What is the reasoning behind men can have casual sex but women can't?

What is the reasoning behind men can have casual sex but women can't?

By this, I do not mean the social reasoning - the social reasoning meaning whatever maintains a society is good. From that perspective, it is obvious casual sex for women is bad as men cannot be assured of paternity/wont invest long term in women etc.

Also I do not mean the libertarian 'reasoning' - women are free to have all the casual sex they want, but men are free to ostracize them for it, for a good reason, a bad reason, or a nonreason, etc. That's more like a kind of natural law.

I meant on a personal level.
On a personal level as a man, I think my sex drive is high. Also I feel I would be completely suffocated if I had to spend all my time with one women for the rest of my life. I would constantly think of what I might be missing, of not having a comparison point to know if I am being treated right or being demanded excessively of etc*.

In fact, in my own personal utopia - I (think) I would not so much have casual sex that much with multiple partners (though some) but rather I would have relationships with multiple women concurrently.

Therefore, the idea of a relationship with one woman alone and just casual sex with others (prostitutes) is already a bit of a concession.

How is it with women? In their heads?
The difference is in the morality of it. If its similar, then restricting them is well, somewhat evil. A necessary evil, and I can live with it - but sad nonetheless. There is no cooperation between the sexes and we just have to look out for our home team (men).

If it is different, in nature or intensity - then its not that bad. I see no problem with forcing a slight concession from the opposite sex. Doesn't make me feel too badly.

The obvious difference is that men's reproductive capacity is unlimited while a woman's is strictly limited.  A man risks nothing by having sex because he has infinite sperm.  A woman risks having one of the limited number of children that she can have.  So this difference means that men want quantity/variety while women want quality.  Of course what is quality depends on the environment, and in the femisphere, quality means a stupid psychopath.

The ideal for a man is to have a harem, which is what you want.  The ideal for a woman is to be queen, having children of the king.  Neither option is possible for most people, so like with most things in life, one has to compromise.  The usual compromise of successful cultures is monogamy with prostitution.  I think this compromise is morally fair for both sexes.  The man gets enough variety from prostitutes and the woman gets a man at her level who is committed to her.

Ardia wrote

If it is different, in nature or intensity - then its not that bad. I see no problem with forcing a slight concession from the opposite sex. Doesn't make me feel too badly.

A woman can get pregnant, a man cannot. So supposing a woman slept with every man she saw (without birth control), eventually she'd get pregnant and become incapacitated. Men cannot become incapacitated. So in the laws of nature, pregnancy is the limitation. This is reflected in the absolute fact that the woman with the most children in history was a Russian peasant (1707-1782), who gave birth to 69 children. While the man with the most children in history was the emperor of Morocco Mulai Ismail (1646-1727), who gave birth to 867 children.

fschmidt wrote

The ideal for a man is to have a harem, which is what you want.  The ideal for a woman is to be queen, having children of the king.  Neither option is possible for most people, so like with most things in life, one has to compromise.  The usual compromise of successful cultures is monogamy with prostitution.  I think this compromise is morally fair for both sexes.  The man gets enough variety from prostitutes and the woman gets a man at her level who is committed to her.

I agree with what you're saying. However this is out of line with conservative thinking. Most conservative sub-cultures we champion here like Hasidics don't allow extra marital sex for husbands right? So do you think men being deprived of extra marital sex in these groups causes suffering?

How does the evolution of Sperm Warfare fit into all this, if women just want one man?

Drealm wrote

I agree with what you're saying. However this is out of line with conservative thinking. Most conservative sub-cultures we champion here like Hasidics don't allow extra marital sex for husbands right? So do you think men being deprived of extra marital sex in these groups causes suffering?

Good question! This is something Ive wondered about, and tried to get to, in a haphazard way.

Drealm wrote

I agree with what you're saying. However this is out of line with conservative thinking. Most conservative sub-cultures we champion here like Hasidics don't allow extra marital sex for husbands right? So do you think men being deprived of extra marital sex in these groups causes suffering?

I don't care much for modern views, liberal or conservative.  I don't know how the Hasidics handle this, and while I admire them for keeping patriarchy, they aren't ideal.  They certainly aren't one of the highly productive cultures in history.  To my knowledge, all productive cultures tolerated prostitution.  Sometimes this kind of thing is hard to judge though.  For example, even though prostitution has been illegal in America more or less since women were given the vote, it wasn't really enforced until recently.  I know this from talking to people and from what I saw in my lifetime, not from any books.

Prostitution for single men is a necessity.  For married men, it is a luxury, the lack of which only causes discomfort, not suffering.  But my impression is that most cultures allowed discreet use of prostitutes by married men.

I think the main sperm wars occur between the beta husband and the bad-boy flings.