Article originally posted on The Love Life Blog
Following on from the last blog post, where I debunked the myth that men are naturally promiscuous due to their need to spread their seed far and wide, I’d now like to examine the widely held myth that women are not naturally promiscuous. (I suppose because prehistorically we were so busy looking after those babies that those men randomly left behind as they wandered around spreading their seed – a recipe for reproductive success? Not!)
Now let’s look at a few biological facts here:
- women are able to have sex at any time
- women are more sexually responsive than men (more orgasms both in quantity, variety and quality)
- women can last sexually far longer than men
- women lose interest in sex more easily than men
- women generally need evidence of positive male interest and attention to want to have sex
- women have a less physical ‘urge’ for sex, rather a more contextual interest in sex
- women’s interest in sex sparks up with a new sex/love interest
These are biological facts. They do nothing to imply that women are less sexual than men. In fact they imply that women could well be more sexual than men. These facts do not imply that women are naturally monogamous, in fact they could be interpreted as showing that women need more than one man to be sexually satisfied.
Now, let’s look at some historical facts:
- For the past couple of thousand years or so girls in the west have been raised to think that they’re not sexual and shouldn’t be sexual
- Girls and women who were overtly sexual have been discriminated against, burnt at the stake, cast out from society, forced to wear shaming badges, excommunicated, locked up in mental institutions – need I go on?
- Until the last few decades, women have been dependent on men for their economic security, without a man it has been very difficult for a woman to survive
- Women were considered the possessions of men, first owned by their fathers, and that ownership passed to their husbands at marriage. Women were therefore required to obey and serve first their fathers and then their husbands, otherwise they’d have no-one to support them.
Would any of these facts have allowed women to freely express their true sexual selves? Clearly, no.
So don’t confuse biological fact, with historically based social norms. Women have not been allowed to be sexually expressively, particularly not sexually promiscuous. That doesn’t mean it’s not innate. The biological facts would imply otherwise.
I’m not saying women should be promiscuous, or even that it’s natural for women to be promiscuous. I’m simply saying that there is no evidence to show that women naturally are naturally monogamous.
Monogamy has been an economic and social imperative for women, not a biological drive.