Promiscuity

Promiscuity is the practice of engaging in sexual activity frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.[1] The term can carry a moral judgment if the social ideal for sexual activity is monogamous relationships. A common example of behavior viewed as promiscuous by many cultures is the one-night stand, and its frequency is used by researchers as a marker for promiscuity.[2]

"Promiscuous" redirects here. For other uses, see Promiscuous (disambiguation).

What sexual behavior is considered promiscuous varies between cultures, as does the prevalence of promiscuity. Different standards are often applied to different genders and civil statutes. Feminists have traditionally argued a significant double standard exists between how men and women are judged for promiscuity. Historically, stereotypes of the promiscuous woman have tended to be pejorative, such as "the slut" or "the harlot", while male stereotypes have been more varied, some expressing approval, such as "the stud" or "the player", while others imply societal deviance, such as "the womanizer" or "the philanderer". A scientific study published in 2005 found that promiscuous men and women are both prone to derogatory judgment.[3]

Promiscuity is common in many animal species.[4] Some species have promiscuous mating systems, ranging from polyandry and polygyny to mating systems with no stable relationships where mating between two individuals is a one-time event. Many species form stable pair bonds, but still mate with other individuals outside the pair. In biology, incidents of promiscuity in species that form pair bonds are usually called extra-pair copulations.

Motivations

Accurately assessing people's sexual behavior is difficult, since strong social and personal motivations occur, depending on social sanctions and taboos, for either minimizing or exaggerating reported sexual activity.

American experiments in 1978 and 1982 found the great majority of men were willing to have sex with women they did not know, of average attractiveness, who propositioned them. No woman, by contrast, agreed to such propositions from men of average attractiveness. While men were in general comfortable with the requests, regardless of their willingness, women responded with shock and disgust.[5]

The number of sexual partners people have had in their lifetimes varies widely within a population. A 2007 nationwide survey in the United States found the median number of female sexual partners reported by men was seven and the median number of male partners reported by women was four. The men possibly exaggerated their reported number of partners, women reported a number lower than the actual number, or a minority of women had a sufficiently larger number than most other women to create a mean significantly higher than the median, or all of the above. About 29% of men and 9% of women reported to have had more than 15 sexual partners in their lifetimes.[6] Studies of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases consistently demonstrate a small percentage of the studied population has more partners than the average man or woman, and a smaller number of people have fewer than the statistical average. An important question in the epidemiology of sexually transmitted infections is whether or not these groups copulate mostly at random with sexual partners from throughout a population or within their social groups.

A 2006 systematic review analyzing data from 59 countries worldwide found no association between regional sexual behavior tendencies, such as number of sexual partners, and sexual-health status. Much more predictive of sexual-health status are socioeconomic factors like poverty and mobility.[7] Other studies have suggested that people with multiple casual sex partners are more likely to be diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections.[8]

Severe and impulsive promiscuity, along with a compulsive urge to engage in illicit sex with attached individuals is a common symptom of borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder but most promiscuous individuals do not have these disorders.[9]

Cross-cultural studies

In 2008, a U.S. university study of international promiscuity found that Finns have had the largest number of sex partners in the industrialized world, and British people have the largest number among big western industrial nations. The study measured one-night stands, attitudes to casual sex, and number of sexual partners.[10][11][12] A 2014 nationwide survey in the United Kingdom named Liverpool the country's most promiscuous city.[13]

Britain's position on the international index "may be linked to increasing social acceptance of promiscuity among women as well as men". Britain's ranking was "ascribed to factors such as the decline of religious scruples about extramarital sex, the growth of equal pay and equal rights for women and a highly sexualised popular culture".[10][11][12]

The top-10-ranking OECD nations with a population over 10 million on the study's promiscuity index, in descending order, were the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Australia, the United States, France, Turkey, Mexico, and Canada.[10][11][12]

A nonscientific survey conducted in 2007 by condom-maker Durex measured promiscuity by a total number of sexual partners. The survey found Austrian men had the highest number of sex partners of males globally with 29.3 sexual partners on average. New Zealand women had the highest number of sex partners for females in the world with an average of 20.4 sexual partners. In all of the countries surveyed, except New Zealand, men reported more sexual partners than women.[14]

The data can differ quite drastically between studies due to the small number of people that participate. A study funded by Durex, published in 2009 (collected in 2006) shows in all counties surveyed, except New Zealand, men reported fewer sexual partners than women. In this case, New Zealand women were the only country to report a lower average number of partners than men.[15]

