I refuse to believe that men's desires were ever any different and what you are referring to is natural behavior modified to fit in better. No pun intended. I am not sure why you think that people valued partnerships more than today. Especially since there were no paternity tests happening and no contraceptives. I think you would be in shock if there were actual results of percentages indicating how many children on average actually were from the official father and just how many a result of random acts of passion. Which is again the nature part that I refer to in terms of producing offspring, not meaningful, fulfilling long term monogamous relationships.
I don't understand this. Where did I say that in the past more people "valued relationships"? That's an anachronism when you're discussing sexuality in the past. Men valued fidelity in their wives because they didn't want to support another man's child, or have another man's child inherit their family property. That's what happens in patriarchies. Women were afraid of being an old maid, cast out, or, in extreme cases, killed.
Men wanted a virgin. A girl who was too "flirty" or had been alone with other men was not marriage material. You think that the town prostitute who had been turfed out lasted long, or that her children lasted very long? You think they could provide a good and healthy life for their children? They were often sent to "baby farms" where they died like flies, or to orphanages that were little better. Do you know the average life span of prostitutes in England even in the 19th century? Most of them didn't last very long, between abusive, violent men, disease, inadequate food and housing etc. What do you think happened to servant girls who slept with the employers? Even if it wasn't their choice, what happened was that they got kicked out, were not given a reference, and if they were lucky wound up in the poor house. Otherwise it was the streets.
Now, for people with nothing, no property, nothing for their children to inherit, like some of the urban poor or landless peasants, there was more "looseness" in terms of sexual behavior, at least before marriage. The girls often got pregnant before marriage but it was indeed
followed by marriage. Fathers and the surrounding community often ensured it. This has also been documented in Italy. You paid the piper. All of this has been documented by church marriage and birth records. What happened after marriage was different. Was there some infidelity? Yes, of course there was, but most of it was by men, often by men frequenting prostitutes, of whom there were an extraordinary number in cities like London. It's also why so many men contracted syphilis and then passed it on to their wives.
In terms of NPEs, which includes adoptions, formal and informal, and men taking the wife's name, as well as illegitimate births, over the span of hundreds and hundreds of years there are indeed cases of NPEs, putting the accuracy of many "trees" on line seriously in question, but studies done of Europeans shows percentages per generation at about 1-3 percent. Most women have indeed been very faithful.
This is all well known from a European social history perspective, and that definitely includes northern Europe. None of what I'm relaying is at all controversial. It's all supported by numerous studies which you can easily find. Or, just read English literature of any century, not just the 19th. In fact, most of the analysis that has been done was done in England. What it's like today in Berlin is irrelevant. Up until the 20th century northern Europe was, if anything, more puritanical about sexuality.
Men knew they were after other women and also knew that it was often just a matter of timing to get another man's woman into bed ... or into cave ... I am not talking about how I want life to be or how my western morals have taught me to think. I am referring to reality.
The reality is perhaps that men are promiscuous by nature. A lot of them certainly take pride in sleeping with as many women as possible. Just because they know their own nature, for most of human history, at least from the Bronze Age, they have tried to keep other men away from their women. That's reality. We can't project modern sensibilities into the past. Nor can we extrapolate from a minority and assume that most married couples today are "swingers". That's silly.
Good grief, even in today's America, "slut shaming" is of women, never of men. It gives a man status to be promiscuous. Young girls have committed suicide because they are remorselessly bullied personally and on the internet for their sexual behavior. Maybe you don't have teen-agers? Believe me, these are discussions you have to have with teen-agers of both sexes.
As to what attracts men, beauty attracts men. If they think that there is an exact correlation between a woman's beauty and her ease of sexual arousal, they're crazy. It doesn't work like that. Interest in sex is driven by hormones and life experiences. The best looking woman in the room may or may not be very interested in sex. She may feign interest or satisfaction as it's easy to do, but the reality may be very different. Also, in my experience most men don't want a woman who is willing to go with any reasonably attractive man of her acquaintance. Real life is not like porn films. Also, as applied to red heads, I guess it's culture dependent. From what I was told, the red hair was considered attractive enough, but freckles were considered ugly. My poor aunts spent hours putting buttermilk on the exposed parts of their bodies. Then, as I said, there was the stigma that they were probably willful and bad-tempered.
To get back to the actual topic, I don't know whether rh negative women have a "stronger" sex drive than rh positive women. Neither do I care. What I do know is that a claim by some rh negative women that they have a "higher sex drive" than other women is proof of absolutely nothing. That is not how a scientific study of this specific hypothesis should be conducted.
Also, whether or not we like it, social norms influence evolution. It's called social/sexual selection. It's real; it exists, whether we like it or not.
That's about all I have to say on the subject. You're free to believe as you wish.
@Tomenable
How old are you anyway? If you disagree with something I state have the guts to post a response instead of sniping from the sidelines with thumbs down for my every post. And they call women passive aggressive!