Sluts unhappy monogamously

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

Ah, he finally included men!
And look at that, virgin men at marriage (1 sexual partner, the marital spouse) are the happiest group of all!

Looks to be 73%! In the current year!
Logically, if you want your fellow men to be happy, you’d ask them to be chaste.
Is that in the Bible anywhere?
What would Jesus do?

Next he needs to do a divorce study and control for the other spouse e.g. yes 6% of virgin brides divorced but were their husbands virgins too? Otherwise it’s like studying half a swimming pool for depth measurements.
It is interesting he misreports this data in part, you don’t look purely at the self-reports like single data points, you compare the group by sections – i.e. all the men to men and all the women to women.
The drop for both sexes is comparable, implying the cause of both is the same (and it is, weakened pair bonding).
Men begin with more monogamous satisfaction and women a lot less, significantly less as a sex, so to compare their promiscuous ratings without controlling for that is intellectually dishonest. The drops are comparable.

Pictured:

WAS THAT SO HARD???

Basic descriptives, so simple a 5yo could see it.
There is little difference within women to push the female-centric finding he clearly wants to.

I’m going to be skeptical on this “study” as any other.

“In this latest study, women who have had one partner instead of two are about 5 percentage points happier in their marriages, about on a par, Wolfinger says, with the boost that possessing a four-year degree, attending religious services, or having an income over $78,000 a year has for a happy marriage. (In his analysis, he controlled for education, income, and age at marriage.)”

Five percent, I hate to say it, is well within chance. It’s barely significant, almost suspiciously close enough to make me suspect p-hacking… and “about”? Science, guys. Education, class (income) and religiosity would have more of an effect, especially combined. This is important information that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. It suggests breeding is a huge factor in the choice to be pure or the resultant satisfaction.
Men, by valid comparison, have a sheer drop of satisfaction far greater than women, look at that gradient!

Dat gradient, easier to see for normies with boxes I am too lazy to go back and colour-code.

Which box is bigger? None of the inter-female drops rival than initial male gradient of 1 sexual partner to 2, I checked.

If this is glaringly obvious to anyone with the slightest semblance of mathematical training (IE I am not a sperg) on first sight, why miss it out?

Men experience a VAST drop in happiness that seems to be almost double (about TEN percent! huge!) the female 1-2 drop and he just ignores that? He goes on about the half-drop instead? Are you kidding me?

This is why sociology isn’t a real science, kids. This bullshit.

Going back, you can see why his legends aren’t labelled properly.

Yes, that is Papyrus because people who don’t labels their legends must be punished.

It doesn’t even start at zero to exaggerate sizes, get your life in order.

So why the narrative focus on female sluts? Why nary a mention of manwhores? What bias, right?

Do you care about the science of your own marital happiness or the badfeels of shame for bad choices?

“In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce”

Why hasn’t he published the data I KNOW he collected on the men? That isn’t scientific, they’re divorced FROM men, aren’t they? Or were all the divorced women he counted lesbians?
Are Americans really stupid enough to think male virgins don’t exist?! They try to suggest the virgin grooms were actually lying based on the survey writing but it doesn’t wash.

It suggests something important, however triggered broflakes might get that opening one hobbit-hole closes another.

Men happier under Patriarchy? Who’d have thunk it, right?

“And Wolfinger acknowledges that, because of a quirk in how the survey was worded, some of the people reporting one partner might have meant “one partner besides my spouse.”

Weaseling out of results you dislike?
Who wrote the survey? The spirit of Imhotep?

“The median American woman born in the 1980s, Wolfinger writes, has had only three sexual partners in her lifetime, and the median man six.”

So as science keeps telling us, men are the sluts. It’s simple mathematics.
Well, logically, how likely are chaste women to marry the slutty men in the first place? Isn’t that rather important than randomly assuming they’re all shacking up eventually to Have it all?

“They have never been interested in sex without commitment, and once married, they may be more committed to their spouses, and therefore happier.”

aka normal
Study the pair bonding in their brains, I dare you.
Ah, but sociologist, useless!

Scientists should be studying virgin brides and grooms as role models of pair bonding glue to help out the other lot with specialized marital therapies but noooooooo. Heaven for-fend they admit Christians might be superior! Moral authority, with a biological basis? The sluts might have their feelings hurt!

