Is Monogamy Harder for Men or Women?

man looking at the eyes of a woman

The confirmation bias is a tendency to prefer information that confirms whatever you already believe. It’s dangerous, because under the influence of the confirmation bias, you cherry-pick only facts that reinforce your arguments. The first thing I think of when I hear “confirmation bias” is Fox News, but that is, admittedly, my own bias. And I work very hard not to fall into the trap of having a fixed mindset on things.

It’s with this framing that I want to present to you this article, which contradicts a previously held belief of mine: that belief that men are more likely to prefer a variety of sexual partners. So, why would I hold this belief if it may not be true?

Are there some women who want to sleep with hundreds of men? Sure. But there are more men who want to sleep around.

Well, it’s hard to say. Thinking about it critically, it’s somewhere between experience, society and faith. I was a promiscuous guy. I know men who are a lot worse than I was. There’s an entire industry around pick-up artists. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. Porn for men dominates the internet. I’m a dating coach for women who complain that men are commitmentphobes and cheaters. So yeah, there is a LOT of evidence that men have sex on the brain, at least more than women do.

Then some studies came out that women get bored with monogamy faster than men, and suddenly everything I wrote above has been called into question.

Amanda Marcotte, writing for Slate XX Factor, sees this as a sea change. But I don’t. And while it may be my own confirmation bias speaking, here’s the reason:

Marcotte harps on studies that show that women respond to novelty in porn (duh) and fantasize about sex with strangers (double duh). All that proves is that, yes, women can get bored with routine sex as well. I don’t think there’s any right-minded person who ever thought otherwise. What this doesn’t prove, however, is that women are MORE driven by sex than men. While it’s useful to recognize that women and men are similar in many ways, I think it’s shortsighted to suggest that we are the SAME, as if gender was simply a societal construct and not somewhat tied to biology.

Are there some women who want to sleep with hundreds of men? Sure. But there are more men who want to sleep around.

Are there some women who can separate love and sex and have no emotional attachment after physical contact? You bet. But there are more men who do.

Are there more women who give up on sex within a marriage? Apparently. But that might just mean that she’s married to a jerk for 20 years and can’t summon any more amorous feelings for him. It doesn’t mean that she’s more likely to cheat or that she values sexual variety as much as he does.

So, to me (and my confirmation bias), this study is much ado about nothing, in that it’s verifying something we already know. The reason that Marcotte is jumping on it is because it confirms what she wants to believe (women and men have the same take on sex), not because it represents a true shift.

Because for every study that says (rightfully!) that women get bored with monogamy, there’s another one that confirms what most of us already know: men are more driven by sexual variety than women. One highly publicized study doesn’t negate that.

Read the article here and please share your thoughts below.

Join our conversation (168 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.


  1. 21

    Evan, I don’t want to detract from your original post by the Ashkenazi Jew data, but I stand by my original points. A standard deviation for most IQ tests is 15, so with 100 as the ‘average’, most (95%) of the population should fall within two standard deviations on either side; therefore the normal range is 70-130. It’s only when scores are higher or lower than this that they are considered significantly different. The author of the article you linked to ‘cherry-picked’ one figure on Ashkenazi intelligence (despite the previous figures that didn’t support the claim) to construct the problematic bell curve argument.
    Enrollment in the Ivies should not be used as an indicator of intelligence, that’s more a measure of realized potential (depending on how you define potential and success). That’s why I mentioned the misinterpretations of correlations (higher enrollment of Ashkenazi Jews in Ivies relative to other groups) and causes-effect relationships (more Asheknazi Jews are enrolled in Ivies because they are smarter than other groups). To prove the latter, you’d have to give convincing evidence via an experiment that ruled out other factors that contribute to achieving an Ivy education (distribution of wealth, internal and external motivations, etc.).
    Like I said, I enjoy your blog and I think you offer great dating advice. To go back to the original point of your post, there are also other recent studies pointing towards more symmetry in number of sexual partners (if you take number of partners to be a measure of sexual variety, which you seem to do) between the sexes, but subscription to gender roles leads people to report their promiscuous acts differently. So it’s hard to come up with good data to answer these questions.

