The chastity of women

It has always seemed obvious to me that women are far more keen on sex than men, but from time to time one of my commenters tells me that women are the naturally chaste sex.

Nah.  The reason they are not in bed with you is that they await a booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

Tags:

54 Responses to “The chastity of women”

  1. Samseau (@Sam_seau) says:

    It’s actually very easy to see how women are naturally slutty by seeing the percentages at which women cohabitate and leave home to live with a partner. The EU does a good job of keeping track on this. This is a study from 2008:

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3433488/5565692/KS-SF-10-050-EN.PDF/877f8776-e7fe-4f2b-8bec-0a5cf54dcba4

    pg. 4 –

    “A key factor driving the gender imbalance among young adults living with their parent(s) is being involved in a consensual union with a partner (with or without a legal basis). Women, on average, marry or move out with a partner earlier than men.

    Among the whole population of young adults (aged 18-34), in 2008, 48% of women but only 36% of men lived in a consensual union with a partner (see
    full results in Table 1).

    Only a small share of the population of young adults living with their parent(s) was involved in a consensual union in the whole of the EU-27 (4.5%). This proportion ranged from less than 1% in Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland and Luxembourg, to 8% and more in Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland. The highest percentages were recorded in Romania (17.8%) and Bulgaria (19.3%).

    These disparities seem to largely result from cultural and/or economic differences, and they reveal that it is more common for young couples to stay at the parental home in some countries than in others.”

    Young women shack up with older men at a full 10 percentage points over men, across the entire EU. Obviously these numbers will vary from country to country, as the countries where young men have better chances at jobs will have a higher likelihood to get a woman.

    There are many other data points to consider, as well.

    – Women lose their virginity earlier than men.

    – Women get more STDs than men (not just because it’s easier for them to contract it: they share them with alphas)

    – And I bet if you could study this accurately, you’d see that women have a higher median partner count than men.

    Women flock to alphas and hand out tons of sex to a select few males but play coy with unwitting betas. It’s not just a myth. I’ve been that alpha many times myself. I’ve seen girls take calls from their boyfriends after I finish banging them in the ass and act like nothing happened.

    The only men who would ever trust women are the men who don’t get laid, which is unfortunately most men which is why our civilization is in it’s current predicament. And even if alpha males were to record all the times they fuck these sluts, in secret, the alphas would just get arrested for recording the women without their consent. Thus, it follows that most men do not want to know the truth about women.

    If men actually cared about things like truth, women would be without the vote making babies at home like they are designed.

    • jim says:

      Cohabitation is not the problem. The problem is when they leave home at 9:30PM and return at 3AM, they have been on a booty call.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Women, on average, marry or move out with a partner earlier than men.”

      Holy shit, Batman, that’s a revelation–men and women making a commitment to one another by deciding to live together. Amazing, tell me more.

      “Women lose their virginity earlier than men.”

      Let’s delve into the numbers more deeply. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that between the ages of 20-24, 12.3% of females are virgins, compared to 14.3% of men. Not a large discrepancy. Of course, the factors involved for both men and women why they remain virginal run from extreme shyness to religious faith to past physical or emotional abuse. Of course, men who employ game put the full court press on, slay that pussy, and move on to “better things” like single-hood.

      “Women get more STDs than men.”

      Again, let’s look at the reasons why. If a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men. Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection. Of course, men in these specific cases are fucking like rabbits without protection and refusing to take ownership of their anti-Godly masculinity.

      “The problem is when they leave home at 9:30PM and return at 3AM, they have been on a booty call.”

      Men are notorious for this conduct.

  2. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    Yes. One of the biggest lies told to young men is that women are by nature pure, chaste, delicate creatures that require a man’s protection. This is probably more true for men raised in Christian households or who attend Christian schools, where Blue Pill thinking runs rampant.

  3. spandrell says:

    Well at least they have higher standards. Some men will answer booty calls by 3s and 4s. Absolutely no woman would do that.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      No, they would. Some women get off on slumming with a low status male. It’s the middle that they avoid. Total winners and total losers get laid.

      • jim says:

        Not total losers. Rather, women like thugs. If he can beat up the CEO, they will likely fuck him in preference to the CEO.

