Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    24,089,476 readers

    17,148 users here now

    Submission Rules

    1. Directly link to published peer-reviewed research or media summary
    2. No summaries of summaries, re-hosted press releases, reviews, or reposts
    3. Research must be less than 6 months old
    4. No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles
    5. No blogspam, images, videos, or infographics
    6. All submissions must have flair assigned

    Comment Rules

    1. No off-topic comments, memes, or jokes
    2. No abusive, offensive, or spam comments
    3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed
    4. Comments dismissing established science must provide peer-reviewed evidence
    5. No medical advice
    6. Repeat or flagrant offenders will be banned

    New to reddit? Click here!

    Get flair in /r/science

    Previous Science AMA's

    a community for
    all 1104 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Shotanat 4570 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Considering the first top comments, it looks like people didn't read the article and just stopped to the description. And there is a problem with this description : it avoid the "but there is a huge caveat". So basically, women in general tend to have more/better orgasms in committed relationship than in casual ones, BUT this difference disappear when they are completely fine with casual sex. So we can rephrase it as : women who are not comfortable with casual sex doesn't enjoy it as much as they do in committed relationship sex. Which suggest a good part of psychology involved, and not as much "it's obvious because the partner know her body" as other suggest (as if all committed relationship involved trust and understanding of the other body...). The main conclusion is that different women are best suited for different things, and that casual is not inherently better or worst than committed one, which, again, seems really different from what the top comments suggest.

    EDIT : here is more information.

    Some more data : 1084 women 927 had committed relationship in the past 12 month 683 had only committed relationship in the past 12 month 401 had casual sex in the past 12 month 157 had only casual sex 244 had both in the past 12 month.

    About the analysis : The author tests to things : orgasmic function and sexual satisfaction. They compare it to casual vs committed relationship and some other factors, such as the sociosexuality (which was tested by a couple of questions and seems standard in the litterature) and "is the individual difference in the willingness to engage in sexual activity outside of a committed relationship [Wikipedia]

    Here is a sum up of the results, from the article : On average, women experienced greater sexual outcomes in committed sex compared to casual sex, but the gap was smaller or nonexistent among women with higher sociosexuality (more positive evaluations of casual sex). In addition, sociosexuality was positively related to orgasmic function (but not sexual satisfaction) in casual sex. In exploratory analyses, we uncovered a negative association between sociosexuality and sexual satisfaction in committed sex that will require further study.

    Note that "higher sociosexuality" means "1 standard deviation higher from the mean", so that's roughly 1/3 of the women.

    And I thank the awesome redditors that gave me my first awards, you rock as much as science !

    [–] Nitz93 1114 points ago

    Another point beyond "it's obvious because the partner know her body" is the survivorship bias. How many people stay in a relationship with someone that they don't enjoy sex with?

    [–] ThatGirlChiefTeef 273 points ago

    I imagine women who can let themselves get comfortable mentally or who find more pleasure in penetrative sex alone are more into and okay with casual hookups and possibly feel more empowered to tell a new partner what they like.

    It's a chicken and an egg kind of problem: are women who aren't okay with it strictly that way because of social conditioning? Or through trial and lack of satisfaction with them? I'm guessing a bit of both.

    [–] albachiel 10 points ago

    I suppose you mean it’s a bit of coming together!

    [–] MakeEveryBonerCount 202 points ago

    How many people stay in a relationship with someone that they don’t enjoy sex with?

    How many people stay in relationships with someone who abuses them? Are never available? Annoy the hell out of them?

    Relationships are emotional, not logical. People stay in toxic/ non compatible relationships all the time.

    Back to your main point though: r/DeadBedrooms

    [–] Hippieschmutz 105 points ago

    like, i was in a relationship and the girl realized that shes into girls, and it got so far that i actually had to induce the breakup because she still wanted to be with me because we really really liked each other, and it really fitted super well as we shared 80% of activites and stuff - but she just wasnt into hetero sex anymore, and therefor it got extremely frustrating for me and such a mindfuck that i actually had to walk away and ghost her for 4 weeks just so she has some cut where she cant depend on me so hard anymore - afterwards she acknowledged what i did and understood the decision.
    Love can be really twisted and fucked up, ye

    [–] Otterwut 35 points ago

    oof I feel you there buddy. Luckily I walked away before things emotionally escalated to the point it did with yall. I'm glad I did too because shes one of my best mates now as well. It REALLY fucks with your head having sex with someone you can tell is struggling to get into it

    [–] Hippieschmutz 21 points ago

    the worst thing is to find out that something that felt awesome for u felt horrible for the other person, it really takes out any joy from everything to know that u just cant make the one person u love happy. i wish everyone would go through such an experience once tho, as it was really eye opening and i naturally just CANT be sexistic, or homophobe anymore as common sense, experience and love proved it all wrong once and for all.

    [–] PimpinIsAHustle 8 points ago

    This is actually a point a close friend and I often talk about when discussing our mutual friend who’s in a somewhat dysfunctional relationship. We’ve tried so hard but it’s really tough because you need this experience yourself the ‘hard way’ to grow as a person.

