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

[Bill_7154]

Maybe they are (I’m a male) but I NEVER cheated on a gf my whole life b/c verbal contracts trump that, same in marriage. You make a committment, you need to live up to it, saying ‘we are bread that way’ isn’t an excuse. We are not cavemen. Don’t let men use that argument as an excuse, it’s very unfair to a woman, even if biologically true. It can be overcome, and easily, if one values committment and has empathy, feels trust is important, lying is very wrong, etc…

Peace,
Bill

 

[sj2]

Ugh, this is such a pet peeve of mind. Like women should be so grateful that our husbands “go against nature” to be with us and us alone. Bull. All the science on this is so weird and sort of pointless. Especially when people start looking to animals (esp primates) for proof (which I have heard many times.)

Read this science article.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070925090250.htm

The article mentions a few things. #1 Humans have slower sperm than more promiscuous primates because our monogamy requires less competition. Yes, our “monogamy” changed the sperm. So there is your “science” guys. According to the speed of your sperm, you ain’t no macaque, you are a monogomous human. But wait a minute? Competition? What an interesting topic to raise that somehow never gets raised . . .

#2 Why, evolutionary-wise, do sperm have to race to the egg? Could it be that, gasp women are polygamous? Could there be another man’s sperm in the race?

Who are these other women that the “polygomous” men want to have sex with? Completely virginal, unattached women? NO! Male animals that have broods of females animals have to protect them from other males. If Papa Lion is getting old and a new stud kicks him out o the pride, the woman are fine mating with the new, younger male. It seems that the females may not be serial monogomists “by nature” but by the dictates of the strongest male.

I mean I just love when people look to nature for unfounded, stupid conclusions like “men act against their nature when they are monogomists.” Well then, dang, my man aught to patrol the house like a lion or better yet, a dominant silverback does, because if another dude comes strolling around, I might be the one to allow hs sperm to join the race.

Or here, how about this quote from the University of Wisconsin’s Primate factsheet about Gorillas (with even slower sperm than humans!): “A female will initiate copulation by pursing their lips and slowly approaching a male, establishing prolonged eye contact. If he does not respond she may reach towards him, touch him, or slap the ground in front of her to attract his attention (Sicotte 2001). In groups with multiple males, solicitation is taken as indication of female preference, though females may be coerced to mate with multiple males during the estrus period (Sicotte 2001).”

Moral of the story–men hold onto your women, 'cause we are just so “naturally” polygomous, what with just one egg and sooooo many men willing to join the race.

(Sorry, this was snarky, but like I said, a serious pet peeve of mine.)

 

[Andre1000]

Evolution science claims that rape is also natural, because a rapist has more children and so his genes survive better. But this wouldn’t make it right, nature has nothing to do with being good.

 

[sw85]

I’m a 21 year old Catholic college student and I’ve heard time and time again from many, many people that it is not immoral for men to look at porn, masturbate, fantasize about other women, or even go to strip clubs because men are made to want multiple sex partners, they are made to want variety, and were created as visual creatures.

I’ve heard so many times that “men have needs.” And I know that their sexual needs are different than women’s. Maybe I don’t understand sex at all (I probably don’t.) I understand that women feel an immense emotional attachment and connection with their sexual partner BECAUSE of having sex. In my psychology course last semester I learned that men don’t feel that. I learned that they have the biological need to “spread their seed.”

Why would God create men that way if He intended us to be monogamous?

I think what is meant is simply that male sex drive is nondiscriminatory. I want to have sex with a woman, but not with any particular woman.

This is true as far as it goes. It does not mean it is good or right or proper for men to have sex with multiple women, even from an evolutionary standpoint – evolutionarily speaking, monogamy is a necessity for successful reproduction, since a pregnant woman and a small child both require protection and provision, and the child furthermore requires education and socialization.

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.

 

[robwar]

I’m a 21 year old Catholic college student and I’ve heard time and time again from many, many people that it is not immoral for men to look at porn, masturbate, fantasize about other women, or even go to strip clubs because men are made to want multiple sex partners, they are made to want variety, and were created as visual creatures.

I’ve heard so many times that “men have needs.” And I know that their sexual needs are different than women’s. Maybe I don’t understand sex at all (I probably don’t.) I understand that women feel an immense emotional attachment and connection with their sexual partner BECAUSE of having sex. In my psychology course last semester I learned that men don’t feel that. I learned that they have the biological need to “spread their seed.”

Why would God create men that way if He intended us to be monogamous?

stop listening to lies and follow Churches teaching and God’s design and you won’t go wrong. You will avoid using women like objects, STD, unplanned pregnancies, broken relationships, etc. It is sad that we have become so gullible these days. Men and women are wired different but God uses those differences to bind men and women together in the bond of marriage.

