KQ3MG4(The War of the Sexes is BRED-in for a billion years!)

Revision 1628 -2010.08.19pst1827 (~60% complete rewrite): [

1. ^KU39S6:   [ Heard of "The War of the Sexes"?  As,
1. ^KU39TD:  "Men use love to get sex, women use sex to get love."   And, my favorite,
2. ^KU39TT: "Every woman wants ONE man to satisfy her EVERY need, and every man wants EVERY woman to satisfy his ONE need."  The War of the Sexes" ]
2. ^KU3AHP: "The War of the Sexes" is bred-in -- and will stay a war unless both sexes retrain themselves, ideally because they see their genes (and often culture) is directing them to fight.
   And it should come to no surprise, as:
   
3. ^KU3AHY:  After over a billion years of bi-sexed creatures,
1. just as male & female are most/primarily anatomically different when it comes to the sexual (indeed because they are different here),
2. then likewise male & female want & think vastly differently when it comes to sex & romance!
--EXCEPT for friendship --both sexes actually want friendship (see Romance-friends™ - romance form for the 21st century)
But friendship between the sexes isn't likely to happen unless both first realize they're trying to strike a friendship across different "species".

4. ^KU3A5S:  When it comes to sex & romance, men and women are fundamentally different "species":
   
1. ^KU3AKL:  one (the woman) taking ~6 rough if not deadly years to reproduce it's genetic code (since she has do 9 months of pregnancy (which could kill her without proper care) then at least 5 years to breast feed and nurture the human child before the human child has any hope of surviving w/o her).  And
   
2. ^KU3AKT:  one (the man) can reproduce it's genetic code (and still does today) in as little as 5 fun minutes! (though one who does it in just 5 minutes (and then gets someone else to raise it) isn't a very nice man.  But still, hate him as we might, by having his baby, changes are his behavior is reproduced! --as sociobiology explains to a T.
5. ^KU3AEG:  (again, and in more detail) the different human sexes are like different species:
   Most notably, in order to reproduce its genes, for 2 million years if not much of a billion years, each sex is instinctively/genetically wired to feel differently:
1. ^KU3NEW:  one "species" (woman) is wired to feel that sex could disease and would burden for years and easily kill:
1. ^KU3NGK:  Since there were no condoms/contraceptives plus disease prevention & cure for the last 1 billion years, sex would readily result in
1. Disease, and a female is 3x higher risk catching it and getting sick from it (in contrast, males can carry certain sexually-transmitted-infections as clymidia and not even be affected by them), and for which there is no prevention nor cure, and
   
2. conception/pregnancy, which is very burdensome on females, especially the human female who generally can only have one a time and seriously weakens her
   
2. ^KU3NGS:  And since there is there's been no abortion, adoption, advanced health care, and independent working woman for the last 2 million years of human that conception
   WILL imprison her for at least 6 years of hard & dangerous work:
1. pregnancy, which is well as been burdensome, could kill (as no food stockpiled and can't go hunting wild bore if 8th months pregnant) until recently in human existence (last 2000 years)
   
2. child-birth which regularly killed women until modern medical technologies,
   
3. breast feeding (which only she can do) & other hard child rearing (when she's also got to feed & protect herself and other kids) for at least 5 years before the human child has chance to operate independently;
In other words, after 2 million years or more, the female "species" is wired to feel sex will cost 6 hard, dangerous years or easily disease & death;
so even if she consciously knows she can easily prevent all that with today's technologies (condoms, health care, abortion, adoption, independent working woman), the feeling of that danger genetically wired in her for the last 2 million years or more doesn't go away without considerable reprogramming.
2. ^KU3TQC:  while, for  the other (male) "species" is wired to feel that sex:
1. ^KU3TQM:  Isn't generally much danger (unlike the vigina, the penis provides a long isolated distance from internal organs, and leaves little exposed)
   
2. ^KU3TQT:  need not burden him any longer than the act itself
3. ^KU3TQZ:  can frequently get him a lot of fun,
4. ^KU3TR4:  AND can get his genes successfully replicated in (and it still happens today)... in as little as 5 minutes.

^KU3TS7:  -5 minutes of fun to reproduce, verses 6 hard & dangerous if not deadly years--.   Do you think that would change what the two "species" fundamentally desire as far as sex & romance?  Enormously! 

^.KU3TP1:  Like the different human sexes were from different planets!  Like "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"  --but that famous book just gives a few the symptoms, this here is the cause!  While that book tells of some of the differences between the sexes, sociobiology explains why to a T!

1. ^KU3A7R:  Consequently:
   
1. ^KU3A99:  Vastly different desires in numbers of mates: men want many (100s) and simultaneous, while women idolize having just one and typically only have only at a time else perhaps a hidden second but still insist on the appearance of just one:
   
1. ^KU3REV:  The basics of what's here is not new: explaining why males are much more promiscuous and females are picky & nesting is a famous if not founding result of sociobiology (see the 1977 Time Magazine article passage below); and I develop it notably further with my own writing below:
   
2. ^KU3L9H:  It all couldn't be better said than with the following "joke": "Lesbians make the most lasting love; gay guys make the most firely love.  And straight men & women make the biggest nightmares!".
1. The reason is this "joke" is actually based on truth.  According to my "Marriage and Family Class" as Pasadena City College, the average lesbian (female-to-female, so pure female) has 7 sex partners in her life, where as the average gay guy (male-to-male, so pure male) has how many?  Can you guess?  10, 20, 40?  No, 450 sex partners in his life!
2. Does this sound accurate?  Yes.
   
1. For instance, some gay guys I met confirm 450 sex partners in a lifetime: one said this year in just one weekend he has sex with 10 new guys.  Or admit to having anonymous sex with some guy they just met (as Senator Larry Craig proposing having sex (starting by playing footsie) with the guy in the next bathroom stall).
2. ^KU3MPZ:  Moreover if you ask men and women the survey presented on the http://LoveRules.Info page,
   "KQ6VM3: If you were the all-powerful ruler who could happily have your every wish and even God couldn't judge you, and everyone was happy to be with you, roughly how many persons would you have sex with within an average year (365 days)?",
   most men answer about 100 to 5 (from age 16 to 45: less with age), whereas about 98% of women say "just one good one". 
   
3. And the ratio 450 vs. 7 is believable when you consider what we just saw above: the since the woman reproduces herself in 6 years, 7 partners would spell out a full reproductive life.  Whereas a man can (and still does) reproduce in as little as 5 minutes, 450 sex partners in a lifetime would still seem a little on the low side. 
3. ^KU3NB5:  And you take 7 vs. 450 and you start to see the war between the sexes in terms of the desired number of sexual partners.
4. So the big question is WHY is this:
   
3. A quick answer can be found in this 1977 Time Magazine article "Sex and Sociobiology" passage:"
   ...in most species, including humans, the female has no such advantage. Men have far more chances to play the reproduction game: each male can start thousands of pregnancies; each female can start a maximum of about 30. More important, the female must invest far more heavily in each pregnancy—nine months of time, energy and eating for two. The male must invest only sperm, and promiscuity may pay off for him as a workable reproductive strategy. If he spreads his genes widely and refuses to nurture at all, he can still reasonably assume that some of his offspring will be likely to survive. Sociobiologists say this is why promiscuity is more popular among men, and why the urge to nest is stronger among women."
   
4. ^KU38GR:  Males (about 80%, maybe more) are generally coded to subconciously or conciously want to be with many & simultaneous mates
   
1. ^KU5DZI:  Why?  It produces them many times more the offspring of their genes (who then are genetically driven to go off and do the same)
2. ^KU51IY:  Note I use "Mates" not (or as well as "females/wives/women") because these same behaviors apply to both straight & gay men.
   
