Why do women need so much from a relationship compared to men?

Nobody has to know what gender you are, even in online games. Without the ''attached stigma'', do you think there would be millions of young women gagging to headshot another player and teabag him? And I was talking about single player PC games. What do you think made the sims such a huge franchise? Women buyers have turned it into the 3rd biggest franchise of all time. Why don't women like simcity instead?

There's this thing called birth control, and there's also this thing called having sex while pregnant.

The guy you quoted has a point. The clit is, like, the only body part / organ whatever, the only purpose of which is to give pleasure to women.

Whereas when guys cum, it's just for baby-making purposes.

Therefore, ~*biologically*~, women should be the promiscuous ones.

Your argument is ridiculous.

healthy relationships require communication, if you struggle to even talk to the person you've commited to spending your life with, perhaps you need to ask yourself whether you're mature enough to have a relationship like that. If this is your mindset, I think probably not. If all you want from a woman is sex, go find that, don't expect a commitment from their side and not be willing to give anything back.

It's biological. A woman needs a loyal/caring/strong male to help take care of/raise a child. The male just needs a sperm depository - and they don't need one, biologically it probably makes sense to have many.

Please send me your scientific evidence for this theory

People need to realise that not all men just use women for sex and not all women are desperate for men. In fact some men are desperate for love and attention and some women actually use men just for sex and food. I think the media paints this picture well (this is sarcasm) though, the stereotype of men and women.

His argument is the generally scientifically accepted model for why men tend to be more promiscuous than women. A man that impregnates many women tends to have more children, and hence alleles that produce promiscuity in men are selected for and will spread through a population. A woman who has sex often, with many men, can only have a child every year or so anyway, and that child then must be raised and nurtured. By the time the baby is born, the woman is already highly invested in it - she has used up a ton of energy throughout its embryonic development and during childbirth. That energy is wasted if the child then dies from lack of parental involvement. Hence, it makes more evolutionary sense for a woman to find a man who will help her raise the child, giving it a better chance of surviving to sexual maturity. Hence, men and women in the ancestral environment wanted different things from a relationship - men would have wanted sex with many women, and women would have wanted men who would stay with her, help her raise the child, and not leave her holding the baby. Alleles that produced these behaviours would have been selected for, and many would still be present in our gene pool.

Note well - I am not saying that such exploitative, promiscuous behaviour on the part of men is acceptable or moral in today's society - merely that it would have been evolutionarily favourable in the ancestral environment.

some women actually use men just for sex and food

Guilty as charged

His argument is the generally scientifically accepted model for why men tend to be more promiscuous than women. A man that impregnates many women tends to have more children, and hence alleles that produce promiscuity in men are selected for and will spread through a population. A woman who has sex often, with many men, can only have a child every year or so anyway, and that child then must be raised and nurtured. By the time the baby is born, the woman is already highly invested in it - she has used up a ton of energy throughout its embryonic development and during childbirth. That energy is wasted if the child then dies from lack of parental involvement. Hence, it makes more evolutionary sense for a woman to find a man who will help her raise the child, giving it a better chance of surviving to sexual maturity. Hence, men and women in the ancestral environment wanted different things from a relationship - men would have wanted sex with many women, and women would have wanted men who would stay with her, help her raise the child, and not leave her holding the baby. Alleles that produced these behaviours would have been selected for, and many would still be present in our gene pool.

Note well - I am not saying that such exploitative, promiscuous behaviour on the part of men is acceptable or moral in today's society - merely that it would have been evolutionarily favourable in the ancestral environment.

It's actually a pretty robust scientific theory in the field of evolutionary genetics. For the process of spreading one's genes, it pays for the male to be sexually promiscuous, but for the female to be selective in who she mates with. See this guy's earlier post:

Such theories are about as scientific as psychoanalysis, is that not obvious to anyone else?

Right. Despite such behaviour being observed in almost all sexually dimorphic animal species on Earth, from insects to mammals. While human sexuality has evolved far beyond simply a means to procreate, there's no doubt millions of years of sexual selection has played a significant role in how sex is viewed in modern society.

Guilty as charged

Sooooooo not true.

If we go by that pathetic logic women would be just as promiscuous as men, if not more