One-night stands ruin political careers and fuel media scandals. They are discussed – and condemned! – seems to be absolutely everything. But is our anger against men and women seeking casual sex justified? And what is behind the norms of sexual morality?
Attention, strict moralists are advised to take a deep breath and pour themselves a glass of water before reading the next phrase. So: casual sexual relationships are useful from a psychological point of view. Although not for everyone, but only for those who, in principle, consider casual sex acceptable. Such people, entering into relationships, demonstrate after a greater subjective sense of psychological well-being.
This conclusion was reached by scientists from Cornell and New York Universities in a joint study published in the June issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. However, the same study also contains the opposite conclusion: casual sex is psychologically harmful to exactly the same extent if, for some reason, people who are inclined to condemn sexual promiscuity and the decline of morals suddenly engage in it.
In a word, the benefits or harms of casual sex depend solely on how we ourselves relate to it. But we treat it most often with condemnation. According to a survey by the Levada Center, for example, 31% of Russians consider premarital sex unacceptable, and 43% consider sex without love.1.
For a long time, sex was closely connected with the need to preserve and distribute the material resources of the tribe, clan, family.
Researchers at London’s Brunel University wondered what is the root of our condemnation of casual sex. They gave participants in a large-scale study a voluminous questionnaire. Some of the questions in it were related to attitudes towards sex.
For example: “Is it permissible for a woman to have sexual intercourse with a man immediately after meeting, if both of them want it?” Another part of the questions was aimed at identifying social preferences. Let’s say: “Is the material dependence of a woman on a man throughout her life, or at least some of its period, normal?”
After analyzing the answers, the scientists came to an unequivocal conclusion. Regardless of gender, age and religious beliefs, casual sex was found unacceptable by those participants in the study who considered the material dependence of a woman on a man a normal and natural fact. Moreover, it is interesting that these people equally condemned both women and men prone to casual relationships.
Researchers believe that the explanation of this fact should be sought in evolutionary psychology. Throughout a very long stage in the development of mankind, sex has been closely connected with the need to preserve and distribute the material resources of the tribe, clan, family. And a woman who had sexual intercourse “on the side” risked being left without a livelihood, not to mention the fact that a child born as a result of casual sex was simply doomed.
The situation was no better from the point of view of men: casual sex with a high degree of probability could lead them to the need to maintain “extra mouths”. Moreover, without any certainty that these “mouths” are really his children. Therefore, sexual morality, which condemned third-party relationships, was directly dictated by the evolutionary need for survival and procreation and the preservation of its resources.
Today, of course, the situation has changed dramatically. Women are quite able to earn as much as men, contraceptives make it possible not to put an equal sign between sex and childbearing, and genetic analyzes solve the question of paternity with almost one hundred percent accuracy.
In a word, there are no more objective prerequisites for condemning casual sex? So why do we keep slinging rude and offensive labels on his fans? Because the human psyche is changing very slowly, not keeping up with the rapid social changes and scientific and technological progress. Who knows, maybe in 500 years casual sex will become the norm. If human evolution does not present some next surprise by then.
1 levada.ru/25-07-2013/moralnye-ogranicheniya-rossiyan