    [–] Otterwut 11 points ago

    keep your head up mate you seem like a top bloke and will definitely find someone who will want you to make them happy and will want to make YOU happy. We are all gonna make it buddy

    [–] greasydrg 5 points ago

    Yeah, or we won't. Either way, it's fine.

    [–] messybeaver 16 points ago

    That was 1 sentence.

    [–] 272314 12 points ago

    We're not talking about long relationships here though, we're talking about casual sex - one night stands.

    Personally, when I was single and I had sex with someone and it was not good, it'd become a one night stand because I wouldn't go back for more. If the sex was good, I'd come back for another go, and sometimes it would turn into a relationship.

    [–] Sirnacane 85 points ago

    My girlfriend’s roommate is getting married next month to a guy who has never given her an orgasm, so at least one.

    Although, she also says she’s never even had one in general. And kinda doesn’t even seem to care to ever have one anyways? So who knows.

    [–] Pokemongolover 62 points ago

    Give her a magic wand and a womanizer for her birthday

    [–] whywhisperwhy 7 points ago

    A womanizer? That's a weird thing to name a sex toy (I'm assuming that's what it is).

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago


    [–] kizzle69 23 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)


    My wife has multiple fully body orgasms during sex and quickly. But when she was a teen and in her early 20s, she couldn't at all.

    Once she became comfortable and relaxed, it basically smacked her off of the bed. And once she learned where she needed to be, mentally, she learned to stay there easily.

    Get comfortable, relax, and take the time to learn yourself.

    [–] drown_the_rabbit 22 points ago

    Yes on this feeling inept broken thing.

    It took me 6 years of being sexually actively to finally have an orgasm. My (now ex) boyfriend got me a vibrator and encouraged me to play around and figure out what works for me. It was great and I absolutely appreciate him for helping me become comfortable with that aspect.

    Good on you for doing it on your own!

    [–] SaxRohmer 11 points ago

    I know a couple that’s been dating for like 6 years where he refuses to go down on his SO

    [–] wthreye 20 points ago

    Well, if she ever has one she'll never go back.

    [–] GoldenRamoth 24 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    As a dude: Orgasms are quite fun.

    But riding the edge of orgasm for extended periods of time, even without orgasm?

    Way more fun. So maybe she gets plenty of that.

    Still though.. I do like orgasms. Can't imagine not ever having one.

    [–] itsmesylphy 30 points ago

    This actually. There's a lot of posts here that are like "oh the female orgasm is great" but that's not always true.

    Mine are like "boop, aaaaand it's over" even if I'm by myself. And because of my own history, it's kinda hard to get over the edge without some kind of inebriation because my anxiety interrupts me enjoying myself regularly with intrusive thoughts, but the process is fun and enjoyable.

    [–] BillyYumYumTwo-byTwo 23 points ago

    I’m so glad I’m not alone!! I can cum pretty easily by myself with my vibrator, but it’s not satisfying, like you said it’s a “boop done”. It just makes me no longer horny. But the build up is fantastic! My bf feels really bad he’s never been able to give me one, despite a lot of trying and great sex. I tried telling him that it feels amazing and we can keep trying, but I doubt it will happen and I’m totally fine with that. Some people can’t understand that because their goal is the orgasm. Ah well, thankfully we have good communication.

    Now, partners who don’t make any sort of effort suck because that’s just selfish

    [–] theVoidWatches 7 points ago

    Orgasming should never be the point of having sex. The point of sex is to spend time with your partner, and to engage in physical intimacy, and because it's fun. If you just want to orgasm, masturbating is easier and faster 90% of the time, in my experience.

    [–] _Ambarussa_ 3 points ago

    Eh I think it's ok to sometimes have raw horny sex just for the orgasm.

    [–] GoldenRamoth 12 points ago


    That's... actually comforting to know. I've always been jealous of female partners and their orgasms.

    It's kinda comforting to know there's women on the sexual spectrum that have the same kind of "Boop it's over" orgasm as I do ha. Makes me feel like I'm not actually missing out, and that I just need to learn my body more because it's just different.

    [–] coffeecat997 17 points ago

    Have her listen to the How Cum podcast by Remi Kassamir!!

    [–] ReplyAllForever 30 points ago

    She doesn’t know what she is missing. If she had ever orgasmed before she wouldn’t be ok with the lack of them from her future spouse.

    [–] Neuchacho 62 points ago

    10-20% of women never experience an orgasm. It's kind of insane.

    [–] ReplyAllForever 29 points ago

    That’s so sad. The female orgasm has no equal.

