Once again, Alternet has provided me with blogging fodder. In the latest article, Caveman Sex: How Evolutionary Psych Pushes Sexist Stereotypes , the author makes the point:
The watered-down evolutionary psychology prevalent in pop culture enables some men to rationalize sexist double standards about relationships.
I found the article to be rather simplistic, so I made a comment, which is shown below:
I am one of those promiscuous males the author writes about. However, I don't consider myself "loutish", nor do I have sex with anyone who is not entirely willing.
I find the assertion that men like me are looking for the most fertile women to impregnate laughable at best. Believe me, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in siring children. Rather, I take great pains to avoid doing so. In 30+ years of my active and varied sex life, I've managed to only sire one child -- and that was during the very brief time I was married.
Nor is my choice of partners dictated by what the media tells me I should find attractive -- I use ALL my senses when choosing partners, not just my eyes. I've been with women of all types: short, tall, fat, thin, in-between, stereotypically "beautiful", average, plain, and "homely". Essentially quite a few women between 18 and 65 are game to me. My ideal partner is open minded, intelligent, and, obviously has a healthy interest in sex.
Nor do I believe that women are necessarily "coy" and choosy. I've had several hundred lovers over the years and I think I'd have had a harder time finding willing women if the "coy" theory was uniformly true. I don't think women are any more naturally monogamous that men are, but rather, they've learned to be that way because they've traditionally been punished more severely for straying than men have been.
In conclusion, I'd say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and that some people, male and female, are promiscuous simply because we like frequency and variety in our sex lives.