Men are no more promiscuous than women - survey finds

[tennisball80]

The long standing belief that men are promiscuous and women are choosy is a myth, claim psychologists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...more-promiscuous-than-women-survey-finds.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LovinPsych]

I can believe that " now " . Women are more apt to cheat these days than used to be . There was a time men were more promiscuous than women but times has changed and women are now stepping up the game when it comes to an active sex life . I personally think it's a bad trend cause infidelity has gone up drastically in the last ten years . No one wants to keep to their relationships anymore and it's preferred to just sneak around and cheat then just tell the person you're with , that it's just not working for you anymore .

I'm just expressing my opinion and theory . I'm not bitter but I've had experience with infidelity unfortunately .

I wonder though if women are just finding themselves doing the samethings men has always done ? I don't agree with it either way but it does seem interesting , at least to me .

 

[Rendar5]

i don't quite see how one sex can be more promiscuous than the other if there are approximately equal numbers of each sex. for every man to have had sex with 5 women, every woman woudl have to have sex with 5 men on average...

 

[Winged Scapula]

i don't quite see how one sex can be more promiscuous than the other if there are approximately equal numbers of each sex. for every man to have had sex with 5 women, every woman woudl have to have sex with 5 men on average...

That discounts multiple men having sex with the same woman. Which is generally the case with promiscuous women (or men).

Men still have, on average, more sexual partners than women. Whatever defines promiscuity is another matter.

 

[engineeredout]

I don't find this surprising. Chicks are at least as horny as dudes.

 

[sumstorm]

I believe the ability to control reproductivity more successfully also affects these results, though in reality 18 countries/10,000 people isn't a very large sample....and probably leaves out a LOT of different cultures....though I believe that is likely true for most studies of this nature.

 

[PsyDGrrrl]

i don't quite see how one sex can be more promiscuous than the other if there are approximately equal numbers of each sex. for every man to have had sex with 5 women, every woman woudl have to have sex with 5 men on average...

Hello....not everyone is having heterosexual sex!!

 

[Crazyday]

Well if you look at it from a genetic/ancestral point of view, it makes sense that men would be more promiscuous.

A woman's reproductive capacity is to hold the seed of one man, while the man's reproductive capacity is to spread his seed to as many women as possible; that is, for maximum reproduction to ensure the longevity of a species.

While that may not be considered correct in today's society, when you look at it from a primitive standpoint, it makes sense that men are more promiscuous.

And I don't think it is a myth, at least it didn't used to be. I don't know about this generation, and I don't even want to think about some of the coming generations.

 

[Rendar5]

Hello....not everyone is having heterosexual sex!!

yeah, but I don't think that the prevailing belief that one sex is more promiscuous was based on the idea that heterosexual men and women are equally promiscuous, gay guys have lots of sex and lesbians aren't into sex. So there was no need to add another dimension

 

[Rendar5]

That discounts multiple men having sex with the same woman. Which is generally the case with promiscuous women (or men).

Men still have, on average, more sexual partners than women. Whatever defines promiscuity is another matter.

But here's the thing, how can those average out to be different? Someone is lying, either men are claiming more partners than women, or women are not claming as many partners as they actually had.

Math example if you still think averages can be different. If 20 guys have sex with 1 woman, and 19 women don't have sex with any guys, then women still average 1 sexual partner per woman and guys still average 1 sexual partner per man. Or fine, let's say you have 100 guys and 100 woman, 99 women have sex with 1 guy and that last woman has sex with all 100 guys. 199 partners per 100 women. about 2. Now those 100 guys, every single one had sex with that superpromiscuous woman, and 99 of them have one other partner from teh rest of the women. still 199 partners per 100 men.

Now i'm not talking horniness or whatnot. I'm just talking partners. For heterosexual partners, they're gonna be mostly equal unless someone's lying (which is prolly both sexes).