 

[The_Bucket]

Yes. Absolutely. There is not a biologist or anthropologist out there who would say otherwise. Humans are not naturally monogamous and biologically men want to have sex and produce as many offspring as they can.

However, in our modern world I would say that when man biologically want and what men really want is different. Even if on a most basic level a man’s body wants to spread his seed as far as it would go I think that most men have the presence of mind to realize that while that would temporarily feel good what they really want is companionship, friendship, a family, etc. They know intellectually that just because it would feel good physically it would harm them, their lives, and their partners so that’s not something that they want to do.

This. There’s a bit of a tension between the flesh and the spirit here. The flesh desires polygamy while the spirit desires true love. And we should all be aware that giving the flesh whatever it wants invariably leads to destruction of the spirit.

There was a time and place for a man’s desire for multiple partners. We did once, after all, have high infant mortality rates, high death rates from disease and relatively short lifespans. Life expectancies everywhere were probably worse than they are in parts of Africa today where they’re in the mid 30s. It was probably necessary in prehistoric for strong men to have multiple female partners in order to perpetuate natural selection and leave us with a powerful combination of genes.

 

[sj2]

There was a time and place for a man’s desire for multiple partners. We did once, after all, have high infant mortality rates, high death rates from disease and relatively short lifespans. Life expectancies everywhere were probably worse than they are in parts of Africa today where they’re in the mid 30s. It was probably necessary in prehistoric for strong men to have multiple female partners in order to perpetuate natural selection and leave us with a powerful combination of genes.

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.

 

[Marie1234]

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.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Evolution science claims that rape is also natural, because a rapist has more children and so his genes survive better. But this wouldn’t make it right, nature has nothing to do with being good.

True, but then what’s with all of this fussing about the “natural law”?

 

[The_Bucket]

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.

There’s no good evolutionary reason for women to have multiple partners because they only get one crack at it when it comes to bringing in new life. They can only have one baby at a time so they need to find the best partner. That’s why women tend towards hypergamy and men towards polygamy.

You get mad at me and yet you use terms like “irregardless.” Come on now.

And I didn’t for one second excuse or even try to explain away infidelity. Men are not called to suppress their basic instinctual urges when it comes to sex. They are called to transform them into something good. Same goes for our instinctual fight or flight urges. We shouldn’t just be dropping gloves and swinging at everyone that impinges on our territory. We should use our physical prowess for something good.

I mean, we all have an instinct to eat, right? And eat a lot. But is that good for us? Not only is gluttony a grave evil, but excessive eating hurts our bodies. Is failing to overeat suppressing our instinct to eat at every opportunity where we feel even the slightest pinge of hunger? No. Neither then is not following through on our instinct to mate with any female that has a pulse.

It pretty much underscores Tolkein’s point then that the Fall put our bodies and our souls at loggerheads to some extent. The Apostles spoke of this frequently and Christ did as well! The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Just because the flesh is weak does not mean that we’re A-OK when we fall into that weakness.

 

[Marie1234]

There’s no good evolutionary reason for women to have multiple partners because they only get one crack at it when it comes to bringing in new life.

I don’t agree. In nature, if a female mates with her mate and the offspring is not the “fittest” it should or could be, the instinct of the female would be to try and find a different mate next time who could provide her with a more fit offspring; she’ll try to find a bigger, stronger mate. So…the female may not be “spreading her seed” like the male, but she is still mating with multiple partners to try and produce healthy offspring. She is certainly not monogamous by nature.

 

[sj2]

I don’t agree. In nature, if a female mates with her mate and the offspring is not the “fittest” it should or could be, the instinct of the female would be to try and find a different mate next time who could provide her with a more fit offspring; she’ll try to find a bigger, stronger mate. So…the female may not be “spreading her seed” like the male, but she is still mating with multiple partners to try and produce healthy offspring. She is certainly not monogamous by nature.

Yes! Thank you. I’m so intrigued by the fact that this theory is just simply ignored or dismissed or not considered. I was not mad at The Bucket (and I’m not sure why the word “irregardless” was offensive, ha!). Just genuinely confused at why people think 1 egg available at a time is some biological indicator of monogamy.

We all agree that we are better than our urges. So for something that is such a moot point, I’m not sure why I hear the “polygamous by nature” theory proposed so often in our society. I’m just perplexed at our culture’s desire to substantiate an underlying polygamous male archetype coupled with an underlying monogamous female archetype. For all we know, evolutionarily we could have been such as the gorillas where if multiple males are present, the females will mate with more than one. One egg =/= “one crack at it”. Sure, once the egg is fertilized, the female is off the market for a while, but that does not equal monogamy. What am I missing?

 

[Marie1234]

Yes! Thank you. I’m so intrigued by the fact that this theory is just simply ignored or dismissed or not considered. I was not mad at The Bucket (and I’m not sure why the word “irregardless” was offensive, ha!). Just genuinely confused at why people think 1 egg available at a time is some biological indicator of monogamy.

