Monogamy May Be Even More Difficult For Women Than it Is For Men

[Greoric]

It is funny that someone as strange as Greoric has the audacity to talk about women not wanting other men.

I'm sure the women are flocking to you, waiting to hear about libertarianism in one of your autistic tangents

I'll go ahead and diagnose you with proctitis, and e-prescribe you some NSAIDs for the pain and swelling.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I'll go ahead and diagnose you with proctitis, and e-prescribe you some NSAIDs for the pain and swelling.

Good one. No wonder the women all love you.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I think women may have more opportunities for it as well. I may just be speaking from a narrow scope, but from what I've seen, women can get laid whenever they want. There will always be a guy that is down, no matter what she looks like. It doesn't surprise me if they were doing it more than men.

Also society for the longest has told women their role. We're living increasingly in a day, and age where individuals are determining their own paths in life. The pressure to fit society's mold isn't as great nowadays, at least I don't feel it is.

And that access or 'opportunity' as you label is key.

I actually do not think women typically want random sex as much as men. Because if men had the 'access' or 'opportunities' to have as much random sex as women can get they would hardly be functional. Imagine a guy walking into any grocery store or coffee shop and with just the slightest head nod and no words exchanged they could take a hot woman home to bang. Women can do that with men if they so desire.

So in large part I think women are more controlled and discreet but due to them having so much more access and opportunity the numbers end up similar to men.

And I don't want this to be inflaming but that is why gay men had such access to quick and easy casual sex and things like the bath house, bathroom cultures popped up. Without women governing the sex the Male to Male relationships had almost no governors.

 

[Greoric]

And that access or 'opportunity' as you label is key.

I actually do not think women typically want random sex as much as men. Because if men had the 'access' or 'opportunities' to have as much random sex as women can get they would hardly be functional. Imagine a guy walking into any grocery store or coffee shop and with just the slightest head nod and no words exchanged they could take a hot woman home to bang. Women can do that with men if they so desire.

So in large part I think women are more controlled and discreet but due to them having so much more access and opportunity the numbers end up similar to men.

And I don't want this to be inflaming but that is why gay men had such access to quick and easy casual sex and things like the bath house, bathroom cultures popped up. Without women governing the sex the Male to Male relationships had almost no governors.

There's actually literature on that from the San Fran area. Where lesbian couples average number of partners individually were in the ~10 range, where as gay male couple sex partner number was in the tens of thousands.

 

[MikeMcMann]

There's actually literature on that from the San Fran area. Where lesbian couples average number of partners individually were in the ~10 range, where as gay male couple sex partner number was in the tens of thousands.

Yes, i've seen such literature and was going to mention that Lesbians tend to have the lowest partner numbers of all, as you double down on the number of picky females needing to say yes. lol.

 

[senri]

@Imbrued Esculence

I love it when the sapiens secrete the juices in such a manner. Isn't it a delight Mr Thompson?

You feel that sensation in your cortex? That's the contraction as it absorbs the essence that makes the symmetry nice and tight. Tightness is everything when the borders between chaos and order have been met....

 

[Greoric]

Yes, i've seen such literature and was going to mention that Lesbians tend to have the lowest partner numbers of all, as you double down on the number of picky females needing to say yes. lol.

Interestingly, the figure among the reports from the lesbian couples is right around where hetero individuals will place their number of sex partners, indicating that women really do decide on when and whom they're going to fuck. The counter of course is that all these studies have to rely on self reporting from respondents, where women have an innate incentive to under report their numbers, and men the opposite.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Interestingly, the figure among the reports from the lesbian couples is right around where hetero individuals will place their number of sex partners, indicating that women really do decide on when and whom they're going to fuck. The counter of course is that all these studies have to rely on self reporting from respondents, where women have an innate incentive to under report their numbers, and men the opposite.

Ya but you would think the Lesbians would feel less pressure to lie and have more of an ability to call one another on any BS, if they did.

