Girl having sex with 10 guys in a week is same as guy having 10 girls in one week?

Male-Male=Legend
Male-Female= Slag

Female-Male= Player
Female= Female= Slag

But women think the same about men. So we can't say it is male-female.

Actually being promiscuous and mixing up the gene pool of your offspring is a positive thing, evolution-wise. Contraception means we can replicate this behaviour without actually getting pregnant, just like men sow their invisble seeds by shagging around more but not actually doing so to make women pregnant.

Anyway, good luck queenorivers. I've been arguing the case you're arguing here in this thread but the only argument some guys had against me were to make stuff up about me. I gave up in the end. It's just pointless. Most people are so judgemental about female sexuality. Sad but true...

but a woman thinking a man is a player isn't a good thing, it's not like "oh dude you're such a playa!" it's more like "he's a player and i couldn't trust him and he might be full of diseases"... that's what i meant before.

i doubt there's many women who'd think a guy was a ledgend cause he got with 10 girls in a week.

And I apologise for reiterating that the fault lies with BOTH genders

My offer of a reason would be that to determine who the father of a child would be if the woman became pregnant.

Do not shout about condoms to me. Simply, the body does not know it has a condom on, or it would not "waste" semen. Chemicals are still released into the brain, ect. For a woman to be promiscuous has both sociological and evolutionary disadvantages.

I think in the future, the ideas behind sex will change. But only in the last sort of 50 years has sex become "safe" and generally free from the risk of pregnancy with the correct methodology. Give it time, and women will be given the same freedoms as men.

However, I think you're looking at this through very feminist glasses.

If a man has sex with 10 women in a week, a lot of men would think something like "legend." A much much smaller section of men would think "Man-whore/equivalent." What would a woman think? I don't know.

If a woman has sex with 10 men in a week, a lot of men would think "slag." A smaller section of men would think "free spirit/equivalent." Women on the other hand would quite universally I believe, think "slag." The problem is not with men only. You need to sort out affairs on your own side, before attempting to change our conceptions. I believe the fact that women would take this view is both evolutionary and sociologically grounded, perhaps they "take umbrage" with the idea that the woman has increased her potential of conceiving (again, chemically) or just that such acts are not befitting of whatever "women" are.

The argument that "ease" has a role, I think is one with some merit, but I think there probably is no one over-riding reason, so to look for one is futile.


Constructed well enough for you?

I think otherwise.

Thinking back to when we had just arrived on the scene, women were not hunter-gatherers, and had to rely on men to "help" them somewhat with food and protection. If it was uncertain that a child was their own, the defence/security of the female would be uncertain. So really, knowing that a child was your own meant that you didn't waste time on randomer's children.


I have not studied human evolution at all however, and if you know that what I have said is incorrect, I apologise profusely and retract everything. It just seems logical that that is how things went down.

I didn't mean it in terms of who will look after the children, just in terms of having a better mixture of genetics will probably result in a bigger chance of the children having a wider variety of characteristics later in life. For example if all the kids were short and fat, and short kids grew up to be short fat waddly adults easily beaten down by some kick ass stone age leapord () then their gene pool is screwed. If the kids were a variety of heights/body shapes etc then more chance that some will survive.

Variety is very very useful to evoluntion in general. Again same as you I don't know if this is accurate, but it's a good argument and makes sense to me at least.

EDIT: But I can say something about it not really mattering though. Gene diversity can be achieved by having sex with someone different from yourself only, and then carrying that child through to birth. Having sex with many men would not increase the diversity of the child.

That's exactly why I said we replicate the behaviour that would give rise to gene diversity, but slightly modified for our own pleasures - the same argument behind why men sleep around and then defend it using the 'sowing their seeds' argument when they're not even getting all these women pregnant.

I think it's all bullcrap anyway, for both genders. I think using evolutionary biology to explain modern day behaviours is stupid.

To be continued.

morally, socially etc.

yes or no?

That's what I meant.
Sorry, I perhaps should have said:

Male-Male= Positive
Male-Female= Negative

Female-Female= Negative
Female-Male= Negative.

I disagree. If one of my mates slept with 10 girls in a week I would assume he was having some kind of early mid-life crisis/mental breakdown and needed to up his dose of happy pills. I certainly wouldn't be impressed (probably because I'm not 15 years old).

I think people just have to accept that these gender differences exist, and yes it's not fair but it's just the way the world works. I don't think it's right either way, however I would probably be more shocked at a female doing that just because we're wired differently to men and are not ruled by our crotches (well the majority of women anyway).