        • peppermint says:

          yup. If a woman sees you cringe, you’re a eunuch to her. Which should be obvious, but ‘treat her like a princess’ became ‘…and you’re a peasant’, presumably through a series of books and movies about a peasant who secretly is better at fighting that the aristocrats marries the princess.

          Andrew Anglin blames Jewish romantic comedies about finding the right person for you. But that’s not what happens – what happens in romantic comedies is that the guy is tall but otherwise pretty normal, has lots of women competing for his affection, and chooses the one he started with in the beginning, which is a terrible thing to show to suggestible women. Men don’t even watch romantic comedies, but if men did, they would get to see a guy acting noncommital and self-absorbed getting laid over and over, just like red pill people say.

        • B says:

          That’s a pretty dumb statement. Were that to be the case, there would be no CEOs and only thugs around, since even in Muslim cultures, a woman intent on cheating can and will cheat.

          • peppermint says:

            the reason we make fun of Eliot Rodgers for not being able to pick up chicks in the car his daddy bought him is that men are expected to be able to pick up chicks with such a car.

            But you’re right. There are less White CEOs today, and more Whites want to present themselves as thugs than ever before.

          • B says:

            This is a function of today’s society, where the indigent are fed by the state, where children are raised by the state, and where thugs are protected by the state (and their victims prosecuted.)

            But Jim presents women as inherently preferring thugs to CEOs, which is, for the majority of women in civilized societies over the last couple of millennia, not true. It is a trivial thing for a married woman, even (perhaps especially) in a society where she must go veiled, to cheat on her husband and to have another man’s children. If this were the case, being a CEO-type, a peasant, merchant or artisan would be very genetically disadvantageous, and they would in very short order have been replaced by thugs.

          • jim says:

            We observe in fact that males are less and less presenting themselves as CEOs, and more and more presenting themselves as wiggers in order to impress girls.

            Female sexual choice tends to run to female fashion, and females wind up choosing things that are not good for the species, the race, the clan, or the family. Thus, for example, peahens choose peacocks with glorious tails because other peahens choose peacocks with glorious tails, to the detriment of the species.

            Similarly, females tend to choose males that are poor at cooperating with other males.

          • B says:

            Women have, in practice, been able to furtively mate with men other than their husbands for a long time, as long as we’ve lived in cities.

            The fact that men have not been steadily getting more wiggerish or worse at cooperating with each other except over the last 50 years and in the West tells me that your analysis is off.

            • jim says:

              The fact that men have not been steadily getting more wiggerish or worse at cooperating with each other except over the last 50 years and in the West tells me that your analysis is off.

              Until the last seventy years or so, we substantially suppressed female choice.

            • jim says:

              Women have, in practice, been able to furtively mate with men other than their husbands for a long time

              Women, being hypergamous, need to research their mates, whereas a man can size up a women in thirty seconds and fuck her in another thirty. This lengthy research phase is vulnerable to detection.

              Even whores take some time to organize a transaction. For example a whore may spend quite a lot of time sitting in a girly bar waiting for men to approach her. Suppose she sells 48 hours of her time to a customer, who has sex with her and falls asleep. She decides to double sell her ass, selling a second man some of the time she has already sold to the first man. In order to make the sale, she is going to go back to her girly bar. First customer wakes up, discovers whore missing, heads off to her girly bar and detects her double selling.

              Now it would be easy for her to give it away free to some random old fat guy and not be detected, but if a woman wants to sell it for a high price, or to give it away free to some high quality male, as women measure quality, this is going to take time, and thus render her detectable.

              A man can, and frequently does, sleep with a woman not his wife in sixty seconds, zip his pants up, and go about his business, as Arnold was famously apt to do.

              A woman is reluctant to do the equivalent. Adultery is apt to absorb a great deal of her time and energy.

              Now if your wife is a cocktail waitress, she is probably going to have lots of sixty second sexual encounters with lots of men more manly than yourself, because her job gives her lots of time and opportunity to research your competition. But for that reason, probably not going to let your wife be a cocktail waitress.

          • B says:

            >Until the last seventy years or so, we substantially suppressed female choice.

            I don’t remember whose travelogue it was, but it was some woman who traveled to Istanbul in the mid-19th century. Being a woman, she got to socialize with the local women, and asked them if they did not feel oppressed wearing burkas. They looked at her as though she were retarded, and patiently explained to her that unlike the men, who were seen going wherever they went, the women were completely anonymous and had total freedom of movement, and could do whatever dirt they wanted.