  2. 22

    I think women want sexual variety as much as men do. We’re all descended from the same hunter-gatherers, who anthropologists believe lived in groups of 50-100 individuals, where all the adults had sex with all the other adults. Darwin’s theory that humans are natural pair bonders is starting to be debunked. I think women are the victims of centuries of cultural and societal conditioning. There are still places in the world where a woman can be stoned to death for committing adultery or having sex before marriage. This is an extreme example, but it makes a point. Women are taught in subtle and not so subtle ways from the time we are very young that we are not sexual creatures, that we should not want variety, that being sexually free and adventurous is shameful, sinful, dirty, etc. Perhaps this is less so today than in previous generations, but it still persists in many places. So I think women’s desire for non-monogamy and sexual variety is filtered through our collective conditioning from religion (always the culprit standing in the way of freedom and self-expression), parents, education, whatever… we think we don’t want it because that is what we were taught. Really tragic when you think about it. How many sexually repressed and unfulfilled women are there in the world? Billions no doubt.
    Oh, and one other tiny problem, there are a lot of guys who are just plain lousy lovers and don’t know their way around a woman’s body! C’mon guys, get a little education and make us feel like women and we won’t get bored with you!

    1. 22.1

      I agree with Amy’s post 1000%.   Anyone who has strong primal instincts should naturally know this.   Anyone who doesn’t, should do some studying.   I feel men and women have a lot in common and that women in todays society cant be themselves and free or else they will be judged.   Who wants to be judged.   Man and religion introduced MARRIAGE.   Marriage is more something we do because others do it.   Its not natural to be monogamous, even though many of us want that.   Trying to cheat mother nature creates problems of its own.   The commitment part is the key part in marriage.   Basically it means, I SHOULDNT cheat on you even though the act itself with multiple partners is a natural act.   We are trying to be successful in something that isn’t meant to be, and with that comes many arguments that affect children in most cases.   Our bodies and mind are created and built to MATE.   That’s our main purpose.   Marriage and or monogamy is a CHOICE we make.   We ALL, (both men and women) get into this predicament without understanding what really is going on.   Later on down the line problems start and so does the blame game and fingerpointing, when all that really is going on is BIOLOGICAL.   Why do our parents no fill us in on this????

      1. 22.1.1

        “Man and religion introduced MARRIAGE. Marriage is more something we do because others do it. Its not natural to be monogamous, even though many of us want that.”

        Agreed. Man and religion introduced monogamy for the good of society at a time when nuclear family structures were critical and screwing around with people outside the tribe could bring harm to the whole tribe. (Hence why we are programmed to stick with our own kind when marrying and having children even though there’s no genetic benefit, you might even say there is a genetic benefit to diversifying your offspring’a genes in terms of survival.)

        Monogamy is man made. Who adheres to it more in any given society is dictated by what each gender gains or loses from it. Just MO.

      2. 22.1.2



        “women in todays society can’t be themselves and free….”

      3. 22.1.3

        Someone give this man a Nobel prize…

  3. 23

    Pardon me, but i fail to see how the – men are more attracted to varieties claim – can be up for debate.
    Women fantasize and only want to bang tall hot studs.
    On the flip side, men desire to bang tall, short, skinny, bbw and skinny women. Porn sites do show that bbw and milf even gets lots of views.
    I think nature designed men to be attracted to varieties as to enable every woman secure a mate irrespective of your physical features.

    The reason people struggle to secure a relationship is because most women don’t find most men attractive just as michelle alluded in her post #16.

  4. 24

    Do you find women slumming it with old, fat, balding, smelly, ugly, penniless men because they really really need sex and there is no other options available at that moment ?   No ? Enough said.

  5. 25

    Heather K #9 and Amy #23
    Your post are pretty much spot on. A promiscuous man is still considered a “stud”, while a promiscuous woman is labeled a “slut”.   So men are much more encouraged to have “sex on the brain”, while women get a double message – be sexy, but don’t be too sexy or you’ll be considered “slutty”.
    I’m always hearing that men can sleep with women they don’t find at all attractive, while women are much less likely to do so. From what I hear from my long-time married friends, long-term monogamy is tough, even if you love the other person. And that”s true for both genders. As one of my married friends put it, you can love your partner deeply, but simply not feel sexually attracted to them. So I’d guess that even if a man lost attraction for his wife, he’d still be more likely to continue to have sex with her, than vice versa.
    Karl T #18
    “Unless we’re talking about lesbians, who wouldn’t find men attractive period. ”
    If you think you can always spot a lesbian because you assume they all look butch, guess again. There are lots of beautiful, feminine-looking lesbians out there who don’t fit that stereotype at all.

    1. 25.1
      Tomas Woodbridge

      Any woman can be a slut. Fat ugly women can be sluts. You’ll never meed a fat ugly stud. That’s why studs inspire admiration in men. But sluts aren’t held in high esteem by women.

