I am sorry but this answer is absolute rubbish per Skeptics SE standards. The first link is about one person writing a book, and even before we are out of the first paragraph of that article, it states that the claims of the book are contested. The second link only speaks about polygamy in general and does not answer OP's question. The rest of this answer is just random ranting. Flagging for being grossly speculative and poor sourcing.

I did not attack the poster's character or integrity. I did not use any profanity or ill-suited expletives. I even started the comment with an apology about having to bring my opinion forward. It is my honest opinion and — to the best of my ability — my judgement that this is the Stack Exchange equivalent of rubbish, that it is so far removed from Stack Exchange and Skeptics SE standards in particular that the contents of the post have earned this judgement. There are things I could have pointed out — things that are not at all flattering being caught having produced — that I did not.

So kindly tell me how I am not nice here, I would like to know.

The links are very common. I will just add more link. My main source is "Selfish Gene" and "Red Queen" by Matt Ridley. I am not talking about specific "web sources". I am talking about general opinion in scientific opinion.

@J.Chang Then you need to source those claims. you cannot just say "Well this is the general scientific opinion" and expect that to get accepted as an answer, which you know. So rewrite the post — with sources — instead of just making bare claims or innuendo like "Women? Have you ever heard any women attacking other villages, killing all the women and forcing men to marry them?".

I put many many more sources. The argument that there is no war where women mass murder other women is in Red Queen. That's the source. But I couldn't find it on the web. It's from a book. Actually, what's wrong with that argument? Have you ever heard any women attacking other villages, killing all the women, to get extra "husbands". I mean seriously? Can you name one such war? There are many similar wars when the sex is reversed. The bible condone mass murdering males in war.

A wikipedia articles pretty much repeat what I stated. As I said, it's a very general conclusions among evolutionary psychologists. I wonder why people act as a surprise. I can find more and more sources but it seems that no amount of sources would convince people.

@J.Chang No, a source is a reference... either a proper bibliographical reference or a link. It is not just you free-hand typing. You have over 2000 reputation points here on Skeptics SE, you know that "I mean seriously?" is not an answer.

Okay anything wrong with what I put

There are so many sources including wikipedia articles

the other are just secondary sources. Basically things we can guess without the source. Additional evidences

Where is the doubt here? You doubt that men are more likely to mass murder other men than women?

What about the wikipedia sources pretty much repeating what I said? Not convincing enough? Not "a source"? The idea that men wants many women are not "obvious"? I mean, hello? Any men here?

What am I missing?

Anything wrong or "doubtful" that I wrote?

@MichaelK I understand how you feel about this answer, but I think it is best for us to just let it go. I'm not sure this answer is salvageable. We already flagged it, so let's wait for the mods to take action.

@J.Chang The WebMD link you added states: "What really irks Schmitt is that many people interpret this finding to mean that women are designed to be faithful but men are predestined to be promiscuous. That's not what the evidence shows. Instead, both women and men are fully equipped for one-night stands and lifelong relationships."

@J.Chang So the link contradicts what you are trying to say. Did you even read the articles or just googled and put in whatever you found?

@J.Chang If the internet is any evidence of that, there is good share of erotica/stories/shows for females that show the "reverse harem" idea - one female with a bunch of male partners. This wouldn't be a thing as big as it is if females didn't find the idea fancy, too.

What about the wikipedia article it's not credible enough?

I would delete those WEBMD link. I think it's a bit biased.

I mean it's not clear what it means by "polygamous". Both women are fully equipped for one night stands and long term life long relationship doesn't imply anything directly whether women are more polygamous than men. He basically says that women can do short term too. Yes. They can. We call them slut and whore. But that's really not the point at all. Also while women can they are less likely to do so.

75% men ask for casual sex says yes, and women the rate is 0%

@MichaelK what is the problem? Sources are not numerous enough? Some claims are doubtful? Calling something is a rant doesn't mean it's wrong.

@J.Chang "We call them slut and whore" - tell that by yourself. This is a idea that is very outdated. There are a lot of women looking for casual sex - otherwise men wouldn't be able to find casual sex in the first place. Your argument is paradoxical and illogical.

