<p>There are two very broad domains of theory that commonly address the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard" rel="nofollow"><em>double standard</em></a> regarding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity" rel="nofollow"><em>promiscuity</em></a>. Haven't got the time to lay it all out at the moment (would be happy to edit later to elaborate if you like; just comment on what aspects you'd like expanded!), but as you suspected, both biological and social factors pertain in ways that are essential to consider. In some senses the theories that focus on each oppose each other, as is a common consequence of any myopic discussion of an issue this complex and <a href="http://psychologydictionary.org/multidetermined-behavior/" rel="nofollow"><em>multidetermined</em></a>. One answer focuses on one aspect, another answer focuses on another aspect, conflicting explanations and predictions arise, and hopefully the debate incorporates this...but unfortunately often, the original theorists who focus on one (their) side of the issue become invested and entrenched in their perspective, and dismissive of others (another example with which I'm personally familiar arose as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person%E2%80%93situation_debate" rel="nofollow"><em>person-situation debate</em></a>). Keep this in mind if you choose to read further into the literature on these theories. The best answer is often the one that is informed by both, or more accurately, <strong>all</strong> sides.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/evolution" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;evolution&#39;" rel="tag">evolution</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology" rel="nofollow"><em>ary psychology</em></a> is the side that argues for explanations in terms of biological factors. Evolutionary theories pertaining to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny" rel="nofollow"><em>polygny</em></a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#The_evolutionary_and_historical_development_of_monogamy_in_humanity%3a_nature_vs._nurture" rel="nofollow"><em>monogamy</em></a> are not hard to find; even from a male perspective, there are competing motives to address here. Meanwhile, <a href="/questions/tagged/social-psychology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;social-psychology&#39;" rel="tag">social-psychology</a> has a lot to say about the influence of culture on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28social%29" rel="nofollow"><em>social norms</em></a> regarding promiscuity, particularly in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_studies" rel="nofollow"><em>women's studies</em></a>. Again, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=women%27s+studies+sexual+double+standard&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;channel=np&amp;source=hp" rel="nofollow">a quick Google search on "women's studies sexual double standard"</a> will give you more than you have time to read about that perspective. Bear in mind, these two are not the only ways to address the issue; they're just the most popular and most inclined to address this issue as a focal topic.</p>

<p>Enjoy, stay open-minded, and "trust no one [completely]!" :)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T20:14:05.843Z
2014-01-10T20:14:05.843Z
Nick Stauner
<p>I sometimes hear from my friends that a man who has many female sexual partners is regarded as macho. But on the other hand, a woman with a lot of one-night stands is thought to be easy and desperate (without even mentioning harsher words).</p>

<p>So what's the reason for this? What are the psychological roots? I would say two most important factors are <em>biological</em> and <em>social</em> but how do they affect our opinions on this matter?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T18:59:31.207Z
In terms of reproductive advantage, female mammals can only get pregnant once every 9 months, but males can get several females pregnant in 9 months.  There are probably many more factors, but this seems like it would play a role in sexual selection.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T19:09:48.373Z
In terms of humans (not mammals in general), yes, assuming the pregnancy goes "full-term." I'm reasonably sure that was the intended point, and it is relevant in evolutionary theory (which is not the only relevant theory by a long shot). Do try to phrase your comments constructively @caseyr547.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T19:44:38.820Z
Before you take people's answers, make sure to read the article on [examples of polyandry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry#Known_cases) (settings where it is not socially atypical for one woman to have many husbands) so that the social and not-cross-cultural nature of your observation is clear.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T19:56:18.720Z
@caseyr547 you are assuming a lot about what Nick and Keegan meant, just because a social answer can be given (as my comment and your answer demonstrate), doesn't mean that biological considerations are completely irrelevant or uninteresting. Of course, for a clear-headed discussion of the biology without all the social-norms baggage, it is better to go to the biology stackexchange and ask about variability in non-human mating strategies; fun example would be to contrast the classic Chimp to Bonobo to Gorrilla to Orangutans.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T20:12:57.623Z
It has plenty of bearing on both...but you're right in the second half of your last sentence: sexuality doesn't end at pregnancy. It might even increase in some ways!
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T20:30:56.363Z
Casey, it's an evolutionary argument.  Evolutionary motivation shouldn't be confused with human motivation.  Nobody is saying sexuality ends when someone becomes pregnant.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T20:50:40.633Z
The evolutionary argument for male promiscuity is that promiscuous males can have more offspring than promiscuous females so a brute force evolutionary simulation would favor male promiscuity.  Of course evolution is more complicated than that, but I simplify for brevity.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T21:09:32.213Z
Thats really completely incorrect. This is really a whole 'nother discussion, but any line that was "stronger" but didn't reproduce isn't around today.  Many organisms finds ways besides strength to reproduce.  Your simplistic argument of larger testes really underlies a misunderstanding of basic evolutionary principles.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-10T21:14:39.360Z
If you'd like to know more, look up "reproduction of the fittest" as "survival of the fittest" is really a misnomer.  We should probably stop this side point.  If you like, you can ask questions at the biology Stack exchange for further clarification.
Keegan Keplinger
<social-psychology><emotion><evolution>
Mulitiple partners: macho man vs. easy woman?
alex
# Mulitiple partners: macho man vs. easy woman?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-01-10)

I sometimes hear from my friends that a man who has many female sexual partners is regarded as macho. But on the other hand, a woman with a lot of one-night stands is thought to be easy and desperate (without even mentioning harsher words).