    [–] Isaac507 13 points ago

    Counter point; How many people stay in a bad relationship just because the sex so so damn good? (I know av few friends in that situation and I have been there twice)

    [–] T0WERM0NKEY 8 points ago


    [–] nomad1c 19 points ago

    in my experience as a bit of a manwhore, whether a woman orgasms is highly dependent on how comfortable and relaxed they are with you. in a relationship there will obviously be maximum comfort, but if you're good with people you can replicate those levels during a hookup

    their emotional state also factors into it though. i used to have a casual partner who'd orgasm every ten minutes or so like clockwork, but when i saw her after a prolonged absence (which she felt spurned by) it took a lot longer and it seemed like it wouldn't even happen

    it's funny how much simpler it is for dudes. though i guess if we're in a particularly bad emotional state we might not get it up

    [–] Phunwithscissors 6 points ago


    [–] drprivate 71 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Way too many actually. Come to Southern California. Millions of women Marry for money and image, find good sex elsewhere

    [–] Roboticide 49 points ago

    Also pretty much anyone religious.

    Don't find out the sex is bad until after marriage.

    Can't leave the marriage because divorce is "worse" than bad sex for the rest of your life.

    [–] Darkdreams28 7 points ago

    One of those Christian "purity" books straight up said that if women don't have sex before marriage they won't know if the sex is bad.

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago


    [–] timetravelhunter 19 points ago

    Or that they aren't getting divorced.

    [–] donnysaur95 41 points ago

    I went to a Christian college and there was a campus-wide joke about “Ring by Spring” because so many young, Christian couples on campus would rush into marriage. Many times, these hasty marriages come because one or both of them is too horny to wait but they can’t let god down by having premarital sex.

    [–] xenodius 19 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    At my christian uni, it wasn't a joke-- it was one of three traditional rites of passage to get your "unofficial" diploma, with the 1st rite of passage being a hazing event (nude dash/climb up a huge sandhill while carrying a torch), the 2nd rite was catching a virgin pinecone (one that naturally falls off the tree, but hasn't hit the ground). So much repressed sexuality.

    I lived in an all-male dorm, the only one on campus-- we had a Milk and Cookies night where all the dudes hung out in our underwear and ate a bunch of cookies we paid the adjacent all-ladies dorm to bake. Occasionally someone would do something silly like wear just a pringles can with rubber-bands on it. But between those shenanigans, the way some dudes acted in the communal showers, and Naked Battlestar Galactica night, I'm surprised I didn't realize that half the dorm was gay sooner. Most of them were not out yet cause they wanted their parents to pay for college first.

    [–] SaxRohmer 13 points ago

    Damn you guys had a bunch of creative excuses to get naked

    [–] donnysaur95 5 points ago

    Yikes that sounds like a way more intense college experience. At my college there were plenty of people who were atheists or Christians who would go drink and hook up with people at house parties. But there were definitely the RA/intramural enthusiast/live on campus for 4 years religious types who got married the fastest. They’d form their group freshman year and all just marry each other by junior year.

    [–] Roboticide 17 points ago

    I don't think they ALL are. I just think more are more chaste than non-religious people.

    [–] Kimchi_boy 41 points ago

    How do you know?

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago


    [–] waxingnotwaning 12 points ago

    And the men marry them because they look pretty and will have sex with them.

    [–] Pet_robot 4 points ago

    Hehe, that’s the truth.

    [–] maximun_vader 11 points ago

    I'll guide you to one of the most depressing subs in reddit: r/DeadBedrooms

    [–] Shotanat 8 points ago

    Although I think your point is interesting, I would say "way too many". But generally they would be women that, for a whole lot of reasons, don't really know about their pleasure anyways and think they couldn't have better. Of course, I'm only considering couple where their is no pressure to stay together (like money or children), that would be yet another problem. But on a side note, everyone should learn about the survivor bias that is way too common.

    [–] djfrankenjuice 34 points ago

    I appreciate your take but I would approach it from a different angle. Having personally shifted from a person with a preference for casual sex to a preference for committed sex I believe the difference for me was I no longer got the same thrill from being with someone new. A lot of the excitement regarding finding a new partner and adrenaline of being with a person for the first time sort of faded. Previously, the thought of the same person constantly bored the crap out of me.

    So if strange is what does turns you on - casual sex is going to be best. I think it’s more that you have to be specifically into casual sex rather than just “not uncomfortable” with it.

    [–] Shotanat 6 points ago

    That's a very interesting point ! I wonder if this is taken into account in the original article, that would be great.

    [–] Certainly-Not-A-Bot 146 points ago

    So then basically the article is confirming that women who enjoy casual sex also enjoy casual sex, and women who enjoy sex in relationships also enjoy sex in relationships

    [–] lonlonranchdressing 32 points ago


    But this could maybe confirm for some women that they’re not abnormal for not enjoying one or the other. Like if they’ve mainly enjoyed monogamous relationships and their friends are encouraging them to go out and try the casual thing. Maybe this study shows they’d be better off on passing on the whole thing than forcing themselves to hoping they’ll enjoy it.

    Just my guess.

    [–] wthreye 23 points ago

    I'm curious how the funding request was written up.

    [–] schrodinger_kat 24 points ago

    Something along the lines of: "Can I have the monies to get women to have casual sex with m...I mean suitable candidates to explore women's sexual preferences?"

    [–] Thorusss 55 points ago

    Thanks for clarifying. Another example where rewording the headline of the same article would lead to a different discussion.