One review found the people from developed Western countries had more sex partners than people from developing countries in general, while the rate of STIs was higher in developing countries.[7]

According to the 2005 Global Sex Survey by Durex, people have had on average nine sexual partners, the most in Turkey (14.5) and Australia (13.3), and the fewest in India (3) and China (3.1).[16]

In many cases, the population of each country that participates is approximately 1000 people and can equate to less than 0.0003% of the population, e.g. the 2017 survey of 42 nations surveyed only 33,000 people. In India, data was collected from less than 0.000001% of the total population at that time.[17][15][18]

Male promiscuity
Giacomo Casanova was famously promiscuous

Straight men (heterosexuals)

A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found 20% of heterosexual men had one partner, 55% had two to 20 partners, and 25% had more than 20 sexual partners.[19] More recent studies have reported similar numbers.[20]

In the United Kingdom, a nationally representative study in 2013 found that 33.9% of heterosexual men had 10 or more lifetime sexual partners. Among men between 45 and 54 years old, 43.1% reported 10 or more sexual partners.[21]

Gay men (homosexuals)

A 1989 study found having over 100 partners to be present though rare among homosexual males.[22] An extensive 1994 study found that difference in the mean number of sexual partners between gay and straight men "did not appear very large".[23][24]

General Social Survey data indicates that the distribution of partner numbers among gay men and straight men is similar, but that differences appear in the proportion of those with very high number of partners, which is larger among gay men, but that in any case makes up a small minority for both groups.[25] OkCupid discovered a similar pattern in the data collected from its vast number of users, published in 2010: the median number of self-reported lifetime sexual partners for both gay and straight men was six; however, a small minority of gay men (2%) were having a disproportionate share of all self-reported gay sex (23%).[26] A 2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women."[27][28]

The 2013 British NATSAL study found that gay men typically had 19 sexual partners in a lifetime (median).[29] In the previous year, 51.8% reported having either 0 or 1 sexual partner. A further 21.3% reported having between 2 and 4 sexual partners, 7.3% reported having between 5 and 9, and 19.6% reported having 10 or more sexual partners.[29] This reflects previous findings that a minority of gay men have a disproportionate share of all gay sex.[26]

A 2014 study in Australia found gay men had a median of 22 sexual partners in a lifetime (sexual partner meant any sexual contact, including kissing).[30] 30% of gay respondents reported 0-9 partners in their lifetime. 50.1% of gay men reported having either 0 or 1 partner in the previous year, while 25.6% reported 10 or more partners in the previous year.

Research on gay sexual behavior may overrepresent promiscuous respondents.[31][23][32] This is because gay men are a small portion of the male population, and thus many researchers have relied on convenience surveys to research behavior of gay men. Examples of this type of sampling includes surveying men on dating apps such as Grindr, or finding volunteers at gay bars, clubs and saunas. Convenience surveys often exclude gay men who are in a relationship, and gay men who don't use dating apps or attend gay venues.[31][33] Some researchers reported that British and European convenience surveys included approximately five times as many gay men who reported "5 or more sexual partners" than the nationally representative NATSAL study did.[34][32] Probability sample surveys are more useful in this regard, because they seek to accurately reflect the characteristics of the gay male population. Examples include the NATSAL in the United Kingdom and the General Social Survey in the United States.

John Corvino has said that many opponents to gay rights often rely on convenience sample statistics to support their belief that gay men are promiscuous, but that larger representative samples show that the difference is not so large, and that extreme promiscuity occurs in a minority of gay men.[35] Psychologist J. Michael Bailey has stated that social conservatives have taken such surveys as evidence of a "decadent" nature of gay men, but says "I think they’re wrong. Gay men who are promiscuous are expressing an essentially masculine trait. They are doing what most heterosexual men would do if they could. They are in this way just like heterosexual men, except that they don’t have women to constrain them."[36]

Regarding sexually transmitted infections (STIs), some researchers have said that the number of sexual partners had by gay men does not explain the rates of HIV infection, since most had similar numbers of sexual partners as straight men on an annual basis. They say that anal sex, which holds a much higher risk of HIV transmission, is the primary transmission factor, with number of sexual partners as a secondary factor.[37]

Famous examples

The words 'womanizer', 'playboy', 'stud', 'player', 'ladies' man', 'lady killer', and 'rake' may be used in reference to a man who has romantic affairs or sexual relations, or both, with women, and who will not be monogamous. The names of real and fictional seducers have become eponymous for such promiscuous men. The most famous include Lord Byron, John F. Kennedy, Errol Flynn, Warren Beatty, Hugh Hefner, Wilt Chamberlain, Future, Gene Simmons, Howard Hughes, and the historical Giacomo Casanova (1725–98).[38]

Others include Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Steve McQueen.

