Female fertility doesn’t encourage cheating

Moving on to correct an old, old error. I’m sick of seeing it. I went out of my way to find the citation to do this.

There’s one study still going round, being cited, that is absolute bull.

No, women aren’t likelier to cheat when fertile. What sort of Lilith shit is this?

Quite the opposite.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/EHB.pdf
It’s been debunked, for many years.

If you can’t read/understand beyond the abstract.

“Women’s desire for their own partners did not differ significantly between high and low fertility sessions”.

This happened when they actually tested what was only suggested (to get published) in the previous study, that has never been replicated.

If anything high fertility makes her more interested in her mate, which matches literally all the evobio on the topic, including Trivers and the fact that overwhelmingly most fathers are the biological fathers of their children. The exception is a forced match (arranged marriage) to an inferior male, see last post on ugly men. Sexual selection will occur in women, before or after nuptials, get used to it. Naturally, men denying that looks have anything to do with sexual attraction (LOL) will continue to ignore the most important variable in Darwinian theories – your genes.

Where you can go back to Peterson’s bollocks and choke on all his little blue pills.

Ugly men encourage cheating

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

If bad genes would put one sex off, it’d be the party that would have to carry them. Tend them. For decades. You know, the one putting money down if this is a gambling analogy.
Much better not to shack up with the uggo in the first place, which is what women have been doing (avoiding ugly men) since parental set-ups ended. Putting an end to arranged marriages is one of the most eugenic things to ever happen, second only to giving r-types the Pill and other abortfacients.

They’d be most likely to miscarry such children regardless, so a naturalistic fallacy doesn’t apply. This is a reversal of a dysgenic societal pressure with freedom of choice, not a natural pressure. There is a real-world consequence to mating (marrying) such low-quality men that used to be disposed of in endless wars: lower fitness than the parents, a biological death-knell.

There are more bachelors than ever because women aren’t forced to marry anyone who’d support them. If the woman can do it better for herself (given equal opportunities), the man is too poor quality to deserve fecundity. Men purchase rights to a woman’s reproductive decisions with marriage, that’s literally the whole premise. Monogamy had to be imposed to avoid unrest and rebellion against rulers, because it’s better for low-quality males (they actually get to breed and don’t ‘resort’ to rape – not an excuse) and worse for all females, since the natural exclusion (men used to be kicked out of the tribe at age) of the shit-tier doesn’t occur to the gene pool either they or their children and grandchildren will marry into… Naturally, the uggos in question hate this. Inferiority in humans is often connected to misogyny, despite how women are the life-giving, less violent and kinder sex (aliens would view those as objectively superior traits). Happy men don’t have to take anything out on women (displacement) because they are secure.

Narcissism and other personality disorder is always preceded by insecurity.

It reminds me of the bad husbands who complain of sexless marriages. Anyone with an ounce of empathy or life experience with women, happy couples, would laugh at such a concept, since sex in a marriage is a symptom, an outcome, a barometer. As in, they expect not to change but their marriage to improve, magically, for purely selfish reasons. Like it’s them + sex toy, no union, no greater labour required from the ‘master’ of the house. Rarely do the men in such marriages carry just their financial weight (the one entailed in the vows, also why pre-nups are anti-Christian since you swore until death you’d be responsible). Incompetent men used to be screened before they could marry, in the courtship stages interacting with the parents. Now, divorce is common because courtship has been shortened and too superficial. If they can’t be married, successfully, the marriage cannot continue. It’s a job. Rather than correcting their fellow men, to be capable husbands and fathers, they complain about women being shallow (projection). I suppose it’s the r-selected urge to appease other men and avoid real conflict, which they know women are too good to really instigate. Wife-beaters aren’t sneered at from sexism, it’s because a man hitting a woman knows it isn’t a fair fight. He knows his risk of death is almost nil. That’s cowardice.

Damaging the one human you swore to protect? Evil.

Hypocrisy doesn’t work long-term. Only an anti-honour culture like ours would think this.

You don’t deserve shit. Like, does a fat SJW deserve a 6ft model with a 6-pack because she got bullied for years? Exactly, it’s shit, you know it’s bullshit, sit down and stop.