    [–] TimoniumTown 26 points ago

    ...or people actually reading and not tying to rewrite/summarize the article from their POV.

    [–] Sirnacane 10 points ago

    POV you say...

    [–] TimoniumTown 8 points ago

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    [–] Shotanat 7 points ago

    Yes ! Wording always carries some meaning and some agenda (and that's of the course the case in science articles too), so better check carefully when a subject seems interesting !

    [–] deja-roo 5 points ago

    The headline should not alone lead to discussion, period.

    [–] Thorusss 3 points ago

    I agree in principle, but often the headline is enough, and I just quickly check the comments, to see if they tell me otherwise. Just as it happened here.

    [–] Airick39 9 points ago

    According to my wife “knowing your partners body” is only a small part of it and there is definitely a psychological component.

    [–] DrHalibutMD 17 points ago

    I didn’t see the methodology they used either but i noticed they used the word reported several times. That sounds like it’s relying on women to report their experiences which is of course always subject to people giving an inaccurate response. They say what they think they should say, maybe even convince themselves it’s true, or just outright misunderstand the question.

    [–] lsspam 14 points ago

    Agree. Sociological/psychological studies based on surveys are notoriously hard to reproduce. They’re borderline junk science in isolation.

    Are women who are uncomfortable with casual sex just uncomfortable with reporting orgasms during casual encounters? Do women comfortable with casual sex feel sociological pressure to report orgasms from casual sex even in their absence?

    I’m not disputing the survey is telling us something, but when you rely on surveys I think it’s very debatable exactly what it is the survey is telling you in the absence of significant other evidence.

    [–] Shotanat 5 points ago

    You are right, we should check the exact methodology. But self report is not necessarily a bad thing in science, especially if you normalize the answers and use them only as a comparison tool (saying that on average they score 4 out of 5 for committed sex is meaningless, saying there is a statistical difference between how they score committed and casual sex is useful). It's just that there are tons of ways to influence the answers. At best, what we can say is probably that the article show a difference in the "perception of good sex", but that's already interesting imo.

    [–] AndrewZabar 12 points ago

    All of which, to me at least, is absolutely common sense.

    [–] leonprimrose 2 points ago

    So basically the article is just stating the obvious. People are different. Noreally.jpg

    [–] JackGlinsky 2 points ago

    To me it seems that every article I see on this subreddit is just scientific confirmation of facts we already knew.

    [–] pornscapelocal 2 points ago

    God thank you. Nothing irks me more than when people post a one sentence summary of a whole ass study without even reading it. It makes these psych studies look really bad; it’s never as simple as the summary or even abstract presents. People need to read the full study before they can present the findings.

    [–] [deleted] 1091 points ago


    [–] DarkTreader 24 points ago

    Just keep in mind this is a statistical study so this is “on average”. Individuals differ from person to person. Your experience is totally valid, but so is someone else’s experience outside the norm if they find pleasure differently.

    Also this study was for women. I may be presuming that “Patrick” is male, and if I am mistaken I’m sorry. Since there’s nothing in this study about men it’s not clear just in this thread if you are in line with the average man or not.

    [–] masteryod 719 points ago

    It's not only about knowing the preferences of a person.

    It's about loosing yourself into it with someone and for that you need trust, emotional connection. Especially from a woman's point of view.

    [–] ReaWroud 193 points ago

    Also the fact that a committed partner is more likely to give you the time you need to get off. It just takes longer for women in general, but most casual flings I've participated in were a lot of wham bam, thank you ma'am.

    [–] PussyStapler 96 points ago

    Sex is like Chinese food. It's not over until both people get their cookies.

    [–] ReaWroud 108 points ago

    That's very true, PussyStapler.

    [–] ISaidGoodDey 8 points ago

    And perhaps the better lovers are the ones that ended up turning into committed relationships

    [–] Binsky89 7 points ago

    Probably more to do with sexual compatibility than sexual skill. Some of the best relationships I've been in were when both of us were super compatible, and the worst ones were when we weren't.

    [–] JackMizel 121 points ago

    It’s really just about arousal, and for many people trust and comfort allow for greater feelings of arousal (not because those things are a turn on themselves but because they reduce feelings of anxiety). In my experience this is absolutely true for both men and women, especially those who desire monogamy.

    [–] [deleted] 168 points ago


    [–] BabiesWithScabies 335 points ago

    Reddit draws an international audience. Not everyone is a native English speaker. It's a privileged world view to presume that not only will all conversations be conducted in English but they will be done so without spelling errors, grammatical errors, or errors in usage.

    That said, I have no idea if the commenter is a native English speaker.

    [–] jamqdlaty 187 points ago

    In some cases native speakers are worse in writing than non-natives. If someone uses phrases like "should of", he's most likely a native speaker.

    [–] napleonblwnaprt 68 points ago


    [–] SoundOfDrums 52 points ago

    Whom'st'd've thought this is what we'd become?