Famous historical fictional seducers include Don Juan, who first appeared in the 17th century, the fictional Vicomte de Valmont from Choderlos de Laclos's 18th-century novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons), and Lothario from Nicholas Rowe's 1703 play The Fair Penitent.

More recent fictional characters who can be considered womanizers include Tony Soprano, James Bond, Chuck Bass, James T. Kirk, Tony Stark, Glenn Quagmire, Joe Quimby, Bruce Wayne, Charlie Harper, Sam Malone, Joey Tribbiani, Popeye Doyle, Donald Draper, Hank Moody, Arthur "Fonzie" Fonzarelli, Barney Stinson, Tim Riggins, Michael Kelso and Drake Parker.

During the English Restoration period (1660–88), the term 'rake' was used glamorously: the Restoration rake is a carefree, witty, sexually irresistible aristocrat typified by Charles II's courtiers, the Earl of Rochester and the Earl of Dorset, who combined riotous living with intellectual pursuits and patronage of the arts. The Restoration rake is celebrated in the Restoration comedy of the 1660s and the 1670s. After the reign of Charles II, and especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the rake was perceived negatively and became the butt of moralistic tales in which his typical fate was debtor's prison, permanent venereal disease, and, in the case of William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress, syphilis-induced insanity and internment in Bedlam.

Female promiscuity
Main article: Female promiscuity
Empress Catherine II is remembered in popular culture for her sexual promiscuity.

In 1994, a study in the United States found almost all married heterosexual women reported having sexual contact only with their husbands, and unmarried women almost always reported having no more than one sexual partner in the past three months. Lesbians who had a long-term partner reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women.[22] More recent research, however, contradicts the assertion that heterosexual women are largely monogamous. A 2002 study estimated that 45% to 55% of married heterosexual women engage in sexual relationships outside of their marriage.[39] While the estimates for heterosexual males in the same study were greater (50–60%), the data indicate a significant portion of married heterosexual women have or have had sexual partners other than their spouse, as well.[39]

One possible explanation for hyper sexuality is child sexual abuse (CSA) trauma. Many studies have examined the correlation between CSA and risky sexual behavior. Rodriguez-Srednicki and Ofelia examined the correlation of CSA experienced by women and their self-destructive behavior as adults using a questionnaire. The diversity and ages of the women varied. Slightly fewer than half the women reported CSA while the remainder reported no childhood trauma. The results of the study determined that self-destructive behaviors, including hypersexuality, correlates with CSA in women.[40] CSA can create sexual schemas that result in risky sexual behavior.[41] This can play out in their sexual interactions as girls get older. The sexual behaviors of women that experienced CSA differed from those of women without exposure to CSA. Studies show CSA survivors tend to have more sexual partners and engage in higher risk sexual behaviors.[42]

Since at least 1450, the word 'slut' has been used, often pejoratively, to describe a sexually promiscuous woman.[43] In and before the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, terms like "strumpet" and "whore" were used to describe women deemed promiscuous, as seen, for example, in John Webster's 1612 play The White Devil.

Thornhill and Gangestad found that women are much more likely to sexually fantasize about and be attracted to extra-pair men during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle than the luteal phase, whereas attraction to the primary partner does not change depending on the menstrual cycle.[44] A 2004 study by Pillsworth, Hasselton and Buss contradicted this, finding greater in-pair sexual attraction during this phase and no increase in attraction to extra-pair men.[45]

Evolution

Evolutionary psychologists propose that a conditional human tendency for promiscuity is inherited from hunter-gatherer ancestors. Promiscuity increases the likelihood of having children, thus "evolutionary" fitness. According to them, female promiscuity is advantageous in that it allows females to choose fathers for their children who have better genes than their mates, to ensure better care for their offspring, have more children, and as a form of fertility insurance.[46] Male promiscuity was likely advantageous because it allowed males to father more children.

