Talk:Sociosexuality

message: Isn't this a false dicotomy? What about prefering only sex w those you love, regardless of a committed monogamous relationship? Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter! 13:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a polygynous sort of situation? Sociosexuality looks at the relationship between sex and commitment, not necessarily the 'number' of people one is committed to ('in love' with). Strategic Pluralism (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000) suggests that 'exclusivity' of relationships depends on the level of pathogens/disease in the  environment. Low (1990) found correlations also suggesting this:  in areas where pathogens are more prevalent, polygyny is more prevalent. The idea behind this is that women 'trade off' better genes (which are presumably more resistant to disease, thereby leading to healthier children AND minimising the risk of infecting themselves) for exclusive commitment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skittled (talk • contribs) 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: False dicotomy?

message: As the above Talk entry says, there seems to be a false dichotomy here. Namely, the (to be generous) flawed assumption that a given individual is either inherently committed or is "unrestricted" and therefore always acts out sexually "without love, commitment or closeness."
* the term "commitment" is nowhere defined, much less explained in context
* this article does not even consider the possibility that there are individuals who have no problem holding on to one (let alone multiple) longterm and deeply emotionally attached relationship AND having sex with others that's not part of some "forever and ever" Romantic claptrap
* though I need to make a deep reading of the page, I get the early impression that someone in a hardcore monogamous situation who has a lot of sex with their "life partner" BUT often likes to simply have one off (again with that only partner) just because it's fun has already strayed into "unrestricted" territory because it's somehow "not serious"
Given these rifts, can anyone better defend the page?Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  fundamental flaw 

message: The section on motives reads:
"Unrestricted women are more motivated to engage in casual sex than restricted women as they perceive more benefits associated with short-term mating. These include sexual benefits (e.g., experiencing the novelty of a new partner), resource benefits (e.g., receiving expensive gifts) and the improvement of their seduction skills. Sociosexuality is not associated with short-term benefits for men."
Taken at face value, this sentence doesn't appear to make sense, because sociosexuality as described here isn't a single characteristic that provides benefits, it's a contrived continuum that all people exist along. Being restricted or unrestricted are qualities that might provide benefits, but sociosexuality itself is simply a framework for talking about these qualities.
That said, what I believe the sentence is trying to convey is that being unrestricted is not associated with short term benefits for men. This is still a confusing idea, however, because while men might not receive the resource benefits, they still would receive the sexual benefits listed above ("experiencing the novelty of a new partner") and "improvement of their seduction skills". 
My only other interpretation is that the writer is trying to convey that this area has not yet been studied in men? 
Maybe someone can shine some light on this for me, but in either case, I think this section needs revision for clarity. Stmartinsayshi (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives: Short-term benefits for men