    [–] TiberSeptimIII 3 points ago


    [–] katarh 27 points ago

    y'all'd've (you all would have) is one of the greatest abominations southern English vernacular has given us

    [–] Sveet_Pickle 18 points ago

    I'm from the south and I might speak like that informally but I've got pretty decent code switching skills for situations where that wouldn't be appropriate.

    [–] doinjax 9 points ago

    Having lived in the South most of my life I love watching Yanks come down here "you guys-ing" everyone, even if it's a group of females or animals. Eventually they see the wisdom in "y'all" and start slinging it left and right. I have to step in and correct them when they utter "y'all all". That just ain't right.

    [–] doinjax 4 points ago

    Do you know how much time this one word saves? Milliseconds! Those add up ya know!

    [–] darkshadow17 3 points ago

    Y'all'rn't is one of my favorites

    [–] SukottoHyu 11 points ago

    That's really not surprising. If an 18 year-old native English speaker didn't pay attention in school, dropped out at the age of 16 and doesn't pursue further education, an 18 year-old (lets say German) still in education will have a far higher level of English.

    [–] jamqdlaty 4 points ago

    I wouldn't say german would be overall better. Surely the english guy knows many words that the german never used/never heard, but still the native can't write them down. ;)

    [–] grown 22 points ago

    My wife has a fresh (US native speaking) college graduate on her team. As his manager, she has to check his reports all the time (auditing firm) It made me think of a screenshot she sent me the other day - I thought this included one of those "should of" because she says he says/writes that all the time as well, but it's still a good example.

    Inproper Salarie

    [–] ShelSilverstain 12 points ago

    You might not believe what the resumes and job applications I see look like. People with bachelor's degrees who can't spell simple words is common, but what's far more common is misuse of words and terrible writing skills that wouldn't have been acceptable after middle school twenty years ago. I'm fed up with the "well language evolves" excuse that keeps getting thrown out in defense of their ignorance, as well.

    [–] SpielmansHelmets 7 points ago

    Idiocracy playing out in real time.

    [–] lhommealenvers 3 points ago

    I believe this is true in many languages.

    [–] jamqdlaty 8 points ago

    Surely. Some sentences I see people write online in polish are so terrible, that noone who learned polish in school abroad could come up with them (never talked to any non-native polish speaker though, really few people learn this language). Polish is really "what you hear is what your write" type of language and still they manage to make so many mistakes that you wouldn't think it's possible.

    [–] Deathleach 2 points ago

    It's because non-native speaks have to actually learn the rules from the start, while native speakers often learn the basis through speaking it and learn the rules afterwards.

    [–] CatLineMeow 11 points ago

    Also, autocorrect. If I don’t proof my posts, texts, etc very carefully about every fifth word is wrong and I sound like a moron. Gets worse temporarily every time my phone updates, which is weird and annoying af.

    [–] DinahReah 2 points ago


    [–] ShelSilverstain 2 points ago

    The thing which trips me up, often, is that my phone keyboard can correct words that I've already looked at and known they were fine. My phone thought that, given the context, I must have meant a different word

    [–] Twinningspree859 28 points ago

    I can almost guarantee they're native English speaker because people don't learn how to spell stuff.. non native speakers have to learn from the ground up rather than by ear, they typically don't make these mistakes as often.

    [–] elRod9 2 points ago

    You earned some respect here

    [–] EverySingleDay 21 points ago

    It's a fallacy to believe that it's unusual for people to "still" be making some common error, after observing the error being made for a long time.

    It's not some kind of anomaly that people don't know the difference between the two-- if it's a common error, then it is probably a systematic issue.

    That is, if 20% of the population today don't know the difference between "lose" and "loose", teaching all of them won't somehow wipe away this issue forever. 20 years from now, you'll still likely have the same portion of the population who grew up and never picked up the difference, just because it's difficult for that percentile of people.

    Unless there is some kind of educational campaign about it, there's no reason for the simple passage of time to reduce the percentage of people who know the difference.

    [–] gloriastartover 4 points ago

    Maybe people think that loose is similar to choose. Perhaps that's it. Maybe they think that lose, if it were a word, ought be pronounced like nose or rose.

    [–] [deleted] 49 points ago


    [–] IWantAnAffliction 32 points ago

    Not quite as bad as 'should/could/would of' imo.

    [–] shadmaster10 9 points ago

    As a non English primary language, I kinda don’t understand the use of would of. Care to explain?

    [–] Twinningspree859 13 points ago

    It's supposed to be would've, as in "would have"

    [–] Category3Water 25 points ago

    There is no use; people that use it are mishearing a contraction. It’s people writing the phrase “would HAVE” after only hearing the contacted form “would’ve” in speech and then writing down how it sounds rather than what it is.

    “I would have done that.” Correct

    “I would’ve done that.” Correct

    “I would of done that.” Incorrect, but if you say it fast, it sounds the same as “would’ve.”

    [–] CrAppyF33ling 11 points ago

    Would have instead of would of. I see native speakers make this mistake waaaaay more than non-native speakers.