  6. 26

    I don’t believe gender is a social construct, but I find it plausible the idea human females are biologically monogamous is a social construct.
    Like a previous commenter, I’ve read the theory that early humans were non-monagamous. Doesn’t seem ‘out there’ to me. If there are small bands of humans roaming the landscape their basic needs are to find enough calories to exist and shelter from the elements – like all other animals. Less time to ponder questions such as who belongs to who.   The advantages of non-monogamy in such a situation would be not only to provide sexual variety, but as a way of “keeping the peace” amongst such a small group. And of allowing new members to join, merging with other small tribes to increase genetic diversity.   Biologically there may be more incentive for the males to provide for  and protect the youngest members because they had no way of knowing which were genetically their offspring and which were not.
    When humans developed to ability to cultivate crops and raise animals for food the groundwork was laid to form families, communities, to become much more territorial.   And monogamy is a territorial concept.
    In some cultures the punishment for female non-monogamy can be severe. Ostracism, public shaming, public stoning. The scarlet letter A anyone?   How about the practice of some African tribes of removing a   girl’s clitoris as a preventive measure against her being tempted to stray from her future husband? If human females were biologically driven to be monogamous, why would these extreme  cultural measures to promote it even be thought up?  
    It’s possible females may crave variety as much as their male counterparts, but, it has been highly  discouraged   in many cultures for many millenia.   Heather K in #9 gave a number of practical reasons a woman may choose to be monogamous. Along with that, I’d add historically a woman who was not monogamous could have alot to lose – her home, her children, her means to support herself. Some pretty compelling reasons for women to convince themselves and try to convince others that females are ‘hard wired’ to be monogamous.
    As far as the article goes, I don’t believe women get bored with monogamy more easily or sooner than men. I think that’s more often a case when a women chooses for a partner a man she is less sexually excited about to begin with. He looks “good on paper”. She doesn’t want to “be alone”. But sexually he’s a less than ideal match and that manifests in her lack of desire for him in due course.
    Are men really more sexually driven than women? I’m not sure. I tend to believe men might just be less picky than women when it comes to who they want to have sex with. I agree with the observations Michelle wrote in #17.
      Men do seem to enjoy looking at  porn more than women do  generally speaking. But long before the internet there existed a booming busines in novels with sexually explicit passages. Who bought those? Women.   So it would seem the human brain, both male and female – does enjoy experiencing sexual variety vicariously through images that create fantasy. A safer outlet than infidelity which can have very unpleasant reprisals.

  7. 27

    I did learn in an anthropology class back in the day that there are societies where a woman is allowed multiple husbands. This culture has it right in my eyes. A woman needs more then 1 man to keep her satisfied.
    Everyone needs variety, they just lie to themselves about how they get it. How many men and women have friendships with the opposite sex and claim to be monogamous? There is such a thing as an emotional affair. Variety isn’t just in the realm of physicality.

  8. 28
    Karl S

    It makes sense that men are more likely to seek variety if you look at it in Darwinian terms.
    Males feel the “pull” of a genetic imperative to spread their seed as widely as possible in order to be successful. Females experience the reverse because their success comes securing the best male in the vicinity and ensuring that his genes are passed on only through her offspring. That’s not to say that men never desire monogamy. Monogamy is a trait that proves advantageous for child rearing, and as far as I can recollect without looking it up (it’s 2:30am here and I’m sleepy), is probably something that became an innate desire in more men further along in our evolution.
    However, our brains still retain much of the instinctual behavior of our distant ancestors. I think men tend to experience conflict with their “reptilian brain”, which simply wants to mate and move on, and that impulse can be a strong one.

    1. 28.1

      It’s these kinds of comments that make me wonder why females bother with males in the first place.   Why would a woman commit to starting a family with a dude that has such strong “reptilian” brain impulses… just seems easier to find another good woman and enjoy a loving, monogamous relationship without men.