EDIT: Ok, now if we define promiscuity as a yes/no phenomenon and say that 4 or more partners in 10 years is promiscuous and less is not, and you say that the distributional graphs of sex partners are completely unequal between the sexes, it might be a buyable argument. I would say though that lying thorughout the years about number of partners is more likely than "all men are the same (i.e. promiscuous), and women are either frigid or more promiscuous than the average man"

 

[Rendar5]

Well if you look at it from a genetic/ancestral point of view, it makes sense that men would be more promiscuous.

A woman's reproductive capacity is to hold the seed of one man, while the man's reproductive capacity is to spread his seed to as many women as possible; that is, for maximum reproduction to ensure the longevity of a species.

False reasoning assuming that the sexes are equally represented. 100 women and 100 men. How can those men impregnate more than 1 woman per man (sure some of those men won't impregnate women and some will impregnate multiple women, but averages work out for equivalence). Now if you live in some society where half of men are not expected to be reproductive, or where there are 2 women for each guy, it would make sense...

 

[Future Doc1]

Well if you look at it from a genetic/ancestral point of view, it makes sense that men would be more promiscuous.

A woman's reproductive capacity is to hold the seed of one man, while the man's reproductive capacity is to spread his seed to as many women as possible; that is, for maximum reproduction to ensure the longevity of a species.

While that may not be considered correct in today's society, when you look at it from a primitive standpoint, it makes sense that men are more promiscuous.

And I don't think it is a myth, at least it didn't used to be. I don't know about this generation, and I don't even want to think about some of the coming generations.

This is true to a primitive standpoint yes, but times have changed drastically and today's society is much more ethical than that. Back then the average life expectancy was a lot lower than in modern times and the infant mortality rate was a lot higher; Their intentions might not have been of such a promiscuous manner but rather to reproduce and spread the seed to ensure the longevity of a species--of course, promiscuity could have grown in men through immoral intentions along their times while "spreading the seed".

 

[Danbo1957]

The long standing belief that men are promiscuous and women are choosy is a myth, claim psychologists.

Hmmm... male politicians...

 

[LovinPsych]

Hello....not everyone is having heterosexual sex!!

.....I know

i don't quite see how one sex can be more promiscuous than the other if there are approximately equal numbers of each sex. for every man to have had sex with 5 women, every woman would have to have sex with 5 men on average...

There's so much wrong with what you stated . You are basically equaling one person with a selected amount of partners . That's not true , for example I am a virgin I have 0 sex partners underneath my belt , my ex however , who isn't a virgin and wasn't when I met him had had 10 sex partners before he met me all women , at this point since he dumped me over a year ago . he's been with several men and women . Now that's not counting who those same women or men have been and how many before him and after . And like she stated above not everyone is having heterosexual sex . Some are having homosexual sex . It begins where a person starts and with who and how many they've had . Eventually you'll see one side over do the other . To say it'd be equal is not realistic statistically . Furthermore , age , background , personal beliefs , and even the amount of people in a given area is a factor . Plus you wouldn't have sex with your family so therefore family members as a gender statistic would be irrelevant as well.

 

[sumstorm]

Well if you look at it from a genetic/ancestral point of view, it makes sense that men would be more promiscuous.

A woman's reproductive capacity is to hold the seed of one man, while the man's reproductive capacity is to spread his seed to as many women as possible; that is, for maximum reproduction to ensure the longevity of a species.

While that may not be considered correct in today's society, when you look at it from a primitive standpoint, it makes sense that men are more promiscuous.

And I don't think it is a myth, at least it didn't used to be. I don't know about this generation, and I don't even want to think about some of the coming generations.

Actually, it doesn't. The best ways to increase the survival of your genes is to combine them with various individuals (hopefully one or more of the variations will be successful), or to protect your genes during vulnerable periods (long nurturing time.) Theoretically from a genetics standpoint, a woman would be best suited to pair up with a man who commits to long periods of nurturing offspring while taking on partners on the side to increase genetic variability. This occurs frequently in primates societies and in bird societies. Research shows more and more frequently that females often have offspring from multiple males, but prior to the age of dna testing, it was harder to determine.