I mean, Tinder is a thing.

There is nothing wrong with being slut and whore. I mean, women that are like that are "rare". While for men, being a slut or a whore (actually stud) is common IF someone willing to hire them

What I mean is men are more willing to be slut and whore than women. Of course men are less likely to be a whore. But that's not because men do not want to. If Britney Spears and Gol Gadot wants to pay me for sex I wouldn't refuse, but they won't.

Actually this is the full quote

The article support what I said though not quite. When both go for infidelity, man wants quantity and women quality. That is precisely my point. Men always aim for quantity much more than women. Whether it's for infidelity, short term, or long term sex, men tend to aim for "quantity"

In fact, numbers of women willing to have casual sex are so low that men often have to pay for it. That is why we call them whore. I do not mean anything negative on that.

Yes. Tinder is filled with whores. I've been there. All they want is money. Often they want to get money with as little sex as possible. Which is sucks.

@J.Chang You can use the term "promiscuous" if you don't mean anything negative. Whore has a negative connotation, and is... a very mean way to treat someone that doesn't fit in a outdated "less sex is good" standard.

I think my problem is in the "positive" "negative" nuance. It's not really about right or wrong. It's about whether my statement is perceived as negative to women

I don't mean too. if anything getting paid to do something marks "quality". But western civilization have negative opinion about whore.

You know what. This isn't worth my time. I'll just disengage.

What I am trying to say is that women are more likely to be paid than men for sex. Why? Because men, are more likely to want sex with more women than the other way round

Which is exactly the point. Whether in casual sex or long term relationship, mens are paying. Which is the point. Why? Because men aims for quantity.

Can you provide a source that paying for prostitution is caused by this quantity over quality?

That's basic economic

When quantity of girls that are willing to have casual sex is low then their price go up. Supply demand

That's not a source.

There are far more men willing to do casual sex than women if price is 0. So for the market to "clear" price go up. Women get positive salary, and men get negative salary. Men pays for sex

I think I can find sources easily. But that's really basic economic here

Why else would men pays for women if there is no imbalance of quantity?

wikibin.org/articles/… here is a source. Just search for evolutionary psychology, economy, and prostitution. That's a bit obvious isn't it? There are far more men willing to pay for sex than women willing to pay for sex. I suppose when price is 0, this doesn't change

Several reasons. Not wanting the hassle of a relationship, not being good with words, not having time to play a game of chase...

@J.Chang You notion of "basic economy" is not a sufficient reason for an answer, as per Skeptics SE's rules. Your answer is highly speculative (or as it is phrased "theoretical answer"), and such answers are not permissible.

Okay okay. I gave source there

what does it mean by sufficient reason?

I mean if I said, you know "2+2=4" that's not qualified?

I gave sources anyway. But c'mon. It's obvious even without it

@J.Chang Read through the Tour please, and the help section about what are good and not-so-good answers.

Even in "relationship" men tend to pay women. Most women get money in marriage. The compensation may not be straightforward money for sex. But men basically agree to possibly get slapped with large alimony to "marry" a girl.

So not just humans. Even male chimpanzee are much less likely to be whore than female chimpanzee

@J.Chang I am sorry for having to be frank again, but you are ranting right now, and no amount of ranting will make for an acceptable answer. Your post is failing because it is "lacking factual references from reputable sources", as per the help section.

That wikipedia is not references?

Why am I ranting?

Why do you think I am ranting?

There is a source there wikipedia

I quoted the source

Also why the "basic economy" explanation does not qualify? We know supply low, demand high, price goes up. It's basic economy

@T.Sar think that prostitutes means only casual relationship. When I said prostitution, I mean all deals where men get sex or expect to get sex, and women get resources. That's why I give chimpanzee's sample. The article mention that it is prostitution (among chimps). In humans, due to negative connotation of prostitution, the definition is so vague. Based on simpler definition, women get resources men get sex, most women are prostitutes

I feel like I am giving more and more and more sources and somehow it's not "good" enough. What kind of sources you want anyway? Wikipedia references are not reputable sources enough? Plenty of links in google not reputable sources enough?

damajority.com/… here another source

Written by women and fit my experiences. We just beat around the bush but yea, it's pretty much what it is

@MichaelK Calling someone's work "absolute rubbish" is not in keeping with "be patient and welcoming", "be kind and friendly". I appreciate you attacked the work, not the author, but that's not enough. Arguing you could have been ruder doesn't make it okay.