  9. 29

    @ Karl S. -” Males feel the “pull” of a genetic imperative to spread their seed as widely as possible in order to be successful. Females experience the reverse because their success comes securing the best male in the vicinity and ensuring that his genes are passed on only through her offspring.”
    If we examine this theory, the *best* male in the vincinity may vary from  year to year, season to season, week to week. The *strongest* male may get killed. Or be suplanted when a stronger (or smarter) male comes along. A younger male may be perceived as the best in comparison to an aging male who was once considered to be the best.
    If we are going to entertain the idea that human females are biologically programmed to mate with *the best* male in their vicinity, then logic follows that females are not by nature monogamous. They must be – in contemporary parlance – always willing to “trade up”.  
    What I find interesting in commenters who promote the hard-wired/ biologically programmed/lizard brain theories of human sexuality is that so few take that line of thought further and make the obvious connections.   If we examine the “men are biologically programmed to spread their seed” theory are we also to believe that males are willing to spread their seed in females who are   diseased, mentally or otherwise incapcitated, dying? From a biological impertative perspective this wouldn’t make much sense. What would make better sense is males choosing healthy and sane females to procreate with thus hopefully ensuring that their seed would result in a continuation of the species. The logical conclusion to this is that males may in fact be more selective than they are sometimes given credit for being.
    If we surmise monogamy is actually a social construct, then perhaps we should look deeper into why so many humans choose it. Could it be that it has a biological basis in that some humans instincively choose to only mate with those they perceive to have the smartest, strongest genes they want to pass on? And avoid spending sperm and egg cells with those procreation outcome could have a less desireable result?
    Just some ideas to ponder.

  10. 30

    A bit off topic, but it’s Evan’s theory and he mentions it here: Men look for sex and find love. Women look for love and find sex. Does that mean women are getting the short end of the stick and have to pick a sex partner in the hopes of eventually getting some love out of it?
    I speak from some experience about this. I am single, professional with a kid. I get hit on quite often, primarily by married men in my age range (40s) who say their wives are boring, let themselves go, and don’t put out. These men are in crisis, I’d say. I’ve met married men who TAKE THEIR RINGS OFF and then play single. I turn these men down, of course.  
    I occasionally get asked out by single men, usually much younger. I turn these men down too, and as a result have been celibate for a year now.
    So do I have to just randomly pick one of these men who want to have sex with me and hope I get some love out of it? Or do men just label some women as only good for sex, for whatever, usually superficial, reason? Keep in mind I meet these men mostly via work, some online.  
    Is this part of the variety part? Some women are just the variety some are the meal deal?

  11. 31
    Karl S

    @ Selena   – “What I find interesting in commenters who promote the hard-wired/ biologically programmed/lizard brain theories of human sexuality is that so few take that line of thought further and make the obvious connections.   If we examine the “men are biologically programmed to spread their seed” theory are we also to believe that males are willing to spread their seed in females who are   diseased, mentally or otherwise incapcitated, dying? From a biological impertative perspective this wouldn’t make much sense.”
    It makes perfect sense though. A man can potentially inseminate a new women every few hours. Investing in a single female, even the “best” female does not take advantage of that ability. They are more likely to succeed in a biological sense if they impregnate a variety of women, even if some of them are diseased or what have you, in order to cover all bases.  
    A woman can only have one child every nine months, and the prolonged state of infancy experienced in humans would encourage a woman to keep the father around as a helper and protector instead of “trading up”. A new man might simply want to kill off the child of the previous father, which is what happens in the animal kingdom.
    You are right in that men still compete over the healthiest, most attractive women. But I think the difference is, even once they have secured a relationship, a man still experiences the urge to sleep around.

  12. 32
    Karl S

    I feel I should add an addendum though, because why own argument does not yet explain men who are monogamous.
    As far as I have learned, Natural Selection is not really about survival of the fittest, so much as it is about survival of the fit enough. Mutually exclusive traits can be passed on through the genetic pool if both are still successful to a greater or lesser degree. Men who stick around to rear their young help to guarantee their survival, and thus monogamy is a useful trait to have. However, men can also be fooled into raising children who do not share their genetic code. It is much harder to reverse that trick on a woman, because whatever you give birth to is definitely yours.  

  13. 33
    Karl T

    Michelle you’ve gotta be kidding me.   OkCupid has the most ugliest women I have ever seen in my life.   Other dating sites have far more attractive women.   I would say that 1 out of every 10 women viewed is attractive lookinbg on OKC while the other 9 are not just unattractive, they are repulsive!!!!!   And the women on OKC rank the men as ugly?   Hahahahaa what a joke.   I speak from personal experience, but here is a link where others found the same thing.


