When Men Wait For Sex: Dumb like a fox
Dear Duana,
I’ve had a lot of luck with women, sexually speaking. But I’ve also gotten bored and restless pretty fast afterwards. I’d like to find something long-term with the right woman, and I’m considering waiting to put on the moves. Everything in my body and half my brain says I’m crazy to even think it. Am I the only guy with this issue? And is waiting for sex ever smart for a man?
Kyle
Dear Kyle:
Yes, I hear the voices, too—The Genes Of Your Ancestors are screaming your insanity for putting off ‘til tomorrow what and whom you could be doing today. (The shouts of Girlfriends Past are also audible, but I digress.) But you’re not crazy. And what you’re suggesting is dumb like a fox—as in very, very clever.
What’s unusual is not your *ahem* experience, but your conscious awareness that it’s directly connected to your lack of long-term love. You’ve got a rare gift; the Genetic Plan is unconscious in most of us, causing much confusion and angst. Sometimes, we even have a conscious feeling that is opposite reality. For instance, a perpetual bachelor said he couldn’t wait to propose marriage to his girlfriend, despite her refusal to even kiss him for several dates. Science would suggest his emotions had a chance to grow because, not in spite of, their sexual snail-pace.
Other than your atypical awareness, Kyle, You’re Normal. In fact, casual-sex coitus seems to cause emotional interruptus. Research by Dr. Martie Haselton, Dr. David Buss and others cites men reporting this detachment within seconds of the male’s orgasm. Strangely, it’s truer for those men who have the highest self-esteem, although it’s unclear Which Came First, the self-esteem or the eggs. And it’s especially true for men like you, who’ve had numerous past sexual liaisons; those with few conquests don’t seem to experience the emotional detachment to the same degree.
This precipitous drop in intrigue can be explained biochemically. As historian-turned-science-buff Dr. Andrew Trees notes in Decoding Love
But waning interest is even better-explained through an inherited mating psychology that protects male Genes’ interests in paternity and proliferation. See, pushing for early sex was a fabulous fidelity test back when Who’s Your Daddy was anyone’s guess; way before the Bible, men’s Genes set off emotional alarms if a woman was too easily known in the Biblical sense. Men who excelled at finding a faithful mate left more surviving children who were actually theirs, and those male offspring carried that successful mating psychology forward to today. Although we don’t know how common cuckoldry was in ancient times, it’s clearly still a Problem: Geneticists estimate that around 10% of American and UK kids are being raised by men who quite falsely believe themselves to be the DNA Daddy.
Well, that explains why you get turned off by easy women. But it tells us zip about why you’re so darned easy yourself! Remember this: Genes aren’t fair, but they are practical. And to them, a double-standard encouraging Man-Sluts resulted in more kids…which means the double-standard has survived, worldwide, to this day. As Nicholas Wade points out in Before the Dawn
So thus far, Kyle, your Genes have a win-win proposition for you. If you satisfy your short-term mating agenda, you get to have fun while your Genes get a shot at immortality. And if your date Just Says No, you get to pursue your long-term strategy of bonding with a worthy, faithful mate. Turning down a deal like that would indeed Feel Nuts.
Trouble is, Genes change s-l-o-w-l-y, and they haven’t kept up with the times. So, in today’s climate of Soon Sex, you actually Lose the opportunity for what you really want: a long-term mate. Your male mating psychology needs some sexual challenge to bond—but it’s tough to get that challenge when Nice Girls Do, and sex by Date 3 is literally normal among mainstream American adults. Further complicating matters, modern women assume an open-door policy will intrigue you long-term, motivating them to do exactly what *won’t* give you the chance for real emotional connection. In fact, Dr. Pamela Regan found that 44% of women (but just 9% of men) said they engaged in casual sex “to increase the probability of long-term commitment.”
What to do if you do want a lifemate, then, is physically difficult and may feel psychologically crazy—but it’s obvious: Wait as long as you can before you attempt to have sex with a woman for whom you feel even a glimmer of long-term interest. Wait several dates past the point when you’d usually initiate. Wait until you can barely stand it anymore. And then wait a little longer. If it turns out a particular woman isn’t worth waiting for, so much the better—you’ve got your answer, so Move On. But when you find one for whom your fascination only grows as you wait, you’ve found a match with real potential.