@J.Chang The terms "slut", "whore" and "prostitute" are all derogatory terms. If you mean "sex worker", please say "sex worker". However, you don't seem to mean sex worker, so don't use any of those terms.

I am missing something. I will copy this conversation to autistic forum. Perhaps they can point me where I did wrong.

What I mean is that women tend to get resources than men. That actually includes marriages. Matt Ridley count marriage as legalized prostitution. Yes. People make so many fine points that they are not prostitute even though the woman got money and the men got sex. That is very confusing to me.

@Oddthinking Ok, I can agree that it was not "patient and welcoming". Point taken.

I didn't put slut and whore on the answer. Just on this discussion to show that men to put "something else" on the table to persuade women to have sex. most men anyway

You should note that the evolutionary psychology is a controversial topic - it needs good evidence to support it.

@Oddthinking I understand. The wikipedia article?

@J.Chang I'd rather you didn't use it in chat either.

@Oddthinking points taken.

...or imply that people are autistic for not agreeing with you.

No. Other people are not the one that's autistic. I could be the one that am. That is why you talk so much about positive and negative and "derogatory". I talk about "is this true"? Because that is all I care about. "Is it true"?

Wikipedia (along with other encyclopedias and tertiary sources) is generally not considered a reliable reference here. It is a good starting point, and not a bad link to clarify terms, but if your answer rests on it, it is better to follow the links and check they say what Wikipedia authors say they do.

I see.

@J.Chang What you quoted from Wikipedia even has [citation needed] tags left in it.

The topic is so controversial even wikipedia is not good enough.

Now that's a fair criticism

@J.Chang And the WebMD article is quoted in a way that leaves out this quite important part: "Men and women are programmed for promiscuity."

It's like saying black people have lower IQ (but excel in NBA). It can be obviously true but it's derogatory and we need evidences because people don't like the answer.

Ultimately, I think the question being asked is bad, which is leading to the answers being not up to scratch.

Men and women are programmed for promiscuity. That is true. But do women aim for quantity.

Well, the question is good. Men are more polygamous than women.

This is attracting a lot of chat flags

That the desires may differ does not answer the question which was "Are women more suited to monogamy than men?".

It is answerable

I can quote surveys showing (W.E.I.R.D.) students self-report more infidelity amongst women than men. Is that a counter argument?

I think simplifying societal and individual behavior to evolutionary psychology is not going to work

And you're gonna make enemies in the attempt

...and that there exists a difference in how men and women — in general — employ short and long-term relational strategies does also not answer the question "Are women more suited to monogamy than men?"

It could be true. But when women are becoming infidel, do they want to be gang banged by many men or are they being infidel to "higher quality" men

That is the question

I can point to the lack of visible estrus in humans, unlike other mammals, which is thought to make infidelity safer. Is that a counter-argument?

All your links so far only points to differences in desires. It does not say anything about what men are women are suited for.

I predict that infidel women aim for higher quality men, like more handsome men. Infidel men tend to aim for women that's not necessarily prettier than his wife. Just "more women". Women tend to be infidel

Ah I see.

@J.Chang Nope. That's not the question.

"Suited for" that is a very vague term

@J.Chang YEah, pretty much meaningless.

@J.Chang It is... but you are not even close to that in your answer and that is what is wrong with it.

Words are often inexact

But it is still answerable

@J.Chang Then answer it properly.

I can point to polyandry, polygyny and monogamy in birds, and show that it is determined by a number of factors, but especially available resources and the cost of having children. Would that help?

