The key and lock analogy for sluts vs manwhores.

Well if you think about it scientifically (im not supporting it, just giving another view). Men should be promiscuous. Firstly i dont think humans are truly monogamous. Marriage is social not genetic. In the animal kingdom it is easy to see that the male species try to spread their sperm in as many females as possible. This is genetic. An animal that can pass on its genes is a successful animal. Humans are animals, we may be more intelligent, but genetically, we are. So following that it would make sense to say that a man should have as much sex as possible. Also women get to choose who they 'mate' with (like in the animal kingdom as well) so its up to them to make the best decision about who they sleep with, rather than having sex with anyone.

Well seeing as I'm gay, no.

hmmm, how does this analogy fit for you then? do locks on back doors come into the equation?

Actually they've done studies with birds where the male partner has been given a vasectomy, and somehow that female bird just keep poppin' out little birds.

It isn't necessarily the men that are supposed to be "promiscuous", it's just possible that humans as a species aren't supposed to be.
That being said, it's far from impossible.

I'm going out on a limb here. You have a key. It doesn't go into any locks. You stick it on a keychain with the rest of the keys that don't go into locks. Hey Presto. Gay Sex.

Actually they've done studies with birds where the male partner has been given a vasectomy, and somehow that female bird just keep poppin' out little birds.

It isn't necessarily the men that are supposed to be "promiscuous", it's just possible that humans as a species aren't supposed to be.
That being said, it's far from impossible.

People are confusing what I said. I never said humans, or other animals, were monogamous. I said that a successful male would spread their genes. Just because the male in your bird experiment couldnt reproduce, doesnt mean other male birds wouldnt have sex with the female. Males will try and have sex with multiple females, regardless of whether someone else got to them first, unless they are challenged by another male.
I think its the same principle for human males. Spread your genes. Please dont take this as me making an excuse for all the manwhores. im just trying to find an explanation. The only thing that puts boundaries on our instincts is society. Society says 'get married' so people get married, society says 'dont have sex with lots of people' but to be honest, its all instinct.

Aha but as you said, this is with higher mammals only (chimps, apes, orangutans). In the rest of the animal kingdom it is unusual for a female to have more than one sexual partner per mating season, whereas the male can have several. Humans and chimps etc have perhaps found a better way of continuing the species, through intelligence. Is it genetic for the female to be promiscuous? Im not so sure about that.

EDIT: Unless promiscuity is a learnt behaviour. But I doubt that. In the majority of animals it is the males job to get females pregnant. It is the females job to pick the best male- not any male. Thats why you often see animals fighting (lions, hares and indeed even humans) and you see that the winner, the stronger animal, gets to mate.

YOU - ARE - PART - OF - THE - HUMAN - SPECIES - NOT - A - WILD - ANIMAL.
get it?

True, but you can't deny that men are "supposed" to be much more promiscuous.

Looking at the reproductive systems of men and women (libido, eggs vs sperm production etc) and taking into consideration the fact that 80% of your ancestors are women and 20% of your ancestors are male shows that the dynamic involves females being "picky" and men being a lot more promiscuous.

No I wasn't having a go! I promise!
I just meant that yes, the men are trying to "spread their seed" as much as they can, but the females aren't always passive in the whole thing.
It's in their benefit if the gene pool is a diverse as possible too.
I think it'd be hard to argue the case for humans being genetically/ automatically monogomous creatures with the huge amount of stats there are pointing to affairs and general promiscuity.

I also have to take this chance to throw a joke out there:
A child at a Christian school was studying the early days of Mormonism in his class. He wrote on his paper, "The early mornoms believed in having more than one wife. This is called polygamy. But we believe in having only one wife. This is called monotony."

YOU - ARE - PART - OF - THE - HUMAN - SPECIES - NOT - A - WILD - ANIMAL.
get it?

Yes it is in the females best interest to reproduce as well. But they are meant to choose the best mate, that will produce the best offspring. So the females aims to get the best mate whereas the male aims to spread its sperm as far as possible. Again this isnt my view, its science.

I don't disagree with the sentiment in your post.
However, sperm production and eggs can also be used to prove a lot of things. Women are born with millions more eggs than they will ever release, and men "waste" millions of sperm when they ejaculate, as only one is needed to fertilise the egg in the first place (or as many eggs as there are). I'm sure a hundred different conclusions could be drawn from those facts alone lol.

Human genetics are so fascinating...

Those sperm aren't wasted, they increase the chances of one reaching the egg. Using them alone would be ridiculous (hence the "etc"), the female actually lessens the quality of the pool by being more promiscuous.

The role of the female in the process is to pick the a male who is among the best. Don't forget that 80% of your male ancestors didn't get the chance to reproduce.

(Don't let this statement lead you to believe that I'm toward some sort of 1700s conclusion, I don't think that women should be judged to the extent they are, for merely having multiple partners. It is a choice that should be respected and there is little logical basis in them being restricted in choosing any such option (liberty 101).