I wanted to post this.
Alongside the male counterpart, which would be scientific.
The male data doesn’t exist. Making the entire concept worthless for discussion. That isn’t science. That’s a tally chart. Numbers of douchebags in a club. Not science. No wider implication or logical meaning.
I wanted to study this. I wanted to compare this. Anyone discussing this subject based on that data isn’t even wrong.
You cannot claim anything about a population when you only study half of it.
Much medical data is based on male-only clinical trials. Also false. You can’t say anything about studying the female body – when you neglect to study the female body. redpills should know people are different (HBD), it would be like saying all men are Jack the Ripper, for an extreme example
Applied to this case, you cannot claim anything about the variables ‘studied’ (infidelity, premarital sex – a thing that requires two people) when the methodology wouldn’t be accepted in a science fair project.
Does ANYONE have this data?
I’m not just bellyaching pointlessly, I really wanted the data and it pisses me off there are (((People))) who dare insult women and draw specious conclusions about avoiding us (MGTOW is male feminism, fish meet bicycle), on the basis of something that has been covered up in men, by other men*. They have combined statistics of temptation elsewhere, but NOTHING on the consequences of male, pre-marital sex.
If the topic is ridiculous, you shouldn’t have studied it in anyone.
Science requires a balanced standard. Balanced = both.
If you studied bee stings, that doesn’t qualify you to say wasps don’t sting or that wasps are somehow better in light of a study that …doesn’t study them. Non sequitur. Deliberate fraud.
Oh what, do you think they just happened not to ask any men? By complete coincidence? But sex was a variable in report of this tally chart? [Literally if you look it’s just a tally chart, but I’ve seen the manosphere treat this one biased data collection with the reverence of scientism**, so I checked it out to learn something… Tally charts are not science. You need to do more calculations with the data e.g. significance, but those cannot be done without a sound method. Numbers don’t make it good math, and they bang on about superior male IQ too, Jesus…. no wonder they’re a laughing stock.]
inb4 triggered at a word feminists also use because they colonized simple English
Sexist because it blames one sex but acts like the other, also complicit in said act, is blameless. Pretty straight definition there.
** behold idiots of reddit and the people beaten by their experience
“A man’s sexual history has no effect on his marital happiness” he claims baselessly. No effect, the title says. No study though, meaning it’s your opinion.
A selection of comments.
“I love how it’s always a fault with the women.
There are two people in every relationship, but the men aren’t to blame for any problems? They don’t have to take responsibility for how it turns out? Their sex lives “have no effect” on how happy their marriages are (even though the studies prove otherwise)? Nah… just the women. Those bitches are all the same, and they’re the ones who fuck it up.”
“Also “practice makes perfect” is a fallacy when it comes to sex. You don’t need a ton of partners to be good at sex, in fact some of the sluttiest girls I’ve fucked were the worst. Everyone’s body is different. Knowing what the average person will like because you’ve practiced with many can make you pretty good in bed, but nothing like learning how to fuck one person really well.”
People are different ~ HBD, common sense, reality.
“… No? Cocks don’t leach potential from women like vampires. Sleeping with people does not limit your ability to love.” They claim this about women implicitly, as a sexual purity – moral purity argument, but not about men, because male sexual misdeeds are twisted as ‘experience’ and ‘prowess’.
Ultimate point: “One could ask the exact same question of men.”
“Where is the proof that man’s sexual history has no effect on his martial happiness?”
Nowhere. In fact, the opposite.
If they ignore Burden of Proof, it goes away!
The available data does link marital unhappiness with male pre-marital sex but I was looking for infidelity risk or marital stability data.
It’s all about WOMEN.
Evil demon Liliths! Vagina magic making men propose!
It isn’t even linear! There isn’t even a clear correlation here! In a female-only sample?
“previously, women with two partners prior to marriage had the highest divorce rates.”
Less =/= better. aka redditfags are wrong and cannot read data as well as space memes
It’s really about an extraneous variable, religiosity.
How ironic that atheist men are rubbing this in the nose of Christian women… while claiming Original Sin (which is really Adam’s fault for not warning Eve, as previously covered).
So much category error, very wrong.
Women do this, THEREFORE Men blah blah blah.
Yet they’re also saying men and women are utterly, completely different ,polar really, which you’d think makes a category error impossible…. sure, if you have a brain.
re female promiscuity, as the only one studied:
“Having two partners may lead to uncertainty, but having a few more apparently leads to greater clarity about the right man to marry. The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners, but otherwise sowing one’s oats seems compatible with having a lasting marriage.”
“This is the result most readers of this brief probably expected: a lot of partners means a lot of baggage, which makes a stable marriage less tenable. It’s also entirely likely that the correlation is spurious, the product of certain personal characteristics. For instance, people who suffered childhood sexual abuse are more likely to have extensive sexual histories. Childhood abuse also increases the odds of a problematic marriage.”
These variables also apply to men. Someone, please study them.
It’s about marital stability, not blaming the women before you’ve even married Ms Imaginary in your head.
“*Nicholas H. Wolfinger, a professor in the University of Utah’s Department of Family and Consumer Studies and an adjunct professor in the Department of Sociology, in a statement.
Wolfinger looked at the five-year divorce rate for over 10,000 women, and took into consideration how many sexual partners the women reported having prior to the marriage. ”
Sociology, men as nameless (partner???) victim. A man only studying the blame of women. Not biased at all.
As the science publications overtly finger-points;
“So, what does this all mean?
Wolfinger’s study has several limitations. It did not take into account the sexual behavior of men in marriages, and its effects on divorce.
Rather [they are being sarcastic there], women’s sexual behaviors were closely observed, and linked to high or low divorce rates. This can portray women’s premarital sexual behaviors as solely responsible for helping or harming a marriage.”
It goes on to connect ‘experience’, as in prowess, with marital unhappiness. That or fear of commitment.
To take another topic, both the unattractive and attractive are studied and COMPARED.
lookism has more data than this topic
limitations – it’s bullshit folks
into account – no science here
men – also involved
effects – causes
rather – to cover his own fuck-ups
closely observed – blamed for everything
portray – lie and gaslight, frame
solely responsible – the problem and let people like him off completely
I’m tired of adults blaming other adults for their mistakes.
If the woman was Satan you shouldn’t have married her.
Nobody is forcing you to marry.
How you behave counts, marriage isn’t the finish line but the starting one.