The fact is more men are polygamous than women. So that shows that men are more suited to polygamy than women. Men tend to be more diligent, stronger, ambitious, make more money, and when that's done, they tend to get more women.

Actually @Oddthinking that is a very good idea

Compare species

@J.Chang Ad hoc arguing along the lines of "Well it's obvious if you look at chimpanzees" is not a proper answer. Factual references from reputable sources is what we need.

Let me think let me think

@J.Chang So many cultural assumptions are baked into that statement, that need to be unpacked.

@J.Chang "The fact is more men are polygamous than women. So that shows that men are more suited to polygamy than women". No. That is an "is-ought" fallacy.

@J.Chang Just because a certain condition exists does not mean that condition is "right" or how it should be or in any way indicative of what people intrinsically are inclined to do.

Basically @Oddthinking is on the right track. Men and women have different "costs" for reproducing. So the one that pays lower cost tend to more suited for polygamy. Here polygamy is defined as mating with more mates to produce more children. Of course, if polygamy is defined as marrying many mates, then it doesn't make sense across species because chimps don't get married

@J.Chang That's not the definition of polygamy.

@J.Chang What you just said is irrelevant to an answer. Factual references from reputable sources, all right?

Which brings us to the next set of problems.

Then what is definition of polygamy?

@J.Chang What you just said is not a factual reference from a reputable source.

Marriage?

Marrying many women? Only humans get married

@J.Chang The definition of polygamy is irrelevant to the answer.

Distinguishing between promiscuity and infidelity, between monogamy and serial monogamy, between polyamory and other choices.

@J.Chang Ok... take two steps back. You obviously are not anywhere on a right track to answering the actual question, as it was written. You are faliling wildly all over the place.

@J.Chang Hmmm, I went to Wikipedia for a definition, and that's the one it gives. Oops. I am referring to the state of having multiple mates, which applies to other species that don't marry.

I am also thinking of issues such as the Sexy Son Hypothesis - which I don't suggest applies to humans in a significant way - but it suggests that the females may be a driving force for polygyny. Which is "suited" then?

*flailing

@Oddthinking, do you think the question - as it is written - is answerable?

@Oddthinking As @J.Chang said: the term "suited" is extremely vague.

@MichaelK I am on the fence... starting to lean towards no.

@Oddthinking Ok, let us go back to basics: does the question have a notable claim? What is the claim, and is it notable?

Not vague

@Oddthinking I mean the only reference to any claim seems to be a video that says the opposite what the "popular theory" is. Ok, if we want to apply "The exception that confirms the rule" kind of thinking, then a video that says "this popular claim is bullshit" could serve as a sort of validation that there is a popular claim. Do we accept that as a basis for a notable claim?

and even if it's vague, the question got 24 upvotes while the answer got -4 votes

I am quoting the wikipedia sources

I think it would be great if I can just copy the wikipedia and all the sources got copied too

@J.Chang Just because a question — from 2016 — has 24 votes does not mean it is a valid question.

@J.Chang No, that would not be good because then we would have Copy & Paste answers where people have not actually read the sources, and the sources could say anything, even the opposite of what the answerer wants to claim.

The wikipedia have their own review board. I am sure anything there is already well discussed

@J.Chang ...a fallacy which you fell into here when you quoted that WebMD article... and did so even after I pointed out it said the opposite of what the supposed claim in the question was.

Read again. The webMD article agrees with me

Women aim for quality. Men aim for quantity

@J.Chang You would be surprised how much rubbish shows up there from time to time. There is a lot of issues on wikipedia, including editors with an agenda, so you can't trust it blindly.

If "suited" means want

@J.Chang ...which is irrelevant to the question.

"Suited" does not mean "want"

@J.Chang suited means geared towards in the context.

I read selfish gene, I read so many evolutionary psychology book, I think I am quite an expert my self

geared towards?

Oh I see

Geared toward as if are women genetically hardwired to want less sexual partners than men. The answer is still yes

Men are geared toward, their genes, geared them toward wanting many partners

And not just want

Men are often more ambitious diligent willing to take risk more cruel. All those are traits suitable for gaining more resources so they can mate with more women. In fact, that's the whole point of "success" for men.