You cannot be entitled to a human. They’re autonomous. An atheist cannot expect a Christian. A slut cannot expect a virgin. You get your level. That’s the red pill – you deserve what you get.

So technically, unequal pairings encourage cheating. Common sense?

Divorce risk factors

http://emorywheel.com/professors-study-marriage-economics/

Diamonds aren’t the problem, it’s the premium pricing that’s the problem.
People are living longer than ever, we need harder rocks.

It’s easy to find cheap, good quality diamonds and arrange a setting for the stone.

Husband/wife is a status.

Status-obsessed materialists (who want to get married but not be married) tend to divorce more because of the narcissism, and overt narcs tend to pair up with covert ones.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/understanding-narcissism/201712/how-the-3-types-narcissists-act-first-date

Once the money is gone, the spark fizzles out.

The study also found a correlation between marriage age and duration, which Francis wrote are positively related, meaning the older the person was when he or she got married, the longer the marriage was likely to last.

Maturity, waiting for the hormones to settle and personality to crystallize, few societies in history married off someone younger than 21-25, outside times of war (Regency, American Independence) but then only for re-population purposes, knowing it was less than ideal.

Another notable finding was that the larger differences in age and education between husbands and wives were associated with a higher risk of divorce,

Assortative mating wins again.

College IQ men marrying high-school IQ women is dysgenic.

 as was reporting that looks were important in marriage.

Vain men, bad husbands. As soon as she gets a little wrinkle, his “love” dies.

Evil people confuse lust with love. When the lust is spent, they claim to fall “out” of love. There is no falling “out” of true love, you can only be betrayed and detach. The love doesn’t go anywhere.

Marriage will get less expensive when it becomes more common.
As it is, only rich people can afford to marry.

That’s right, classism again.

Social media would make it a little gimmicky.

Abolishing no-fault divorce and making it hard (or impossible) to re-marry after a set N times would make people respect the institution again, nothing less will work.

Really, our era has the term “starter marriage” – nothing else will work.

If society didn’t get rid of rites of passage for both sexes, the social value of over-spending on a wedding would plummet. For women, debutante balls were important. Now the expense is carried over into bridal models.

Video: How promiscuity hurts men

Society still holds polite people to standards but they need to be tightened up.
Anyone thinking they can have it all has been lied to, male or female.
That lifestyle makes you more isolated and easier to sell things to, to fill the void love should take.

A lot of men are gonna die alone, when they didn’t expect to. This will make them bitter bachelor types. This isn’t the worst thing, it emulates post-war conditions because only those who want to breed, will be allowed. Those who miss the boat would probably make poor fathers regardless. Men refuse to drop their standards once they realize their own, aged league for marriage after dating/fucking around a lot (The Tinder Effect), spoiling them.

Part of the reason? A completely delusional hold of reality. They become feral and believe women find the aggression attractive or hostility wise or whatever is going on up there…. they’re not smart.

A fine example is shaming Southern for not being married. I don’t even like Southern but holy cow did I balk. With friends like those? Well, most of the men complaining… are super-single, they can’t even date, so if you suddenly can’t be traditional before you get married (no, all the people I’ve seen were born that way) then it’s pot-kettle-black, innit?

Like, what is the line here? No singles allowed? Really? Society never operated like that. What are they thinking because it seems to be a feminazi=single train of thought and most of the world just finds that weird.

Or is it that they won’t listen to a woman until she rushes a man, ANY man with a functioning pee-pee, to the altar, because clearly such a woman would be a good person, a balanced person and have her head screwed on straight?

Women?

Good women are rarer than ever before so most will marry.
There will always be exceptions, but the same could be said of good men. It’s a slim margin of “Never found the right one” and they shouldn’t be shamed for it. But by the time a man’s clock loudly ticks at around 40, he’s old enough to be a grandfather and no sane woman would prefer him. Money can’t make up for autism and schizophrenia rates, sorry?

The sexual revolution was great for men. Young men. It ages old men out by the ick factor. Ick, he could be my dad.  Ask any divorced man on the dating scene. In the olden days, maybe a compliment… maybe. Nowadays? Who wants to be the trophy wife of a creep? Who wants to know he’ll die decades before us and we’ll be alone in the very years we need a spouse the most (after kids moved out)?

