Recently, I started thinking about how most men frequently discuss sex, and the more I considered it, the more I realised that many men and women can be engaging in the same behaviour while having fundamentally different perspectives on it.
For many women, sex is often understood as a shared experience between two people who are attracted to each other and seeking pleasure, intimacy, connection, or even simple enjoyment. Even in casual encounters, there is often an assumption that both parties are active participants who desire the experience and derive something from it. Yet when you listen to how some men describe their sexual encounters, a very different picture emerges. “ I cracked her” “Ngimdlile” “ I chowed her” “ I smashed her”, the list is endless.
These are not accounts of an enjoyable event for both parties. They are accounts of achievement. The words themselves are illuminating. It presents the woman as a goal that was attained, defeated, or acquired rather than as an equal player. The fact that access was obtained is more important than the experience itself.
This is especially intriguing because the same guys who applaud sexual access frequently become disrespectful of women who grant it too soon. In today's dating society, this contradiction is frequently observed. While a man who sleeps with several women is usually commended, appreciated, or at the very least excused, a woman who sleeps with a man on their first date is typically called "easy." Many individuals no longer challenge the double standard since it has become so commonplace.
But why should a woman's willingness to have sex be seen negatively if it's only for pleasure?
Logically, there shouldn't be a problem if two adults are equally attracted to one another and both give their enthusiastic agreement. However, there is for some males. Her excitement suddenly turns into a warning sign. All of a sudden, she is worthless. All of a sudden, she is no longer someone worth going after.
Why is the question.
I contend that this response highlights an unsettling aspect of the way society has conditioned many men to think about sex. Sex was never the main objective. Conquest was the aim. The reward included the challenge. The reward included the pursuit. Saying, "I got her," was one of the rewards.
A lady breaks the script when she gives her consent swiftly. No hunt is taking place. No chase is taking place. There is no display of aptitude, perseverance, or social standing. Because the connection itself was never used as a gauge of success, the purpose feels unfinished. It was the process of getting access and overcoming opposition.
This explains why discussions about "body count" are so illuminating. Observe how frequently men shame women for engaging in sexual activity while also demanding it from them. It is expected of women to be sexually available but not to engage in sexual activity. She must be attractive but untouched in some way. She needs to be both pure enough to avoid condemnation and lovely enough to arouse desire. Since it was never intended to make sense, it is an unachievable standard. These expectations are not related to sex, which is why there is a contradiction. They have to do with control.
Every day, we witness this happening on social media. Discussions over what makes a lady "high value" abound in podcasts, TikTok debates, YouTube discussions, and many comment sections. Most of the time, the topic of regulating women's sexuality soon comes up. What number of partners has she had? How fast does she engage in sexual activity? What is her style of clothing? What is her online persona?
It is noteworthy that these conversations hardly ever address her kindness, intelligence, emotional maturity, reliability, or support. Rather, the topic of her past sexual encounters takes center stage. It's as if a woman's value can be determined by how inaccessible her sexuality is.
At the same time, a lot of guys are urged to use sexual success as a gauge of their personal worth. Boys are raised to believe that "real men" attract women. The notion that masculinity is something that needs to be demonstrated through conquering is frequently reinforced by movies, music, social media, and peer groups. Sex becomes more about validation than it is about connection. The woman turns into proof. Evidence of a man's importance, power, or desire.
The sad thing is that everyone involved is diminished by this way of thinking.
Instead of being acknowledged as unique people with their own goals and agency, women are reduced to trophies, accomplishments, and status symbols. Because performance and validation take precedence over vulnerability, emotional connection, and mutual enjoyment, men are deprived of a deeper knowledge of intimacy.
Maybe this explains why, despite living in a time when dating is more accessible than ever, so many individuals report feeling detached. Even while dating apps have made it simpler than ever to meet possible companions, loneliness is still very common. Our ability to reach people has improved, but our ability to connect with them has declined.
There must be a winner and a loser when sex is seen as a kind of conquest. It is necessary for someone to dominate and for someone to be dominated. However, same guidelines do not apply to healthy intimacy. It's not a contest. Displaying it in front of an audience is not a status symbol.
It is a shared experience between two individuals who acknowledge one another's humanity. The fact that the "easy woman" highlights the paradox at the core of conquest culture may be the true cause of some people's difficulties with the concept. The story of success disintegrates if a woman freely chooses sex because she wants it too. When both parties are equal partners, there is no conquest. When both parties have agency, there is no trophy.
And perhaps that's exactly what causes discomfort for some folks.
Because the language of dominance becomes less effective once sex is perceived as mutual rather than hierarchical. The question of whether both parties were respected, desired, and satisfied takes precedence over who acquired whom. And talking about who "smashed" whom is considerably less relevant than that.