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.
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.
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?
And common sense.
Like it isn’t a personal defect or a compulsion?
A list of the common ‘Devil made me do it‘s would be funnier.
..I had to? I was drunk? I didn’t know what I was doing? It was one time? It was your fault? If you loved me ___? This is normal? I did nothing?
never trust an r-type
weak pair bonds are literally a defining attribute
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.
Articles like these are always PC, they’re trying to defend the ‘sex positive’ line.
At least it didn’t mention bonobos (red herring) on such a loaded question.
This comment is better than the article.
I disagree with the premise. If you look at Chimps… the females sleep around so that no one can be sure of paternity and they entire group will be invested in protecting the progeny. But in those societies males aren’t invested in parenting and they themselves sleep around.
However, human males have evolved to be invested in parenting. That’s why they develop biological changes such as increasing prolactin to help them bond with the child. The greater the paternal investment in rearing the offspring the greater the necessity to ensure paternity.
Any man irrationally terrified of cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing is flashing beta (anxious-avoidant attachment style) like a neon sign, why else would he think it’s possible that a woman would want to cheat on him?
[notable exception: rape]
Nature only has two options for that– either you become a lot bigger like male Gorillas so you can fight off other males to protect your harem or you invest in monogamy. If you compare humans to Gorillas we are lot less sexually dimorphic with only about a 10% difference compared to 50% difference. For monogamy, of course it makes sense that we have developed the biology to feel romantic love. When human males fall in love their testoterone actualy decreases and female testosterone increases. Making us more similar to each other. Both males and females feel jealousy at their mate with another person. Humans have actually evolved for monogamy compared to our closest relatives.
All true. Mate guarding is proof positive of monogamy in humans.
Why guard when you have others and don’t care?
Infidelity would lead to tribal ostracisation, the man would probably die a genetic death if he wasn’t bludgeoned to death by the genuine spouse (rightly, crime of passion) but the female would be left either with children and no provider or the children would remain behind without a carer and fall prey to a wolf or something, those remaining wouldn’t really care for the children.
Women have more to lose from cheating and the current law corrects this. Anyone in a committed relationship who cheats is scum anyway, who cares what happens to them?
Bring on antibiotic resistance.
OT: So-called ‘dread game’ actually attracts anxious women and makes them act out, not the secure ones who care. When you pull away, they let you. It keeps the crazies.
Once a cheat, always a cheat = If someone makes that choice once, they’ll make it again.
Behavioural genetics is confirming what the traditionalists already knew.
As for the neurochemistry of vasopressin, low levels of any count as pathological (see depression, OCD etc).
If the K-types wanted a surer mating game in future, a simple genetics test to distinguish the short allele (K-selected, monogamous) types from the deceptive hedons with a long-form allele (r-selected, high infidelity risk) would cut the latter off at the heels. It isn’t an excuse, but again, if they make that choice once, they’re tainted and should be divorced.
Imagine short-listing the prospects for your daughter’s hand, and your grandchildren’s genetics, based on this, oh the wonders of technology! Simply cutting them out from social circles would be a genetic death. Why do you think slutty people congregate in urban areas, where nobody knows them and they’d have to be dismal to build a reputation among their own? Why do you think we collect alcoholism, drug and sexual information as a bundle?
This isn’t just a marital issue, it covers social deception, this is just one sexual application of it i.e. K-selected males would be unwise to accept an r-male into their group, because he’ll screw you over metaphorically. And you shouldn’t leave him with a free house (some stay-at-home fathers) because he’ll invite over your wife too.
Most sperm are destroyed by white blood cells. However, here’s a horrifying fact about where it can escape;
“Once sperm cells reach the end of the oviducts they are free to swim out of the end of the tube and into the body cavity, where they are eventually destroyed. So many women walking around today will have sperm cells swimming around the interstitial fluid that surrounds their body organs. The female reproductive tract does not finish in a dead end.”
The Relationships between Symmetry and Attractiveness and Mating Relevant Decisions and Behavior: A Review
Evolutionary theory based research shows that attractiveness is based on biological correlates that index appropriate estrogen and testosterone levels. Symmetry affects or plays a role in the perception of many of these correlates of attractiveness. Additionally, since attractiveness affects infidelity perception and reactions, sexual satisfaction, and personality perception, symmetry also affects these areas. This paper reviews the literature on symmetry showing how symmetry affects: the correlates of attractiveness, sexual satisfaction, personality, and infidelity perceptions and reactions.