3. ^KU3I8I:  In fact (my original theory) males subconciously or conciously generally want so many sex mates they generally fall into two categories:
1. ^KU3I8Q:  The "wives/spouces"
   
1. ^KU50EZ:  these are the ones he's willing to help raise the kids she has (assuming they're his) and even take care of her in order to do so.
2. ^KU50F8:  This sort of women he generally wants to stay the night with after sex, and protect.  Plus insure she never gets near any males who might get her pregnant instead of him.
3. ^KU50LF:  The number of "wives" a man would want (if he could have them) varies from 0 to probably at most 8, with the average probably being about 3
   
1. ^KU516A:  Note some men want 0; they just don't want any deep emotional involvement (beyond sex) with any women (perhaps as perpetual playboys) sometimes (but rarely) not with even other men
   
2. ^KU51BA:  Note while I expect the average man's desire is for about 3 wives, most men settle with 1 or 0 wives due to jealousy (a problem with most humans) plus the general difficulty with having a romantic relationship with women when women mostly don't accept how a man thinks.
   
3. I fit this picture exactly with the only thing that makes me unusual is I don't give up trying to fix the situation.
   
4. ^KU514U:  Note Islamic law (around for maybe 2000 years) allows at most 4 wives.
   
5. ^KU50ST:  in the movie The 1987 movie The Last Emperor he had about 100 but that seems just a show off of his wealth.
6. 
   
2. ^KU3I99:  The "for sex only" women/mates.
1. ^KU50FF:  These are women he's willing to have sex with (as that furthers chances he'll reproduce himself) but not willing to help raise the kids she has for any number of reasons:
   
1. ^KU50FO:  he doesn't like her that much (probably saw this after 1 second of meeting her but of course never told her),
2. ^KU50G1:  she has another man with her and so he'll do the work raising the kid (provided he's fooled to thinking it's his kid),
3. ^KU50G7:  he thinks/knows she has been having sex with others so no way in hell is going to put all that work into raising the child unless he's certain it's his.  Human men generally can't tell if a child born is his (unless from a different race) and so don't wait until that point as some animals do.
   
2. ^KU50GG:  And if he doesn't ever meet his kids thru her, indeed if the kids never have a father, his genes to get out there (and then drive that kid, if male, to go on doing the same thing).  But if, without care, the female dies from preganancy or diseaese: no big, he only invested the time to woo her and have sex (which was fun) so no loss on his part.  (Hey, who ever said nature was nice!  Many times it's NOT!)
   
3. ^KU50GS:  These women he will have sex but will generally take off quick (as not spend the night) as he doesn't want to to get into having to raise the kid plus she could be being cared for by some other man and if that man finds out what happened (and that he is now going to or is raising a kid which isn't his) he could understandably become very angry and violent.  He knows he is not going to be there for her so one she's plugged with his sperm, get out quick: sticking around could cause problems plus keep him from caring for the ones he does care for plus keeping his wives away from other men.  
4. ^KU50R0: 
   
5. ^KU50GX:  Worth note: after doing it one time (when I lost my virginity), I personally don't do any "sex only" category of women but seemingly many probably most men fine with it (though they may not reveal this)
   
5. ^KU3AF8:  Markedly unlike males, females (especially human females: about 97%) are genetically wired to want to be with only one mate at a time, and definitely to appear to be with just one mate
   
1. ^KU707B:  This difference of desire creates a huge conflict between the human sexes.  So...
   
2. ^KU3IST:  Why?  And this is important:
   
1. ^KU3ITM:  Unlike males, females don't have enormous benefits from additional sex partners.  Two or more simultaneous mates don't get her extra babies (as twins) -- at least not with humans (well it is extremely rare) though it does happen with female dogs and a FEW other females of other species (said a biologist I met at 2009 Desert Moonlight).
   
2. ^KU6ZOU:  However a female still has notable backup benefits from additional males.
1. ^KUBNS2:  What what if one of the males can't impreganant for whatever reason? 
   
2. ^KUBNSB:  What if one can't care (or care enough) for her and her kids for any reason?  Especially with humans not raising & stockpiling food for 99.9% of human existance, if there is only one male to hunt and gather food this could kill a family if he were incapacitated for even 1 month.  
3. ^KUBNTC:  Plus having additional men in a close relationship as a romance could then allow her to compare the goods & bads of each man (as men do all the time with women) instead of not knowing that other men DIDN'T do some bad behavior, so be able to protect herself and perhaps get the man to improve, or at least get the best of everything.
   
^KUBNWQ:  So it certainly would be logical that additional males could be very be useful to a woman.  So why is the woman, virtually every woman, so driven to still only pick one mate and finds it pretty unthinkable to have multiple males even if she was the leader of the country and could do anything? (I've asked this question to dozens of women) So:

3. ^KU3IW8:  (the BIG reason) unlike males, two or more simultaneous mates will likely cause the female considerably problems if they find out out about each other due to male jealousy:
   
1. ^KU3IXC:  being stronger they could hurt or kill each other or her.  And/or
   
2. ^KU3IXU:  they could one or both abandon her as "who wants to take a chance raising a kid who isn't my genes when it just takes as little as 5 minutes to start another with another woman where I can be sure".
3. ^KU72VB:  So when a female is found out to have multiple male partners, if she & her kids even survive the discovery she is almost certainly then labeled "for sex only" and so she still gets preganant but without the care of males, plus the likely community disgrace from being caught, she and/or her kids will likely die (her genes die out).
4. ^KU9HPY:  And really making the male jealousy strong, humans have two more traits and
   apparently so strong that male jealousy has been embed into human religion & culture that a woman must be virtuous in order to marry & have kids.
   
5. ^KU732A:   Leaving then only breeding (indeed bred by the culture)  women who either won't try having multiple simultaneous mates or, if they do try, it's very limited & very hidden (think female cheating gene).
   
4. ^KU70FP:   So in conclusion, the reason human females are genetically wired-to-be opposed to their having multiple simultaneous mates is because (in response to) human males are wired to be jealous: being physically weaker, for over 2 million years it has been simply too dangerous for her; and then male jealousy conciously put into into religion & culture, men conciously bred the only the virtuous women (women which only would have sex with their husband).  Humans conciously bred women this way!
   
1. ^KU71G9:  Backing up this theory, the bonobo's have no romantic jealousy (indeed have anti-jealousy) and (as a consequence?) the females have multiple partners.
   
3. .^KU3IZK:  "Exception" of sorts: "the" female cheating gene: a seemingly small percent of females seem to have a cheating gene (in women, maybe 5% to 15%) and so are driven to have one secret sexy male to actually impregnate her.
1. ^KU73DU:  As you might infer then: These females will still try to appear they are just with one mate, even claim it (and perhaps believe it), but in fact they will select two mates at any given time.  It works like this.
1. ^KU73P6:  The sexy mates with the physical qualities she likes are in short supply; or perhaps he has the physical characteristics but lacks the maturity & resources to raise family (or, in the case of human females, perhaps not enough to where she doesn't have to work).
2. ^KU73PJ:  So she will pick another mate, a home builder "husband", with whom to "marry" and raise the kids with.
3. (pic)^KU73R0:  However, since he lacks the perhaps physical strength and other sexiness important to producing strong kids, she will secretly sneak off and subconciously try to get preganant with a sexy male (a casanova lover) who has these qualities, then come back the home builder male to raise the child.
4. ^KU73RD:  Of course if the home builder male discovers the kids aren't his, he will leave or throw them out (in the case of sparrows, he will throw the eggs out of the nest if he suspects any aren't his).
5. ^KU73RW:  To avoid conflict she will do everything she can to pretend like she's only mating and being with the homebuilder male
1. ^KU73SZ:  Moreover the human females whom I've dated with this gene (Jing and likely Aki) will also do everything possible to keep the different males from meeting (they act like that would be the end of the earth, as if that would kill them, despite all logic to the contrary) and will try to deny to everyone possible (including likely herself) that she has actually two or more sex partners (will try to forget the sexy male ever happened else that pretend that over and will never happen again).
2. ^KU7404:  Jing was also the best on-the-spot liar I have ever met, and seemed natural at lying to men whom she could win over with her physical attraction, so this gene may also bring a female top lying "skills" as well.
   
