Do some women actually feel flattered when a guy wants to fuck them?
Yes.
WTF is wrong with them?
Nothing.
Odd though it is to say, Lit's right on both accounts- it is flattering to some extent to know guys want to sleep with you. 'Course that's keeping in mind the fact that in many male brains, "I find her attractive" re-routes by default to "I'd like to have sex with her" pretty easily. It's also very loosely defining "wants to." It's possible to have an attitude of "I would if I could but I can't so I won't." It's also possible to be sexually attracted to someone and be interested in/care about them as a human being aside from that.
Yeah, maybe they do. But they don't all want to objectify the same person. It's nice when I have guy friends I can talk to and stuff, enjoy hanging around with.. who also like to hang out with me.. knowing for a fact they're attracted to and interested in someone else - so they guenuinely enjoy having me as a friend. Those are the people who are worth it. The ones who completely cut you off when they are interested in someone else are the ones who aren't - because they don't actually like you.
True to some extent, however, a guy being interested in another girl, dating another girl, being in a relationship with another girl, or being married to another girl does not preculde him from wanting in your pants. Or, sadly, from trying.
A lot of the time Men will fuck anything, thats why. They don't fuck them because they're attractive. They fuck them because they're there. A lot of idiotic women seem to think if a guy gets a boner it means he thinks they're hot.
It means that he thinks that she's hot enough to fuck, which isn't that bad.
It stops being a compliment if he's A. clearly desperate and therefore has no standards, or B. drunk, and therefore has no standards.
But any real male would fuck an attractive 24 yo woman. 
Really? I thought that was nine years too old for you.
I forgot. This is intensity. I should expect no intelligent discourse the majority of it's membership.
That's a bit of an over-generalization. You did clearly make a mistake in expecting Lit to make sense when talking about sex and gender roles, though.
Evolution is not about improving a species, it's purely to make it adapt ideally to it's surroundings and to provide the best candidate for survival.
Yes. Thank you. You have pointed out the problem with the majority of the "I believe that human beings will eventually evolve into a more enlightened species" arguments- they forget to take into account that being "englightened" (in most of the ways you choose to define it) isn't something that is currently rewarded on a genetic level, nor is it likely to ever be.
We are evolving. I believe that one day we will evolve beyond a biological or instinctual need to have sex. (that's not to say that people won't have it for fun)
GA, something tells me your hypothesis is more wishful thinking than based upon evidence tbh. There's obviously a range of sexual drives within the human species, and as far as animals go we're INCREDIBLY sexually-oriented. So it's not to say that some individuals might not have lower sexual drives than most. But then you come to the same problem: individuals with lower sexual drives are not likely to propagate and pass down that propensity to the same extent as more highly-driven individuals. So the trait would likely remain within a minority-- unless of course something were to change which gives replicative favor to the less sexually driven (e.g., a rampant and deadly string of STDs which wipe out the oversexed subpopulation).
But it's all about DNA replication. And in a sexual species, therefore, it's all about who's having sex.
Spoken like a woman who's getting laid on a regular basis and thouroughly enjoying herself.
Also, what you said is true for the most part, but going back to the 'genetic level' argument, there are ways to propogate your DNA other than making your own offspring, through sex or otherwise. On a genetic level, your own life is worth the same amount as any one person who shares 100% of your DNA (which would only apply to an identical twin), or any two people who share 50% of your dna (such as your mother, father, or children), etc etc. So, taking care of your family (i.e. your genes) is another way to 'win' and, I think, explains a lot about self-sacrifice and why it got into our repitoire in the first place.
