"Harmful"? As stated above, I am not for promiscous sex, although I don't see it as a catastrophy as perhaps you do, but just as a slip that humans are prone to do, due to love for pleasant things. Suffering exists on a continuum and there is at times even huge suffering in some individuals, but most people get through live just fine, with or without Buddhism.

By the way, you have not responded to my arguments above, instead you just gave me an ad hominem argument. In the quote you mentioned above, the reason why there is an increase of antidepressants is not because of broken marriage, instead it's probably due to a loss of stigma around mental health & social media. Again, we better be careful of confirmation bias.

@Dhammadhatu I had one girlfriend in my life, we were each other's first, we married, and now she's died. I don't know what I've ever posted which would have you say "I appear to promote the view that have promiscuous sex with women is OK". For what it's worth I'd tend to interpret the 3rd precept, about not breaking up existing families, as more-or-less a ban. Not to mention that I know a relationship can be complicated.

I'd prefer a relationship start with friendship and if it were to start there perhaps that's where it should stay, I presume you you know as well as I do what the suttas say about all that.

I guess I might see why you're saying "I promote the view that have promiscuous sex with women is OK" -- it's that you have a specific view of your own (that it isn't) based on your several experiences with women and of women. And you post that in your answer. And if I question even the slightest word of it (like "unlike men?") you take that as being a complete denial of your whole thesis. Perhaps you're able to speak your mind but not really able or willing to read other people, or something.

People I meet tend to be in what French calls their "third age" -- troisième âge -- i.e. after childhood and adult-hood they're old enough to be grandparents, their own children grown-up, and some I visit do seem happy, into making music, and real charity, keeping house, and wisely married or remarried or not.

Both links provided in the post by Dhamma do not support necessarily support his thesis that antidepressants are being used by women due to promiscuity or broken marriage. Also, in the second link there was an amelioration after the person took the antidepressants.

Antidepressants, in conjunction with a form of cognitive behavioural therapy can work wonders. It's not "bad". Again, a lot of people "become" depressed because they lack in cognitve & behavioural coping skills and hence they grab to pills or alcohol etc.

I think it's natural for me there to see them men and women as equal in one sense, or as each their own person (and not subject to sexist generalisation) in another sense.

I am not denying that hormones do influence cognitions, as stated by Dhammad, but it's not all. If women are asked to think for themselves and do not for example place their worth on relationship/children, they'll deal with it better. Nurture also effects nature

@F2TF That's a kind of topic for Skeptics.SE. To question it (i.e. to have people explore/explain the subject in an answer) there though you'd have to find what they call a "notable claim" on the subject to question.

Yes Chris, your view is flexible because it recognizes indivudal differences. Humans are quite complex & have their own temperaments.

@F2TF DD's implying that misconduct stains a woman "unlike men" struck me as invraisemblable (which, is variously translated as "incredible" or "inconceivable!", but literally "not-truth-resembling"). I can't fathom how Dhamma doesn't apply to all beings equally. I mean yes, some biological and social differences. Biology though is like classic Sakkaya Ditthi, isn't it. And social is what it is but I don't think it's "timeless"

or saddhamma though of course we know there's advice for laypeople about being a member of society.