2. ^KU3J9I:  Around 2002 I saw a documentary showing this to be the case for about 40% of female sparrows.
3. ^KU3JBU:  In humans (women) I expect it's only about 5% to 15%.
   
1. ^KU3JJN:  For about .4 years I dated then for the next 2 years I was very involved with a woman (Jing) who I am effectively certain she had this cheating gene.  She always had two men of this fashion though she's always claim to everyone that she only wanted one (and to anyone who found out the truth, that she was going to stop it); but of course she never did.  And she even made an attempt to kill (bought a gun to shoot me & my roommate) after we finally informed her husband.  Oh and still she didn't stop, no it just got worse; in fact when she was away at war time for a year (so away for her husband) she found another man to cheat with and then eventually he fell into the steady "husband" roll so she then found other men to cheat on him with.   Since I studyied her so closely she eventually confessed I knew her better than anyone in the world, possibly even herself.  She agreed she had 3 basic requirements: she was going to have her security (a husband mate) and have good sex (a lover mate) and she was going to appear normal to everyone so be socially accepted (though many people started seeing the truth, as long as they didn't say anything she pretended that they didn't), and she would take action to kill if anyone tried to take any of these 3 away from her.   Also worth note she is bright and the the best on-the-spot liar I have ever known, and while she was never able to use her cute looks to manipulate me, for the average guy who might let the head on his groin pay more attention than the head on his shoulders, she could sweet talk her way out of most any true accusation.  She is highly intelligent but also selfish & immoral: this makes her rather dangerous.  I am effectively certain she was wired with this gene.  However also not wanting to have a child while she was having so much fun, and knowing how to prevent a child BUT by means other than condoms as she didn't like condoms, seemingly cost her in the long run from ever duplicating herself (and thus this cheating gene):  she quickly contracted clyimidia and about 1.5 years later civerical cancer so seemingly became steril, probably a blessing to all.  Without that cheating gene, though, she would have been an amazing woman.
   
2. ^KU3K4O:  I have had dated a few other cheating women who I've also tried very hard to stop them cheating and failed. And they may also have this cheating gene, though I don't have enough data to be know for sure if their need to cheat was really an urge they couldn't control: Likely Aki (I've known her for a year), I would suspect Xia (from a number of discussions over the years), and Shumei (known her for a few years, but only intensly for a few months).
4. ^KU3KTK:  Like changing someone's sexual orientation, my experience finds it seems impossible to change & redirect a creature with this cheating gene, even though the denial and recklessness hurts a lot of people; the only way I think might be possible would be via group effort by say all the males and others involved.  But at least if we could understand that creature with this behavior maybe or is being directed by such a cheating gene, then we could better protect ourselves.
6. ^KU5EKW:  So males are wired dream & demand many mates, even "sex only" mates, and females dream & demand just want at a time (and definitely the appearance of that) and "their every need" -- What a tragedy in the war of the sexes.  But it gets worse...
   
2. ^KU3VKQ:  Ability to handle & balance simultaneous romance partners: males strong, females weak if not disasterous unless perhaps they come about it genetically.
   
1. ^KU5ERZ:  Say for instance the males kindly decide to teach the females the joy & benefits of having sexual variety and having & balancing multiple romance partners. Well it's  is nearly impossible to teach the females, and the usual male response is "Don't even think about it!".  Yes,
   
2. ^KU3VM1:  Males are generally skilled at handling & balancing multiple romance partners, for several reasons:
1. ^KU3VR4:  Foremost, they come by it naturally -- see above.
2. ^KU3VRO:  Society semi-compliments and admires men with multiple partners: players, "woman's man", "man of the town".
   
3. ^KU3VUH:  Even women (I think weak women, but still) are drawn to mate with men who already have else had other romance mates.
1. ^KU3VX2:  In the US Military, several average looking guys told me "the best thing for my dating life was putting on this here wedding ring" (meaning marrying a woman, he easily got other women to have sex with him).
2. ^KU3W0G:  Also worth note that "polygyny (one man having more than one wife)" seems to be far more common than "polyandry (one woman having more than one husband)"
3. ^KU3W3I:  I hate this hypocricy and destructive behavior by these women (They say they want a mate to be all themselves but then they go after a mate who has other mates) as it not only hurts them but it also causes a disparity in mates (a few men get several and some men get none)
4. ^KU3W7N:  I think it's caused because the truth is because certain weak/insecure women would rather not chance it on a single guy: their priority that the mate with someone they know works is actually more important than having him all to himself (though some women also foolishly think they can later then get him all to herself).  Well if these women don't have the guts to care for the single men, then at least they could have the integrity to share their real priorities so not be hypocrits; but one must remember they are, by their own hypocricy, weak to begin with.
   
3. ^KU3WGI:  Females (at least human females) are generally poor at handling & balancing multiple romance partners unless perhaps they come about it genetically
1. ^KU3XGI:  In particular except for females with this cheating gene if they nest with men stupid enough to miss the things the hide & believe their lies.  Even still in these cases only one mate is her lover (whom she really has sex with) whereas the other is her nesting partner (where she builds a home).
   
2. ^KU3XE8:  Human females aren't normally driven to have simultaneous mates for the reasons explained above (doesn't give them more babies, just more problems); and when they are as by the cheating gene then still there is actually just one mate they are actually having sex with.
3. ^KU3XXP:  Also there is a huge social stigma against women having more than one sex partner: unlike the complimentary terms men get (as playboy & casanova), the women are termed hoe, slut, and other derogitory terms, with the "best" they could hope for being "prostitute" or "porn star" or perhaps "swinger".  Now ~2000 I see the women are fighting back with counter-negative terms as "man-hoe" but what they really need to be doing is creating complimentary words for the multi-partner person.  And on that note the term "polyamorist" is an excellent choice (for both sexes).
4. ^KU3YCQ:  There is also the recent fictional role model Samantha from "Sex in the City" but "Samantha's main love is men—many of them." and "Samantha rarely dates men more than once or twice [and when she dates she has sex]."  In other words, Samantha has many shallow sexual encounters, so she is what I would call a woman immiating men (probably because she's angry at what they do here) thinking she's doing what they're doing but she's not: instead she's doing what might be expected: going from one extreme (just having one monogamous partner for everything) to the opposite extreme: many shallow partners.  What she (and probably many women don't get) is real men are in the middle:
   
1. ^KU3YNS:  Men generally like a steady long-term romantic partner, in fact they like a few of them, but (unless the man's kids are involved) men will typically sacrifice any or all of these long-term partners if they prevent him from having additional romantic partners & variety. In total see men's priorities.  
5. ^KU3XXF:  , Indeed nearly all women are opposed opposed to simultaneous mates, definitely in word and if they practice otherwise they will probably deny it.  So instead of seeing the benefits of and handling and balancing simultaneous mates, if given the opporutnity (which most have already unless they are really unattractive) they will generally do one of the following extremes:
1. ^KU9YAT:  choose just one to have sex with during any period and either:
1. ^KU9YB7:  and put all their emotion into him (most common: wife role),
2. ^KU9YBE:  live with & put their security (and maybe emotion) in a different guy, nestbuilder/husband (as with the cheating gene)
2. ^KU9YBN:  else tune out of sex entirely (not be with anyone, usually bitter about men - fairly common)
   
3. ^KU9YC0:  else choose to have sex with many (unlimited) but not be emotionally evolved with any of them and possibly likely take all the love away from sex (prostitute role).
6. ^KU3ZS7:  This is not to say that women won't cheat -- they cheat: if their normal sex partner is away for months so they've gotten horney, or if they've got a husband who's really just their nestbuilder/security but isn't working out sexually or they're driven by the cheating gene to find another sperm source.  But they still generally have just one sex partner during any period.   They don't know how else care to balance simultaneous sex partners.  And if a mate (as man) gives his woman mate the freedom to have additional sex partners, unless she is bisexual she will probably (thinking in just her own shoes) think that this means he doesn't care for her that much (not matter what she says) as she could see not benefit to what he gives her so will likely not appreciate it or think it an insult and the moment another mate promises (even if lying) to be just with her, she'll leave the first and go with him.  So in summary, unless perhaps bisexual, it seems nearly all women don't know how else care to balance multiple sex partners, and seem blinded from seeing any benefit in it and just find the thought or offer insulting.  In fact I've met a few smart men who said they would never let their woman have another man, as not only would this get him jealous but women would abuse the freedom and just leave him from giving her this deep gift.  This is a very tragic situation.
   