Primitive promiscuity

Primitive promiscuity or original promiscuity was the 19th-century hypothesis that humans originally lived in a state of promiscuity or "hetaerism" prior to the advent of society as we understand it.[47][48][49][50][51] Hetaerism is a theoretical early state of human society, as postulated by 19th-century anthropologists, which was characterized by the absence of the institution of marriage in any form and in which women were the common property of their tribe and in which children never knew who their fathers were.

The reconstruction of the original state of primitive society or humanity was based on the idea of progress, according to which all cultures have degrees of improvement and becoming more complicated. It seemed logical to assume that never before the types of families developed did they simply exist, and in primitive society, sexual relations were without any boundaries and taboos. This view is represented, inter alia, by anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan in Ancient Society and quoted by Friedrich Engels' work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.[52]

In the first half of the 20th century, this notion was rejected by a number of authors, e.g. Edvard Westermarck, a Finnish philosopher, social anthropologist and sociologist with in-depth knowledge of the history of marriage, provided strong evidence that, at least in the very first stages of cultural development, monogamy has been a perfectly normal and natural form of man-woman coexistence.[53][54]

Modern cultural anthropology has not confirmed the existence of a complete promiscuity in any known society or culture. The evidence of history is reduced to some texts of Herodotus, Strabo, and Solinus, which have been hard to interpret.[55]

Religious and social views
See also: Fornication

Christianity, Judaism and Islam condemns promiscuity and instead advocates lifelong monogamous marriage (although Islam allows polygamy for men).[56]

Promiscuity has been practiced in hippie communities and other alternative subcultures since the 1960s.[57]

Other animals
Further information: Animal sexual behaviour and Extra-pair copulation

Many animal species, such as bonobos[58] and chimpanzees, are promiscuous as a rule; they do not form pair bonds. Although social monogamy occurs in about 90% of avian species and about 3% of mammalian species, an estimated 90% of socially monogamous species exhibit individual promiscuity in the form of copulation outside the pair bond.[4][59][60]

In the animal world, some species, including birds such as swans and fish such as Neolamprologus pulcher, once believed monogamous, are now known to engage in extra-pair copulations. One example of extra-pair fertilization (EPF) in birds is the black-throated blue warblers. Though it is a socially monogamous species, both males and females engage in EPF.[61]

The Darwin-Bateman paradigm, which states that males are typically eager to copulate while females are more choosy about whom to mate with, has been confirmed by a meta-analysis.[62]

gollark: I don't see why you need that.
gollark: It's not generally well-defined but sophont generally means at least "agenty" right?
gollark: This seems like a weird example for worrying about automation, given that they are using them to train existing pilots, and warplane pilot is not exactly a common job.
gollark: There's no reason you couldn't make the AI do that optimisation too.
gollark: Hi. Your profile picture is quite cool.