            Reading the history of the American cities and backcountry in the 19th century, or mores of pre-20th century England and France, I get the impression that the suppression of female choice throughout history is quite overstated.

            >Women, being hypergamous, need to research their mates, whereas a man can size up a women in thirty seconds and fuck her in another thirty. This lengthy research phase is vulnerable to detection.

            Oh, yes. The massive female sighing for Jeremy Meeks was a result of extensive perusal of his elementary school permanent record, references from employers and so on.

            If your answer is that Meeks was so attractive because he was a violent dirtbag,identified as such by the papers from which they learned of him, and that was all they needed to know, I can assure you that women can identify violent dirtbags as quickly as you can, and don’t need a research grant to make the assessment. I mean, duh. What the fuck do you think those teardrop tattoos are for, free opera tickets?

            >Even whores take some time to organize a transaction.

            Yes, Hunter’s Point in the Bronx was notorious for extensive negotiations, sometimes taking weeks to complete. Come on.

            >For example a whore may spend quite a lot of time sitting in a girly bar waiting for men to approach her.

            Well, she’s not spending that time haggling.

            >A man can, and frequently does, sleep with a woman not his wife in sixty seconds, zip his pants up, and go about his business, as Arnold was famously apt to do.

            You’ve been watching too much porn. It’s not good for you.

            1) Arnold had massive fame, and therefore the women who slept with him knew exactly who he was.

            2) The vast majority of men do not sleep with women in sixty seconds, and if offered that option, would assume correctly that the woman offering had some sort of mental disorder.

            I suspect that even the vast majority of famous men in modern debauched Western society have not slept with women in sixty seconds. Dogs, cats and livestock do not mate within 60 seconds of meeting.

            A natural, healthy, civilized human being has a sense of shame, awe and reticence about sex, and takes time to build rapport. Liver-Eating Johnson, probably the most feared mountain man warrior of the American frontier, lived with an Indian widow for two years and didn’t touch her because they weren’t married.

            • jim says:

              If your wife meets Jeremy Meeks, she can cheat on you in sixty seconds, and very likely will, because she knows he is pre selected and internet famous. But if she meets someone she rather suspects resembles Jeremy Meeks, the process of checking him out takes a lot longer.

              That women like to spend a long time measuring up the men they sleep with makes it possible, though far from easy, to force monogamy upon them.

          • peppermint says:

            yes, it takes more than a bit of casual contact with a decent by female standards man to get the tingles going, and Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t represent most of the cheating that goes on.

            If women really cheated so much, they would never have been liberated, just as if niggers were so useless and mindlessly destructive, they never would have been liberated either. White women do not cheat very much; there is genetic evidence of this. In fact, the fact that women are observed cheating is both a libel and the result of the cruelty and failings of men and marriage.

          • B says:

            “Preselected”? “Internet famous”? What are you babbling about? The dude got a few articles for being a thug. If you assume most women want to have sex with thugs (which is not true,) it doesn’t take internet articles to identify them.

            As I have pointed out, cats and dogs in heat don’t mate in 60 seconds.

            In almost every Western and Asian society over the last 2000 years, women have spent time outside the home regularly, shopping, for instance. If they wanted to develop extramarital relationships with thugs and bear their children, they could have. The lack of widespread thuggishness and the fact that most people are middle class types, not violent criminals, tells me that they didn’t want to, and that thug genes did not provide any selective advantage. Neither does it seem that most women today wish to bear the children of drummers and bartenders-the sex they have is rendered masturbatory by contraception. How many kids does Roissy have?

            • jim says:

              If you assume most women want to have sex with thugs (which is not true,) it doesn’t take internet articles to identify them.

              Woman are highly selective. They don’t want just any thug.

              Women go with the crowd. They want what other women want.

              Actually, come to think of it, I know well that sometimes a woman will give a random bunch of thugs a ride, but it is not routine behavior, rather, a part of youthful experimentation that they try a relatively small number of times, and then do not care repeat. Normally it is carefully selected thugs, rather than whatever bunch of low lifes was hanging around in a dark alley.