7.  ^KU40L7:  But I am determined to teach women and have some ideas, including a Meetup.com group "Multiples" for women who proudly and openly have or want multiple simultaneous romance partners. 
   
3. ^KU4D80:  The human mating ritual (in order), as explained to a T by sociobiology:
   
1. ^KU4ATA:  The male must be romantically interested (must get an errection, insert, and ejaculate) before reproduction to take place; the female is also too ideally romantically interested, but reproduction can still take place (and still regularly does today: his genes get reproduced) even if she's totally opposed and raped. Plus the male has unlimited sperm and the females only have about 30 eggs.  Consequently the male is almost always the initator (and even though many men don't like and tire of this role, and having initation being one way leads to poor matches).
1. ^KU4G6I:  Women are slowly starting to become iniators, too, perhaps with women's liberation and increased sex & romance education, but it's still remarkably minimal and at a snail's pace.
   
2. ^KU4GAG:  When each sex figures out the other's thinking:
   
1. ^KU4ET1:  Being the initator, years ahead of women, teenage men quickly & painfully discover women think differently than they (men) in romance; so they then figure out how women think in romance and immitate & cater to it -- well enough to get what they want (sex), then they are easily & understandably disgusted by women's insisting men do all the work and be something they're not, so in this anger (and now that the women are attached from sex) they then abuse the women or leave them.
2.  ^KU4F73:  In contrast, not being the initator, women don't figure out how men think romantically until sometimes until their 30s or 40s and sometimes never, and usually women never fully understand nor accept the way men think romantically
   
1. ^KU4FDP:  As a catch 22, all this catering men do for women causes women to learn slower about the men underneith.
   
1. ^KU4FJP:  And never is this more true with a very pretty woman who gets heavily catered to so may never learn;
   
2. ^KU4FK1:  in contrast the un-physically attractive women (if she doesn't become permanently bitter) quickly learns how men thinks to attract them.
2. ^U4FAI: though it seems women are learning faster & younger today with the increased open talk about sex & relationships and the huge info on the WWW.
   
3. ^KU4B3O:  Since men are the initator and have practually unlimited sperm (at least one load per day) but must get an errection & climax for reproduction to occur, a man is constantly scanning for and evaluating potential mates (typically women) to see if he can have sex with them.  Thus he gets really fast at it: typically in just 1 second or less.  And since sex to him easily means no commitment at all (but he can still get his genes reproduced), his mate evaluation is really just on the immediate physical, not on personality and emotional compatability (an aspect only really important for longer term, but which also takes a much longer time to evaluate).  Consequently:
1. ^KU4C1S:  within about 1 second on fully seeing a woman, a man can determine his sexual attraction to the woman (for instance, how frequently he wants to have sex with her: which can be as much as twice per week (or more if he doesn't have additional options) to as little as once only if he's really drunk); some require seeing the woman naked but many men (as myself) get very good at guaging a woman's figure & feel thru most clothing.
1. ^KU4C22:  Moreover his judgement (of her physical attraction) is so accurate will NOT go up significantly as he gets to know her but can go down significantly even go negative if it turns out she does something he doesn't like or he doesn't like her personality.
2. ^KU4Z24:  The physical criteria men use to judge their mate...
1. ^KU4Z72:  Probably does not vary over the man's lifetime, just becomes more refined (what happened to me)
   
2. ^KU4Z8X:  Is likely genetically determined
1. ^KU5HNS:  Sexual orientation is thought to be this way.
2. ^KU5HPX:  And I strongly expect so is racial preference, body type, and probably many other aspects of mate selection.
1. ^KU5HR0:  Else why would the male peakock be attracted to the female peakock when the male is dramatically prettier, or the male black widow spider be attracted to the female when they are dramatically different in size & color & demnor
   
3. ^KU4Z6M:  Is usually only known by him (probably quite conciously) plus maybe a few of his close platonic friends (because he doesn't tell his mate especially if a woman)
   
4. ^KU4ZZ0:  Some common criteria choices from most to least universal:
   
1. ^KU5IVJ:  Not a midget or otherwise defomed.
1. ^KU5IWV:  Even if she might be attractive, being seeing with her could/would be embarassing so likey absolutely not.
   
2. (pic)^KU507I:  Not fat and probably not chubby.   This overweight generally creates a huge negative reaction (seemingly in most men), why the bumper sticker "No fat chicks" and the joke "What do a scooter and a fat woman have in common?  They're both fun to ride but you never want to be caught on one."
   
3. ^KU5FYZ:  Apparant age: past adolencence and full-height but probably not wrinkled (for example)
   
1. ^KU5G11:  Most guys will actually go for a wide age range of women, at least for sex only.
2. ^KU5G2C:  It is a lot lot younger than most women (and young men) realize: easily under 18 years old: as long she's past adolence and full height, it seems she's sexually attractive to most men, and usually the younger the more sexually attractive.
1. ^KU5G6W:  Younger than this, it seems my and most men's sexual attraction goes to near 0 automatically.  I expect this is genetic coding.
2. ^KU5GAL:  I expect the very few men attracted to women younger than this (notably pedofiles) are driven because of genetic mutations telling them this sexual orientation, much like we expect homosexuality is a genetic trait.   (Indeed research suggest pedofilism is NOT caused by abuse).
3. ^KU5GLO:  As a person grows older, it seems older people grow more sexually attractive (probably as they open their mind to it).  But
   
4. ^KU5GRS:  at least for men, it seems that mates looking between age about 16 to 26 always remains physically the most sexually attractive, and that diminishes as the mate looks older.
   
4. ^KU5GU7:  Height: generally he must be taller that the woman, or it doesn't matter.
1. ^KU5GVP:  Seemingly most men are insistant that they be taller than their mate (if a woman) and perhaps would be intiminated by a woman taller than he.
   
2. ^KU5H4Q:  My friend John, who is short, seems to have this criteria; even though with him already being short it vastly limits his choices.  Indeed I've sen women taller than him go after him (since he's rather hansome) but I've never seen him take taller women seriously.
   
3. ^KU5GXC:  I do not care about height and guess these men are being sexist and with an inferiority complex which they then want to take out on the woman; but admittedly it's hard for me to know what it would be like being what a woman taller to me since I am 6-foot tall so taller than most peopel in general and have never been with a taller woman.
   
5. ^KU4Z58:  --Above this point (Not a midget or otherwise deformed, not fat, not a child, probably not wrinkled, and not taller) is seemingly all the criteria men need to determine if they may want to have sex with this mate, so MANY people qualify;
   the additional criteria below is then to determine how much sex and is she one of the rare few who could potentially be a "wife/spouce" or do I instantly know (as he mostly does) that she's "only for sex " ---
   
6. ^KU5HB6:   Dress style & flamboyance: vary important, but varies from guy to guy.  And strongly affects if he'll categorize her as "wife" or "sex only".
   
