Is it true that men are made to want multiple sex partners?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gash
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Men, like women, are made for God.

That’s all I have to say.

Edit: okay, that’s not all I have to say.😃
If the question is “do men want sex (a lot)?”, then yes I bet they do. But the real question is “can men rise above those animal instincts?” And yes, I believe thy can. That’s what I meat by the statement they were made for God. Frankly I would think its an insult to propose that men are like animals with no restraint!
We all have temptations, but by the the grace of God, we can rise above them. Just as with avoiding any sin, it is a sacrifice and difficult. But we are called to sacrifice our desires for the good of others and the will of God. That’s the whole point.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
True, but then what’s with all of this fussing about the “natural law”?
Click to expand...
The “natural” in “natural law” doesn’t mean “it occurs somewhere in nature.” Otherwise nothing could be termed “unnatural.”

It means “arising from the nature of” or “is consistent with the nature of.” In other words, the “natural law” is that law which arises from the nature of a human person and dictates to him his goods. That law dictates that sex is a good even as it dictates that certain means of obtaining sex (fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc.) are evil.
 
Hi, feminist here. I really don’t think that anyone needs to be getting defensive about the strength of the female sex drive. I know that it is a very strong thing indeed, and I understand that many times it is just as strong as, if not stronger than the male sex drive. But this was not a thread about women, or even comparing the sexual desires of men and women, it was about what men want, so many of us took to answering that question.

Like Chev I’ve never bought in to the idea that women don’t want sex, they want love. And I’ve certainly never believed that men just want sex and are emotionally dead inside. But men, on their most basic, physical level, when free of all social constructs and moral education want sex. They want to reproduce, and they want to reproduce a lot with a lot of different women because it used to be that the odds of a child surviving were fairly small. Women on the other hand want sex. And they want sex with the strongest, most manly guy they can find. And they want to hold on to him for their own protection and the benefit of their children. That is…until someone stronger, more manly, and more protective comes along.

Men can be described as having polygamist desires while women are serial monogamists. Neither nature is beneficial in Western society today. So we grow up, take control of our bodies, and refuse to live like animals. Simple enough.
 
I’ll likely rarely say this because of our religious beliefs BEL, but I agree with absolutely everything in your post. Every word.

Most of the time I just agree with 75-80%. Of course on matters like abortion, it’s around 0%, but that’s neither here nor there.
 
We are made in God’s image. That** men are made to have multiple sex partners **is absurd.
 
sw85 said:
I think God knew what he was doing when He made the human body. He gave men a strong and relatively stable sex drive in order to give us impetus to find a mate.** He gave women a sex drive that is weak during their virginity so that they can choose a worthy mate without their judgment being clouded by desire,** and which then kicks up once she begins having sex, so as to bind her more forcefully to her chosen man.
Click to expand...
:confused:
sj2 said:
Gahhh, I don’t know why this peeves me so much, but really? There would also be a good “evolutionary” reason for women to have multiple partners. Do I really want to hitch my wagon to a guy with slow swimmers or low sperm count? Get a bunch of males depositing sperm and let the quickest to the egg prevail.

Hence the article that I quoted that all pseudo-evolutionary science talk ignores. Males have fast swimming sperm beccase there is assumed competition. From my perspective–we can (irregardless of gender) be polygomous, we shouldn’t be. Done. No excuses, it’s pointless. I won’t feel bad for guys “resisting their animal urges” and they shouldn’t feel bad that women must “resist” walking out of a marriage the moment their mate looses an arm wrestling match to a younger male of the species.
Click to expand...
Agree completely, as with your original post.👍 One would think, logically, that *true *sperm competition would require a “race to the finish” of sorts between different sperm within the woman’s body. If there’s only one man’s sperm, then where the heck is the actual competition? It’s like winning the gold medal in track when all the other lanes are empty!😃

(This is a major pet peeve of mine as well :))
 
Gash said:
Why would God create men that way if He intended us to be monogamous?
Click to expand...
Do you think God created people to be greedy and fearful of strangers, too? Gossips? Vain? Self-important? Tolerance of these are the fruits of “eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”…which is to say, the decision to use our own investigation and experiences to define “good” and “bad” ourselves. God did not “make men that way.” Our abuse of our free will makes all of us “that way” in some way or other, and that abuse is rooted in original sin.