Part of why evoluntionary biology and ethology are interesting.

 

[Rendar5]

.....I know


there's so much wrong with what you stated . You are basically equaling one person with a selected amount of partners . That's not true , for example I am a virgin I have 0 sex partners underneath my belt , my ex however , who isn't a virgin and wasn't when I met him had had 10 sex partners before he met me all women , at this point since he dumped me over a year ago . he's been with several men and women . Now that's not counting who those same women or men have been and how many before him and after . And like she stated above not everyone is having heterosexual sex . Some are having homosexual sex . It begins where a person starts and with who and how many they've had . Eventually you'll see one side over do the other . To say it'd be equal is not realistic statistically . Furthermore , age , background , personal beliefs , and even the amount of people in a given area is a factor . Plus you wouldn't have sex with your family so therefore family members as a gender statistic would be irrelevant as well.

you're still not explaining how stuff doesn't average out over 10000000 people with equal numbers of each sex. men overall have x many of partners, notcounting homosexuality, how can women not have the extact same average number of partners. for every woman with 0 partners whose ex has 10 partners, you're sayign there isn't a guy with 0 partners whose female ex has 10 partners? (me at one point in my life many years ago). Every single person your ex had sex with, had sex with him in turn. everyt ime he gained a female partner, a woman gained a male partner.

(NOw my argument is not for homosexuals, since that is entirely possible that either gay men or gay women are more promiscuous than the other, but I am not for a second going to try and say which one is).

/does not understand how people don't get the concept of averages and the fact the in general, sex requires a 1-to-1 matchup of people on each side of the gender barrier

 

[Rendar5]

sigh, fine let's get a bit more mathematical in language.

There are 2 groupings of variables, x's and y's. There are 500 x's. There are 500 y's. There exists the possibility of a 1-to-1 relationship between them that we shall call c. The rules demand this to be a 1-to-1 relationship (aww, yes i know, no threesomes, drat!)

x----c----y
x.............y
x.............y
x----c----y
x.........../.y
x........./...y
x......./.....y
x.....c.......y
x.../.........y
x./...........y
x..............y

In this example, there are 3 c's. In each group, there are 11 variables. 11 x's, and 11 y's. 2 different y's have a c. 3 different x's have a c. On average, there is 3/11 of a chance that an x has a c. And there is a 3/11 of a chance that a y has a c. Are there unequal pairings? sure. some variables have 2 connections, some have none. Are there pairings between a variable with more connections and one with less connections? sure.

On the whole, are both variables equally likely to have the same number of connections yes.

TAke this to infinity, make sure that on average there are 2-3 connections per x, then there will on average be 2-3 connectiosn per y. Equally promiscuous in terms of number of partners

 

[Rendar5]

the other way to look at promiscuity is to define it as x number of partners. we already know that mathematically, heterosexual males, as a whole (let's say 2 billion) have 10 billion sexual partners (again let's just say), and that requires heterosexual females as a whole to have 10 billion sexual partners. We can arbitrarily define promiscuity as an individual having 4 or more sexual partners in a lifetime.

Arbitrarily, say that sexual partners completely evens out across men into 3 groups so that all men fall into either 1 lifetime partner, 5 lifetime partners, or 9 lifetime partners. 33% in each group. 2/3 of men are promiscuous. Now IF you want to say that at some point in history heterosexual women were less likely to be promiscuous, (uneven bell curve, it bends to the left), the average promiscuous women will have to be MORE promscuous than the average promiscuous man in order to average out the sexual encounters to be equal between the groups.

Thus, if you're somehow going to say it's possible to be unevenly promiscuous between the sexes AND you're saying that men are more promiscuous, you are in fact saying that a slutty woman is more slutty than a slutty guy and that there are more frigid women than frigid guys. Only way it works out.

If only I had a chalkboard, it'd be a lot easier to show this.

