...if men are promiscuous and woman monogomous, who or what are the men having sex with? Ever watch Sex and the City or Desperate Housewives? Literally, they're fiction, but...definitely not fantasy. There are definitely enough females who are NOT 'monogomous' except in their official standing (like many males, granted), and/or are monogomous only in their expectation of their spouses.
Actually, your question is a bit skewed in it's mixing of categories, no offense. --- The contrary of promiscuous is 'faithful', not (necessarily) monogomous, and the contrary of monogomy is polygamy (both of which imply 'marriage' [whatever that means by users of the term], as non-promiscuity doesn't.) A polygamist may be non-promiscuous, given...her...harem, while a monogomist may be promiscuous...occasionally...especially in 'open marriages' (a subject making a comeback on talk shows recently, mesees).
Then there's the 3rd overlapping framework of polyamory vs mono-amory (or whatever the latter's proper name thereof: "soul-mate"?)
Then there's bi-sexuals, gays, trans-, and...for those not catching the news lately, those who aren't interested in 'mature' males/females to begin with.
Add in those who prefer to, well, stay on the farm and I think I answered your question Michael. --- Small segments add up to a fair-sized group of availables.
P.S: Re the original question that started this thread, as far as I'm concerned (to answer a question of another thread) the 'essence' of O'ism is nothing more and nothing less than Galt's speech. All else is summarizing or explicating of it and all such can also be considered (if accurate) the 'essence' of O'ism re-phrased in different simplified contexts...including Rand's famous 'one-foot' summary.
I delineate all that to point out that given Galt's speech, NOTHING is said or implied about any philosophical basis for analysing gender/sex roles therein. Ergo, to speak about female SWAT-team decision-makers, Chiefs-of-Staff, C-I-C's (not to be confused with buisness-managers or Presidents, C-E-O's, or even state-governors), etc. has more to do with one's view of the Psychology thereof re males/females than the any philosophy supposedly implies. And everyone has different opinions (not to be confused with knowledge-based beliefs) about what's true in Psychology, (or, if you wish, 'Philosophical-Psychology') even re 'sex/gender' roles in varied situations (sex AND readiness-for-aggressive-violence); hence we'll not reach much consensus for generations.
(Edited by John Dailey on 1/19, 5:40pm)
(Edited by John Dailey on 1/19, 5:52pm)