I often hear - men are more sexual because they can impregnate literally millions of women in their lifetime, whereas women are much more limited.
But it is also true that a women can have literally millions of partners in her lifetime, whereas a man is much more limited. Kings may have harems, but it was Annabel Chong who slept with the equivalent of one in a few hours.
So is it illogical to believe that men are sexual because they can impregnate more women, but not to believe that women are more sexual because they can have virtually unlimited partners?
Even in the animal kingdom, this 24/7, year round capacity for pleasure is (as far as I know) unknown amongst females. So if we were tracing evolution backwards from this fact, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that women would be the voracious, sex hungry gender, who could never seem to get enough?
And do you have any theories as to why women aren't, or aren't seen that way?
But it is also true that a women can have literally millions of partners in her lifetime, whereas a man is much more limited. Kings may have harems, but it was Annabel Chong who slept with the equivalent of one in a few hours.
So is it illogical to believe that men are sexual because they can impregnate more women, but not to believe that women are more sexual because they can have virtually unlimited partners?
Even in the animal kingdom, this 24/7, year round capacity for pleasure is (as far as I know) unknown amongst females. So if we were tracing evolution backwards from this fact, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that women would be the voracious, sex hungry gender, who could never seem to get enough?
And do you have any theories as to why women aren't, or aren't seen that way?