A common bit of pop evolutionary psychology is that men want quantity in their sexual partners, because that is how they maximise their chances of reproducing, while women want quality, because that is how they maximise the chances of their off-spring surviving and reproducing in turn. But some problems crop up when you do the numbers.
If we consider only heterosexual relationships, and if we simplify just a little for the sake of avoiding a pornographic level of detail, then every relationship has to involve one male and one female. In turn this means that, if you sum up the number of relationships had by women, and sum up the number of relationships had by men, then the sums must come out the same. Given that the sexually active male and female populations are also roughly equal in number, the average number of relationships for men and woman must also be roughly equal.
So how do we reconcile the idea that men want quantity, while women want quality, with the fact that the average quantity is the same for both? I can think of two possibilities:
(1) Rape. Men want quantity, women want quality, men get what they want because they are physically stronger. In other words it is true that most women want a relatively small number of quality relationships, but what they get is a larger number of forced relationships. No doubt this explanation would fit in nicely with the views of certain feminists, but I don't think it fits very well with the facts (at least not in civilized societies).
(2) Sluts. Most women want quality but some are total sluts who will fuck anything that moves. The very high number of relationships involving these women balances out the relatively low number for most women and so pulls up the average. Most women want, and have, fewer than the average number of relationships, while some want, and have, far more than the average. I don't know how well this explanation fits the facts, but even if it fit the facts very well, it would still leave us with the problem of explaining why most women want quality but some women want quantity, quantity, quantity.
Another possibility is that both men and women want multiple sexual partners, but they want different sorts of sexual relationships. There are good evolutionary reasons to think that women would want multiple sexual partners. If a woman has just one partner, and he is firing blanks, then she is missing reproductive opportunities. A woman may not have the looks, or social standing, to form a long term relationship with a genetic "good catch" but she might have the looks, or enough alcohol handy, to get a bit on the side. Finally, if there are a few men around who suspect that they may have fathered her children, then she may also get more support in raising them, or have a back-up if her main-man does a runner, dies, whatever.
Still it will be a priority for most women to get at least one man who is willing to stick around and invest considerable resources in supporting them through child birth and child rearing. Women will want at least one stable, long-term relationship, even if they also want many fleeting relationships. Men, on the other hand, might be just as happy with only fleeting relationships.

I've recently listened to a debate on this - Monogamy is Bad for the Soul. It touches on a lot of the points you mentioned. It's a pretty good illustration that while the case for Monogamy is badly argued, most people feel compelled to vote for it anyway due to social pressure and/or conditioning.
Comment by ethlite — June 21, 2005 @ 7:41 pm
I just finished listening to the debate. Very entertaining stuff - and I thought there were good arguments made by both teams. I will have to get to some of them after I get done with the evolutionary stuff.
Comment by Dr. Strangelove — June 22, 2005 @ 12:11 am
You did? I thought the pro-Monogamy team made a pretty sad case overall. The first woman outright declared that her side is not based on reason of any sort, but rather on the emotional appeal of a romantic idea, deploring us to ignore the "rationists". The second guy was basically incoherent, and it was hard for me to pin down exactly what he was trying to say except "Monogamy is good for the genetically unfit". The third guy was not much better, making the absurd case of Polygamy falls apart when the number of partner is over seven hundred. I mean, come on!
The audience voted for pro-Monogamy after that dismal performance is a great illustration of how long standing social conventions can override basic reason.
Comment by ethlite — June 22, 2005 @ 4:20 pm
I suppose I should qualify what I meant by "good arguments". You have to remember that I am used to extracting sensible arguments from the garbled nonsense that undergraduates throw at me in class. You are right that the anti-Monogamy team did a much better job of presenting coherent arguments, but with a bit of re-working the arguments presented by the pro-Monogamy team turn out to be quite good.
Take one of the examples you mentioned:
When the first pro speaker was going on about ignoring the rationalists and holding up monogamy as an ideal, one of the arguments lurking in all the garbled nonsense was that aiming for monogamy might make good sense even if humans seldom achieve it.
If you sit a test in a difficult subject, for example, you will usually try to get all the answers correct even if you are sure that you will fall short of that goal. Indeed, even if you know that no one ever gets all the answers correct on this test, it still makes sense to try.
Comment by Dr. Strangelove — June 22, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
Sure, I guess. But I think you'd agree that most people in the audience would not have the same sort of skills as you do at picking out the arguments from the rambling mess. Yet they voted for the poorly presented case...
