I found an interesting study today while reading about the women are wonderful effect: https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf. In general, men show greater bias for women than the opposite.

The part this post is about is the fact that men who had their sexual needs met showed greater bias towards women. While men who did not have as much sexual experience did not show that much of a bias.

Experiment 4 showed the power of sex to predict heterosexuals’ gender attitudes. As expected, men reported greater liking for sex than did women, echoing past research (e.g., Baumeister, 2000; Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Unique to Experiment 4, this sex difference was also shown using the IAT. Thus, men showed greater enthusiasm for sex, irrespective of measurement method. We suspected that this enthusiasm might lead men to show pro-female bias, provided they associated women with sex (i.e., were sexually experienced). This hypothesis was not supported using selfreported attitudes; instead, sexual experience was the sole predictor of gender attitudes. For both men and women, the more sexual encounters they had, the more they reported a preference for the opposite sex (irrespective of their liking for sex). By contrast, the sexual attitude IAT predicted automatic gender attitudes. First, women implicitly preferred men if they also liked sex. Second, men echoed this pattern, but with an important caveat—only if they were high on sexual experience. Thus, men supported our expectation that if they associated women with sex (through sexual encounters that likely lead to emotional conditioning), they would prefer women to the extent they liked sex. By contrast, men low on sexual experience implicitly disliked women to the extent they liked sex.

Although we did not expect the latter result, in hindsight it supports emotional conditioning as a source for implicit attitudes. A plausible interpretation is that men who like sex and have their sexual needs fulfilled by women tend to automatically favor women, whereas men who want but are deprived of sex may implicitly resent women. That is, if we assume that sexual gratification (or its absence) is an affective experience for men, the pattern of results is not surprising. Moreover, this interpretation coheres with Glick and Fiske’s (1996) argument that men may express benevolence toward women because they depend on them (e.g., for sexual relations). If women are not forthcoming, their dyadic power over men may backfire, resulting in implicit sexism. Finally, we also did not expect sex differences in the pattern of relationships observed using the IAT. Why would sexual experience be less likely to play a role in women’s automatic gender attitudes? If sexual gratification is a weaker emotional need for women (Baumeister et al., 2001), then the amount of experience may be less important to their identity and well-being than it is for men. In essence, the emotionally conditioned link between attitudes toward sex and the opposite gender may be sufficient for heterosexual women, who might be described as “If I like sex, I like men,” but for men, sexual gratification may be required to strengthen the same link (i.e., “If I like sex and receive it from women, I like women”). However, we caution that the converse description for sexually inexperienced men (“If I like sex and don’t receive it from women, I don’t like women”) assumes they are heterosexual when, in fact, their very lack of experience may prevent them from knowing their sexual orientation. If that were the case, our subset of inexperienced men may have included an unknowable number of incipient homosexuals, for whom liking for sex would be expected to covary with implicit male preference. Thus, the negative link between implicit sexual and gender attitudes shown on the part of sexually inexperienced men may be due to sexual frustration, homosexual inclinations, or some combination of both.

To me, having the other gender like you is a significant advantage that women often gloss over with their whole "MEN WANTING US FOR CASUAL SEX DOESN'T MATTER" screed. The sex may not matter (debatable), but the advantages conferred by being desired matters. So the question of the post is, why is this something a lot of women don't consider an advantage?

The first part of the post also gives the impression that sluts like men more than man-hating virgins/non-sexual women. It isn't something I considered before, but I guess it makes sense.

The caveat mentioned for men makes sense. I bet this caveat for women would also exist, but as we know - women not being able to easily get sex if they want it is impossible. The women not having sex are the ones who don't like men. The order seems to be reversed for men; if they could be having sex, then they would like women.

EDIT: A lot of people are misinterpreting what is going on and thinking the bias happens towards individual women or something. No. If a man is getting his sexual needs met by women A, B, & C it doesn't mean he is nice to A/B/C but not to D/E/F. He shows bias towards A/B/C/D/E/F/etc. Women as a group benefit from the bias from men who are having their sexual needs met by a small number of women.