              But sometimes, not very often, but nonetheless far too often, it is whatever bunch of low lifes was hanging around in a dark alley. And yes I know of a high IQ high socioeconomic status very pretty girl that did that.

        • Dr. Faust says:

          Women still desire the forbidden. It is the basis for a lot of female sexuality. Deny a woman something and she’ll desire it. It’s infantile and baseless but much of what women do is that way. In game theory it would be the push/pull concept. Shove a woman away (deny her your affection) and she’ll pursue it more aggressively.

          The norm is young, high status males as the acceptable sex partners. However, in rebellion to this some women will sleep with low status males. Losers, homeless, degenerates, elderly, relatives, and anything else they perceive as being forbidden becomes desired.

        • Zach says:

          Jim, dude… that is nonsense.

          If she knows the dude is a CEO and a thug… just watch what happens.

          I don’t think this is any topic that has a far reaching influence, but you are CLEARLY weakest in this area.

          Just as you take things case-by-case, so will I.

          Just tellin’ it how I see it. Keep on history buffs!

    • fnd says:

      Easy to have high standards when you don’t need to put the effort or resources.

  4. Samson J. says:

    It has always seemed obvious to me that women are far more keen on sex than men

    I’m curious about why or how this “always” seemed obvious to you. A few years ago on a Reactionary site, the invitation was put to readers to explain how the Leftist scales first fell from their eyes. I offered that I never really believed the orthodoxy on race because I went to a high school with a lot of black kids. But, I certainly believed in the pedestal theory of women until recent years, and I’m curious to hear how you “always” avoided that.

    As for me, it has only been within the past year or so, as I’ve slowly ascended the hierarchy, that I’ve had very-clearly-married women ask me “what I’m doing later”, and even now I generally think, “Naw, that can’t mean what I think it means…”

    • Andrew E. says:

      It doesn’t mean anything definite from one moment to the next.

    • jim says:

      I was born and raised in an environment where much redpill wisdom was in the air I breathed, now forgotten and being rediscovered.

    • fnd says:

      The problem with a lack of enviromnent wisdom is that when you have a bad experience with a particular woman, you think it was just bad luck, NAWALT, etc. until you raise in social status and things begins to change, then you notice some paterns. It’s like all males need to reinvent the wheel every time. Some are more smarts than others.

  5. Bee says:

    >women are far more keen on sex than men
    >women are the naturally chaste sex
    These are not opposites. Both are false.

    Men demand monogamy of their wives/girlfriends/etc. Women prefer, but do not demand monogamy of their husbands/boyfriends/etc.

    Men demand that their wives/girlfriends/etc have a low partner count. Women prefer men who have a high partner count.

    If you want chastity or monogamy, you need men to decide who has sex with who. If you want promiscuity and polygamy, you need women to decide who has sex with who.

    Men are more keen on sex. Women are more keen on promiscuity.

    Porn is almost entirely made for men. Prostitutes are almost entirely for men. Ever heard of a married man denying his wife sex, in order to control the relationship?

    • jim says:

      Ever heard of a married man denying his wife sex, in order to control the relationship?

      Indeed I have. Works like a charm on a woman who has only slept with her husband, and allegedly fairly common behavior among neoreactionaries.

      The reason that these days women are not keen on sex with their husband is that they have slept with a hundred men who had bigger dicks than their husband, were richer, more famous, and more charismatic than their husband, were handsomer and much stronger than their husband, were way bigger assholes than their husband, who beat them up regularly and took their money while their husband, like the losers at their stripper bar, gave them money.

      And only when they stopped getting booty calls from these guys, did they reluctantly settle for a nice guy who loves them.

      • Bee says:

        Fair point. But what about the other two points? If women are more keen on sex than men, why are men more willing to pay prostitutes for sex, and more willing to use porn?

        • peppermint says:

          it’s not about keen on sex, all sexually-reproducing organisms are keen on sex. It’s about sexual strategy. Which is driven by biological factors, such as pregnancy being much more expensive than the minute or two it takes a man to initiate it…

          • B says:

            [waves hands, announces that this is the will of evolution]

            Men are more willing to treat women as disposable receptacles while focusing on career, family, etc.

            Women are more willing to treat career, family, etc. as disposable when they meet a man who gives them THAT FEELING.