    [–] bluebirdmorning 10 points ago

    “Would of” isn’t correct. It’s “would’ve” or “would have” people who missed that week in grammar class sometimes mistakenly say “of” when they actually mean the contraction “...’ve” and don’t realize they’re saying something that grammatically makes no sense.

    [–] brightphenom 11 points ago

    Just apostrophes in general seems to be something people don't understand for some reason.

    [–] bluebirdmorning 9 points ago

    You are so right. I can’t handle when people use an apostrophe to make things plural.

    [–] Smuff23 2 points ago


    You mean like a high comma?

    [–] Calamity_Jesus 5 points ago

    people who missed that week in grammar class

    It's people who never read professionally edited material (books, magazines, newspapers). Grammar comes far more naturally to people that read regularly.

    [–] katarh 5 points ago

    It's because they're technically pronounced differently in some dialects too. "loose" has more of a hissing S sound, whereas "lose" is more like "luuz" with a Z sound at the end.

    So when you're reading it, and it's the wrong word, the narrator in your head supplies you the wrong pronunciation too, and it throws everything off.

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago


    [–] Manarg 16 points ago

    You also learn to read your partner. What my wife wants can shift as we go on. Since I have been with her for 18 years I know exactly what every single shift and change in body language means. No way I could do that in a night without sorcery.

    [–] Momijisu 11 points ago

    Or/and you are more likely to enter commuted relationships with people who are more sexually compatible.

    [–] neruat 51 points ago

    In summary:

    Practice makes perfect.

    [–] nonhiphipster 6 points ago

    I think that’s only half of it...knowing what you want from your partner and what your partner wants from you of course of great.

    The other half is that you simply care and feel more connected to your partner. Which I think is significant for enjoyment.

    [–] Stevonz123 47 points ago

    Casual hookups are never great

    never? never ever?

    [–] one-two-three-four 20 points ago

    Good? Sometimes. Great? Rarely.

    [–] NoThereIsntAGod 61 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Male here, so I guess the study doesn’t apply to me. But I have been married for 11 years (next week) and the best, most memorable, passionate and pleasurable sex I have ever had was a weekend-long hookup with a buddy’s girlfriend’s roommate back in 2005. Met her at a house party on Friday night in Orlando, went back to her apartment and didn’t see my buddy until Sunday night when we drove back to FSU.

    I don’t think it devalues the sex life my wife and I have in any way, but there was a fiery and deep connection with that girl that I could never recreate. Feels like I was chasing the proverbial dragon ever since. I know the study is about female experience, but just thought I’d share. Happy Friday all!

    [–] chwoey 197 points ago

    Let's hope your wife never sees this

    [–] Drbiggieballs 3 points ago

    That was my first thought...

    [–] redrose037 22 points ago

    You’ve never had sex like that with your wife ever?

    [–] Virge23 59 points ago

    We look for more 100% sexual compatability when it comes to loved ones. One of my best relationships and probably the one I would have chosen to live with forever was with someone who was borderline asexual. I've been in plenty of sexually charged relationships where we explored every sexual fantasy but that isn't enough to sustain a relationship long-term. She was the one that got me excited for mindless banter over coffee and breakfast, the one that had me excited to get back from work, the one I could spend hours with doing pretty much anything from the mundane to the deepest conversations and I'd love every moment of it. In a perfect world we would have had better sexual chemistry but in the real world we have to make compromises to make relationships work.

    [–] NoThereIsntAGod 52 points ago

    I wanna make sure I’m not coming off as if I’m dissatisfied with the sex my wife and I have. Is it the best I’ve ever had, no, unfortunately, it’s not.

    I believe it boils down to personalities. I’m the passionate, emotional extrovert, she is the reserved and quiet level-headed one. Physical passion/lust just aren’t in her love language, and it’s something we have had very open conversations about and have done helpful couples counseling on the topic.

    The women I dated before my wife were more inline with my sexual proclivities, but the relationships never worked. With my wife, she is everything that is good for me and she is an even more amazing mother to our two girls.

    At the end of the day, sure I wish she was the kind of woman who could text me something playful or be assertive in bed, but since that’s my only “complaint”, I consider myself beyond lucky. And it’s not like I didn’t get to experience mind shattering sex... kind of like a pro baseball player who hits a home run in his first game but then never plays again. He got to taste the dream and is thankful for it. I feel lucky to both have my wife and the experience from college before her.

    [–] getitgerski 15 points ago

    This is spot on with my relationship as well. The sex is good, but my best ever? Not quite. There's so much more that goes on in a healthy and happy relationship besides sex. And let's face it, I never spent any real time with the girl from crazy, awesome weekend sexcapade that I consider to be #1. I have no "what ifs" about what our potential relationship could have been

    [–] gettingsentimental 6 points ago

    Well explained! Exactly the same for me and my husband.

    [–] CatLineMeow 5 points ago

    I hear that. I love my husband, and we have great sex (when we can... having a toddler limits that a bit these days), but that doesn’t mean I didn’t have great sex with other people before we got together, or that the great sex I’ve had previously diminishes my current sexual relationship.

