But if he’s the type of wants to exaggerate the number of “conquests” and thinks he looks good by inflating the number, he would count them.
I don’t know. Apparently there’s quite a lot of it going on - enough to affect the average number of partners, I would think. (More below.)
I actually think the opposite is probably true. And I think the hookers skew is probably much broader than just pure hookers too.
ISTM logical to assume that the average man has more partners than the average woman, but that at the high end, the really promiscuous women have more partners than the really promiscuous men. And for pretty much the same reason. Men tend to have a higher sex drive than women. This means that the average man will be more driven to have more partners than women. But it’s also a limiting factor on how many partners a man can have (again, absent hookers). No matter how many partners a man might be open to having, he has to find willing women, and this is not always easy. By contrast, for a woman who has a high sex drive and/or is otherwise open to having many partners, the availability of willing men is not nearly that much of a limiting factor. A man who is willing to sleep with any woman who will have him will not have as many partners as a woman who thinks the same about men.
And this applies both to women who specifically want multiple partners and to women who are open to it for other reasons, e.g. because she trades sex for other favors, whether companionship, financial support, protection, or - in the case of hookers - cash upfront.
So my guess is that it’s hookers and other highly promiscuous women who are skewing the numbers, and that while on average heterosexual men and women obviously have the same number of partners, the average man has more partners than the average woman.
I wonder if the OP was looking for empirical research or anecdotal evidence. We can all look up cited work but who really cares what they observed.
We are all driven by primitive needs and desires though they may differ in meaning the primitive drive is just that, primitive, often non conscious need to act. Men want access to as many women as possible to spread their seed, women want access to men who are built to survive in order to pass along those survival genes to their offspring thereby increasing their odds of survival. That is at the base of it. But we temper our primitive needs with intellect, reasoning and societal consequence. Once monogamous those primitive urges are simply suppressed by those who are in control of themselves or for the greater good Those who are not, cave to their urges and that can happen to either sex, equally and without prejudice.
Works well enough on an individual level–mom’s genes get passed on, but as a species you’ll end up with males predisposed to the provider role being very rare in comparison to philanderers since the providers are only getting sloppy seconds on already knocked-up mates, if any at all. You’d end up with a predominantly promiscuous society, assuming that sort of behavior has a significant genetic component.
Counter that with women being predisposed to seek stable providers to begin with (a quality easily faked for the few hours it takes for a womanizer to get a notch in his belt) and everyone gets what they want and the philanderer is little more than a cuckoo nuissance.
Thereis a huge psychological component, I think, to infidelity that annihilates reason, self-preservation, gender, or the interests of anyone but the participants.
On the other hand, it appears that women are more likely to leave a dissatisfying relationship than to stick around and work things out. From The Atlantic:
Not necessarily. Opposed genetic qualities often reach a numerical dynamic balance in the population, because as one quality becomes more common the opposing one becomes more advantageous; a classic example being the balance in numbers between the genders. The more people who are philanderers, the less advantage there is to being one, and the more the loyal mates stand out. On the other hand, the fewer philanders there are the more of an edge the philanderer has, and the less vigilance there will likely to be for them.
There’s also the downside of philandering - belong loyal may not give you the advantages that philandering does, but it’s also far less likely to end in disaster like violence or divorce.
Women are ‘‘too particular’’? This quote presupposes that getting out of a dissatisfying relationship is an undesirable thing.
These kinds of threads always make my head hurt. Who are all these people running around cheating on their partners? In my circle of friends, only one person has ever been unfaithful - my best friend, who is a lesbian, and has been happily married for several years to the woman she originally cheated with. They have had their own conflict with regard to monogamy but for the most part have ironed it out. I have some poly friends but I don’t consider that unfaithful, as long as everybody’s on the same page.
I don’t know if my desire for my husband is primal, but he is what I desire. I think it could be true that humans are not naturally monogamous creatures, but in the grand scheme of life, it doesn’t really matter, because some of us are, and quite happily so. I think people who can’t be monogamous or don’t want to be monogamous should just accept that instead of trying to force it and leaving behind a string of broken hearts. I don’t care what gender you are. Honesty.
I guess it depends on who you associate with or how much people tell you. It is kind of like the drug trade in that way. It goes on everywhere all the time but you have to know the signs to know what you are seeing and then you start seeing it everywhere. Most of the people I have known well have cheated and more than a few even do it unapologetically and repeatedly. That includes my parents, a couple of my grandparents, my best friend, and countless other friends both male and female. It has occurred in very disparate settings with wildly different groups of people in different geographical areas so I have to assume it is much more common than many people choose to believe.
I have the weird trait that I am a good listener and generally unshockable so I am one of the very few people that know that many people have cheated because they know I won’t tell anyone. I really don’t care who is screwing who especially after all that I have seen over the years. I have helped cover for so many people engaged in that type of thing over the years I have lost count and I hang around with college educated upper-middle class people these days. I worked in one large company where it was practically expected for everyone to have a ‘work spouse’ even up to executive level. It was open knowledge who was with who and we even had closed parties where everyone brought their work spouse but not their real one. It is usually more discrete than that but it is still everywhere. For God’s sake, there is a heavily advertised web site whose sole business model is to streamline cheating.
I don’t really know how many females cheat as opposed to males. Experience tells me men do it more than women because they tend to do serial cheating but there is also a shocking number of women you would never suspect that both do it in a selective way and get away with it undetected.
When trying to decide whether or not a stated thesis has a basis in objective reality, a properly conducted study is worth, oh, about infinity “original thoughts”.
yeah, let me know when your research is complete on who cheats more…or just offer an opinion based on your experience which in comparison would be much more interesting and provocative than relying on a cite to think for you. Anywayyyyyyyyyyyyy
Have you read * The Origins of Sex: A History of the First Sexual Revolution* by Faramerz Dabhoiwala? It’s about the shift in Western (particularly English) attitudes about sex around about the 1700s.
I’m not sure I became the secret keeper for so many people but I’ve come to a conclusion about cheating. I’m less surprised by the men who cheated than the women who cheated and the percentages are about the same.
I think what bothers me about the ‘‘it’s natural’’ line of thinking is that it reads like an excuse for bad behavior. Supposing that mankind was not meant to be monogamous, that doesn’t excuse saying you would be faithful, breaking that promise and lying about it.