 

[sumstorm]

Are you combining two different concepts? Number of individuals having sex with multiple partners with the concept of how many sex partners each individual has? Two very different things. I could have 10 people with 10 partners each, or I could have 10 people partnering with the same individual. In the second example, those 10 individuals would NOT be considered promiscuous (single partner for each) but that 1 individual who had sex with the 10 would be (multiple partners for one individual.) In the second sample, if I am dealing with 100 xyz's all partnered with an individual mno (another 100) but somewhere in there, 10 of those xyz's are having sex with 2 mno(thier partner and another) but that other is one individual, then 10% of xyz's are promiscuous (having more than one partner) but only 1% of mno's are promiscuous.

Of the entire population, 5.5% are promiscuous (11 out of 200.)

The stats you are suggesting would be without recombination.

 

[LovinPsych]

Are you combining two different concepts? Number of individuals having sex with multiple partners with the concept of how many sex partners each individual has? Two very different things. I could have 10 people with 10 partners each, or I could have 10 people partnering with the same individual. In the second example, those 10 individuals would NOT be considered promiscuous (single partner for each) but that 1 individual who had sex with the 10 would be (multiple partners for one individual.) In the second sample, if I am dealing with 100 xyz's all partnered with an individual mno (another 100) but somewhere in there, 10 of those xyz's are having sex with 2 mno(thier partner and another) but that other is one individual, then 10% of xyz's are promiscuous (having more than one partner) but only 1% of mno's are promiscuous.

Of the entire population, 5.5% are promiscuous (11 out of 200.)

The stats you are suggesting would be without recombination.

That's basically what I am saying he's using a one way method with his thinking . I wish I could explain more but at this time I got to get to reading cause I have an assignment due to hand in . When I am free I am coming back to state my case further . Homosexual partners are important by the way , because sex doesn't stop with adam and eve these days . Research sometimes has to adapt with the times , hence research .

 

[Longshanks]

Woman have always been just as like as men to have infedility in their relationships. Simply women are betting at hiding it haha. Its already been shown in other studies and experiments that women are more likely to cheat significant others around their point of ovulation and tend to go for more 'genetically superior' and 'physical' features during this time period. Many men today out there aren't raising their own children without them knowing it. The same occurs in birds, even in supposedly 'monogamous' species. I also find it funny that in these same social, cultural, sexual, psychological studies that they have to exclude women on birth control since in other studies women on bc lose their higher degree of selectivity of mates as neither longterm mate factors or short term mate factors hold an influence over they other.

edit: I like how the article doesn't link or site or the journal. What rubbish.

 

[Rendar5]

That's basically what I am saying he's using a one way method with his thinking . I wish I could explain more but at this time I got to get to reading cause I have an assignment due to hand in . When I am free I am coming back to state my case further . Homosexual partners are important by the way , because sex doesn't stop with adam and eve these days . Research sometimes has to adapt with the times , hence research .

Actually, I was using 2 different methods in my thinking and presented it both ways, with either having promiscuous be a relatively yes/no variable when a certain number of partners is reached, or having promiscuity being a continuous variable that really is a direct reflection of number of sex partners per individual without setting an arbitrary limit on what defines promiscuity.

I showed that in the latter situation, the average number of partners for the average man would be equal ot the average women. I realize that promiscuity isn't defined this way, but you ahve to have a base model somewhere.
Now in the former situation, in order for males to be more likely to be promiscuous, then women would have to be extremists. Why? Because we're dealing with 2 semi-bell curve shapes with equal means (based on the latter method). If you want to say the medians are different with the girl median being less partners than the male median, promiscuous girls have to overall be more promiscuous than promiscuous guys.

I'm not stupid that there isn't homosexuality, but if you want to say women are less promiscuous than guys, you are saying that gay guys have more average partners than gay women (entirely possible, but it fits into stereotypes), and/or there are more practicing bisexual men than women (*cough* bull**** according to the Kinsey data that I remember*cough*) Although that cough is relegated to our society and not to, say, Tokugawa Japan where practiced bisexuality was extremely common and I have no clue which sex was more likely to practice it.