That’s how women think.

Assortative pairing evolved for very good reasons.
Men ignore it at their peril.

Divorces are caused by many things but disconnect in life stage is huge.
Ideal age gap is five. F-I-V-E. Lowest odds of divorce I saw were male is 5 years older than the female. Same age is acceptable, a couple of years more preferable. The woman needs to respect his maturity but not lose that cultural connection of growing up with the same references.

Stringers vs. winners

For those women who want to marry, common sense advice.
https://www.today.com/health/reason-why-men-marry-some-women-not-others-t74671

“We ran across at least fifty men we could identify as stringers. They can be very dangerous. I estimate each one is responsible for at least two women remaining single. They are destructive because they con women into wasting their time during the years when they are most attractive and most likely to get a proposal. They stay with women, live with women, promise them marriage, and string them on and on indefinitely.”

Breach of promise.

I can change him is my best vapid line. Oh, so he’s a tire?

Should it be illegal to re-marry?

After divorce.

How can you be trusted to give a vow until death do you part, if you couldn’t stick to it the first time around? You know, the way adults are held to all other legally-binding commitments involving debt and humans (i.e. children).

http://www.divorcestatistics.org/

After how many times? How many times before we cap it?

The purpose of marriage is the security of monogamy. This spits in the face of security and allows serial monogamy, which is, looking back, a kind of fraud compared to what was promised. False light should come back into enforcement with all the other laws that protected the sexes.

At least end no-fault divorce. EMTs don’t use the term ‘car accident’ because they’re never accidents. There’s always at least one party at fault.

Why are legal bailouts allowed for cases that don’t involve a breach of the vows?
Jesus said it’s fine to divorce an adulterer. JESUS. And if one party won’t try, which is what you get married to do, how are they not at fault? Marriages require cooperation, it isn’t one-sided.

And can I bet on the odds of Markle releasing an engagement chicken recipe soon?
Fact: when they divorce, she still gets a title.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/10/15/body-language/

No such thing as common law marriage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42134722

NEWSFLASH: You want the benefits of marriage, you have to actually get married.

There is only living in sin.

Stupid is as stupid does.
You don’t have tenancy rights without signing a tenancy agreement.
Neither do you have employee rights without signing an employment contract.

You lost everything, years of your life, because not once did you think to fucking Google it? I searched this years ago and the Government did their job, it’s the top of the first page. You don’t just get to assume you have rights by the power of wishful thinking. Nah, I don’t buy it, you deserve to be miserable. You know who doesn’t? Any children, tiny tot ATMs.

That’s the real secret. Married couples have less rights to benefits than “cohabiting”.

The kids are still gonna be screwed up, the same as single parents.
Children need the security of marriage.

Room mates don’t have rights. It’s like claiming the town bike is cheating. Nope! They owe you nothing! A girlfriend or boyfriend owes no fidelity.

Marriage is literally a vow of monogamy. No legal right to the latter without the former.
Engagement is the fringe case with a verbal contract. Cohabiting means jack shit.

How many people even know engagements have a time limit? After a couple of years, specifics vary, the proposing partner can claim you never intended to get married, because you delayed and the verbal contract was rescinded. ASK A LAWYER.

Why do women take up more government resources?
Which sex is left holding the baby? Blame deadbeats, they ain’t paying for their little splunk junket. We are. Everyone else.

Bringing in bullshit laws would make modern marriage even more useless.
People need incentives. And price controls for wedding basics would help.
I was planning a wedding recently and OMFG. They’re just flowers. Stick bridal before something and the price goes up 50x.

For the scaredy boys?
Single male friends don’t want you to get married for the same reason single female women don’t want their friends to get married to quality either: less attention, less time. They are replaced as a primary social obligation in your life.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-reasons-marriage-scares-men-arent-what-you-think/
Married men are happier than bachelors, some are frenemies trying to put you off the Best Woman For You, like you’ll get a second chance. If she’s the best option, the prospect of fucking her repeatedly isn’t a trial.
Re-marrying? Having seen the stats? OK, don’t bother. If you couldn’t make it once, you can’t do it again.

It’s easier to write a sitcom doofus fucking up if there’s no wife to help him.