We all agree that we are better than our urges. So for something that is such a moot point, I’m not sure why I hear the “polygamous by nature” theory proposed so often in our society. I’m just perplexed at our culture’s desire to substantiate an underlying polygamous male archetype coupled with an underlying monogamous female archetype. For all we know, evolutionarily we could have been such as the gorillas where if multiple males are present, the females will mate with more than one. One egg =/= “one crack at it”. Sure, once the egg is fertilized, the female is off the market for a while, but that does not equal monogamy. What am I missing?

Totally agree. I don’t get why this is ignored either…?
It’s just not logical and untrue that one gender is innately polygamous and the other monogamous.

 

[sj2]

In all sincerity, perhaps we are working with a different definition of monogamy.

A female willingly has sex with multiple partners in hopes of becoming pregnant wth the most virile man’s kid and she only has 1 man’s child. At her next available cycle she again has sex with multiple males and again has 1 man’s child, albeit a different man’s child. And so on and so forth. I wouldn’t consider this monogamous. But I’m not an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know. Yes, it looks different than the male’s polygamy, but it is still polygamy. Right?

 

[FatherOfTwelve]

I would say that men seem to be more interested in sex. Is it nature or nurture? Perhaps a bit of both.

One thing to bear in mind is that this is not necessarily contradictory to monogamy. I find that my wife is quite capable of fulfilling my sexual desires. If she was all right with having sex more often, that would be quite fine with me! But alas, she does not want to have sex nearly as often as I do, but I make it work… for obvious reasons (I love her, and I’ve made a commitment to her.)

We discussed sex quite a bit while engaged, but we both learned something fascinating about it during Pre-Cana, and in our subsequent married life.

From her perspective: she would/does have a tough time wanting to have sex with me if she’s displeased or upset with me, or not at the moment feeling “close” to me. (Among like 500 other reasons - e.g. sick, stressed, etc.)

From my perspective: I will have sex with her almost any time, under almost any circumstance and as much as possible. The only two exceptions being when I have a serious illness or when the Jets game is on. But I told her: if I’m finished vomiting or if the Jets are losing by 17 points or more, then let’s go for it. I’m not making this up.

See, for me it was like… yes, I could be upset or angry with her, but I’ll still have sex with her because it’s slightly less of an “emotional” thing for me and I know that, even when I’m upset with her, there is still that underlying love that I have for her.

Perhaps male/female are compatible in this way: if it were all up to women, there would probably be a lot less sex, but if it were all up to men, we would spend our entire day doing it and never get anything accomplished. So there’s a bit of balance there. Of course this does come with its problems - rape being a horrific result, first and foremost among them, and adultery being up there, too.

In the final analysis, it is very important for men to understand a woman’s desire for emotional intimacy and it is also very important for women to understand a man’s desire for physical intimacy.

One final note: I made a lot of generalizations, but it’s crucial to recognize that there are many who break the mold. These people should not be discounted. Many women are more interested in physical intimacy than their male counterparts, and many men are less interested in physical intimacy than their female counterparts. So just because someone is a man, it does not mean that they value physical intimacy so highly and just because someone is a woman, it does not mean that they value physical intimacy so little.

Dude that’s your PROBLEM, YOUR A JETS FAN! What woman would even want to, you know, with a Jets fan. I pity your wife.

GO PHINS!!!:extrahappy:

Sorry, Could not help myself.

 

[The_Bucket]

In all sincerity, perhaps we are working with a different definition of monogamy.

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.

 

[OraLabora]

In short: as humans with God-infused immortal souls and a conscience, we are called to rise above our nature.

Therefore if something is “natural” it is not necessarily right, licit, or moral.

 

[tafan]

Addressing the OP’s origination question directly:
The answer is a definitive no:

Mathew 19:4
“He answered, Have you not read that he who **made them from the beginning **made them make and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one”.

When saying “from the beginning made them male and female” he was quoting Genesis 1:27 (the first account of creation), the quote from God, Jesus was quoting Genesis 2:24 (the second account of creation). This comes before the fall. So Jesus was telling us the relationship of man and woman as we were made to be, uncorrupted by sin. So then notice it is the “two” shall be one (not three or four or five…). Furthermore, Genesis 2:24 can be translated “joined to his wife” as “**cleaves **to his wife”. Cleaving does not imply a desire for more than one woman.

Bl JP II in the second chapter of Theology of the Body, which deals with Jesus’s comment on adultery in the heart during the Sermon on the Mount, addresses the contradiction between the old testament law having such strict penalties against adultery and yet allowing for polygamy. He attributes this to man’s corrupted state due to original sin. Not to how we were made.