But yes I can certainly understand any woman under reporting generally as you can see the level of hostility in threads like this that men have for any sexually active female. The general presumption and language used is sluts for simply being comparatively active to men, which seems to rarely come with any of the same condemnation.

 

[Greoric]

Ya but you would think the Lesbians would feel less pressure to lie and have more of an ability to call one another on any BS, if they did.

But yes I can certainly understand any woman under reporting generally as you can see the level of hostility in threads like this that men have for any sexually active female. The general presumption and language used is sluts for simply being comparatively active to men, which seems to rarely come with any of the same condemnation.

Agree. We might separate here though, when I say that condemnation by males of promiscuous females comes with good reason, evolutionarily at least. A woman's past sexual history with regard to her promiscuity is an indicator to men on her future promiscuity when she pair bonds with him, and where he's parting ways with his resources to potentially raise offspring not of his genetic contribution. Hence, why I mentioned the urge for women to under report their sex partner number and men to over report it (for more obvious reasons).

 

[panamaican]

I'd read this a few years back and thought it would be relevant here. Guys who are preoccupied with mate guarding (protecting their reproductive opportunities by limiting engagement between their woman and other men) tend to have lower quality ejaculate.

Our results provide support for this hypothesis. Men who performed more mate guarding behaviors produced lower quality ejaculates, having a lower concentration of sperm, a lower percentage of motile sperm and sperm that swam slowly and erratically. These effects were independent of lifestyle or collection variables, and were not predicted by men's self-perceived mate value, attractiveness or dominance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176016/

Basically, men have 2 routes to passing on their genes. Mate guarding or superior sperm.

Sperm competition between men is an evolutionary reality. It exists precisely because multiple sperm from multiple men will be competing to fertilize the same egg. Yet another evolutionary decision that wouldn't be necessary if women were not promiscuous by evolutionary design. Mate guarding has simply become the dominant form of protecting male reproductive opportunities in many societies.

 

[IDL]

Ya but you would think the Lesbians would feel less pressure to lie and have more of an ability to call one another on any BS, if they did.

But yes I can certainly understand any woman under reporting generally as you can see the level of hostility in threads like this that men have for any sexually active female. The general presumption and language used is sluts for simply being comparatively active to men, which seems to rarely come with any of the same condemnation.

Women do that to women plenty. No sense in simply pointing the finger at men here.

If you think about it, women who sleep around a lot may actually undermine other womens chances to get a male to enter a relationship with them or stay in relationships. Easy sex for men is very tempting and also quite shallow.

Sort of like the supply and demand. An increase in supply of promiscuous women devalues the women that aren't. Men are probably less likely to go the extra mile (build a relationship) to get laid if they don't need to.

 

[Greoric]

I'd read this a few years back and thought it would be relevant here. Guys who are preoccupied with mate guarding (protecting their reproductive opportunities by limiting engagement between their woman and other men) tend to have lower quality ejaculate.

Basically, men have 2 routes to passing on their genes. Mate guarding or superior sperm.

Sperm competition between men is an evolutionary reality. It exists precisely because multiple sperm from multiple men will be competing to fertilize the same egg. Yet another evolutionary decision that wouldn't be necessary if women were not promiscuous by evolutionary design. Mate guarding has simply become the dominant form of protecting male reproductive opportunities in many societies.

This really requires what we're going to describe as promiscuous. If in comparison to each sex, women are far less promiscuous with regard to their number of sex partners than men. That point is substantial when you look at the relative number of sex partners gay and lesbian couples have had, like @MikeMcMann and I described above. Now they cheat perhaps with another single partner only slightly less, than men if that's what you're going to define as promiscuity though. In absolute terms, however, women are far and above the choosier sex... by virtue of obvious reproductive constraints.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Agree. We might separate here though, when I say that condemnation by males of promiscuous females comes with good reason, evolutionarily at least. A woman's past sexual history with regard to her promiscuity is an indicator to men on her future promiscuity when she pair bonds with him, and where he's parting ways with his resources to potentially raise offspring not of his genetic contribution. Hence, why I mentioned the urge for women to under report their sex partner number and men to over report it (for more obvious reasons).