1. ^KU5HC5:  I like women flashy and a little "trashy" and showing off all they got.
2. ^KU5HDV:  Some men prefer modest women/mates; my guess is because they are lacking in strength & confidence and fear (maybe accurately) if their woman was mate then they'd loose them to some other mate.
7. ^KU5JCM:  A mate who looks like a good fit for his erect penis size (no joke)
1. ^KU5JDL:  If a man has a smaller erect penis, he will likely prefer a smaller women as little could be more upsetting to him than a woman who complains he's penis is not big enough for her.
2. ^KU5JFG:  If a man has a larger erect penis, especially if it's a bit wide, then some smaller women he simply can't have sex with (can't insert or can't insert without considerable pain).
1. ^KU5JIS:  I've ended 3 romances over this (with a beautiful but tiny Thai woman (Varisara), and with a sweet but tiny Fillipina, and with pretty Chinese lady (Susana)).
3. ^KU5JOG:  It seems there is no fool-proof way to gauge vigina size on on first look but I've found women who are busty or medium-to-large waist sized or maybe taller, typically have a larger vigina, but I have experienced one exception (P).
   
8. ^KU50AQ:  A particular race (usually his own) or it doesn't matter at least for sex only.
1. ^KU5F88:  For sex-only many if not most men will accept any race.  But for marriage it seems about 90% of men prefer their own race.
2. ^KU5F9U:  For me I don't do sex-only; and I nearly only prefer E. Asian face;
   
9. ^KU501F:   Typically pretty face. Often a requirement for sex more than once.
   
1. ^KU5FCF:  For me this generally must be E. Asian else distictive eyes which are often like E. Asain. 
   
1. ^KU5II4:  Since I'm not E. Asian (I'm white), and since for the rest of the body I prefer caucasian figure, I expect this is a genetic mutation: DNA which codes me as to what sort of face I look for got mutated to E. Asian instead of white!  This I expect has limited my mate options by a factor of 10 or more, since I have to then generally find someone not my race (an Asian gal) who is willing to take serious a white guy.
   
10. ^KU5036:  A preference for a particular hair or eye color or doesn't matter
    
1. ^KU5FDJ:  For me and I suspect many if not most guys, eye & hair color don't matter that much.
   
11. ^KU501U:  Either busty (sometimes also non-artifically) else bust size doesn't matter.
1. ^KU5FFC:  For me and maybe about 60% of guys, busty is real turn on (for me ideally C cup firm)
2. ^KU5KWT:  I've heard a few men adimantly against "fake tits" (artificially enlarged breasts) as if it sickens them-- I think that is too picky; if given a desirable shape (as firm C), I would slightly prefer natural as that also helps insure my daughters (if we had kids) would could also have such breasts, but it's a fairly easy thing to change in any case so it's really not that important.
3. ^KU5L3Y:   I do not like though when the breasts have been enlarged beyond the proportunate size of the nipples: I've seen this and it really does look artificial and a bit gross (like a balloon instead of a breast).
   
12. ^KU5FN2:  Big sensitive nipples or doesn't matter.
1. ^KU5FO9:  For me, big sensitive nipples are a huge turn on (even more than big breasts).  Frankly, perhaps being a computer nerd, little pleases me more than "buttons" I can push & play to really turn a girl on. :-)   I love those buttons!
   
2. ^KU5FPZ:  For some other guys this is a turn on as well, but I'd guess not with most judging on what porn videos seem to focus on.
3. ^KU5FRB:  Unfortunately nipple size & definitely sensitive is hard to tell at first sight as clothing (especially padded bras & pasties) cover them up and many women who have them insist on hiding them instead of showing them off (I still can't figure out why)
13. ^KU5056:  A particular butt shape or butt doesn't matter much
1. ^KU5FK2:  Some guys (as my friend John) this is much more important than breasts which they might not even notice.
2. ^KU5FVF:  For me I'm the opposite: this is completely unimportant.  Consequently, I don't know to say much makes a sexy butt but probably that it's somewhat round (and not flat) plus firm similar to breasts I suppose.
   
14. ^KU5HA5:  Height: maybe not short. 
    
1. ^KU5JVZ:  Many women wear very high heels and seem to try very hard to make themselves taller but other than a little bit (as 2 to 3 inch) is sexy, I think they are probably trying too hard to look taller.
2.  ^KU5K06:  Being tall myself, yes I slightly prefer a taller gal, but it's only minor.
3. ^KU5K5U:  And it also seems most of the the tall & big guys I've know (David, and one other in the military) prefer a short gal (I would guess it's because they are both are equally uncomfortable with their extreme dimensions).
4. ^KU5K9X:  Also I would bet that many guys may feel that a taller gal could be intimidating (as note most guys definitely don't want a woman taller than him plus may be too big for his penis). 
5. ^KU5KLT:  But I could be wrong: maybe a number of guys & gals really pass over shorter women.
5. ^KU4Z4M:  and it's worth saying again, all of this physical criteria (13 things) a man evalutes and determines pretty-much-absolutely in about 1 second, because he's constantly scanning for mates.  
2. ^KU4DDW:  And if the man finds the mate (woman) physically attractive enough (to where say he could have sex with her once per week), he will also start considering her for the "wife" category instead of just the "sex only" category.  But since that involves emotional compatiblity and ability to work together as well as reasonable sexual compability, to know for sure it would takes just as long as the female to know this (as month or more of working if not living together) if not a bit longer as the male is not as fast as female in long-term judgement.  So a "Yes" answer could take a few months; this is MUCH slower given modern marriage which only allows one to marry one mate.  But a "No" answer could be much sooner, and is often instant if she's not physically attractive enough. 
   
3. ^KU4DXX:  So within a second he will know his maximum physical attraction to the woman; and within a second to a week most of the time he will know if will never quality fo the wife category.  However, unless in the rare case he eventually concludes she is the "wife" type or he has enormous attractive power, he will NEVER REVEAL his real degree of interest about his mate to his mate (at least if she's a woman) because she will hate his thinking (notably not her being everything to him) and will leave him (or worse) as a woman almost never fully accepts male thinking.
   Instead he learns & adapts to not telling her, at heavy long-term cost especially to her:
   
1. ^KU4ZU7:  he quickly discovers the female makes up her mind on a mate generally slowly and so, since she doesn't understanding nor accept his thinking, she will be never believe he makes up his mind (at least on the physical attraction) in just a second: will just think he's crazy if he claimed he did.  
   
2. ^KU4ZUH:  Moreover, with her a mate tends to be "soul mate or nothing" (as there is no way of avoiding having a child if she has sex and there is no such thing as a half-preganancy), so if he tells her he's only half physically attracted to her (as wants sex just twice per month) and definitely if he reveals she is "sex only" to him she will be disgusted by his thinking and and leave him, and then he won't get any sex.  In fact even if she's got the cheating gene and he's just her impregnantor, she still hypocritically wants to feel she's his everything.
3. ^KU4ZUO:  So understandably he just keeps quiet, letting her think she might be his "wife" type (since she's never will accept anything but) but
   
4. ^KU4ZV0:  then mostly unexpectedly leaves later, especially when she starts questioning where the relationship is going, generally leaving her very hurt.  --But she does it to herself by not believing him if he told her and then especially by fanticifully demanding "all or nothing".
   
4. 
   
5. ^KU4BF8:  Men are the initator and decide their physical attraction in about 1 second.
   
4. ^KU4AO2:  Men good & instantanous at judging the physical; women good at dealing (& probably judging) the emotional but that naturally takes more time.
   
1. ^KU4C2H:  Women tend to be naturally very good at dealing with emotions & saying "I love you" and long term relationships, and probably judging for long term relationship possiblity.
1. ^KU4C5R:  Socibiology explains this well:
1. ^KU4CCZ:  the woman is naturally given the task of child rearing (from pregancy to breast feeding and usually more since she's already done that much) and that 6 year or more commitment burderns her (as she can't hunt wild bore with she's 8th month preganant) so she gets very good at networking and establishing long-term relationships with her mate and other people to insure she gets protection and food and help especially during the periods where she can't do it all herself. 
   