Finally, after the fall, in Genesis, this is one of the things God tells the woman:

Genesis 3:16
“…yet you shall desire your husband and he shall rule over you”

This I also think shows the difference between men and women about this issue, as a result of original sin.

But we were certainly not made to want multiple partners. We have that on the highest authority: Jesus.

 

[vera_dicere]

I like pies. Particuarly mince and cheese. [minced beef].

Now, what if I just ate all the pies all the time, whenever I want, because I’m made to have multiple pies? I’d get sick, really sick, I’d probably end up having a giant heart attack with gob half full of pie.

Since I love pies, is it a natural desire for me? Should I endulge to say, prevent me eating 20kg of bacon? Just because I could, does mean I should?

Imagine the mess that’ll leave in my arteries.

Anyway, my coffee fuelled ramblings aside, maybe men have evolved to want a lot of sex, but its that human brain and God given self-controll that men are to use to avoid multiple sex partners.

The body of evidence is growing that suggests porn, wanking et cetera, is doing real damage to marriages, relationships, and even men’s abilities to get aroused. They go from looking at airbrushed models who have personal trainers and implants to their normal wives, and then wonder why they can no longer get aroused correctly? All that porn has altered the brain chemistry surrounding arousal, bonding and love for wife. They have switched their brains to get aroused by the plastic, empty women staring out at pages or video screens, not the beautiful, unqiue woman God gave them for a wife, with all her physical quirks… quirks that men have too.

Our sexual society has done some real damage to men.

Who won teh sexual revolution? Absolutely no one [well, maybe thsoe money grubbing savages at unPlanned Parenthood]

 

[chevalier]

I’m a 21 year old Catholic college student and I’ve heard time and time again from many, many people that it is not immoral for men to look at porn, masturbate, fantasize about other women, or even go to strip clubs because men are made to want multiple sex partners, they are made to want variety, and were created as visual creatures.

I’ve heard so many times that “men have needs.” And I know that their sexual needs are different than women’s. Maybe I don’t understand sex at all (I probably don’t.) I understand that women feel an immense emotional attachment and connection with their sexual partner BECAUSE of having sex. In my psychology course last semester I learned that men don’t feel that. I learned that they have the biological need to “spread their seed.”

Why would God create men that way if He intended us to be monogamous?

I have no knowledge about oxytocins working less efficaciously on men than they do on women.

I also have no knowledge about women somehow being incapable of one-night stands or sex without obligations.

That “immense” emotional attachment and connection with a sexual partner is a joke.

As a man, I’ve found myself attracted to more than one person at a time but here’s the news:

1. If I don’t want to act on it (because it would be a poor decision), it won’t develop much (other than pestering me to some extent until it goes away).
2. I utterly refuse to believe that women don’t experience the same thing.
3. In terms of emotional needs, I’d actually be happier finding a way to reduce it than a way to spread my genes around.
4. What joke. If I wanted to take over the world, I’d chat up some proper princess with mighty precious lineage and begin a long line of specially bred heirs with impeccable credentials to pass the name on. Barring that, I’d just play some Starcraft.

For the record, some dozen-odd percent of men bring up children of other men without knowing. That much about women being made for monogamy and men not. And if I observe how people act, I just can’t find anything to confirm the idea of a difference existing between the sexes here really. It’s already difficult enough for me to believe in some kind of some powerful natural monogamy boost existing in the female sex. IMHO both sexes probably struggle equally with things like cheating, promiscuity, perversion, masturbation, unmet needs and whatelsehaveyou.

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.

In the modern world having one’s emotional and other needs covered by multiple sources is not exclusively a masculine business. The friend-zone/nice-guy cliché comes to mind, where the friend supplies the gallant, gentle and considerate while the boyfriend supplies the thrill and challenge. Not saying that men are better.

The body of evidence is growing that suggests porn, wanking et cetera, is doing real damage to marriages, relationships, and even men’s abilities to get aroused. They go from looking at airbrushed models who have personal trainers and implants to their normal wives, and then wonder why they can no longer get aroused correctly? All that porn has altered the brain chemistry surrounding arousal, bonding and love for wife. They have switched their brains to get aroused by the plastic, empty women staring out at pages or video screens, not the beautiful, unqiue woman God gave them for a wife, with all her physical quirks… quirks that men have too.

Porn’s probably a noticeably more masculine thing due to the visual bent. On the other hand, men too have opportunities to feel like they aren’t getting the whole attention based on a female partner’s behaviours or reactions. For example, while men are said to have more ability to separate the sex from the feelings, they also perhaps more ability to tell what is what, while a woman, normally having the two integrated in an innocent and endearing way, has the potential to be less capable of telling the difference. The result can be that she thinks she’s just innocently being friends or some such or engaging in merely friendly gestures of affections, while a man can already be thinking, “how can women be so naive as to believe that.”