  14. 34

    @ Karl S.
    I tend to think at base the biological imperative is simply concerned with keeping the species going. Sperm meets egg. Doesn’t care who’s sperm or who’s egg or the genetic quality of said eggs and sperm. Just keep producing the species period.
    Yet, if males are programmed to spread their seed as much and to as many as possible…why do many males elect not to mate with females who are mentally deficient? Addicts? Have degenerative diseases that will prove fatal? Are they truly going against their biology? Allowing sociological, cultural, psychological factors over-ride biology? Or is there perhaps other biological factors at play that we don’t yet understand?
    “A woman can only have one child every nine months, and the prolonged state of infancy experienced in humans would encourage a woman to keep the father around as a helper and protector instead of “trading up”. A new man might simply want to kill off the child of the previous father, which is what happens in the animal kingdom.”
    Not only in the animal kingdom. I see this also in the news from time to time: “Boyfriend kills mother’s child”. If women are biologically programmed to be monogamous to the father of their children, why do so many end up with partners who are NOT the father of their children? Almost all of whom are obviously NOT child murderers. And what about young widows? If they lose the partner they were  presumably were monogamous to, are they permanently “off the shelf” biologically speaking if they have children? Aren’t they still of interest to males who have a need to spread their side far and wide? The biological imperitive doesn’t seem to have a *stop* mechanism in the sense that after 2, 6, 10 offspring it automatically turns off.
    If all males are programmed to spread their seed as far and wide as possible, but females are programmed to be monogamous to one male…and there are roughly the same number of males and females…well where is all this seed going?   I’m not a biologist, but it appears to me these two positions: females are programmed to be monogamous, males are programmed to be non-monogamous are biologically opposed. From a survival of the species perspective, non-monogamy in both genders would better accomplish the goal of creating as many pregnancies as possible throughout the human  reproductive cycle.
    Are we over-riding our biology with our social contructs? Or is biology much more complex beyond the ideas we pick and choose from because they fit the way we want to see our world? That’s what interests me.

  15. 35

    This debate to me is somewhat interesting but we are forgetting that men do not live in a vacuum and they tended to live in tribes (groups). A man’s survival is very dependent on his social ties. All these theories are bunk in my eyes because they tend to ignore the very obvious fact that humans are social creatures. So while technically a man can spread his seed, that doesn’t mean he should and he does have to be able to ‘play nice’ with other people if he is to survive.
    The other point is that just because something has potential i.e. a man has potential to make hundreds and thousands of children, doesn’t mean that potential was actually designed to be fulfilled. How many animals lay eggs and only one of them develops? How many human females have eggs in their system and actually have children? We need to realize that nature is very abundant but she is abundant because it’s better to be abundant then deficit. Can you imagine if men didn’t have the capacity to make thousands of children? Can you imagine how pathetic nature would be if she limited man to producing only 4 children? It’s in Mother Nature’s best nature to endow animals (and we humans are animals) with potential so that it ensures their survival. This potential however will never need to be fulfilled.
    This is really the paradigm shift that is needed.

  16. 36
    Karl S

    I agree with both your points. I only talk in terms of urges and predispositions that are often overcome by use of empathy, reason and consideration of risk – the potential to lose more than you gain, by following those urges.
    But the fact remains, as Evan said, that men in general want to sleep around more than women. Men, in general, can separate sex from emotional attachment.
    I’m sure there was another article where Evan explained that a good man, a monogamous married man will desire to sleep with the pretty women he meets who is not his wife, but does not act on those urges. This does not make him a bad person. Subsequently, there was quite a debate that revealed a big difference in the way women thought about that statement.
    It makes sense to me, because even though I am in a committed monogamous relationship, I feel those urges too.

    1. 36.1

      So many men say “A man *can* separate sex and emotion”, like it’s a good thing.   But in most women’s eyes, separating sex and emotion is not a worthy goal — it’s  just a gross,  devolved, less-than-human  thing to do.   Of course, many women *can* do that too, but don’t  want to.

  17. 37
    Karl S

    edit – who *are* not his wife.