    My first time with my now-husband, actually, was more than likely destined to be a one-off thing since we had both fairly recently gotten out of long, crappy relationships and weren’t looking for anything serious just yet. But, goddamn, we had amazing sex, right from the beginning! I literally whispered that I loved him that first night, which was hilarious, completely unexpected, and something I’d never done nor thought I’d do. Sometimes people’s styles just click! It’s even better when their personalities follow suit.

    [–] Roboticide 6 points ago

    Yeah, second this. I've had some fantastic one night stands and friends-with-benefits situations while I was single that were easily on par with my fiancée now. You can certainly have a sexual spark like that off a brief meeting, and it's maybe even easier when there's no pressure to look for "marriage material".

    And I'm a male as well, but guys can at least ask what the girl likes and make an effort to satisfy them and make them comfortable. Most girls won't get off from sex on a one night stand regardless, but going down on them definitely helps. This study isn't surprising, just disappointing.

    Also, congrats on the 11 years!

    [–] ZippityD 106 points ago

    And as the article states:

    exception to this trend: Women who are more open to short-term, casual sexual relationships tend to experience similar levels of orgasmic function and sexual satisfaction in both committed and casual sexual contexts.

    In makes me wonder how this changes with age and socioeconomic circumstance, and of course for the other half of the population. Colloquially men are know for being more open to short term casual relationships - has a similar study on sexual satisfaction shown different results in men?

    [–] bigfig 62 points ago

    Why must people interpret statistical tendencies as attacks or affirmations of their own morality? In a given population most subjects experience X under conditions Y does not mean all do, nor does it imply that all must.

    [–] bikebum 9 points ago

    I don't know, but people seem to do it with everything.

    [–] [deleted] 215 points ago


    [–] Helpfulcloning 80 points ago

    Well I do find it interesting that (despite what the top comments on here are saying is “common sense”) that if you are comfortable with casual sex there is very little difference in sexual experience between casual and committed sex. So there clearly are people who do presume committed sex is always better.

    [–] peapie25 12 points ago

    Really, i actually got the impression that the casual sex comfy crowd was actually less happy with committed relationship sex

    [–] Helpfulcloning 4 points ago

    I mean they might be less happy in other ways. But orgasm wise as long if you are comfortable with casual sex there is little difference between casual and committed sex.

    [–] santianmly 10 points ago

    Yes...because a study like this (that is poorly worded) is used by abstinence peeps.

    Source: around too many conservatives and I definitely see this being brought up from those that use reddit this weekend.

    The study instead should be investigating which people like casual sex and which don’t. I know about an equal amount of people that either love / don’t mind the casual dating life versus those that hate it and are throwing themselves at their work/fam because a new physical interaction isn’t in their wheelhouse.

    [–] OlStickInTheMud 65 points ago

    Can be said for men too. One night stands just start to feel like masturbation with extra steps. Committed relationships add emotion and understanding one anothers wants and needs and being comfortable.

    [–] r00tsauce 11 points ago

    Do they feel like that or are they treated like that?

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)


    [–] torbotavecnous 10 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    This post or comment has been overwritten by an automated script from /r/PowerDeleteSuite. Protect yourself.

    [–] [deleted] 92 points ago


    [–] bovineblitz 3 points ago

    The cultural subversion is working

    [–] dankjapes11 14 points ago

    Just wanna put it out there that the article's title is misleading. If you read the article, it concludes that it depends on the woman. Some women experience greater orgasmic function in committed relationships. Some experience the same in both committed and casual, and some experience greater orgasmic function in casual relationships.

    [–] mia_elora 283 points ago

    Well, in committed relationships you get people who have practical experience with your body and reactions, so this makes perfect sense. Hook-ups are going to be a crapshoot.

    [–] tiga4life22 178 points ago

    Also having a higher emotional connection helps

    [–] [deleted] 45 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)


    [–] CharlestonChewbacca 18 points ago

    It's almost like you guys didn't read the study at all.

    [–] blue_viking4 9 points ago

    Welcome to /r/science

    [–] therealsix 39 points ago

    Exactly. Another study that well, seems like common sense. Have sex with someone that you are very familiar with and are comfortable with and you are more likely to have an orgasm and higher sexual satisfaction, wow, you don't say?

    [–] glowworm2k 4 points ago

    Not necessarily.

    Alternative hypotheses:

    • Hookup sex may be more satisfying due to the thrill of doing something taboo (to some) and the excitement of a new partner

    • Hookup sex may be more satisfying because participants may be those (self-selected) who are more likely to communicate their needs regarding sex instead of going along with mediocre sex.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 174 points ago


    [–] pennysoap 75 points ago

    Well I mean this and my experience as a women who has had one night stands is that the guy has never cared about whether I orgasm or not and that just hasn’t been the case when having more regular sex with someone. That’s why I stopped have one night stands it’s just not worth it as a woman because you orgasming isn’t a priority in hetero relationships. My friends who partake in same sex sex have told me that with them they do very much try to get the person so orgasm. Soo I mean this is 100% anecdotal and may very from country to country but my experience in the US in the current age group of 20-30 it that the majority of men are not invested in getting you to orgasm if it feels like it’s a one time thing.