2. ^KU4CDB:  The man on the other hand can have several kids sometimes without ever having any long term relationship (as long as he impregnates enough females) including not with the females nor the kids (and if some of them die as a consequence of lack of support, all he loses is some time wooing & having sex).  Indeed with many males off on the hunt and the females there to raise the kids, the longest relationship a male might have would be to finding some guys to go hunting with each time he wants to go hunting: say for about a week: afterwards you divide up the pray and move on your marry way, maybe never even seeing each other again.  So other than helping care for his kids and their mother if he chooses to (vs. just impregananting a lot of women and go with the odds that  few will survive), the man never really has to do long-term relationships else do them very well.   All he essentially has to do is get food for himself and usually bring back food for his kids and their mother(s), plus help protect them if occassionally something bad comes up.
   
2. 
   
3. ^KU4CRF:  I would think by all this then a woman's primary job in matchmaking is to determine the emotional compatability & long-term potential of her and her mate, which she seems to be doing.
4. ^KU4CTH:  Note this naturally takes time (as several days) to judge.
2. ^KU4D4M:  A woman but if these seem to match, plus a few basic physical attributes she looks for (like same race
   
1. 
   
3. 
   
1.  
   
5. ^KU3V4O:  Mating ritual vastly different: Women picky & slow to get interested but after sex attach strong, men quick to get interested (actually instantaneous) but attach slow.
   
1. ^KU3OOZ:  Sex is so costly on the female (especially the human female) for her sex is also wired to additional behaviors: 
   
1. ^KU3OY5:  Before sex, she often heavily avoids sex, is sometimes even disgusted by it, and has a long mostly subconcious list of criteria of what it takes to turn her on (human being more "intelligent", human females tend to make this list even longer). In short, conciously & subconciously she is being picky to see that he will produce good offspring with with her: has good features & abilities, plus will stick with him, which sometimes includes her just being difficult and causing problems as a test to see if this mate will stick and work with her for the long term.  And why all this trouble? Because her body doesn't understand condoms & all that: just thinks there is no way to avoid having a child.
1. ^KU3PB6:  Nature is sometimes primitive, and some of these tests are brutal & cruel, such as causing problems, requiring rediculous things, and saying "no" when she means "yes" to see if he WON'T go away (if he like her that much) so then she'll say "yes".
1. ^KU3POZ:  Males and mates generally don't like this (no one would), still most smile and just keep on pushing until she says "no" stronger or she switches to "Yes", which solves it; but a few given these mixed messages have understandably gotten rather abusive, and a tiny few have gotten abusive from being angry males and taking out on the females which are generally weaker.  And in institutions, for instance in the military, where women were not given the top jobs (or any jobs) as the men are, this sexual abuse gets much worse as the institution was already legitimicizing sexual descrimination. 
   
2. ^KU3PP4:  Probably all that was really (or mostly) necessary to remove the sexual abuse was to remove the institution's sexual discrimination.  But in response, and while sometimes keeping the sexual discrimination (still in the US military women can't have combat jobs), around 1995 the western world started creating all sorts of anti-sexual harassment policies & thinking  which have generally gone overboard in the other extreme (hurting the men & romances): with their "No means no" rhetoric bullshit  (that's way too simple) plus "If a complaint is filed, the woman is always right" plus virtually never punishing false complaints, if even detecting them; this has opened the door for abusive women to easily hurt men thru false complaints, plus justifiably frightened a lot of men into not wanting to start anything, yes even plenty which would be quite healthy, for fear of loosing their job or worse.   Moreover these politically "correct" extreme policies & thinking have turned yesterday's secret admirer (whom you never hear of anymore) into today's stalker (whom women are expected to be fearing routinely).   It's quite sad, and an example where we have yet to figure out the balance in this new social technology.
2. ^KU3NEA:  Also, since there's no condoms etc, the female (especially woman) is also wired that after sex to become very attached to her mate, as she will need her mate to help her with this pregnacy and child which she has no way to avoid.
1. ^KU3NYD:  In fact to make this automatic, mammal females alone have the hormone oxytocin, sometimes called a "love drug" which cause them to be attached (feeling "in love") with whomever before them.
1. ^KU3OLA:  It is released after having sex ("after stimulation of the nipples" and "This study found that that genital tract stimulation resulted in increased oxytocin immediately after orgasm").  So a woman would feel in love with a mate after having sex with him; and might not be able to leave him then even though she can see he's a jerk, because that's not love, its a chemical: oxytocin.  But not knowing it, she will easily believe she's "in love".  And while some modern western women seem to be able to overcome this chemical feeling of attachment and do one-night-stands and such, it should not be underestimated by anyone (maybe especially them) how powerful this hormone is: 
   
2. ^KU3QNR:  child birth is supposedly the biggest natural physical pain either sex ever endures.  And you can imagine if you had a big splinter in you for 9 months causing you enormous burden and pain, once you got it out of you the last thing you'd want to do is kiss & hug it; no, your insticts would probably have you kick it like football, maybe even burn it.  But when  woman gives birth to a child, oxytocin "is released in large amounts", apparently causing at the moment of birth all of that enormous pain & suffering to be forgotten the woman wanting to hug and kiss that "thing" (which now seems adorable) which she finally got out of her.  So do not underestimate th power of oxytocin on you.
3. ^KU3QNM: Oxytocin "love drug" is also released when a woman's nipples are stimulated, which as well as bonding her to the mate who has sex with her, also causes her to enjoy breast-feeding her child even if the baby occassional bites her.
3. ^KU3R2K:  phrased from the male point of view, before sex a woman is too much avoiding & disliking sex, and after sex she become too attached.  And actually the male point of view here is correct today IF (and only if) one practices safe sex and avoids all the consequences, but a woman will take reprogramming to get to this point.
2. ^KU434U:  Jealousy (romantic selfishiness) -- the opposite of loving ("wanting what's best for").  @@
   
2. ^KU435F:  Putting all this genetic sexual coding together (prioritizing it):
1. ^KU436R:  As would expect the priorities can be reasoned from simply what would produce a creature the maximum number offspring.
2. ^KU4128:  Men's reproductive priorities in order:
1. ^KU412R:  1st: caring for one's genetic kids which he's decided to raise if that kid looks like it has potential
   
1. ^KU521I:  Why? Having offspring which themselves reproduce is the top goal, so he's already invested in to raising a kid, loosing that investment is the most costly of all
2. ^KU5223:  For a typical man, this caring for his genetic kid he decided to raise (if that kid looks like it has potential) is his top reproductive priority: as many kings (such as Henry VIII) have demonstrated, his child (generally his son) is more important to him than any sexual variety, wives, and even the mother that produced it.
   
2. ^KU4157:  2nd: having sexual variety(regular sex with a few if not many mates)
   
1. ^KU52BI:  with new sperm daily, a tiny investment of time here makes an enormous payoff: some of this will get him offspring, and ideally without him having to do the work raising the kids
2. ^KU44JQ:  Specifically a man (with plenty of partners)
1. ^KU44WV:  wants to have sex with any unpregnant mate (typically a woman) no more than once per about every 4 days if he really likes her; as her ovulation period is about 4 days and so if he "hits it" (has sex with her) once every 4 days (plus keeps her away from other mates) then he's bound to get her preganant and any more frequent is waste of sperm (and sometimes he can only reload once or twice per day) so that sperm would be better used on other women he hasn't "hit" in the last 4 days.
2. ^KU45GF:  doesn't want to have sex with any preganant mate as that's a total waste of sperm.
   
3. ^KU45GR:  But if he doesn't have plenty of partners and feels he can't easily get them then might have sex with woman if she'preganant or more than once every 4 days if she's not preganant, to relieve himself.
   
