As found in men, women similarly know how to infer sexual exploitability; unlike men, only some of these cues were associated with short-term attractiveness; so, if a man is too easy, she won't be interested as frequently as men are

Adair, L., Andersen, B., & Hinton, T. (2020). He looks “easy” and she’s not into it: Sexual exploitation cues and attraction. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), 19–31. Jan 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000168

Abstract: Sexual exploitation research has focused on men as perpetrators of exploitative strategies. To date, the presence and nature of women’s sexually exploitative strategies has not been empirically tested. Replicating the procedure adopted by Goetz, Easton, Lewis, and Buss (2012) using a male-only sample, we examine the relationship between sexual exploitability and attractiveness in a female-only sample. Women (N = 151; 83% White; Mage = 22 years) rated photographs of men displaying various levels of exploitability cues, and then completed the Components of Mate Value Survey and the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. As found in men, women similarly use cues of incapacitation and manipulability to infer sexual exploitability. However, unlike men, only some of these manipulability cues (those indicating that the man is easily seduced; e.g., flirty, having promiscuous friends) were associated with short-term attractiveness. For women, cues of genetic fitness (e.g., intelligent, facial attractiveness) were associated with short-term attractiveness. Although mate value did not affect these relationships, the relationship between perceived exploitability and short-term attractiveness did depend on sociosexuality. Sexually exploitable targets were perceived as more attractive short-term mates for sexually unrestricted, compared with sexually restricted, women.