I heard a great analogy used in a homily today. The priest said that there were a group of high school boys who heard that garlic had great health benefits, so they started on a campaign to each eat tremendous amounts of garlic. Well, of course, eventually the people around them started to complain, because they were reeking garlic out of every pore. The boys, however, could not figure out why anyone was offended. They said that they had smelled each other’s breath, and while the garlic smell was noticeable, it was hardly anything to comment about. They were suspended from school. Even though they couldn’t appreciate the stench and felt no ill effect that they noticed, they were making life intolerable for the people around them, anyway!

The priest said that we become so accustomed to the stink of our own sins that we cease to notice them ourselves, and start to think that those who are offended by them must simply be too sensitive or are just looking for things to complain about. Other people’s sins, meanwhile, hit our nose like a nauseating wall!
 
The_Bucket said:
Yes, we were operating with a different definition of monogamy and I don’t think I made that clear enough. I was noting that women, on a basic and very rudimentary level, tend towards hypergamy for each mating opportunity, not that they tend towards finding just the most powerful male and then sticking with him forever. Marie1234’s point is very sound. A woman doesn’t want to mate with a lot of different men during her fertile period because then there’s a chance that someone with worse genes could be the father of her child. Instead she wants to preselect the best male and mate with him repeatedly in order to get the best genes. If a better man comes along years later well then…

For men though, we don’t particularly care if a woman is the “ideal” partner provided that she meets some basic threshold of attractiveness or other way of demonstrating her strong genetics. Why? Because we could have 50 kids at once theoretically. There’s no time period where we’re out of commission in the babymaking business. So who cares?!

At any rate, my point was that both sexes have a bit of a push-pull when it comes to their flesh versus their spirit. The flesh for men wants us to spread our seed far and wide. The flesh for women pushes them to find out if there are other, more desirable men, out there than the one they have and shove the one they’ve got aside if so. So we’re all struggling against these very basic and evolutionary desires. It just so happens that men are pushed a little harder to have multiple sexual partners at the same time whereas women are pushed to have the best sexual partner at all times… which can of course include trading in one man for another down the line.
Click to expand...
This synopsizes the evolutionary psychology model. Per this theory the male of a species is wired to ‘spread his seed’ with as many females as he can so as to increase the likelhood of genes surviving to future generations whereas the female engages in serial monogamy (exclusive relationships with the best males she can attract at a particular point in time, although not necessarily the same at each occurrence). In the animal kingdom a relatively small number of males mate with all of the females, leaving many males with no mating at all.

None of this is to say its moral or healthy for humans to operate this way.
 
hurting said:
This synopsizes the evolutionary psychology model. Per this theory the male of a species is wired to ‘spread his seed’ with as many females as he can so as to increase the likelhood of genes surviving to future generations whereas the female engages in serial monogamy (exclusive relationships with the best males she can attract at a particular point in time, although not necessarily the same at each occurrence). In the animal kingdom a relatively small number of males mate with all of the females, leaving many males with no mating at all.

None of this is to say its moral or healthy for humans to operate this way.
Click to expand...
What drives me crazy about “science” theses is that evolutionary theory is used to explain every part of behavior, often with absolutely zero scientific evidence. I am not opposed to evolution explaining the origin of species. But for everything we do in life to have sometype of evolutionary explanation drives me crazy. We are selfish: this is how that evolved: we are generous; this is how that evolved, we are lustful: this is out that evolved.
But it is all just theory, not evidence, yet it is supposedly science.

OTH, we have concrete explanation, directly from Jesus, on the OP’s question; yet no one will pay attention to that.
 
tafan said:
What drives me crazy about “science” theses is that evolutionary theory is used to explain every part of behavior, often with absolutely zero scientific evidence. I am not opposed to evolution explaining the origin of species. But for everything we do in life to have sometype of evolutionary explanation drives me crazy. We are selfish: this is how that evolved: we are generous; this is how that evolved, we are lustful: this is out that evolved.
But it is all just theory, not evidence, yet it is supposedly science.