            But both men and women are capable of this thing called civilization and self-restraint. And the above curves overlap. For every woman who cheated on her husband with some scumbag, there is a stripper out there banging dudes like they are disposable, and an idiot who is willing to marry said stripper (and will, at which point she will cheat on him, cycle continues.)

          • Bee says:

            >all sexually-reproducing organisms are keen on sex
            You’re a moron.

            All sexually reproducing organisms have various desires. Food, sex, water, emotional security, et cetera. How highly do they prioritize each? If sex is given a low priority, they are less keen on sex, than if sex is given a high priority.

            When I say that “men are more keen on sex than women”, I mean that men give it higher priority, and women give it lower priority. You’ll notice that

            1) Men are willing to pay more for sex (prostitution)
            2) Men are more willing to use substitutes for sex (pornography)
            3) Men are more willing to force someone to have sex (rape – although there might be other reasons for this)
            4) Sex-denial is primarily used against men, implying that it works better against them (as Jim pointed out, this may be a modern habit)

            • jim says:

              “men are more keen on sex than women”, I mean that men give it higher priority, and women give it lower priority.

              Men are happy to have sex with any fertile age woman, and will cheerfully pay to do so. Woman will risk death for sex, and in the days before contraception and caesarians, in the days when adultery and fornication was punishable by death, routinely and regularly did so.

              And they will still do so. But whereas a man will happily have sex with any fertile age woman, a woman will risk death for sex only with certain special men. Who are seldom her husband.

          • Bee says:

            >Woman will risk death for sex, and in the days before contraception and caesarians, in the days when adultery and fornication was punishable by death, routinely and regularly did so
            What percentage of women were executed for fornication and adultery? I’m guessing it’s small, when compared with the women that got away with it.

            You’ll also notice that men who committed adultery were also executed. So that is not a good example of women risking death, while men refused to.

            Why is it difficult to believe that men pursue sex more than women? Both need to reproduce using sex. However, in the ancestral environment, men were less likely to make it to adulthood, and more likely to be forced into a sexless life (i.e. slavery).

            So we would expect men to pursue sex more. Perhaps about 2x to 3x as much as women. Because among the sexually active population, there were less men, and more women.

            • jim says:

              >Woman will risk death for sex, and in the days before contraception and caesarians, in the days when adultery and fornication was punishable by death, routinely and regularly did so

              What percentage of women were executed for fornication and adultery? I’m guessing it’s small, when compared with the women that got away with it.

              Hard to tell, since such things were hushed up, but we can tell what percentage of women died in agony as a result of unwanted pregnancy. Probably most of them.

          • Bee says:

            >unwanted pregnancy
            Darwin would tell us that unless the baby has extremely low chances of survival, there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. When modern women say “unwanted pregnancy” they mean one of two things.

            1) “I would rather be impregnated by some other man”
            2) “The progressive religion is telling men that I need to go to college rather than have babies”

            You can replace “I need to go to college” with some other progressive/feminist goal. Career, independence from obligations to men, stopping overpopulation, et cetera.

        • k says:

          Porn for women is all over the place. On fanfiction.net, probably a couple hundred thousand of elaborately written dirty dirty sex stories with boilerplate plots

        • jim says:

          why are men more willing to pay prostitutes for sex

          The typical prostitute or stripper hands over all or most of her money to her boyfriend, who often has several other girls doing the same thing.

          Child support money also usually winds up in the hands of boyfriends who wander through the household at infrequent intervals, showing up mostly when the child support money arrives. Crime drops like a stone on the first of the month, because criminals are spending the time being nice to their numerous girlfriends.

          My highly subjective and statistically insignificant impression is that child support money far exceeds money paid to prostitutes and strippers, and that most child support money to fertile age women winds up in the hands of boyfriends who show up infrequently and erratically, so that in today’s society of fatherlessness, women are paying far more for sex than men are.

          • Bee says:

            Unfair reasoning.

            If we include women giving money to their boyfriends, then we must include men giving money to their girlfriends and wives.

            Prostitution is payment for anonymous sex. Supporting your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend is a different category. And I expect that if we examined the average portion of child support payments that went to boyfriends, it would be less than the average portion of a man’s paycheck that goes to his wife.

            • jim says:

              If we include women giving money to their boyfriends, then we must include men giving money to their girlfriends and wives.