My own feelings? promiscuity is relatively equal among the sexes with very promiscuous and not very promiscuous ppl in roughly equal numbers across the board. What may have been reported differences many years ago was not due to an extreme grouping of nonpromiscuous women with a grouping of horribly promiscuous women who put Will Chamberlain to shame. I feel it's more likely that women were lying on surveys, claiming fewer partners than reality, and men lying on surveys, claiming more partners than reality.

*EDIT, there is one actual hole in my argument that I realized, not in the homosexuality part, but in the bell curve part. bonus points to anyone who points it out*

 

[Rendar5]

Are you combining two different concepts? Number of individuals having sex with multiple partners with the concept of how many sex partners each individual has? Two very different things. I could have 10 people with 10 partners each, or I could have 10 people partnering with the same individual. In the second example, those 10 individuals would NOT be considered promiscuous (single partner for each) but that 1 individual who had sex with the 10 would be (multiple partners for one individual.) In the second sample, if I am dealing with 100 xyz's all partnered with an individual mno (another 100) but somewhere in there, 10 of those xyz's are having sex with 2 mno(thier partner and another) but that other is one individual, then 10% of xyz's are promiscuous (having more than one partner) but only 1% of mno's are promiscuous.

Of the entire population, 5.5% are promiscuous (11 out of 200.)

The stats you are suggesting would be without recombination.

I'm suggesting equal likelihood of recombination that forms approximately equal "Bell curve" shapes. What I'm not suggesting is that one sex consists of more extremists than the other, which would be necessary for a significant difference in promiscuity

 

[FuturaDocta]

What are surveys good for?

In real studies, men are way more promiscuous due to the evolutionary background. Women don't seek out to spread their genes. They just stayed in the village.

 

[tennisball80]

Woman have always been just as like as men to have infedility in their relationships. Simply women are betting at hiding it haha. Its already been shown in other studies and experiments that women are more likely to cheat significant others around their point of ovulation and tend to go for more 'genetically superior' and 'physical' features during this time period. Many men today out there aren't raising their own children without them knowing it. The same occurs in birds, even in supposedly 'monogamous' species. I also find it funny that in these same social, cultural, sexual, psychological studies that they have to exclude women on birth control since in other studies women on bc lose their higher degree of selectivity of mates as neither longterm mate factors or short term mate factors hold an influence over they other.

edit: I like how the article doesn't link or site or the journal. What rubbish.

Source of information?

 

[LovinPsych]

Actually, I was using 2 different methods in my thinking and presented it both ways, with either having promiscuous be a relatively yes/no variable when a certain number of partners is reached, or having promiscuity being a continuous variable that really is a direct reflection of number of sex partners per individual without setting an arbitrary limit on what defines promiscuity.

Yes , however it's still too perfect . You're basically mapping out a situation to how you see it not how it may be on several levels or ways . There are many people who are virgins while others aren't . But those who aren't virgins may be promiscuous . Then you have people who are sexually active who aren't promiscuous .

I showed that in the latter situation, the average number of partners for the average man would be equal ot the average women. I realize that promiscuity isn't defined this way, but you ahve to have a base model somewhere.

Yes I agree of course you have to have a base model but you can't make general statements based on not having all of the facts . Of course in any case when you research anything in statistics you have to assume there could be more factors . This would also depend on the situation .

Now in the former situation, in order for males to be more likely to be promiscuous, then women would have to be extremists. Why? Because we're dealing with 2 semi-bell curve shapes with equal means (based on the latter method). If you want to say the medians are different with the girl median being less partners than the male median, promiscuous girls have to overall be more promiscuous than promiscuous guys.

Take into that at this point with times changing , women could very well be actively seeking other sex partners now than before but that doesn't dismiss of whomever they hook up with and how many partners those people have been with .

I'm not stupid that there isn't homosexuality, but if you want to say women are less promiscuous than guys, you are saying that gay guys have more average partners than gay women (entirely possible, but it fits into stereotypes), and/or there are more practicing bisexual men than women (*cough* bull**** according to the Kinsey data that I remember*cough*) Although that cough is relegated to our society and not to, say, Tokugawa Japan where practiced bisexuality was extremely common and I have no clue which sex was more likely to practice it.

I don't believe you are stupid at all . You seem to be an intelligent person . You're bringing up great points and theories but I am just pointing out the holes or inconsistencies I see in them . But there are two genders , men or women . If women are becoming more promiscuous why does it stop at heterosexuals ? Being promiscuous I thought was having a number of sex partners without any selectivity . That could mean , men with men , women with women , women and men . I know if I was going to be promiscuous it'd be with both genders , more women than with men though . But that's a personal preference too .

My own feelings? promiscuity is relatively equal among the sexes with very promiscuous and not very promiscuous ppl in roughly equal numbers across the board. What may have been reported differences many years ago was not due to an extreme grouping of nonpromiscuous women with a grouping of horribly promiscuous women who put Will Chamberlain to shame. I feel it's more likely that women were lying on surveys, claiming fewer partners than reality, and men lying on surveys, claiming more partners than reality.

*EDIT, there is one actual hole in my argument that I realized, not in the homosexuality part, but in the bell curve part. bonus points to anyone who points it out*

This is all very possible . I am sure demographics play a key role here in those surveys as well .

 

[MasterDebater]

I didn't know we were competing to see who would be more promiscuous, but if anything, women win hands down from what I've seen and from what I know. And so what? Infidelity has increased, but so has pre-marital sex and starting at younger ages for both genders.

Anyone see a correlation? Doesn't even take a doc. to figure this one out,-- the more sex you have before marriage, the more it will hurt you when you get married because you see, every time you have sex with someone, regardless of how unattached you say or think it is, you emotionally connect with that person and the more you do so, the less value sex has for you, and since sex is already valueless to you, you're just subtracting those non-existant values, and then what? You get married after having been with some two-digit num. thinking that you two will stay faithful to each other until 'death do us part'? WRONG. Forget about it, no one whose had better will ever stay and first chance either partner gets, they'll stray. This has little if nothing at all to do with queers, though it's probably the reason why there is such an acceptance of them today.

 

[LovinPsych]

I didn't know we were competing to see who would be more promiscuous, but if anything, women win hands down from what I've seen and from what I know. And so what? Infidelity has increased, but so has pre-marital sex and starting at younger ages for both genders.

Anyone see a correlation? Doesn't even take a doc. to figure this one out,-- the more sex you have before marriage, the more it will hurt you when you get married because you see, every time you have sex with someone, regardless of how unattached you say or think it is, you emotionally connect with that person and the more you do so, the less value sex has for you, and since sex is already valueless to you, you're just subtracting those non-existant values, and then what? You get married after having been with some two-digit num. thinking that you two will stay faithful to each other until 'death do us part'? WRONG. Forget about it, no one whose had better will ever stay and first chance either partner gets, they'll stray. This has little if nothing at all to do with queers, though it's probably the reason why there is such an acceptance of them today.

Okay seriously , that's a horrible way of seeing this . I mean yes I see the correlation but to say that because someone has had sex before they married another person makes sex less meaningful to them, doesn't speak for everyone . Nor can you make excuses for such behavior when it comes to straying . I feel you making such excuses , which I find alarming to say the least . By the way , that's how many are promiscuous is the fact they are unemotionally attached to the person they have sex with . They do it and move on . Some don't .

By the way each person treats each person they have sex with differently so the relationship will vary .

 

[KingstonPre]

i don't quite see how one sex can be more promiscuous than the other if there are approximately equal numbers of each sex. for every man to have had sex with 5 women, every woman woudl have to have sex with 5 men on average...

Women get approached for sex many times on a daily basis, men don't.

 

[kichuu9]

yeah i agree women tend to have more offers to have sex at least that's what i observe frequently