I know lots of men whose idea of a good time is to permanently have promiscuous sex with many, various, and good-looking women. I don’t know any women whose idea of a good time is the reciprocal. Indeed most women are disgusted by the idea. *Some* women may be like alley cats. But virtually *all* men – in all cultures, in all times - given the chance, desire promiscuous sex with young, good-looking women. And that is in conditions in which the men face enormous natural, social, rivalrous and legal obstacles to such sex. The fact that all societies universally prohibit rape, is only a small part of the proof of the strength of the underlying tendency that they know would be let loose without the strongest prohibitions. If women did not receive the *non-consensual* payments that the state forcibly compels from men for women’s children, and if men could spend their now-confiscated earnings on their own desires, you may be confident there’d be even more male-sponsored casual sex going on.

If the argument from ‘stereotyping’ were correct, we would expect significant sexual differences among different cultures and ages: for example, some societies in which the great bulk of the prostitution industry supplied male promiscuous sex to randy female customers. It doesn’t exist. We would expect some cultures to be polyandrous, some in which women preferred porn to romance novels and men vice versa, and so on. This is so far from reality as to be a joke. To argue it’s because of stereotypes is circular.

‘The stereotypical male who is forever ready and bangs everything with a heartbeat then departs is a myth.’

If we think of a scale with 1 being random promiscuity, and 100 being perfect monogamy, humans are clearly closer to the monogamy end of the scale than the random promiscuity end. But just because men are not at 1 on the scale, doesn’t mean they are not generally far more ready and willing for promiscuous sex relative to women. I regard it as ideology gone mad to deny it.

suzeonline,
Homosexuality is not my favourite subject.
My favourite subject is the global Islamic jihad.
As Australia pursues its multicultural death wish it will become increasingly Islamicised.
It will be interesting to observe the inevitable clashes between Muslims and homosexuals.
This is already happening in the Netherlands,
but their Islamic population is higher than ours.
You, however, would be blissfully unaware of these realities.

PH: Your whole notion that men are driven or at least inclined to bonk endlessly is very tiresome and old fashioned. As Cornflower and feminists who share that opinion point out - men have a vested interest in seeing that their offspring attain maturity. There is more to ensuring one's genetic survival than the act of copulation. That's why many males of various species are in charge of eggs and young etc.

But more!

If it was meant to be that men have sex endlessly; then we'd only need about 100th of the numbers of men who are born and survive. As in nature, either 99/100 men would be asexual or at least have their libido suppressed in some way, or only 1/100 would be born or survive infancy.

In fact forming small care groups - ie: family units (of various configurations) - ensures that the species as a WHOLE is successful in raising a next generation. We are group creatures.

If all depended on each individual wanting his genes to dominate, then it would make more sense for each woman to have sex with numerous males. ie gang-banging would be the norm. Since she can only have so many eggs fertilized and carry so many embryos at a time, sperm from various contributors would be competing and therefore the fastest, strongest sperm would succeed ahead of the rest. BUT, that sort of arrangement is very rare.

Your comments are not biological absolutes - they are interpretations from a very specific cultural standpoint. They suit your preferred code of behaviour but don't account at all for most others.

PHume you comment: "I once read a book whose author interviewed a guy who loved to have sex with dogs. Although it disgusts me, I see no reason why he should be stopped from doing it, so long as he’s not hurting the dog."

It's hateful. You think it's so trendy to be so tolerant? I don't. I think you opinion and his actions are callous and cruel. It takes no account of the power differential between two beings. How can the dog give consent? Why should that creature endure the invasion of body by some slob huffing and humping his way to an irrelevant orgasm? How do you know it doesn't hurt the dog - did it tell you? Animals have so few rights or protections; the least we can do is allow them to retain their inherent damned dignity.

You took the words right out of my mouth Pynchme.
PH you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating cruelty to animals. Even bringing up the subject says a lot about you.

Peter Hume <"Some* women may be like alley cats. But virtually *all* men – in all cultures, in all times - given the chance, desire promiscuous sex with young, good-looking women. And that is in conditions in which the men face enormous natural, social, rivalrous and legal obstacles to such sex."

Gee, you must know some really 'interesting' men Peter?
You don't have a very high opinion of 'virtually all men' do you?
Are you seriously suggesting that if there were no legal constraints, 'virtually all men' would be out there raping all the women?

I sure hope I never meet any of the men you know.

I've been away and missing all the fun.

Yabby:
<morality is of course nothing more
then our subjective opinion.>

Well, it's not quite that open and shut for me. Ethics is, aspirationally, systematised morality. Are you saying there is nothing, which could be construed "ethical", that humanity has in common?

And then, on the other hand, why belittle "subjective opinion"? Are you saying there is such a thing as "subjectivity" btw?.
Why is it that for something to be valid it must be "natural"--that is available for the natural sciences to measure?
It's not that simple, I'm afraid. To quote a hero of mine; seriously considering possibilities beyond empiricism (which is itself based upon metaphysics) will "elicit snickers from all the imbeciles, until the end of time, who never believe anything, of course, because they are so sure that they see what is seen, everything that is seen, only what is seen".
Not that I'm calling you and imbecile, Yabby; it's pure rationalism that I (and Derrida) consider imbecilic----though you do seem to buy into the dogma ...?

Also "what" is seen?