See also

References
  1. "Promiscuous - definition of promiscuous by the Free Online Dictionary". The Free Dictionary. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
  2. "UK's most promiscuous city in 'one night stand' poll revealed". Metro.co.uk. Associated Newspapers Limited. 2014-01-08.
  3. Marks, Michael; Fraley, R. (2005). "The Sexual Double Standard: Fact or Fiction?". Sex Roles. 52 (3–4): 175–186. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.
  4. Lipton, Judith Eve; Barash, David P. (2001). The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 978-0-7167-4004-9.
  5. Clark, Russell D. III; Hatfield, Elaine (1989). "Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers" (PDF). Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. 2 (1): 39–55. doi:10.1300/J056v02n01_04. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-05-18.
  6. "Average man sleeps with 7 women - Health - Sexual health - NBC News". NBC News. 22 June 2007.
  7. Wellings K, Collumbien M, Slaymaker E, et al. (2006). "Sexual behaviour in context: a global perspective" (PDF). Lancet. 368 (9548): 1706–28. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69479-8. PMID 17098090. Lay summary – BBC (1 November 2006).
  8. Garcia JR, Seibold-Simpson SM, Massey SG, Merriwether AM (2015). "Casual Sex: Integrating Social, Behavioral, and Sexual Health Research". In DeLamater J, Plante RF (eds.). Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer. p. 215. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17341-2_12. ISBN 9783319173412.
  9. Hull, J. W.; Clarkin, J. F.; Yeomans, F. (1993). "Borderline personality disorder and impulsive sexual behavior". Psychiatric Services. 44 (10): 1000–1001. doi:10.1176/ps.44.10.1000. PMID 8225264.
  10. Waite, Roger (2008-11-30). "Britain on top in casual sex league". The Times. London. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  11. Beckford, Martin; Jamieson, Alastair (2008-11-30). "Britain is among casual sex capitals of the Western world, research claims". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  12. "British top promiscuity study". UPI.
  13. "Liverpool named UK's most promiscuous city". themetro.co.uk. Mark Molloy. 2014-01-08.
  14. New Zealand women most promiscuous The Sydney Morning Herald
  15. Wylie, K. (2009). "A global survey of sexual behaviours". Journal of Family and Reproductive Health. 3 (23): 39–49.
  16. http://www.data360.org/pdf/20070416064139.Global%20Sex%20Survey.pdf, page 6
  17. Kearney, S.L. (2017). "Durex global sex survey reveals India's changing sex lives". Desiblitz. Retrieved 2019-01-30.
  18. Durex (2014). "Global sex survey". Retrieved 2019-01-30.
  19. Seidman, S. N.; Rieder, R. O. (1994). "A review of sexual behavior in the United States". Am J Psychiatry. 151 (3): 330–341. doi:10.1176/ajp.151.3.330. PMID 7619092.
  20. Lehmiller, J. J. (2012). "What's Your Number?". The Psychology of Human Sexuality.
  21. Ch, Mercer; C, Tanton; P, Prah; B, Erens; P, Sonnenberg; S, Clifton; W, Macdowall; R, Lewis; N, Field (2013-11-30). "Changes in Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles in Britain Through the Life Course and Over Time: Findings From the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal)". Lancet. 382 (9907): 1784. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62035-8. PMC 3899021. PMID 24286784. Retrieved 2020-03-17.
  22. Friedman, Richard C.; Downey, Jennifer I. (October 6, 1994). "Homosexuality". New England Journal of Medicine. 331 (14): 923–930. doi:10.1056/NEJM199410063311407. PMID 8078554.
  23. Wardle, Lynn D.; Duncan, William C.; Strasser, Mark; Coolidge, David Orgon (2003). Marriage and Same-sex Unions: A Debate. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-275-97653-8.
  24. Soble, Alan (2002). The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-7425-1346-4.
  25. Tim Fisher (November 1, 2006). A Response to David Glesne, Regarding Promiscuity Statisticsin the context of his book, Understanding Homosexuality (Report).
  26. Christian Rudder (October 12, 2010). "Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex". OkCupid. Archived from the original on November 2, 2013. Retrieved August 1, 2015.
  27. "Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men". Medical News Today.
  28. Goodreau SM, Golden MR (October 2007). "Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevalence in men who have sex with men". Sex Transm Infect. 83 (6): 458–62. doi:10.1136/sti.2007.025627. PMC 2598698. PMID 17855487.
  29. Mercer, Catherine H.; Prah, Philip; Field, Nigel; Tanton, Clare; Macdowall, Wendy; Clifton, Soazig; Hughes, Gwenda; Nardone, Anthony; Wellings, Kaye; Johnson, Anne M.; Sonnenberg, Pam (July 2016). "The health and well-being of men who have sex with men (MSM) in Britain: Evidence from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3)". BMC Public Health. 16 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3149-z. ISSN 1471-2458. PMID 27386950.
  30. Grulich, Andrew; de Visser, Richard; Badcock, Paul; Smith, Anthony; Heywood, Wendy; Richters, Juliet; Rissel, Chris; Simpson, Judy (2014-11-01). "Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters: the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships". Sexual Health. CSIRO. 11 (5): 439–50. doi:10.1071/SH14122. PMID 25376997.