  18. 38
    Sparkling Emerald

    Michelle #20   (     )
         Thanks for posting this, I take any OKC “study” with a grain of salt, I’ll explain later.
       As for the 4 guys they showed that were considered signifiigantly less than attractive here’s my opinion.   I think they should all be considered attractive enough to enough women to be able to find love, if that is what they want to find (or a booty call for that matter if that is what they want)
       From left to right     Guy #1 – Attractive, but not my type,   Guy #2 – I think he’s hot, and out of my league.   I am not sure on what planet he could be considered unattractive.   Guy #3 – About average   in my estimation, but I can see how other women would find him attractive   Guy #4 – Has a similar look to a young version of one of my husbands.   (So I’ll leave it to you to guess how I would rate his attractiveness) 🙂
    I don’t know how a man earned a rating of “signifigantly less than average” COLLECTIVELY.   Did the vote have to be unanimous ?   What percentage of women had to rate a man as being unattractive to be considered unattractive ?   Was it an average of all scores ?   Averaging all the women’s scores together really doesn’t tell you anything.   (not sure if that’s how they did it, I didn’t find it in that article).   After all, if 50% think you’re hot, and 50% think your not, just look amoungst that 50% that thinks you’re hot.   Also, if the “study” included a small number of women, results won’t yield much signifigant info.     Also, since I’ve been participating in dating blogs, people freely admit to putting false info on their profile, to try and proove some sort of point.   So, I wouldn’t put it past anyone to bullshit on a “study” on OKC.
      Here’s why I am skeptical of OKC’s “studies”   I was on OKC very briefly.   I was on another blog and an ad came up to have your picture rated free of charge.   When I went to have my photo rated, it turned out to be a way to recruit people to OKCupid.   The only way I could get my photo rated was to JOIN (which is free) and to rate 50 photos of men.   So I decided to go along with it.   Well the “rating” system consisted of being shown 2 pictures side by side of 2 different men (no other profile info available) and then I had to pick out of the 2, which one I would go out with.   Well most of the pairs, my answer was niether.   And I would say that 80% of the pictures randomly selected from available profiles were TERRIBLE quality.   Some I couldn’t even see the face.   So how the hell am I supposed to choose between 2 photos, when one is a far away picture of a guy on the ski slopes where you can’t see his face, and one is taken in front of a foggy bathroom mirror where the flash obliterates half his face ? Or a blurry far away photo of a guy in his ball cap & glasses side by side of a picture of somone’s pet ?    I ended up going through 50 sets of mostly terrible pairs of pictures, and then I got the results of how my picture was rated a few days later.   Well, I actually got pretty good ratings, but I went and looked at women’s photos, and saw a high percentage of poor quality photos, and pet photo’s etc.   So really, I couldn’t get excited about a good rating when my clear close up smiling photo was being compared side by side to a blurry mirror shot or a pictures of some one’s pet.   (Whoopy Frickin’ Do, 9 out 10 guys would rather date me than a gerbil !)
    Anyway my first e-mail was from a pretty hot 40 year old (If that was really his picture) who wrote to ask me if I was “open to the idea of a younger MARRIED man”   My time on OKC was very short lived, for that, and a few other reasons as well, but I won’t go into the other reasons, because this post is already too long 🙂

    1. 39.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      Rose, I know you think you’re making a scientific point, but if you read the article you posted, you’d see:

      1. The fact that men and women want one sex partner just means that men also want to fall in love. It does not mean that they aren’t, by nature, more promiscuous. It means that they have more to overcome in choosing monogamy.
      2. The fact that men and women have the same number of sex partners doesn’t mean that men don’t want more. It may mean there are many men who are incapable of getting more sexual partners. Most women know that if they hang out until last call at a bar that they can get laid. The same doesn’t apply to all men.
      3. Men liking one-night stands is still more true – even though there’s a bullet that refutes it with hypothetical offers. Ask ten of your single male friends and ten of your single female friends if they’re up for a one-night stand now, and I’m guessing more men are open to one-nighters. Asking a woman if she’s sleep with Clooney for one night is a silly point, irrelevant to real life.
      4. The fact that men think about sex more (which is somewhat irrelevant, but the article cites it) still holds true. Men think about sex nearly twice as much. And this, in an article designed to debunk such myths.

      Rose, my dear – I know you don’t want it to be true that men are more promiscuous, but pretty much all real world evidence – from prostitution, to big sex scandals, to infidelity rates, to membership on sex sites, to anecdotal evidence – seems to suggest they are. It’s okay. Let it go.

      1. 39.1.1

        “Men think about sex nearly twice as much. And this, in an article designed to debunk such myths.”
        That study included thoughts-about-sex that arose after seeing visual stimuli.
        Guess how many more sexualized women are in the media than men?
        …About twice as many.

  19. 40

    Karl S.
    My observation also has been that it seems men generally are able to separate sex from emotion  more easily   than women.   And by extension, express the desire to have more sexual partners than women generally claim to want for themselves.
    What I question is the idea that this is  determined by biology rather than intense social conditioning. If females are naturally monogamous, then why have so many cultures across human history put restrictions and reprisals on the expression of female sexuality? If females were naturally monogamous, why would there be any need for it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *