Why do some men want to sleep around?

[Tiredstilltired]

Why do some men want sex with lots of different women? I've heard countless friends say that men they meet on internet dating just want to shag around.
What is the appeal of lying about what you want simply to get a quick shag and then move onto the next. Why is that appealing? Surely sex gets better the more you have it with the same person?
What is the appeal in shagging lots of women once?

Monogamy is not necessarily not natural.
What seems natural in human populations is a sort of mixed system between monogamy and promiscuity (here used without moral values).

Human populations seem to do well in systems where there is some commitment between male and female.
It's not necessarily a male construct, as it benefits women as well, particularly in agricultural societies (less so in collectors).

Essentially, more men want to sleep around than women because they can walk away from the consequences, whereas it's more difficult for women.
Having said that, it's easier to avoid them now with contraception, morning after pill and abortion and it's easier to face the consequences with state support.
This freed up women, which leads to more "sleeping around" and less societal stigma too.
But women will always have more of a burden to face and more investment if children are produced, so it's likely that men will always tend to be more promiscuous than women.

I agree that both sexes want casual sex with different partners.

Social conditioning trys to keep a lid on female sexuality.

There is nothing wrong in not wanting a serious relationship but wanting sex.

I have been on dating websites and spoken to countless men who get the impression that the majority of women are there looking for sex.

I also think it depends on age. It may be true that young men (teenage and men in their 20s) want more casual sex than women of the same age, however I think a lot of older women (say 40s)whoare coming out of a long term relationship, want sex and not necessarily a serious relationship.

From a personal note, I knew when my marriage ended that my ideal relationship would consist of meeting at the weekend, preferably in a hotel, having dinner then great sex. Then going home and not doing all the crappy domestic chores that seem to come along with relationship expectations. When I told my ex this he was horrified, he couldn't grasp that I would long for sex and not the commitment, again a result of social conditioning.

I think monogamy is entirely cultural and dont believe there is any differences between men and women.

You can think and believe what you want.
Then there's biology.
Biology dictates that a woman invests highly on carrying for a child and supporting it for the first few years.
A man (as most animals) has little interest in investing in a child that isn't genetically his (and you get more abuse from step fathers, and mothers, than from parents).
So it is in the interest of both sexes to raise the young together.
Because we are a social species, monogamy isn't as strong as in some other monogamous animals, and we get quite a lot of support by relatives, or close communities (often inbred to some extent).

But monogamy is a construct by neither sex exclusively.
It's both biological and cultural.

But, the sexual instinct is very strong to motivate individuals to procreate. Without it, the species would end.
And men, as women, will always be unconsciously looking for the best partner to spread their genes with.
That explains the difference between generically preferred partners for men and women. Young, fertile women for men and older, powerful men for women.

Yes, it's not as simple as that, because then we have cultural constructs and individual quirks, but we should never forget the biological and evolutionary aspects in human behaviour.

We do have the potential to play in a more even field, but many women still have that nesting urge to stay at home and take care of the children.
You can put it all down to societal pressure, but it does look like something ingrained that modulates society as much as it is modulated by society.
We only have to see how women ask for the right to choose to have a career as much as to choose to be at home.

We are all doing it men and women. I dont care for my children its my dhs job. I have no urge to and am going back to work after 2 weeks. It doesnt mean Im not a woman its just everyone thinks different.

"I think it's very assumptious to say that men invented monogamy to control women or that it is unnatural."

"I am probably a 'victim' of socialisation that judges people who have multiple partners and probably I judge women who sleep around more. I know it is wrong, but it feels engrained."

Umm...

George, you are an anecdotal case, as am I.

Everyone thinks differently, but it's possible to see patterns across society.

In our society, it's increasingly possible to dissociate having sex from procreation, and women are capable of supporting themselves and their partners, but the biological drive is even more difficult to shift than a cultural imposition.

The only reason some women have to get with older men is for money as society is in general geared up for men earning more. Now we become more even lots less women are getting with old men as no need

True, because the changes in society allow it. But the biological drive to be able to take care of the children is still there. although men will still often prefer the younger fertile model. It may eventually change if women managed to become fertile for much longer, but we do see women marrying later and having IVF children. So less pressure to marry in their twenties.
The biological drive is always there, but the circumstances change. It may take a while though, because of the nesting instinct.

I married at 20 but just think love and sex are 2 completely seperate things but I realise this is a very rare view!

I posted on the "things you think but don't say" thread in Chat a few days ago that I think the concept of monogamy is largely unrealisitic and causes much of the heartache seen on this board. If we could be more able to accept the idea that sex and love don't HAVE to be related, we could maintain the stable loving homes we create with a partner and allow some freedom for both partners to occasionally look elsewhere purely for sex. I have had various FWB arrangements over the years and each time I have been cheating on my partner of the time - had it been discovered there would have been awful fall out but that didn't HAVE to be. Any FWB encounters I had had absolutely no bearing on my relationship at all, were not a reflection of how I felt about DP or our sex life, it was purely about sex (and probably kept me in the relationship longer than I otherwise would have done). I know people will say they don't believe me but I honestly would not care if DH came home and said he'd had a one off encounter or even a FWB arrangements - it would be liberating and acknowledging that we are secure enough in our marriage to do this without thinking it has to mean more than it does. I think biology / social conditioning etc is misleading because it creates general assumptions. My model wouldn't of course work for everyone but it seems to be that often its the lying / deceiving of an affair that is more the problem than the actual sex itself - it would could remove the need for that deceit, maybe it just might reduce the number of split homes.

" that often its the lying / deceiving of an affair that is more the problem than the actual sex itself"

I think this is true.

I still think it has far more to do with social conditioning.

Think of all the names women get called for being sexually active and then compare this to the names men get called.

Whore, slag, slut,tramp, Trollope, bitch I could go on.

There isn't even an equivalent for mysoginy so by definition it is deemed acceptable for humans to hate women but not men.

I think more women are conditioned to put up with their partner's adultery which doesn't help at all.

Men think they can get away with sleeping around when in a marriage whereas a man would be encouraged to leave his cheating wife.

I would also add that both partners within a relationship should be enjoying sex. Again much easier to do in my opinion, if you feel sexy and desired. This doesn't fit with being the one who does the majority of the mundane jobs such as cleaning and child are.
Again a lot of men and some women to their shame, hold the Madonna/whore view that a nice wife doesn't do sex. Hence the popularity of strip clubs/lap dancing clubs.

Also, some people struggle to build intimate relationships with other people, so sleeping around provides fleeting experiences of intimacy. (although I'm not sure of the quality of partner who would be happy with this, it does seem a bit of a strategy to ensure a miserable life once a person reaches a certain age).

I'd agree women aren't like it as much as men but I'd say there wasn't much in it. Personally for me (and I've had a lot of one night stands) I don't find the sex as good as relationship sex (or even fuck buddy sex) the other person generally won't know what you want, or even be that interested, and it's all a bit just to get yourself off, and sometimes that doesn't even happen. I've always said if I was singe again I would not do the sleeping around thing again. I think you can't say all men to it for the same reasons to. I had a friend who had chronically low self esteem in himself, he was a good looking guy and lovely to chat to and he'd never chat a girl up, but, on dating sites he'd say yes to anyone (even if he found unattractive) and he said it just made him feel better about himself being wanted by someone. The sex was usually not good and I remember him saying he rarely reached climax with anyone. He has got help now thankfully and in a stable relationship for his issues but I do think a lot of people might do it just for a quick ego boost to. Everyone likes to feel wanted!

In terms of evolution and biology, the pair-bonding argument is still quite contentious. Certainly in modern society and from the neolithic period onwards there is evidence that society was based around kinship. However, prior to that it's less clear and in most ape species social structure is not based on the pair bond at all but on same-sex groups with a lot of social interaction between.

By the time we have reliable archaeological evidence that our society was based on pair-bonding and kinship groups, the modern human had been evolved for some time. So we can't say with any certainty that there is a biological basis for this behaviour and that it isn't purely a social construct that came about as society evolved.

Also, the trouble with the pair-bonding argument is that it relies on the assumption that pregnant or lactating females required the support of men. That's not necessarily the case. While nothing is proven one way or the other, there is an increasing amount of evidence to show that men and women hunted or gathered depending on suitability (so not necessarily exclusively male hunter/female gatherer as popularly believed) and that the nutritional contribution of gathering was actually much higher and more stable than the contribution made by hunting. Then you have the so-called grand-mothering hypothesis in which women past fertility cared for children to allow mothers to contribute to the group.

All combined with the fact that human gestation is so long, and female oestrus is hidden, which makes the link between sex and paternity far from obvious for early ancestors.

The picture is actually very complicated and endlessly fascinating.

Fairylights I agree but I still don't think people should go behind their partner's back to do this. Unfortunately the cultural norm of monogamy is so strong that most people not interested in monogamy are convinced that everyone else is, and hence they either suppress that part of themselves or cheat. I think this is wrong - it should be the case that you can state your preference for an open relationship/marriage and I know that this is becoming more common but it's a long way from being openly accepted.

I disagree that it's a marker of how secure your marriage is though. I think a marriage can be secure and monogamous. It's just a different preference, maybe hard to believe but some of us do genuinely have the preference to be with one person at a time and I (and I think DH) would be devastated if he or I were to go off for sex elsewhere.

It would be really nice to get to a stage where everyone could be with someone who shares their own preference, and nobody feels that they have to sneak around or deceive their partner who could genuinely be upset, not because of some "arbitrary association between sex and love" but a genuine feeling of betrayal.

TBH I find it hard to see why we're not at that stage now. It should be simple enough.

Dahlen, exclusive pair bonding may be the "desirable" mating system in some societies.
The reality is that, as a whole, humans follow a mixed or intermediate mating system and it has been for ages.

Both men and women have reasons to want sex with more than one partner, but they usually want it at different times and for different reasons.

I agree with the fact that we can prefer different things at different times in our lives.

For me, I am actually happiest on my own with a strong female 'tribe' when I need support. Far more so than in a relationship. I only really enjoy relationships when there is no vulnerability on my part and I can take it or leave it on my own terms.

Some of the most stable and happiest family dynamics I know are where a child is co-parented outside a relationship between the parents and always has been. There has been no split to contend with and no new adults introduced to the family dynamic in a live-in capacity. Obviously that wouldn't suit many people, but it's made me realise that the idea that the nuclear family is the norm and actually desirable is very much debatable seeing as half of them will fail and cause a lot more instability and poverty than if a child had been conceived by a stable would-be single parent seeking out sperm donation.

20 percent of men shag 80 percent of women.
Most men simply don't have the opportunity to shag around. It's just the same few men who go round from one woman to another.

Most women are attracted to the dominant 'Alpha' or rich type of person and those are the guys that shag around.

I think there is a difference between casual sex between people who view themselves as equals and some of the pick-up artist stuff that goes on, which can be very misogynistic and unpleasant.

It is a trivial example, but the kind of pick-up behaviours in How I Met Your Mother are really gross to me ("negging", implying that women who have casual sex are stupid, language like "hit it" or "hit that" or "bang that" instead of using female pronouns, preying on low self-esteem, lying to "get someone into bed"). I don't even really think it is about sex, more about a power-trip and it plays into this idea that there is something wrong with women who are promiscuous.

I do also agree with pp that sexuality varies - it would be a great thing if couples could choose monogamy/polygamy/whatever arrangement works for them without the social stigma. I know of one couple who have a more open arrangement and it works for them but they have had to defend themselves a whole lot from people who think it shows some kind of weakness in their relationship.

"..Monogamy is a cultural concept invented by men in order to control women,specifically to control reproduction..."

You can argue over whether it is evolutionary or cultural, but the idea that Monogamy is designed specifically for men to use in the control of women is evidently flawed - if anything, its the other way around - to curb male promiscuity which is what the OP is complaining about.

It clearly benefits women more, so that they will have the support of the man whilst pregnant and vulnerable, and to raise and provide for the offspring. Honestly, think through to the logical consequence of what would happen if there was literally no societal pressure at all to be monogamous. You are being naive (at best) if you believe that the scales would tip in favour of women in that situation.