So what? I wasn't talking about you in specific. I stated that societies tend to respect "ladies men" whilst chastising "sluts" and provided reasons as of why this is the case. I dont see how your supposed preference alone is of any relevance here.
Society does a lot of things. It subjugates one group, usually for the benefit of another. Nothing surprising there, it happens throughout history and has zero to do with anything that is natural biologically. After all, if it was natural, what reason would there be to enforce it with rules and shaming tactics?
As a species our ultimate purpose is to propagate our genetics through reproduction, so copulating with multiple partners is advantageous for both men and women in a sense, but that doesn't change the fact that doing so is more risky for women than it is for men, in fact, if you know anything about evolutionary psychology you would understand this to be the foundation of Batemans Principle.
Being promiscuous is more risky for both male and female. For males more partners equals the need for gathering more resources, which is often an exhausting task. It also means more competition with other males for those resources, and thus greater chance of violence, death, etc. If you actually understood Batemans principle I have no idea why youd suggest that multiple partners is not more risky for men. Batemans principle was also debunked a long time ago anyway.
The scientific community readily acknowledges that promiscuous activity, or producing multiple offspring, is a lot more risky for women than that it is for men due to two obvious reasons: 1) Birth risk; Child birth is not "risk free", child birth may cause death, the more births a woman is subjected to the larger her risk of dying due to giving birth becomes, men are not subjected to this risk 2) Females of all species, including ours, require additional resources in order to successfully incubate a child during pregnancy, pregnancy literally costs women massive amounts of resources and is very stressful physically/mentally, again, this is a cost we as men are not subjected to. There are plenty more points I could state but I want to keep this very brief.
Once again, multiple partners is riskier for both. But from an evolutionary psychology perspective, it doesnt matter because that risk will be taken since the ultimate goal is to pass on genes. Also, from an evolutionary perspective, it actually makes zero sense for a female to be monogamous to only one male. Having multiple partners does more to 1) ensure pregnancy (more sperm) 2) receive the best possible genes 3) more resources 4) reduce risk of infanticide (if none of the males are sure of whose offspring it is, they are less likely to harm the child), and many more advantages.
Please state your other points though if you have them, because none of those overcome the evolutionary psychology urge to pass on your genes.
What you need to realize is that semi-effective forms of contraception were not available until very recently in human history, so the risks above were discounted through evolutionary pressures. In other words; Women have always stood a lot more to lose through copulation than men, and because of this females naturally developed a very "picky" sexual selective attitude during the early stages our evolutionary history that is still apparent today.
Irrelevant. Females havent selected to be more picky sexually, they are just told to be because it is beneficial for males to ensure the paternity of their off spring. Thats pretty much the entire reason why monogamy is useful, not to mention, for humans specifically, investment by both parents increases the chances of the infants survival and fitness probably a hundred fold.
I'll post the study about women reporting having more partners than men on average when you take away social pressure, etc.