Wow this person is a moron. And I kind of wonder if they have ever actually been around a woman or bothered to understand how women engage in sex and reproduction. Let's break a few points down.
Now, a female in the wild before medicine and technology could only give birth couple of times.
What? I don't know what "in the wild" means because we developed culture and social groupings before we became human. Let's assume they mean hunter and gatherer lifestyles, though. Birth rates vary quite a lot but the highest is the Ache who have an average of 8 live births during their lifetime. In contrast, Efe Pygmy women have the lowest average of 2.6 live births. Regardless, even the lowest rates still exceed this idiot's estimation that women without access to modern medicine only had a max of 2 children.
The more times she did it the more likely was that it would end up in failure.
Again, this sentence isn't very clear. Failure in what? Getting pregnant? Having a kid? Dying from childbirth? And how on earth would more sex impact that?
A female having the same sex drive as a male would go against that logic and only hurt the chances of survival and reproduction of the female.
Huh? How? Again, their argument is very convoluted but I think they are trying to somehow say that lots of sex = lots of pregnancies which = lots of death. We've already pointed out that women have way more than 2 pregnancies. But let's also address the fallacies that seem to be underlying this. First, women have mostly concealed ovulation meaning we don't go into heat. Therefore, it is necessary that humans frequently copulate with partners whether that is the same partner or multiple ones. Even with modern technology, anyone who has tried to get pregnant can tell you that you usually need multiple attempts sometimes over a long period of time. In other words, women need to have a high enough sex drive that they are willing to copulate multiple times throughout their cycles. Second, there are family planning techniques that keep women from getting pregnant when they don't want to. Quite obviously if you're already pregnant you don't just keep adding babies to your belly. It doesn't work like that. Then, after giving birth lactational amenorrhea can prevent pregnancy for up to 3 years in many hunter gatherer societies. Guess how long women breastfeed in those societies? Birth intervals in most hunter gatherer societies were 50 months (70% of women's second kids.) We have unusually long gestation periods. Tons of sex doesn't just end up in tons of babies ad infinitum.
The best course of action for a female would be to choose the best genes she can out of the pool of males she can attract, then to mate and have an offspring. Then it would be best for her to worry only about that offspring because it was very likely for young offspring to die.
It is almost like someone read about r/K selection theory once and thought they could remember it well enough to reference here. They did not. Just because women might want quality genes that doesn't preclude a high sex drive, lots of sex with those quality genetics, or multiple partners. How silly. And yes there is heavy investment in just a few offspring rather than a litter but again most don't only have one or two.
And those are her only genes, her only chances of reproduction! Just a couple!
No.
A female that is capable of pregnancy but hasn't been touched by other males, is from the perspective of the male's genes the best chance for reproduction that male can have. She is less likely to be sick, she didn't already have a child so she is more likely to succeed in doing that because there is no damage to her body yet. That's why women are taught to not have sex and to protect their innocence, because it ups their value.
This is so culturally specific and bound that it reveals just how naive and unworldly they are. I've used this example in this sub before, but the Maasai believe that a virgin woman is not wife material. Who would want a virgin? They believe women need to be "opened up" through sex as young teens so that they can even have kids and be good wives. This occurs through ritualized sexual activities where boys and girls meet under the supervision of a boy's mother and they have sex. That way the woman is marriageable. The idea that all societies teach girls that they have to wait for marriage or that all men would only want a virgin is just ignorant. The fact that it is not a cultural universal should give you serious misgivings that it is a biological imperative.
That gives HER in turn, more males to chose from, and that gives HER better chances of finding the best genes she can for the reproduction. That is much more important from the perspective of a female, she has to make it count because she has only few shots in her.
Does this person really think most marriages were "love marriages" where the woman got to pick her best option? Love marriages are relatively new as a cultural ideal. Arranged marriages were much more common around the world whether that was from birth such as with a cross-cousin or through family decisions when their children reached an appropriate age. But people marry for all kinds of political, social, monetary, and cultural reasons that aren't about genes in any direct way. If you are betrothed from birth to your matrilineal cross-cousin that has nothing to do with whether you as a woman find your cousin to have good genes.
Oh so you're one of those tumblr retards who believe everything is a "social construct"? yes? Sex drive can't be taught out of existence, just like you can't teach a woman to not have a vagina. It is in our biology.
Ableism aside, someone needs to spend 5 seconds googling the difference between sex and gender. It really isn't that hard. Geez
Sources
Panter-Brick, Catherine, Robert Layton, and Peter Rowley-Conwy, eds. Hunter-gatherers: an interdisciplinary perspective. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Talle, Aud. "‘Serious Games’: Licences and Prohibitions in Maasai Sexual Life." Africa 77.03 (2007): 351-370.