Are Women Just Sluts

A friend forwarded this from a blog she reads, and I found it to be quite interesting. I have long thought basically the same thing that is embodied in this woman's article. Though, of course, I did not have all of the supportive detail that she's collected to make the same point (largely due to a lack of a sufficient number of hours in the day).

My opinion is aligned very much with what she's theorizing - women have just as much of a sex drive as men do, and, absent the constraints that soceity places on them, would otherwise enjoy sex in much the same manner that guys do. Yet, when women do it, they're labeled sluts. Some of them have managed to overcome this and don't give a shit what anyone else thinks about how they conduct our own sex lives, but that is certainly not true for the vast majority of women.

Here's the text:

"One of the main themes in a few evolutionary biology/psychology books I’ve read lately are that women are sluts. For the longest time, people believed that males had evolved to screw as many women as possible, because they will sire more offspring and their genes will spread throughout the population. Women were thought to be completely monogamous, because they had more energy invested in the child, and needed one male they could depend on to assist them with childcare. Well, research has apparently shown that this is not quite true. In animal behavior studies, birds — who for the longest time were thought to be strictly monogamous — were shown to be quite promiscuous. Apparently some scientists were overlooking the HUGE difference between the terms “monogamous” and “pair-bond”. Male and female birds pair up to raise their offspring, because one parent has to watch the nest while the other goes out to get food. In a lot of species, the male bird is the one who gets stuck watching the nest while the female bird goes out to get food. Too bad the female birds are typically out getting some tail from the stud in the next tree over — while HIS partner is out getting some from some other male, etc. Hot times in the treetops.

DNA studies performed on some birds showed that a pretty high percentage of fathers were putting time and energy into some other male’s chicks. A DNA study done on a town in Great Britain showed similar results: many men were unknowingly raising children that weren’t their own. Welcome to Cuckhold, England!

I have no trouble at all believing that human females might be sluts by nature. If women were naturally chaste, men would have had no reason to control women throughout history by various means such as genital mutilation, guarded harems, chastity belts, strict adultery laws and “honor killings”. Of course, that’s not to say that it’s okay for women to sleep around in our society. I’m also by no means saying that all (or even most) women sleep around. But those who don’t, do they refrain from cheating because they are naturally chaste, or do they refrain from cheating because society has such a harsh view of female infidelity (in which case, one might ask, why does society have such a double-standard? Well, society is run mostly by men, men are paranoid and jealous, why would they be that way if women had always been faithful?) Or do women stay faithful simply because, economically, it’s a better strategy for them and their children? Think about it: men have controlled things for thousands of years. It’s only been recently that women have been able to work and support themselves. Wouldn’t a woman have been better off in the past (and even now, depending on the circumstances) to not cheat on her husband, because if she had, he might ditch her and her children?

Of course, what about love? If you really love someone, you shouldn’t want to screw around, right? But is that really true? Maybe that particular emotion evolved purely to keep couples together long enough to raise a child, and “love” isn’t necessarily meant to be forever. Maybe “monogamy” was just something that came about for economic reasons, or it was a concept put into practice to allow men to have a “monopoly” on a certain woman, to cut down on sexual conflicts between men. After all, humans and their ancestors evolved in situations where cooperation between men was required in order to hunt and secure food. It’s kind of hard for men to cooperate when they are ready to kill each other over some pussy.

Many anthropologists have observed that in hunter-gatherer societies, couples stay together for four to five years, just enough to get the child weaned, and then they most likely move on to other partners. Some might stay together, but it’s not the norm. It’s been theorized that this is where the “seven-year itch” comes from.

But in my personal experience, when I’m in love with somebody, I have no desire whatsoever to go over to the next tree, so to speak, and get mounted by some other dude. If I do start feeling like that, it’s always been a sign that I’m not happy in the relationship, and a breakup soon follows. But that in itself could be a sign that humans are “serial monogamists”. So who the hell knows, really.

As for theories of why women would cheat in the first place?

Evolutionary theory helps explain what male rock stars know from experience: Even though a man may display no signs of being interested in a long-term relationship, there will be plenty of women who are following a sexual strategy geared toward short-term results. One reason for this is what is known as the “sexy son” hypothesis. A woman who feels there are few “investing” men available in her environment might instead attempt to mate with a man who, despite his lack of investment, possesses attractive characteristics that will be passed on to her offspring. Thus the more a man sleeps around, the more attractive he becomes, because the very fact of his success at attracting members of the opposite sex is a trait that a woman may want to pass on to her children.

…

… women may desire a husband who is a conservative, staid man who is willing to invest his resources in her and her children, while at the same time harboring a desire for an exciting fling with a handsome, iconoclastic movie star.

Also known as “settling”. Anybody who knows anything about evolutionary biology can see right through that one. There aren’t enough alpha males to go around, so females settle for one of the losers, because she knows he’ll invest his resources in her offspring. Meanwhile, she’s off trying to get stuck by the alpha males on the side, so she can get those good genes for her children.

…

Studies reveal that girls who are raised in families where there is stress between the parents — a divorce, for instance, or an abusive parent — typically reach puberty earlier and are far more promiscuous. It may be that growing up in an environment of marital discord prompts some children to view the world as a short-term mating game.

Also known as the “use ‘em and lose ‘em” strategy.

I just find the whole subject extremely interesting, and it does sort of make sense. Again, I don’t condone cheating, but just because someone comes up with an explanation for behavior doesn’t mean they are trying to rationalize it. Forensic psychologists try to figure out why people commit crimes, but they don’t use that to excuse the behavior. Same with evolutionary biologists and psychologists."