>>82796632
>perhaps i wouldn't be so schizo about intimacy if the scales were balanced.
Keep in mind that /r9k/ is primarily the male point of view, so we complain about the things that bother us, because we're men.
Once the marriage happens, if it fails, that pressure is almost all on the man. The courts will almost always give her the kids (unless she refuses them for some reason), and blah blah.
The scales are balanced in the total field of male female dynamics, more or less, it's just that we're focusing purely on sex right now.
>i just don't understand why the weight is on women when men are the other half of the puzzle.
Why is the weight of acceptance of sex on the woman? Biology.
A woman accepts a guy's advances, gets pregnant, and is now vulnerable and has to be taken care of by SOMEONE. If she said "yes" to the wrong guy, the burden is now on her family. Remember that "welfare" wasn't really a thing historically. You become a single mother and you're in for a hard time.
>but why would other women care?
In their mind, a woman who is so loose will be liable to try to steal their own man.
There's a lot of social pressure as well on the guy; he has to approach the woman, woo her, and blah blah. All she has to do, for this dance, is say yes. So if she says yes easily, i.e. is promiscuous, it upsets the balance the sexes have historically agreed upon: the guys pursue, the women gatekeep. You may be overvaluing the weight of the "no" that you're tasked with, without really giving much thought to the weight of the "hey bby want some fuk?" the guy is tasked with.
Let's say I wanted to ask you out right now. I have to give it thought, plan, ask you out, suffer the rejection if no, the anxiety of what if, etc. Sure, I could go into the act without a plan and hope for the best, and then it becomes a numbers game, but if my heart was really set on you, then of course I would try to increase my odds. Whereas you would ultimately have to just say "sure" or "no".