I don't think we part much as I think it is an obvious statement just as a man's promiscuous nature is an indicator to her of his future promiscuity which today carries a big threatening cost beyond the emotional in terms of support payments denying her resources to raise their offspring.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'd read this a few years back and thought it would be relevant here. Guys who are preoccupied with mate guarding (protecting their reproductive opportunities by limiting engagement between their woman and other men) tend to have lower quality ejaculate.

Basically, men have 2 routes to passing on their genes. Mate guarding or superior sperm.

I'll take Superior Sperm for Two Hundred Alex!

Sperm competition between men is an evolutionary reality. It exists precisely because multiple sperm from multiple men will be competing to fertilize the same egg. Yet another evolutionary decision that wouldn't be necessary if women were not promiscuous by evolutionary design. Mate guarding has simply become the dominant form of protecting male reproductive opportunities in many societies.

Yup.

 

[MikeMcMann]

This really requires what we're going to describe as promiscuous. If in comparison to each sex, women are far less promiscuous with regard to their number of sex partners than men. That point is substantial when you look at the relative number of sex partners gay and lesbian couples have had, like @MikeMcMann and I described above. Now they cheat perhaps with another single partner only slightly less, than men if that's what you're going to define as promiscuity though. In absolute terms, however, women are far and above the choosier sex... by virtue of obvious reproductive constraints.

Is it just reproductive constraint though? Does not the lesbian pairing speak against that and suggest the chooseyness is more ingrained than that?

You would think lesbians, like gay men, would feel more uninhibited to take advantage of the buffet of life without constraint or fear of consequence.

 

[Greoric]

Is it just reproductive constraint though? Does not the lesbian pairing speak against that and suggest the chooseyness is more ingrained than that?

You would think lesbians, like gay men, would feel more uninhibited to take advantage of the buffet of life without constraint or fear of consequence.

Well yes because the lesbian's sexuality is still manipulated by the fact that their neurology is in the context of being a female and all the predispositions for sexual selection strategies that go along with that by virtue of her time for reproduction and scarcity of sex cells, as compared to male's.

 

[Rod1]

Right. Go on, why?

Toba supervolcano eruption quite likely.

The point im trying to make is that life is harsh everywhere without agriculture and agriculture developed in the Middle East, not Africa.

Agricultural societies were also the firsts to promote monogamy.

 

[DIDM]

You're all over the place guy. Let's focus. The statement, "if females had a different sexual selection strategy we would not be the same species," is incorrect? Care to elaborate?

Females selection strategy? If this was the leading factor poor men wouldn’t have any kids

Women want to fuck as much if not more than men, and condoms aren’t fun for either party

 

[Greoric]

Toba supervolcano eruption quite likely.

The point im trying to make is that life is harsh everywhere without agriculture and agriculture developed in the Middle East, not Africa.

Agricultural societies were also the firsts to promote monogamy.

Northern climates are less hospitable, more specifically, climates more disparate from where we originally speciated are less hospitable to human populations. Thus northern climates supported smaller communities than equatorial climates. That harsher environmental pressure is the same reason why certain ecologies promoted higher IQ populations than others.

 

[Greoric]

Females selection strategy? If this was the leading factor poor men wouldn’t have any kids

Women want to fuck as much if not more than men, and condoms aren’t fun for either party

All that is correct. Women certainly want to fuck just as much as men, but they're choosier and more selective about whom they do it with. Hence why there's a very general pareto distribution in the sexual market place, where 20% of men have 80% of the sexual access to females, and why the phenomenon of incels is almost exclusively a male problem.

Isn't that right @KONG-D'SNT-TAP ?