I'm afraid I can't keep up with the answer. Every line needs taking apart, the wrong assumptions exposed, and showing why it misses the point. I would far rather focus on fixing the question.

@J.Chang "Most men are monogamous or even celibate because they CANNOT get many women." citation needed. "Actually 90% of mamals are polygynys." Citation needed, but don't bother, because it is irrelevant. "You will need a source to show why humans are different" Okay, that is a trivially easy: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140175079900010

> Homo sapiens is unique among primates in that it is the only group-living species in which monogamy is the major mating system

"I've been thinking that perhaps white people are "different". May be they really are monogamous. I don't know." Oh no! Please don't combine thoughtless racism in with the thoughtless sexism.

@J.Chang "Humans are not that different during war." Oh no! Please don't bring in other extraordinary speculation into this speculation.

@MichaelK Okay, so the question starts with a vague claim about a popular theory, but the "notability link" is to an entire video.

The video has this as the claim that it is refuting:

> the idea that while men are genetically programmed to spread their limitless seed and be promiscuous that women by contrast are genetically programmed, evolutionary scripted to seek out one good man, seek out one good provider, seek out closeness and constancy and so that at least relatively speaking by this theory women are somewhat better suited to monogamy, have a sex drive that’s a bit less raw, a bit less animalistic than male libido.

One problem with using a debunking video as a source is that it might be a strawman. Does anyone actually believe that claim?

I think the answer here is "Yes". We have heard similar claims before.

The debunking video argues (without direct evidence) that this idea is from papers in the 90's that have little substance. The little I know about evolutionary psychology is that many proponents offer ideas that have little substance, so that fits in with my preconceptions. (My preconceptions are influenced by evolutionary biologists such as P.Z. Myers.)

So, any answer needs to be sure to show that the papers they are relying on don't suffer from this flaw, which is going to make it difficult to answer.

The video goes on to quote one study (which I haven't followed up to make sure it is being accurately quoted), which showed that women's self-reported responses to what turns them on doesn't match the blood flow to their genitals. To me, that's an interesting result, but it hardly seems enough to overthrow any established theories.

So, step one, I think, is to edit this question to match the claim being debunked in the video.

(I should have put "debunked" in scare quotes there.)

I have substantially edited the question. I am not convinced it will be sufficient, but hopefully it will be much better.

The answer — even after the edits — is still not good. Half of it does not speak about humans, it speaks about sea lions. That is completely irrelevant here. Passages like "Women that stays in long term relationship got men that pays the bill LONGER", and "That is why emperors have harem. Women tend to want to join that harem even if that means sharing one man with many many many women and hence got far less quantity of men. I read that somewhere." is not up to Skeptics SE standards.

The following third of the answer hinges on that "want" equals "is genetically programmet to". It does not. So just because men report a larger willingness to engage in casual sex does not imply that this is genetic.

The last bit of the answer references a WebMD article that has been pointed out several times not contradicts the notion that men and women somehow are genetically different when it comes to promiscuity.

The reference to Matt Ridley — which was pointed out by T.Sal above — contradicts the claim.

The last article in the Economist is about polygamy and war, does not even mention genetics.

So nothing in that post answers the question, and contains sexism, ad hoc conjecture, gems like "I read that somewhere".

^ All the deleted comments.

@Battle: See this meta question. It would be more helpful if you pointed out specific examples of bias we can fix. Coming to a Skeptics Site and being surprised that we demand references seems to miss the whole reason for the site.

I think it's best I talked to people in other forums, political forums, to ask why the hell everyone here think the way they do.

In the beginning I toned down the statements to "strong guess". But really. There are plenty of sources after that to support those guesses.

Pay the bill longer is a metaphor. Children tend to be successful (and produce grand children) if daddy is around paying the bill rather than if mom was single.

@DonFusili that is precisely the point. We are heavily influenced by our genes. We're just reproducing robots. Think it that way and everything is obvious. What's humans' nature? Whichever lead to more successful reproduction. That's it. Most of the time at least.

The webmd article clearly points out, "What we are talking about is that when they go for infidelity or promiscuity, men focus on large numbers and women focus on quality." Then it talks about short term vs long term. Which is another topic. Both are addressed. So at least for the "quantity" it clearly supports.