So what's the reason for this? What are the psychological roots? I would say two most important factors are *biological* and *social* but how do they affect our opinions on this matter?

**Tags:** social-psychology, emotion, evolution

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: In terms of reproductive advantage, female mammals can only get pregnant once every 9 months, but males can get several females pregnant in 9 months.  There are probably many more factors, but this seems like it would play a role in sexual selection.  
> **username_2**: In terms of humans (not mammals in general), yes, assuming the pregnancy goes "full-term." I'm reasonably sure that was the intended point, and it is relevant in evolutionary theory (which is not the only relevant theory by a long shot). Do try to phrase your comments constructively @caseyr547.  
> **username_3**: Before you take people's answers, make sure to read the article on [examples of polyandry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry#Known_cases) (settings where it is not socially atypical for one woman to have many husbands) so that the social and not-cross-cultural nature of your observation is clear.  
> **username_3**: @caseyr547 you are assuming a lot about what Nick and Keegan meant, just because a social answer can be given (as my comment and your answer demonstrate), doesn't mean that biological considerations are completely irrelevant or uninteresting. Of course, for a clear-headed discussion of the biology without all the social-norms baggage, it is better to go to the biology stackexchange and ask about variability in non-human mating strategies; fun example would be to contrast the classic Chimp to Bonobo to Gorrilla to Orangutans.  
> **username_2**: It has plenty of bearing on both...but you're right in the second half of your last sentence: sexuality doesn't end at pregnancy. It might even increase in some ways!  
> **username_1**: Casey, it's an evolutionary argument.  Evolutionary motivation shouldn't be confused with human motivation.  Nobody is saying sexuality ends when someone becomes pregnant.  
> **username_1**: The evolutionary argument for male promiscuity is that promiscuous males can have more offspring than promiscuous females so a brute force evolutionary simulation would favor male promiscuity.  Of course evolution is more complicated than that, but I simplify for brevity.  
> **username_1**: Thats really completely incorrect. This is really a whole 'nother discussion, but any line that was "stronger" but didn't reproduce isn't around today.  Many organisms finds ways besides strength to reproduce.  Your simplistic argument of larger testes really underlies a misunderstanding of basic evolutionary principles.  
> **username_1**: If you'd like to know more, look up "reproduction of the fittest" as "survival of the fittest" is really a misnomer.  We should probably stop this side point.  If you like, you can ask questions at the biology Stack exchange for further clarification.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-01-10. Score: 2

There are two very broad domains of theory that commonly address the [*double standard*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard) regarding [*promiscuity*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity). Haven't got the time to lay it all out at the moment (would be happy to edit later to elaborate if you like; just comment on what aspects you'd like expanded!), but as you suspected, both biological and social factors pertain in ways that are essential to consider. In some senses the theories that focus on each oppose each other, as is a common consequence of any myopic discussion of an issue this complex and [*multidetermined*](http://psychologydictionary.org/multidetermined-behavior/). One answer focuses on one aspect, another answer focuses on another aspect, conflicting explanations and predictions arise, and hopefully the debate incorporates this...but unfortunately often, the original theorists who focus on one (their) side of the issue become invested and entrenched in their perspective, and dismissive of others (another example with which I'm personally familiar arose as the [*person-situation debate*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person%E2%80%93situation_debate)). Keep this in mind if you choose to read further into the literature on these theories. The best answer is often the one that is informed by both, or more accurately, **all** sides.

[evolution](/questions/tagged/evolution "show questions tagged 'evolution'")[*ary psychology*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology) is the side that argues for explanations in terms of biological factors. Evolutionary theories pertaining to [*polygny*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny) and [*monogamy*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#The_evolutionary_and_historical_development_of_monogamy_in_humanity%3a_nature_vs._nurture) are not hard to find; even from a male perspective, there are competing motives to address here. Meanwhile, [social-psychology](/questions/tagged/social-psychology "show questions tagged 'social-psychology'") has a lot to say about the influence of culture on [*social norms*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28social%29) regarding promiscuity, particularly in [*women's studies*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_studies). Again, [a quick Google search on "women's studies sexual double standard"](https://www.google.com/search?q=women%27s+studies+sexual+double+standard&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp) will give you more than you have time to read about that perspective. Bear in mind, these two are not the only ways to address the issue; they're just the most popular and most inclined to address this issue as a focal topic.

Enjoy, stay open-minded, and "trust no one [completely]!" :)


---

