Posted on 03/30/2006 9:36:04 PM PST by MadIvan
Samantha of Sex and the City, it is fair to say, would not approve. The casual attitude to sexual relations embraced by the most liberated of the characters in the television series turns out not to reflect the views of 21st century women quite as well as widely imagined.
Researchers investigating female attitudes to sex and their sexuality were surprised to find that most women have rather more traditional, conservative views on one-night stands than they expected.
Around nine out of 10 of those questioned felt casual sex was immoral and that those women who engaged in it were not doing so primarily for pleasure.
They said they felt sorry for women who had one-night stands, that they were lacking something in their lives and if they had not simply lost control through drink and drugs they were seeking emotional rather than physical connection.
Dr Sharron Hinchcliffe, a psychologist from the University of Sheffield, presented her findings at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society in Cardiff yesterday.
Dr Hinchcliffe said: "Our results did not fit in with the image we have of today's independent woman who can go out and get sexual fulfilment without the ties of a relationship.
"There was a view that if women had one-night stands they were doing it for reasons other than their own pleasure, more out of a feeling of being desperate, needy or looking for something, or that they had lost control through drink or drugs.
"They said they did it for reasons that were different to those of women in relationships - which they said were for pleasure and to express their love for their partner. They defined it as deviant behaviour.
"They referred to the women as emulating male behaviour. It was certainly the view that it was not the way women should behave.
"Some of the respondents said these things even though they admitted they had had one-night stands themselves. I was surprised at how judgmental they were.
"It makes me question whether women have really gained all the sexual freedom they are supposed to have gained since the Sixties."
Dr Hinchcliffe and colleagues carried out in-depth interviews with 46 women selected from the electoral roll aged 23 to 83, with an average age of 48.
Around 10 per cent of the sample disagreed with the majority view of "no strings" sex as immoral. Dr Hinchcliffe said that if anything the women in their early thirties were more negative about one-night stands than those of women in their fifties.
Some of the participants also expressed concerns about women having casual sex exposing themselves to sexually transmitted disease.
A survey of 1,095 men and women carried out on behalf of Amnesty International UK and published in November found that more than a third of people believed a female rape victim was totally or partially responsible if she had behaved in a flirtatious manner with her attacker.
Dr Tuppy Owens, of the Sexual Freedom Coalition, a group that campaigns for sexual freedom between consenting adults, said: "I don't like the expression 'one-night stand'.
"Two people just banging away at each other can be pretty meaningless and an empty experience, unless there is some passion, care and feeling towards the other person. However, if you go out wondering what might happen, ready to give as well as receive, you might have the most wonderful adventure.
"Perhaps if they had asked the questions in a different way they would have got different answers."
Norman Wells, the director of Family and Youth Concern, said: "It shows that most women are seeking more than the fleeting gratification that temporary sexual relationships can offer.
"Sexual intimacy was never meant to be engaged in outside the context of lifelong union between one man and one woman.
"By divorcing sex from marriage in our thinking and in the sexual education given to children and young people, we are promoting something that runs contrary to our basic longings for stability, permanence and commitment."
I would not be surprised if there are those on here who would like to if allowed.
I notice these threads seem to bring in some male freepers whose replies seem to border on a pathological hatred of women.
I would not be surprised if there are those on here who would like to if allowed.
I notice these threads seem to bring in some male freepers whose replies seem to border on a pathological hatred of women.
I have one-night stands with my wife several times a week.
People who touch hot stoves can say with authority that it is a bad idea to do so BECAUSE they have done it themselves.
Same principle applies here.
Nasty stereotypes about "American women" are often given a pass on some of these threads.
Statutory rape is one of the most under-prosecuted crimes in America, especially in African-American communities. So your statement is ironically true, in a sense.
Tell it to my ex.
Fun in this life,but you'll be running up quite a tab in the next----
I agree with you completely,it's up to men to set the moral standards.
That's your standard? Some women on spring break? What, your evidence is from "Girls Gone Wild" commercials? They, and the rest of the spring break women portrayed and hyped by the media are the exception to the norm. I know this because I have a younger sis fresh out of college. I also have friends with daughters in college. Most of the college-aged women are either working over spring break or home. Besides, ever see how the young men behave on spring break?
Watch some MTV and you'll see.
That's why those gals are ON tv! Do you really think the producers of the spring break shows on MTV are going say, "hey, let's focus on the women with high GPAs who are working this spring break! That'll make for some great tv." And come on...MTV is your standard for how all young women act? Yikes!
Would you be proud if your daughter behaved like that?
LOL. No. Duh. Please read my posts again. These women of which you refer to are the exception to the norm. And I would be equally outraged if my son acted that way.
That seems to be the norm for young women these days.
Please, please tell me where you're getting your facts. So far it appears, like I predicted in my first post, to be from TELEVISION. If you want to make sweeping generalizations about women that are just plain wrong, by all means, don't stop at American women! Watch Telemundo and Univision. Did you know all Latino women are busty and thin and gorgeous. And they enjoy hanging out with fat, ugly, middle-aged Latino men. Oh, and European women never wear tops. Never. /s
Ever see how many young unmarried women there are with children? Mostly on welfare. How did that happen? All by rape? I don't think so.
The rate of children out of wedlock is what, 30% in the US? So where are the other 70% of kids who are in married or divorced households? And where are the fathers of these children you mention? But more important, I thought American women were categorically unfit to raise kids and be wives, so, you can understand why no one has a husband. Can't do much about the kids. I guess they're stuck with them. Or maybe these noble men should come in and raise all these children instead. I mean, again, since American women are unfit to deal with kids and all. /s
My derogatory "mail order bride contingent" term refers to the contingent, not to the purchased objects of their affection. I have always thought it ironic that the "American women" bashers despise "American women" primarily for "American women"'s avarice and promiscuity, but desire foreign women who would mate with them based on money. Can't anyone connect the dots?
Bingo. It speaks volumes about those who make sweeping generalizations about any group of people. American women, and I am one, aren't the radical feminists or the demons that many portray them to be. But it's easier when you're being rejected by some women, to reject them all in return. It's silly.
And you are probably a MUCH better reflection of American men than some of the other posters. And I can speak for many American women when I say, thanks. We appreciate a little kindness and consideration, and DON'T feel threatened or offended by it. That crap usually only happens on tv and in op-ed pieces in the San Francisco Chronicle. : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.