OTH, we have concrete explanation, directly from Jesus, on the OP’s question; yet no one will pay attention to that.
Click to expand...
Tafan,

You are confusing our biological nature with our calling. The mating behavior described above is very well documented in the animal kingdom. I myself am not so sure how pervasive it is in humans, but as I suggested, we are called to overcome it.
 
manualman said:
It’s nonsense baloney spewed by men who are trying desperately to rationalize their moral failures. ALL humans suffer the effects of Original Sin, which makes us attracted to evil (the word is concupicense). Every person is different and men and women are different, which sometimes results in those sinful inclinations take the form of predictable patterns.

But patterns of sin are the result of the fall, not the way God designed us. Any “scientists” who claim otherwise is the same sort of quack who brought us the Eugenics movement of the 1920’s (which reached its zenith with the Nazi party).
Click to expand...
What he/she said.
 
Well, no and yes. Biologically and distally speaking, most species are either:

A) Tournament Species
or
B) Pair-Bonding Species.

Tournament species are those in which males usually compete for females, i.e. hunter-gatherer. Tournament species males usually will have multiple partners, i.e. they will impregnate a female and then spread their seed elsewhere. In this, females choose the strongest male, thus it’s a matter of passing on physical traits as opposed to choosing a partner that will be a good parent to their offspring.

Pair-Bonding species are species who choose their mates similar to themselves and the female, as opposed to tournament, will choose a partner that will be a good parent to their offspring. However, it is in this species that you will see the female abandoning the male as the male becomes the “surrogate mother” for their offspring. Sparrows are an example of pair-bonding species. Male sparrows show their worthiness by bringing food and material for nests to the female.

Human beings are in between Tournament and Pair-bonding species. Thus, it’s a fallacy to say “all human men are like this” and “all human women are like this” - e.g. all men want to sleep around. There are women like this, too. There are men who don’t like to sleep around and describe themselves as monogamist, as there are many women also like this.

Check out Robert Sapolsky’s lectures at Standford on this if you want more.
 
Sarabanda said:
Human beings are in between Tournament and Pair-bonding species. Thus, it’s a fallacy to say “all human men are like this” and “all human women are like this” - e.g. all men want to sleep around. There are women like this, too. There are men who don’t like to sleep around and describe themselves as monogamist, as there are many women also like this.
Click to expand...
A very salient point indeed.

And hurting, I think you’re on point that just because we have certain instincts or evolved a certain way doesn’t make acting on those instincts at all times moral or right. In many cases it results in neuroses. Just like the mouse who hits the dopamine reward to the detriment of the food reward, we too must overcome some of the baser instincts in order to live balanced and moral lives.

There was likely a time where men or our evolutionary predecessors needed to have multiple wives/mates in order to ensure our survival. Was this necessary before or after we gained sentience and had souls breathed into us? I don’t know. I don’t know that such a thing is even knowable to man! But we certainly are not animals and our instincts should not dictate to us. Our intellect and spiritual selves should dictate to our instincts as to how we will respond to their prodding.
 
The_Bucket said:
A very salient point indeed.

And hurting, I think you’re on point that just because we have certain instincts or evolved a certain way doesn’t make acting on those instincts at all times moral or right. In many cases it results in neuroses. Just like the mouse who hits the dopamine reward to the detriment of the food reward, we too must overcome some of the baser instincts in order to live balanced and moral lives.

There was likely a time where men or our evolutionary predecessors needed to have multiple wives/mates in order to ensure our survival. Was this necessary before or after we gained sentience and had souls breathed into us? I don’t know. I don’t know that such a thing is even knowable to man! But we certainly are not animals and our instincts should not dictate to us. Our intellect and spiritual selves should dictate to our instincts as to how we will respond to their prodding.
Click to expand...
That’s where the beauty of the church’s teaching lies. Monogamy is a very civilizing force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top