3. ^KU44XB:  Now if it's a unpreganant mate he doesn't so strongly like he'll want to have sex less frequently if as he could be using that sperm on other mates he likes more else he could go searching for for mates he likes more and being with her will likely cost him from getting them (as she's jealous) unless he's really wealthy & powerful so can override her wishes.
4. ^KU45PP:  On meeting a mate (typically a woman) a man generally knows within seconds how frequently he'd like to have sex with her: is she a twice a week or once a week or twice a month or once a month or "just one time if I'm drunk enough".  He also probably also quickly knows if she's a "wife" type or a "sex only type".  But of course he's never going to tell her; she'll have to figure it out by his actions.
   
3. ^KU418C:  3rd: Not sharing his "wives/spouces" (sex partners whom he plans to raise the kids with) with other potential mates (catering to his jealousy aka romantic selfishness)
   
1. ^KU52FF:  Why: there is a huge cost backwards to raise a kid whom is not yours.
2. ^KU42GO:  And since it's often hard for humans to tell if the child is yours (unlike other animals which can smell it), if he finds or suspects one of his wives having sex with another,
1. unless she's already raising his kids & he needs her for that job, he coverts her into "sex only woman" or worse (leaves her or kills her if he can get away with it; note by killing her he also insures the other man's child is not born);
2. if he needs her to raise his kids, the outcome is unclear: the logical thing is that she a "wife" for his kids so far but for any future kids she has he will them unless he's sure they are his; however anthropology has shown that at least some primitive humans didn't get the connection between sex and women bearing children, so he might do something in-between like beat her.
   
3. ^KU51L8: Most men will be very reluctant & even act "unthinkable!" to share a "spouce" romantically, and some men can't or won't ever, however remember most men have the earlier priority above spouce of having sexual variety (see "2nd"), so men can seemingly-usually be convinced to share even a "spouce" if it gives gets them sexual variety.
   
1. ^KU53PN:  However the criteria today (2009) seems to be as long as it can be kept secret (a man will romantically share his "spouce")
1. ^KU53UJ:   Why? My guess is a man (perhaps accurately) fears that he would not be considered a "man" if he was sharing his spouce, specially knowingly.
   
2. ^KU5368:   A popular example is swinging (also called "wife swapping" (for sex only)); this is a lot more popular than expect as it can & generally kept secret by couples which appear monogamous.  For instance from the film The Lifestyle (1999) reports there is an annual national swinging convention and right here in thought-to-be conservative Orange County, California.  I've also found discovered swing clubs (whole businesses geared around this) in S. California and Florida and I would expect in other states.
3. ^KU53SB:  Another probably-popular example is "Don't ask, Don't tell" arragement which I expect a lot of married couples have.
4. ^KU53WI:  And my personal example: "Z", an attractive married woman (who was not really my type) came after me wanting me to have sex with her.  I told her she had to first get permission from her husband (especially since I knew him first).  To my shock her husband called me and told me he gave me his permission as long as I used condoms and kept it secret.  I am not joking.  (Also, if your curious, he later reported to me that while stressful at first, in the long run this improved is marriage as it allowed both to open up on sexual issues.)
5. ^KU5459:  Of the many married women who came after me romantically, of the 3 I informed their husband about (Jing & May & effectively Z), none of their husbands left them (and Jing also had no kids, but her husband still stayed with her), however they were very concerned with the world getting out.
   
6. ^KU544V:  Seemingly several times less are the situation where a man romantically sharing a spouce/wife is public.
1. ^KU54KR:  Polyamory is the most notable example, but ~2002 Jennifer the President of the then Los Angleles Polyamory Support Group (replaced by LA Meetup groups) says because the openness is feared swinging is about 10x more popular.
   
2. ^KU55B2:  Another only-occassionally skipped criteria today (2009) seems to be if their "wife/spouce" is past child-bearing years (as 40s up) else perhaps he doesn't want (and won't accept) any (more) kids.
   
1. ^KU55IM:  For instance in the movie the film The Lifestyle (1999) and everywhere else I've seen swingers, the women are generally late 40s on up (and the men even older).
   
2. ^KU55DW:  This is probably for the reason you could guess: then he's at no risk of raising or even thinking about her getting preganant with some other man's kid, which probably most men (and I) would detest unless the rare case where he knew he was steril but still wanted a kid with her.
3. 
   
3. ^KU54HC:  From my above experiences and more, my guess is probably most men secretly can understand & accept another's need for sexual variety (even their own spouce) as they know they often want it even more than a spouce (see 2nd priority).
4. ^KU46YL:  Seeing jealousy for what it is (romantic selfishness, the opposite of love), we might want men to rid jealousy and openly share their mate, but if their mate is a woman  this usually backfires, so needs to be done with caution if done at all:
   
1. ^KU471I:  Many women mistake a mate being jealous over her as caring for & loving her; while nothing could be further from truth, some now may be genetically wired to think this way since in humans jealousy has occurred with love for maybe as much as 2 million years.
2. ^KU47AS:  Nearly all women don't like multiple simultaneous sex partners for themselves (and so not for men either) or even if they would still they buy into to it being shameful for them so even if they are cheating, one of their mates giving them romantic freedom will likely only make them think he is insulting them and actually doesn't really care about her, causing her then to say "sure" but actually leave him and find another mate who says he doesn't want her with other mates (even if he has other mates himself)
3. ^KU558K:  In general, see Ability to handle & balance multiple romance partners: males strong, females weak.
   
5.  ^KU54W0:  So the problem today (2009) seems to be less men's willingness to allow their women romantic variety and more women's not treating the gift of romantic variety respectfully when it is given to them.
   
4. ^KU42FC:  4th: Having long-term romance relationships
1. ^KU56ES:  Yes, most men love long-term romance especially if all the above priorities are met, as:
1. ^KU56GP:  it's good for raising kids
2. ^KU56H1:  men like a mate to help sort out their woes, plus
3. ^KU56HC:  (especially if he is married) it gives the man enormous (too much) respect among other men & women he works & socializes with
1. ^KU56IN:   Tragically the never-married & no-kids man 30s or older tends not to be trusted/respected, even if not married & no kids was the very responsible thing to do, because his being responsible here is not not checked and it's seemigly assumed was he's never-married & no-kids because there is something seriously wrong with him, or because people are jealous as they they've screwed up in these ways (had kids out of wedlock or gotten divorced) but this guy hasn't.
   
5. ^KU430Z:  5th: Not sharing his "sex only women/mates" with other potential mates.
   
1. ^KU51W2:  He'd like not to share any mate with other mates,  so he may or will bluff to all women/mates that he won't share them other men or mates, but if this is a "sex only women/mate" he actually will share her, especially if he he's met the above priorities with at least one seemingly stable wife.
   
6. ^KU43TT:  Some Analysis
1. ^KU43V4:  The 1987 movie The Last Emperor  gave a great example of a male in enormous power who then did all the men's reproductive priorities.  Because he did all the priorities (being so wealthy) it's hard to measure form him their order, but it's sure obvious they were all there:  He had something like 100 wives, plus hundreds of "sex only women" plus I'm sure cared for any children from his wives, plus to insure none of the women had sex with anyone else kept them all locked up in a place and had the balls cut off of all the male workers there.   This is the raw human man.  And again nature isn't always pretty.
3. ^KU43BI:  Women's reproductive priorities in order:  Proposed:
   
1. ^KU43DL:  1st: Caring for one's genetic kids. 
   
1. ^KU57MX:  Why?
1. ^KU57P5:  Just like any life form, raising reproductions is #1 priority.  So like a man in this aspect, it's foolish to abandon real investment.
   
2. ^KU57RG:  In addition, since the woman uniquely has already invested 9 months of preganacy plus childbirth & breast feeding which produces strong attachment via oxytocin, so it seems highly rare a woman would abandon one of her natural kids.
1. ^KU57ZI:  In fact, probably because of this time spent and ocytocin release, she is probably not likely to abandon her kid even if he/she is got serious permanent problems, which may not be he smartest reproductive strategy but is the consequence of her necessary earlier burdensome investment and the large doses of oxytocin "love drug" to overcome that.
   