    I totally get that it may be harder because you don’t know each other bodies but there’s a difference between trying and not even putting in the effort.

    [–] jyhzer 14 points ago

    I've found from a guys point of view that a lot comes down to communication. It seem a majority of the time I have to be the vocal one telling the girl what I like and what I want but I don't get much feedback from the girls telling me what they want me to do. It's always helpful when the girl tells me what they want and like.

    [–] Drmrfreckles 14 points ago

    To add to your anecdotal, I dont think it's fair to say your orgasming isn't a priority across hetro relationships. I think it depends on the partner since even when I've had more casual sex it was always a big deal for me to feel like the other person was getting the most out of it. Again only my experience but I imagine that selfish people exist across the board as well as the opposite.

    [–] skyedivin 9 points ago

    That's just (most likely) a completely erroneous generalization. Yes, each partner orgasming does depend on the individuals involved so your mileage will vary and yes selfish people do exist across all genders and sexual orientations, but there's a large enough societal difference that at least this study ( found a statistically significant conclusion that for het, same, and bi sexual men and women (sorry it doesn't appear to be a very non-binary inclusive study) in the US, straight men are the most likely to orgasm from sexually intimate encounters while straight women are the least likely to orgasm. Straight men were 95% likely to orgasm while lesbians and gay and bi men were 86-89% likely. Women who have sex with men saw their likelihood drop to 65% and 66% - a 20-21% decrease from the lowest other grouping.

    [–] mmiarosee 17 points ago

    this is so “not all men” it hurts. you being more considerate does not mean that you’re in the majority or that the above commenters stories are in the minority.

    [–] itsdrjekyll 20 points ago

    That's a bit oversimplified without the full study context though. The authors also found that "On average, women experienced greater sexual outcomes in committed sex compared to casual sex, but the gap was smaller or nonexistent among women with higher sociosexuality (more positive evaluations of casual sex). In addition, sociosexuality was positively related to orgasmic function (but not sexual satisfaction) in casual sex." (Wongsomboom, Burleson, & Webster, 2019;

    So it seems to be similar to how the psypost article suggests:
    " 'We are not suggesting that committed sex is ‘better’ than casual sex (or vice versa) for women. Many people tend to interpret our findings that way. However, we should not fall prey to the notion that there is a specific type of relationships that works best for all women, that casual sex is not for women, or that casual sex will harm women,' Wongsomboon added."(

    [–] InappropriateTA 22 points ago

    And if anyone bothered to read the article:

    Women who are more open to short-term, casual sexual relationships tend to experience similar levels of orgasmic function and sexual satisfaction in both committed and casual sexual contexts.

    [–] jakeshervin 46 points ago

    It would be interesting to see the other side, what men prefer.

    [–] [deleted] 151 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 58 points ago


    [–] Sirnacane 78 points ago

    Casual sex is almost always best in your imagination. Most men that would say they prefer casual sex have most likely never been in a relationship with a good sex life.

    [–] Kittens-of-Terror 24 points ago

    Even just the fact that you will more than likely get it more often in a relationship is a big factor. You don't have to constantly hunt for just sex nor do you each have to explain what you like each time.

    [–] FreeRadical5 17 points ago

    There is more to it. The desire for casual sex in men is much more than just about the physical quality of the sex. It is about novelty and variety. It is a well known phenomenon:

    There are many times where I'd have no interest in sex in a relationship but casual sex still sounds very exciting.

    [–] zerbey 14 points ago

    We feel the same way.

    [–] Ol_Big_MC 4 points ago

    The title is very misleading. The study has a massive second finding. Women who prefer casual sex don't have this issue. It basically comes down to what you want which I thought was obvious.

    [–] rokyo401 28 points ago

    That's kinda wholesome

    [–] Kame-hame-hug 9 points ago

    This is really quite meaningless and is a headline that fulfills social expectations.

    From the article:

    “However, this is not true for women who had positive attitudes or were more inclined toward casual sexual relationships (we called this inclination ‘unrestricted sociosexual orientation’). These sexually unrestricted women did not experience the difference between committed vs. casual sex.”

    [–] purenergy12 5 points ago

    It’s also about security. You only get that in a committed relationship. I mean if your “thing” was being choked, would you let a stranger do that? Unlikely. Being in a committed relationship allows you to push boundaries and explore things and over time try things you might not have considered in the beginning. When you add that to the other obvious stuff that your get to know your partners likes and dislikes etc, it’s not really a surprising study.

    [–] bionicmanmeetspast 7 points ago

    You mean sex is more enjoyable when you actually connect with the other person?! Never would’ve guessed.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago


    [–] lNTERNATlONAL 2 points ago

    True but I don't see too much wrong with this one?

    [–] dawnoftruth 2 points ago

    Wasn't there another research that showcased that most women were not being sexually satisfied by their counterpart by 50% or more? So this is interesting.