  31. Bancroft, John (1997). Researching Sexual Behavior: Methodological Issues. Indiana University Press. pp. XIV, 270. ISBN 978-0-253-33339-1.
  32. Prah, Philip; Hickson, Ford; Bonell, Chris; Mcdaid, Lisa; Erens, Bob; Riddell, Julie; Wayal, Sonali; Nardone, A; Sonnenberg, Pam; Johnson, Anne; Mercer, Catherine (2015-09-01). "P11.02 Representing men who have sex with men (msm) in britain: evidence from comparative analyses of the latest convenience and probability surveys" (PDF). Sexually Transmitted Infections. 91: A174.1–A174. doi:10.1136/sextrans-2015-052270.452.
  33. Dodds, J P; Mercer, C H; Mercey, D E; Copas, A J; Johnson, A M (2006). "Men who have sex with men: a comparison of a probability sample survey and a community based study". Sexually Transmitted Infections. 82 (1): 86–87. doi:10.1136/sti.2005.015248. ISSN 1368-4973. PMC 2563827. PMID 16461615.
  34. Prah, Philip (September 2015). "Representing men who have sex with men (MSM) in Britain: Evidence from comparative analyses of the latest convenience & probability surveys" (PDF). natsal.ac.uk.
  35. Soble, Alan (2002). The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 139, 145. ISBN 978-0-7425-1346-4.
  36. Bailey, J. (2003-03-10). The Man Who Would Be Queen. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-309-08418-5.
  37. "Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men". www.medicalnewstoday.com. 2007-09-13. Retrieved 2020-07-08.
  38. Julie Coleman (1999). Love, Sex and Marriage: A Historical Thesaurus. Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-420-0433-7.
  39. Atwood, Joan D.; Limor Schwartz (2002). "Cyber-Sex The New Affair Treatment Considerations". Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions. 1 (3): 37–56. doi:10.1300/J398v01n03_03.
  40. Rodriguez-srednicki, Ofelia (2002-04-23). "Childhood Sexual Abuse, Dissociation, and Adult Self-Destructive Behavior". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 10 (3): 75–89. doi:10.1300/j070v10n03_05. ISSN 1053-8712. PMID 17522001.
  41. Schloredt, Kelly A.; Heiman, Julia R. (June 2003). "Perceptions of sexuality as related to sexual functioning and sexual risk in women with different types of childhood abuse histories". Journal of Traumatic Stress. 16 (3): 275–284. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.572.1113. doi:10.1023/a:1023752225535. ISSN 0894-9867. PMID 12816341.
  42. Noell, John; Rohde, Paul; Seeley, John; Ochs, Linda (January 2001). "Childhood sexual abuse, adolescent sexual coercion and sexually transmitted infection acquisition among homeless female adolescents☆, ☆☆". Child Abuse & Neglect. 25 (1): 137–148. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(00)00223-4. ISSN 0145-2134. PMID 11214808.
  43. Harper, Douglas. "slut". Online Etymology Dictionary.
  44. Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 244–245. ISBN 978-0-19-534098-3.
  45. Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-19-534098-3.
  46. Anthony Browne Women are promiscuous, naturally. Some Scientists now believe infidelity is a genetic mechanism for creation of healthy children. The Observer, September 3, 2000.
  47. Westermarck, chap. 3 p. 103-4
  48. Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht, pp. xix-xx, 10
  49. Bachofen, Antiquarische Briefe pp.20-
  50. McLennan, Morgan, Lord Avebury, Giraud-Teulon, Lippert, Kohler, Post, Wilken, Kropotkin, Wilutzky
  51. Bloch, Iwan Sexual Life of Our Time, pp. 188-194
  52. Frederick Engels: Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, II. The Family
  53. Iso tietosanakirja, 1. part, columns 1054 ja 1055
  54. fi:Otavan iso tietosanakirja
  55. HADDON, A. The Races of Man: an Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography, Chapter VII, Family Life, Pg 231
  56. Don S. Browning, M. Christian Green, John Witte Jr.: Sex, Marriage, and Family in World Religions
  57. John Anthony Moretta: The Hippies: A 1960s History. Page 362.
  58. de Waal, Frans B. M. (March 1995). "Bonobo Sex and Society" (PDF). Scientific American. 272 (3): 58–64. Bibcode:1995SciAm.272c..82W. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0395-82. PMID 7871411. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 January 2012. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
  59. Reichard, U.H. (2002). "Monogamy—A variable relationship" (PDF). Max Planck Research. 3: 62–7. Archived from the original on March 11, 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2013.CS1 maint: unfit url (link)
  60. Research conducted by Patricia Adair Gowaty. Reported by Morell, V. (1998). "Evolution of sex: A new look at monogamy". Science. 281 (5385): 1982–1983. doi:10.1126/science.281.5385.1982. PMID 9767050.
  61. Chuang, H.C.; Webster, M.S.; Holmes, R.T. (1999). "Extrapair Paternity and Local Synchrony in the Black-Throated Blue Warbler". The Auk. 3. 116 (3): 726–736. doi:10.2307/4089333. JSTOR 4089333.
  62. Janicke, Tim; Häderer, Ines K.; Lajeunesse, Marc J.; Anthes, Nils (1 February 2016). "Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom". Science Advances. 2 (2): e1500983. Bibcode:2016SciA....2E0983J. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500983. PMC 4758741. PMID 26933680.

Bibliography
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.