2. ^KU43GD:  2nd: Having a safe environment (including support for her) to raise her kids likely even if she's never going to allow herself to kids
   
1. ^KU56VF:  Why?
   
1. ^KU5714:  It can be deadly to start sex if this isn't there, for both her and any kids she's already raising.
2. ^KU571D:  And even if she's never going to allow herself to have kids, for the last 1 billion years of bi-sexed creatures that wasn't possible (only possible today with contraception & abortion & adoption) so she's still wired to want a situation as if she's going to have kids.
   
3. ^KU43KD:  3rd: Having one supportive long-term home-building mate "spouce" to help raise her kids likely even if she's never going to allow herself to kids
1. ^KU573J:  Why? 
   
1. ^KU573Z:  Just one mate as explained http://#KU3AF8
2. ^KU575X:  And the rest because of just mentioned http://#KU571D.
   
4. ^KU43O5:  4th: Having sex, ideally including a sexy mate "lover" to impregante her, preferrably the same mate and definitely the appearance of that.
   
1. ^KU57FM:  Note this need not be the same as the mate above (see especially female cheating gene), but seemingly all women seem to prefer that)
5. ^KU43RA:  5th: Keeping her mate(s), especially her home-building "spouce", away from other mate-able females (catering to her jealousy aka romantic selfishness)
   
1. ^KU57K7:  Why?  They might try to steal him and she wants (and typically needs) him to care for her.
2. ^KU58LC:  But especially this being the last reproductive priority for a woman, it can be forsaken (especially after she's had good sex so become attached to her mate via oxytocin), and in fact doing is often a good idea for everyone:
   
3. ^KU45U2:  Secret: If you mate is a man, sincerely not letting yourself be jealous about him having other mates and even assisting him to get & keep other mates (compersion) causes the weak men to leave you (yes, because the then get stolen by jealous woman because they are weak) but causes the strong & smart men to stay with you & care for you deeply and even give you notable priority over most other women
1. ^KU46B7:  Why?  Because the strong men aren't going go get stolen by any women and the smart men clearly see you're you're caring for them deeply, indeed letting them have their dream, their romantic variety, which very few women will sincerely do, making you extremely important to them.
2. ^KU46CS:  It's the classic reverse pscyhology: you lock a man up and he's be misrable and want to get away (unless he's a weak or masackist); but you sincerely let him free and encoruage & even help him to explore and he'll stick to you like a magnet.
3. ^KU587X:   Many women seem to have figured out or stumbled upon this secret, especially by their 30s
   
1. ^KU5893:  Seemingly a high percentage of women (maybe as much as 50% above age 30) have learned to share their spouce with mistresses and prostitutes in order to keep their man.
   
2. ^KU58BA:  Maybe around 5% of women have learned  to share their spouces via swinging
   
3. ^KU58F2:  And maybe 1/2% of women have learned to share their spouces via polygyny (one man having more than one wife) which seems to be far more common than the reverse.
   
4. ^KU46HS:  Sadly this same gift (of compersion) is generally backfires if given to woman: see http://#KU46YL
4. 
   
3. 
   
1. ^KU3LJR:  Resolving difference in desired number of sex partners (remember lesbians (pure female) have "7" vs gay men (pure male) have "450")
1. ^KU3M5F:  In the past & today, it's solved by males doing a lot of:
1. pornography,
   
2. strip bars
   
3. prositution (one women (or man) specially designated (and ideally paid) to satisfy hundreds of men (straight and/or gay); yes there postitutes & sexual escorts for women but the ratio is probably 1 to 10),
4. mistresses & cheating & affairs
   
5. poligamy (one man and multiple wives)
   
6. swinging, and
   
7. suffering (going without)
2. ^KU3MIH:  In the future, I hope it will be solved by a compromise between the sexes:
1. ^KU3N2H:  Men learning from women to become more attached and feeling (so cutting out much of the anonymous sex and one-nighers) and
   
2. ^KU3N2V:  And women learning from men sexual variety and balance and hopefully to openly have two or more steady romance partners at the same time (as men love to do).  
3. ^KU7WCG:  And Romance-friends™ - romance form for the 21st century could go a long way to acheive this.
4. ^KU3QT5:  Perhaps most important of all this is to simply realize is that nature (sociobiolgy) has wired us to reproduce and raise our young even if we have no intelligence at all!  Sex feels good, so we do it; the woman gets attached, so she holds her man; the breast feeding feels good, so we do it, and it goes on and on.  So NEVER ignore our instictive programming and think so casually we have overwritten it, or we casuually know what's right & wrong. 
   
5. 
   
6. ^KU7WCU:  BOTH sexes are making some serious mistakes.
1. ^KU7WD4:  Most notably for women, Stop dreaming that in romance (between the DIFFERENT sexes), that a "good" or "healthy" man will or should think like a woman!
2. ^KU7WDA:  For men, learn to talk about love & feelings.
   
7. ^KU7WDL:  But there IS a peaceful solution -- see romance priority 1 (@link broken).

^KU7WGQ:  Miscellanous:

1. ^KU7IQX:  people commonly say a mate is "Faithful/loyal" (monogamous & possibly dedicated).  I have serious problems with wording so recommend an alternative:
   
1. ^KU7IZ5:  "faithful/loyal" are positive terms ironically for excluding innocent people (monogamy) when common-sense & a kindergardener could tell you excluding innocent people obviously isn't loving;
   ^KU7WEA:  indeed the only thing which could be loving from doing this (from excluding innocent people) is
1. ^KU7WEX:  catering to the other mate's selfishness (their jealousy) because they can't yet deal with it (not a pretty picture), and,
   
2. ^KU7WFH:  catering to religious & cultural beliefs which are likely based on blind faith and outdated (not a pretty picture)
3. ^KU7WFO:  if the participants aren't practicing 100% safe sex (as they should!), then (appropriately) limiting their sex partners to avoid unwanted preganancies & disease (also not a pretty picture). 
   
2. ^KU7IXI: Also "faithful/loyal" in the romance context are poor terms themselves here, which sneak in extra meaning and mean differently depending on who's saying about whom.
   
1.  ^KU7SC1:  They mean the combination of romantically "dedicated" & "exclusive" and presume both are good.  Well most people will agree dedicated is good but, when pressed to what people actually do, and what most men actually feel, and what is generally healthy (as variety & balance), making yourself romantically exclusive being good is actually quite debatable.
   
2. ^KU7SK4:  And when women say someone is romantically "loyal/faithful" they mean they really are monogamous.  And when men say this of a woman they mean that, too.  But when many men say another man is "loyal/faithful" to his wife, they mean he's a stady provider but of course he has occassional mistresses or prositutes: he's a guy after all!
3. ^KU7SOK:   So don't say "loyal/faithful" in a romantic context.  Instead say the neutral & precise words "dedicated" and "exclusive" (or "non exclusive") as you intend.
   
2. 
   

---

^KQ3SYF:  Some document history:

1. ^KQ3SXV:  [04:29, 23 Nov 2007 | Friday] posted on MySpace as “"The War of the Sexes" is BRED-in for a billion years  (view more)” under "Category:
   Romance and Relationships"
2. ^KQ3MTQ:  (20090917...) copied as Writely doc; posted on Blogger. Named to[The War of the Sexes" is BRED-in for a billion years! KQ3MG4]
   
3. ^KU39U7:  Increased document from 1 printed page to 43 with regular indenting.
4. ^KUIYVD:  Renamed to[KQ3MG4(The War of the Sexes is BRED-in for a billion years!)] per the new naming convention.

-above published to official URL http://LoveRules.Info/2009/09/kq3mg4.html  © 20071122071355; all original writing by me (143144602)