut-shaming “education”:
That so many women are making sexual choices shrouded in shame and regret is a public health problem that policy-makers have an obligation to take on…
Ms. Filipovic ends by reassuring all the single ladies that they absolutely should continue getting their freak on with random men:
Sexual regret isn’t about sex itself. It’s about all the ideas we attach to sex, and particularly to sexual women. We’d be much better off squaring our sexual ideals with reality rather than pushing a set of social mores that not only put our physical and mental health at risk, but mean too many of us are having bad sex and regretting what should be one of the most fundamentally pleasurable activities.
So, ladies, if you are feeling miserable and ashamed after your latest casual hookup – as research study after research study finds that you will – don’t take that to mean you should stop hooking up. You just need to free your mind from all that bad patriarchal social conditioning! Yes, I am sure that will work. Or not.
Science has established that women feel awful after casual sex, and feminists have explained that this has nothing whatsoever to do with women being different than men; it’s all society’s fault! Except, apparently, when it isn’t: did you know that being miserable sluts is actually in our genes? That’s right, evolutionary scientists say so, and suddenly feminists love them some evolutionary psychology.
In an article recently published in Evolutionary Anthropology, Choosy But Not Chaste: Multiple Mating in Human Females, behavioral ecologist Brooke Scelza explains how women engage in multiple mating and actively seek out multiple partners as an “evolutionary strategy.” Naturally this caused the feminists at Jezebel to gasp:
According to science, we’re all sluts. Who wants to heave the first “told ya so”?…we fuck who we want and we have our reasons.
But before we get too excited, ladies, and run out to jump the UPS man, let’s look at what this article actually says. First, it goes through some studies on non-human primates in which the females are sexually aggressive and solicit multiple male partners – langurs, lemurs, capuchin monkeys – and let us not forget that
bonobo females will have sex with everybody at pretty much any time they feel like it.
If you’ve been paying attention for the past forty years, you have noticed that Western women are increasingly doin’ as the bonobos do:
Scelza explains that not only do human females seek out multiple sexual partners as an evolutionary strategy, they opportunistically shift that strategy depending on the environmental context…
But notice which social groups Dr. Scelza uses in her research:
In 1633, the French missionary Paul Le Jeune wrote from northeastern Canada to his Jesuit order about the great difficulties he had in converting the indigenous Montagnais people to Christianity. “The inconstancy of marriages and the facility with which they divorce each other, are a great obstacle to the Faith of Jesus Christ,” he complained. However, what was even more alarming to Le Jeune’s Christian sensibilities was the tendency of married women and men to take lovers, many of whom would openly raise together the children from these affairs. In one telling exchange with the village shaman, Le Jeune condemned such “savage” and “licentious” behavior:
I told him that it was not honorable for a woman to love any one else except her husband; and that, this evil being among them, he himself was not sure that his son, who was there present, was his son. He replied, “Thou hast no sense. You French people love only your own children; but we all love all the children of our tribe.” I began to laugh, seeing that he philosophized in horse and mule fashion.
The anthropological literature has a rich tradition of privileged white men expressing shock and indignation over the sexual behavior of other cultures. However, even from the field’s inception, it was well understood that Western-style monogamy was anything but the norm. The American ethnographer Lewis Henry Morgan, for example, wrote in his 1877 book Ancient Society that a flexible marriage system was common for “primitive” societies and was one that “recognized promiscuity within defined limits.” …Darwin was forced to admit in The Descent of Man, “It seems certain that the habit of marriage has been gradually developed, and that almost promiscuous intercourse was once extremely common throughout the world.”
And yet, monogamous marriage did evolve in human society and civilization flourished. What can we learn from that? Nothing at all, feminists assure us; Dr. Scelza has plenty more examples of slutty societies, starting with this Namibian tribe:
…Brooke Scelza interviewed married women among the Himba, seminomadic pastoral people who live almost exclusively on livestock. These Himba women…would be entered into arranged marriages at a young age. However…while their husbands traveled long distances managing the herds, female adultery was commonplace back home. Out of 110 women interviewed, fully one-third said that they sought out extramarital affairs that resulted in the birth of at least one child. Because there is no social stigma attached to these liaisons in Himba society, both women and men discuss them openly.
But wait, there’s more!
… Previous studies have reported evidence of female infidelity in small-scale societies such as the !Kung of South Africa, the Ekiti of Nigeria, the Vanatinai of New Guinea, the Tiwi of Northern Australia, the Tsimane of Bolivia, and the Yanomami of Brazil. In addition, 53 societies can be classified as having systems of “informal polyandry” in which women have simultaneous sexual relationships with more than one man. In many South American societies, such as the Ache, Bari, Canela, Mundurucu, and Mehinaku, it is believed that it takes the semen of several men to produce a baby.
Are you noticing a pattern with these non-monogamous cultures? We’re not talking about people with electricity and indoor plumbing here. Or even houses, for that matter:
What is it about monogamous pair bonding and the luxuries of Western Civilization? It’s almost like they go hand and hand. But never fear, feminists have been working hard on that issue since No Fault divorce became the law of the land:
This is perhaps not so different from the common situation of American children who receive support from both their biological father and current stepfather. As long as the biological father contributes support, such children might well gain by having two fathers.
Or, as a great poet once said…
Alpha fux and beta bux, that is how we roll!
But despite the misery that casual sex imparts to women and the poverty single mothers and their children face, the male feminists of Salon want women to remember:
In many societies today, including our own, women who are overtly sexual and pursue multiple male partners often experience moral outrage and “slut shaming” of a kind that is entirely unheard of in other parts of the world. While these cultural attitudes used to look toward science for justification, that position is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile with the biological evidence…
Yes, among the many things that are “entirely unheard” of in the Third World hellhole societies in Dr. Scelza’s research are slut-shaming and luxuries like houses, plumbing, and electricity. Personally, I would prefer slut-shaming, happy women and a prosperous society to rampant female promiscuity resulting in miserable women and wide-spread poverty, but that’s probably just my patriarchal social conditioning talking. No doubt this research is what led noted feminist Miley Cyrus to conclude:
It’s our party. We can love who we want.
Feminism: Turning women into miserable sluts in mud huts.
Edited to add: I’ve just now looked in at Chateau Heartiste and found that CH has written up the Scelza article as well, drawing nearly identical conclusions to mine. Great minds…