Our culture isn’t going to help you out much with this, Kyle. And although it’s usually the woman who puts on the brakes, that hasn’t happened for you yet. You’re going to need to follow that Dumb Wisdom you’ve reached, and Wait. Your Genes will scream, indeed. But they’ll get their satisfaction soon enough, and you’ll get the prize of a lifetime.
Cheers,
Duana
If you were riveted to the spot by this article, others might like it too. Please click “Share Article” below to post it to your favorite social media website.
Do you have a question for Duana? Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com
All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., 2009
Share Article Print Article Permalink tagged Commitment, Dating, Evolutionary Psychology, Male Female Differences, Relationship Building, Sexuality
Reader Comments (36)
@Ann, that was a well-informed and thought-provoking post. You hit the health concerns straight-on. Regarding why people think Kyle's question seems strange: It runs contrary to inherited male mating psychology--not just to American culture, but to 100% of cultures around the globe. Strategies that leave more children are passed down, and those that don't are not. Thus, we inherit psychological wants and drives much the way we inherit brown eyes or full lips.
Men have inherited drives that are sometimes misplaced in today's world--evolutionary psychologists actually use men's desire for many partners and casual sex as an example of an ancient genetic plan that no longer works so well in today's context. Although having casual sex used to result in proliferation of men's genes, sexually transmitted diseases have co-evolved faster than our genes have. Just as we want fast food, then, for genetic reasons (see above), and just as it's killing us today, so men's genes still want a variety of easy sex partners, even though that now has many risks as well. Thanks for the insightful post.
@Yew
Well, my mother lurks on this site, and she told me that my last post to you was disrespectful because I inserted your name wherever the word "you" would appear (I thought I was being funny). And I do listen to my mother; she is Usually Right, and one of the ethics I want to practice is Respect for others. As regular readers of this column are aware, Respect is even more important than love for sustaining relationships in life.
I hope you'll accept my apology, and that my first response didn't drive you from the site!
Woo-hoo! FINALLY!! A man (Kyle) who thinks with his upstairs head.
Yes, we all have biological urges, but we can't all go around doing the third F all the time. Society would fall apart into one big orgy, sexual free-for-all. And who is preventing that? Women. Women, with the exception of Kyle. Women who are holding the line and saying "no" to sex without commitment. That's who.
@Gillian and Anonymous,
What happens when women are removed from the equation has been studied, and you are Correct--when there are no women (as with many gay male relationships or situations in which straight men are deprived of women for a lengthy span of time and turn to one another sexually), men tend to engage in casual, commitment-free sex with a large number of partners. We can also see this in explorations of the sex lives of extremely powerful men, who historically have slaked their lust with many thousands of women; in fact, a recent French Prime Minister said that easy sexual access to women was "in itself reason enough to govern."
This has to do with the second element of male mating psychology that was described in the article, whereby lust in men functions to spread their genes, resulting in more children than they would have if limited to only one woman. Men can reproduce their genes thousands of times, given the opportunity, and women are limited in the extreme because of the costliness of eggs, pregnancy, nursing, and care of young children. We have to be more careful with precious, finite resources and thus we are choosier--Much, Much Choosier.
Btway--Nice reference to The Third F there, Gillian ;).
Fascinating topic, fascinating column, wonderful comments. You are all good-looking and above average in all facets of your lives.
This post is directed at two groups:
(1) Yew and the many, many men who feel as he does (he is a strong representative for many folks!)
(2) Those women who are upset that this is not fair.
First of all, may I reiterate the venerable Ph.D. Duana's clear answer: no, it isn't fair. But the unfairness cuts both ways.
For males who hope to find casual female company, it's a numbers game. My dad, a very successful sales engineer, has a sign in his office that says "Rejection is part of your job description." It's true for sales, it's true for dating.
Can you, my fellow females, imagine what it would be like to constantly *have* to risk rejection at every turn to have any chance at a relationship? I work with many males with Asperger's Syndrome who simply give up and become bitter because of this. It hurts to be turned down repeatedly simply because you lack the ability to make a stunning impression.
So successful males are generally those who are willing to take rejection after rejection after rejection. Dale Carnegie would say they are "collecting their noes." If you only get one yes for every three hundred times you get told no, you have to start asking a lot so you can get to number 301, so to speak.
This test by rejection weeds out males who are not strong, determined, and willing to take their lumps. It's a much more strenuous (and efficient) system than simply having to run at other males and take hundreds of pounds of force directly to the head like rams do.