Your source:

"What really irks Schmitt is that many people interpret this finding to mean that women are designed to be faithful but men are predestined to be promiscuous. That's not what the evidence shows. Instead, both women and men are fully equipped for one-night stands and lifelong relationships"

Let me find more buddy

Schimtt is comparing one night stands and life long relationship. That is NOT the question

That is, literally, the question.

The question is are men more geared toward mating with MANY

You can have both more or fewer mates in both one night stands and life long relationship

"The popular theory is that women are more tuned to form long-term relations by choosing only a single male and sticking with him. " -> First line of the question

Let me think

So there are 2 points

Women are more likely to focus on "LONG" relationship with "ONE" man then men

For the many part. it's obvious. Men are geared to have many

I quit.

For the long part, well, that's a bit tricky. The answer is also yes. Women that aim for long term relationship get a husband that pays the bill longer and produces more grand children

@J.Chang Stop. Just ...stop. You cannot argue(!) your way to an answer. This is not an internet debate! This is not a forum where whoever can produce the most text "wins".

I think I know what's missing

You must provide factual references from a reputable source that supports the claim you are trying to make.

That is what is missing.

Also: in an answer the claim you are trying to make must be an answer to the question.

And right now you seem to be making a different claim, one that is not an answer to the question.

@J.Chang "What do you mean by "suited". If it means girls tend to want or aim or naturally end up in monogamous relationship...". No... that does not fit any meaning of "suited". Look here, under "Intransitive verb": merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suit

I made that even more clear

with bold

@J.Chang I was re-reading your sources.

@J.Chang "The popular theory is that women are more tuned to...". What does that mean? "more tuned to"?

Your WebMD source disagrees with you, when you see your quote in context:

Most men are monogamous or even celibate because they CANNOT get many women. Actually 90% of mamals are polygynys. You will need a source to show why humans are different

I've been thinking that perhaps white people are "different". May be they really are monogamous. I don't know.

In most species most men are celibate, or death. The few remaining is polygamous. Humans are not that different during war. During peace, well, it's tricky

Or look at lion. Do you have any doubt that lioness are as polygamous as tom lion?

If someone said, female lions are just open to casual sex as much as male lions and they also want to do it with many men, that would be quite ridiculous. I don't see how humans are any different

Replace lion with humans, sealions, seadogs, and 90% of mamals in the world it's getting pretty ridiculously obvious

Irk only elaborates on a possible interpretation. Are women more likely to be faithful or promiscuous. In wester civilization women may be more promiscuous than men. That's because you have a strange marital law where the government decides what the terms are.

A girl get knocked up by someone else and the husband is punished. On free market arrangement it doesn't usually happen. Nor will it happen in most of society in any culture. In most societies penalty for adultery is death. if not, rich men will simply not marry

In most ancient culture. I mean

Are men more suited to become celibate priest or cascrated or murdered? Well the answer is also yes but in a strange way. Competition is simply tougher among men. So more men are killed so the few that remain can get more women.

So how come the president of France, with the status of a monarch, cannot even get away with two women at a time? Inch by inch, from Odysseus to Figaro to Bill Clinton, Western mores have insisted on monogamy even for the powerful. Clearly the interests of high-status men and low-status women have lost out to the interests of high-status women and low-status men. -< from Matt Ridley. The men clearly wants more women. The society prevent that.

I don't even like polygamy. I hate marriage. But if someone ask if men wants many women? Obviously yes. I prefer sugar relationship actually

Which is a form of polygamy depending on how you define it

You know what. It's cultural. Men are more promiscuous than apache helicopter. It depends on the gender really. Who am I to think there are only 2 genders. Should have come up with more sources. Got it. Okay

Also in western civilization you have laws against prostitution. So women that wants casual sex can no longer sell it for free. Here, when laws are not enforced, they get money for it. They will hate you if they think you just want to fuck around for a few times.

without paying

@J.Chang You don't consider the possibility that there are a bunch of women in the western world that do enjoy casual sex and do not want money for it?