              Men give money to their wives to hang around, take care of them, and raise their children. Women give money to men that do not hang around, but rather blow through the household at infrequent intervals.

              Men generally give women money in the context of a relationship where they reasonably believe the woman is sleeping only with them. Women generally give men money as one of those men’s several fuck toys.

              Men usually give women money in the expectation that the money and the women will remain part of his household, part of him, remain his property, will benefit his children. Women give men money that then vanishes from their household.

          • Bee says:

            I am claiming that men prioritize sex more highly than women.

            As I said before, Women have a much stronger desire for promiscuity than men. Especially with less civilized races, like black women.

            Men pay for monogamous sex. Women pay for sex with polygamous alpha males. This does not mean that women pay more for sex. It means that they pay for a different type of sex. (Note that “pay” can take many forms – cash, housework, romance, et cetera)

            >Men usually give women money in the expectation that the money and the women will remain part of his household, part of him, remain his property, will benefit his children. Women give men money that then vanishes from their household.
            That’s reasonable. Men are paying for more than sex, while women handing child support to their boyfriends are primarily paying for sex. But we don’t have clear statistics on what % of child support goes to boyfriends.

            You originally brought up women handing child support to their boyfriends in the context of prostitution. I said that men prioritize sex more highly than women, and cited prostitution as an argument for that.

    • spandrell says:

      Chinese polygamists used to deliberate shun some of their wives when they misbehaved. The wives and concubines fought each other for the privilege of having their master sleep with them.

  6. Bert says:

    Sex drive isn’t the only thing to cause procreation, for men or women. It’s not like all the world’s children are unwanted by-products of sex. The urge to procreate is probably at least as important. Nature must have selected for women, and to a lesser degree men, who have a desire to have offspring.

    Nowadays, when sex and procreation are ever more separate, when you can have sex without having children, and, crucially, children without having sex, this selection should speed up. Maybe in the future this will cause noticeable changes in some of the world’s populations.

  7. Dr. Faust says:

    The end is nigh. 2020 is too optimistic.

  8. narmno says:

    jim- Something to add to your collection of “the nature of women” videos:

    http://hiphopwired.com/2015/06/26/guy-pretends-2015-nba-draft/

  9. Zach says:

    Men 16 -27 absolutely wreck females in a “keen off” contest. Men 16 – 27 have urges that a staggering degree of females could not even comprehend.

    C’mon fellas. THAT is obvious.

  10. Herald says:

    Jim, both you and your friend are right. There is no contradiction between your observations.

    Women’s desire for sex is more variable than men’s. This fits with how women’s desires vary during the menstrual cycle. For most men, she feels nothing. For a few demon lovers, she has extreme attraction. This is different from men, who typically feel at least some attraction for a wide range of women. I’m also convinced that women’s enjoyment of sex is more variable than men’s.

    Men often talk of a 1-10 scale. 10 is their perfect physical type. For women, perhaps a 10 is their physical type who is locally high in status. However, since women care more about status, and status has an even more skewed distribution than looks, women’s true scale might be 1-11, 1-20, or even 1-100. This would explain the freakout reaction that women show to male celebrities, and also cheating. Their typical sexual attraction and sex drive is lower than men’s, until they meet the right guy, when perhaps it ramps up into something even more intense than what men can experience. Hence willingness to crawl over broken glass.

    But the other angle we have to consider is ease of hookups. Since men are less picky, it’s easier for women to get laid with guys of their choosing. If most guys could get laid with women so easily, they would be more promiscuous and openly randy than they are now.

    Women do not have higher sex drive than men on average, and they probably have lower when they are alone. When encountering typical members of the opposite sex, they are indeed more chaste than men. When encountering the small group of men who push their buttons, women’s sex attraction and arousal levels spike just as high as men’s, or even higher, causing them to become more unchaste than men, especially because they are more likely to have their desires reciprocated than men’s.

    Whether men or women are “more” chaste or lustful isn’t an answerable question. Men’s and women’s desires are too different to even be able to make a meaningful comparison. They are both unchaste and lustful in different ways that are predictable based on their reproductive strategies.

    • peppermint says:

      If most guys could get laid with women so easily, they would be more promiscuous and openly randy than they are now.

      There’s a biological reason for that that goes back to the days when egg and sperm became different

Leave a Reply