Back to the argument, yes, I agree aiming higher is generally better. However, that says nothing about whether or not the goal itself is worthy of pursuing, which I thought was the point of the debate. Not a very good argument if your case is predicated upon your case being true. I guess it fits quite well in the Christian morality framework tho, God exists because Jesus lives, or something like that...
Comment by ethlite — June 22, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
Kidnapping young girls has long been part of the marriage custom in Ethiopia. The United Nations estimates that more than 70 percent of marriages in Ethiopia are by abduction, practiced in rural areas where most of the country’s 71 million people live.
This is off topic, but it's amazing to think that civilized society have only been existing for a tiny fraction of human history and the difference is already so vast as to be unbridgeable. Give it another couple of centuries we might as well be different species.
Comment by ethlite — June 22, 2005 @ 5:38 pm
They held two votes, one at the start, and one at the end. The vote shifted considerably towards the pro-monogamy side so, assuming the votes were held using the same method, that suggests there was more than just social norms at work.
I actually think it was the philosopher who borked the anti-monogamy case. His argument looks like a good strategy - he tried to restrict the meaning of the term to to its traditional, and most objectionable, meaning. If people had bought his definition then few would have voted pro-monogamy. But I think few bought his definition. Once the audience realised that monogamy might mean a variety of things, few would have had any trouble comming up with some less objectionable meaning (monogamy as a goal, serial monogamy, etc).
In other words his argument, whatever its merits as an argument, was a huge rhetorical blunder.
Anyway, getting back to the matter of monogamy, you are right that the argument I outlined above does not settle the matter. It is really just a way of fending off the scientific evidence showing that humans are seldom perfectly monogamous. The pro-monogamy side still needed to argue that monogamy was a good goal. They gave other arguments for that claim like, for example, the argument that romantic love just doesn't work very well if you admit at the start that you will probably lose interest.
Comment by Dr. Strangelove — June 22, 2005 @ 7:10 pm
BTW, I noticed that our spam blocker did not like the words rape, incest, and bestiality, in comments. I have changed the settings so that comments including these words will not be deleted, but they will require moderator approval.
Comment by Dr. Strangelove — June 22, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
I agree. I wonder what would've happened if the order of the presenters were reversed. I thought the first guy did a pretty good job laying out the basic argument and the second guy followed up with some good anedotal evidence via quotes from women. But the third guy was off on a tangent on his own and dropped the ball...
Comment by Ethlite — June 22, 2005 @ 7:25 pm
With regards to the R*a*pe etc comments, you just need to look in Greek and Roman mythology to find plenty of cases of wife abuction. Hades and Persephone are just the most common. The Romans considered the kidnap of the Sabine women to be an historical event.
Comment by Filthy Stinking No.9 — June 23, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
Ethlite - Right, and the last guy for the pro-monogamy side was an excellent speaker, even if his arguments were not all that impressive.
FSN9 - Wife abduction is an interesting phenomenon. Unlike simple rape the aim is to obtain exclusive sexual access. The prevalence of rape and wife abduction in some societies makes the "rape" explanation here look more plausible, but the prevalence of wife abduction also makes the argument I gave in "monogamy for men" more plausible.
Comment by Dr. Strangelove — June 23, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
Nah, not in any of the cases of wife abuction that I'm aware of, excluding stories of gods that is. In each case, it occurs because a man doesn't have access to any women. That was certainly the Romans' problem. According to the legend, they were a mostly male settlement. The motive for kidnapping the Sabine women was because they had no other way to get a woman. Just because a man who has no source of sex will resort to kidnapping to obtain one, doesn't mean that it isn't an advantage to sleep with lots of women. The two things aren't connected. Secondly, kidnapping a woman is a dangerous activity, and once you've got one, the added benefit of taking a second isn't nearly as great. It also partly explains why it's WIFE kidnapping, and not just rape ... because the more times you try it, the more likely you are to end up dead. If you're going to go to all that risk, you better make sure you get a long term payback in sex (not babies).
There's an interesting end to the Roman story ... the Sabine men naturally enough launch a war against the Romans ... and the wives, who had been kidnapped, stopped the fighting, and remained with their husbands ...
Comment by Filthy Stinking No.9 — June 23, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
I know is questionable, but it's topical. I can just picture the lions chasing the abductors off and roaring, "We'll teach you for thinking monogamy is acceptable!"
Comment by sausageofdoom — July 17, 2005 @ 8:46 am