My dad was once just as successful in dating as he is in sales (same thing, really), and he told me that his philosophy of dating was that if he asked a woman out and she turned him down, then he hadn't lost anything: he didn't have a date with her before he asked, and he didn't have one after, so their was no net loss.
Of course, when I asked him if it hurt when he got rejected, he said HECK YES!
Dad had started dating early and was super-successful -- successful enough that later on he trusted NO male who wanted to date one of his daughters. But back in the day, when he was dating, he finally decided that he couldn't keep going the way he was going, and that he needed a long-term love so he could have an actual grown-up life.
This being around 1964, it was easy for him to shift to girls whose reputations were impeccible. Women and girls worked hard to have such reputations and advertised them in many ways.
Dad found one such female who was young, beautiful, intelligent, and had a strong reputation for being incredibly "hard to get." She also had the exact mannerisms of Doris Day's screen persona, possibly the biggest signal she could have given in that day and age.
He didn't hit on her on the first date, but he did propose to her.
It's now 44 years later, and they are quite happy -- and she still gives every signal that she did as a young woman of being a properly brought up "nice girl." Never in that time did she dress or act in a come-hither manner. Of course, now she's in a very different situation, but maintaining that outward appearance of "not in your lifetime, buddy!" makes her continuously attractive to the male who wants a strong long-term relationship.
That's right, I do believe that a married woman can help her relationship maintain strength by sending out "not available" signals consistently. Dressing nicely and being attractive are good things, but they must be accompanied by a strong signal of Hands Off!
No matter how "evolved" a men are today, the vast majority of them will always want to feel secure that they have partners who would severely turn down any male who came on to them -- and when I say "turn down," I mean with a baseball bat.
To summarize: Yes, heck yes, evolution is a cruel and unfair mistress. But if you want to win at the long term relationships game OR the quick-and-easy game, you've gotta know what you want and be willing to do the work. No work, no success. Sort of like EVERYTHING ELSE IN LIFE.
Sorry about yelling that last. But it did have to be said.
@Greystoke's Mom-- Consider yourself a guest columnist :). Perfectly said. Thank you for sharing your parents' experience, which provided such a clear example of what this column is about.
I'd also like to thank you for summarizing the trials that men face as they strive to attract a woman (whether for the afternoon or forever): "This test by rejection weeds out males who are not strong, determined, and willing to take their lumps. It's a much more strenuous (and efficient) system than simply having to run at other males and take hundreds of pounds of force directly to the head like rams do." With your permission, I would like to use it in a future column.
I am so glad to have found that special someone. Rejected several times, then a slow go, now everlasting. The head butting, tail between legs days are finally over. It is a very hard evolutionary game we have to play, but the results so well worth it.
@Vincent, I know of many male lurkers on Love Science, and I'm so glad to have them here--but I especially want to thank you for putting yourself out there for all to read. I think you are probably an inspiration to others here.
For all you lurking guys :) -- If you wish to post anonymously, just fail to fill in the email and url information and use a false name when you fill in the comment form.
Sex is wonderful and fun but not without a price. Different for men and women but a price indeed. That is why I waited until I was an adult to have my first taste of sex. I realized from an early age the psychological changes that happen to a person when you engage in the primal activity. And don't get me started on the social implications also. Kyle has had a stroke of genius realizing that his sexual success can impact the ability to connect with someone for more than a pleasurable evening. I do wonder if the stats are out on the divorce rates for people with 5+ previous sexual partners to people with no sexual partners before their marriage. Do people who have had a history of "living" find exactly what they are looking for since they now know what they want? Or do they slip into old habits? Do less, much less, experienced people stay with commitment longer since they know not what they miss? Or does curiosity kill the cat? May be another topic.
@Anonymous: Astutely observed--thank you for sharing your input and your outstanding questions. Regarding those: I will have to answer you in a future topic. For now, I can say that it appears desirable for people to find partners with about the same amount of experience they themselves have had. Also, people with numerous prior partners may be more likely to have affairs even after marriage...and affairs do often lead to divorce. Again, excellent questions, and I thank you for submitting them.
@Everyone, I'd like to thank you all for praising rather than denigrating Kyle. Real people write the letters I edit and answer, and I would not put them forward if I felt they would be ridiculed. Kyle wants what most ultimately wish for: long-term, committed love and attachment. He's on his way.