It could be that, Wilcox told me, “having more partners prior to marriage makes you critically evaluate your spouse in light of previous partners, both sexually and otherwise.”

Yes, promiscuous men have low marital satisfaction whoever they marry, because they were sexually spoiled.

as the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen puts it, “you could have a lot of sexual partners not because you’re good at sex, but because you’re bad at relationships.”

Obviously promiscuous people are bad in bed, why run from a good thing? It can’t always be the other party’s fault, can it? Just survey promiscuous women, (they have) and you’ll find they don’t even orgasm once. There is a notable deficiency in sexual skill (prowess) compared to those same women with other, less slutty men.

Almost like monogamy evolved or something….

http://brembs.net/hamilton/

If only we had a parental unit investment formula…

“Moreover, this analysis is not peer-reviewed; it’s just a blog post.”

Yeah, submit it to any journal and they’ll insist on seeing your data, like how I want to.

Something doesn’t add up. One man ‘researches’ how women keep being the problem despite ignoring male data on contributions to the by default mixed sex problem….. hmmm….. and also ignoring other much bigger causes of divorce such as adultery and domestic violence…. where’s the red pill data on those? Why doesn’t it exist?

If you really want a controversial study, cross-cultural study of marital and sexual satisfaction versus castration status (circumcised or unmutilated) includes measures of sexual and bodily insecurity and mental proclivity to adultery.

Picture a boulder in a pond if you reported the truth on that one.

not just Christians

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qbe8bp/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11

The same Orthodox Jews who insist they must use their mouth as part of circumcision.

Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg—who is 63 with a long, graying beard—recently sat down with me to explain what he described as a “child-rape assembly line” among sects of fundamentalist Jews…

He didn’t stop. I was so angry, I confronted him… I told this man, ‘It’s a sin before God, a mishkovzucher. What are you doing to this boy’s soul? You’re destroying this boy!’ ….

Demonic possession?

Although not every human has a soul.

In New York, and in the prominent Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. 

The pro-patriarchy guys need a severe character filter.

If you give all men, for being male, too much power, this will happen.

Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage.”

They know about the probable cycle of abuse and wish for their abused to become abusers. This is how pedophiles breed.
At least, it harms the chance of a normal life.

I’ve heard there’s a common thread of idea among male-male predators that the intention is to “ruin them for women”, for marriage. Male innocence/virginity, being taken from them, becoming a point of shame too assists the goal. They report trouble connecting emotionally with women. They fear they may even harm their own children, like an infection.

Suddenly the past child abuse connection to “homosexuality” doesn’t seem so random, does it?

Men and boys have just as much of a human right to their innocence and virginity as women and girls. Male purity has a value, especially if they’re religious.

God didn’t command child sacrifice

To pre-empt a particular lie.

https://www.str.org/blog/god-didn%E2%80%99t-command-child-sacrifice

“”When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day.”

The first thing to note here is that God says they defile themselves when they burn their children. God is against it and “pronounced them unclean” because of it. We also see that God first gave them statutes “by which, if a man observes them, he will live.” This is what God wanted for them—life. But they rejected those statutes, returning to idols; and attached to those idols were statutes of death, by which they defiled themselves.

defiled, precise wording

They would not have statutes of life? Then, God says, here are your idols’ statues of death.

Again, an old sense of humour.

Fine, let them have it.

God gave them over to these statutes of death so He could judge them for their evil through their own actions, showing that He is Lord and judgment awaits those who reject His life-giving commands.”

Bad choices will kill you.

Consider also

https://biblehub.com/exodus/22-18.htm

Do not suffer a witch to live.

2+2 still = 4

So who would be saved from… wrath. Let’s keep it to God’s wrath.

Incredibly few people, the happy sinners known as Satanists who choose it all again and again all have one (other) thing in common. Orgies.

Remember, they sin against their own body? And it’s unusual? That sin? Why point it out?

(every body belongs to the Lord, it is His Temple)

Among defilements, let’s go for jugular on this one.

Fornication will cause the most perdition. It was the whore of Babylon, not the banker.
I find it strange all these fornicators on the chans believe they’re so far removed from the Satanists they pretend to take down, so morally superior, when they already know about the hub of their meetings and power -“sex parties”. All fornication is Satanic, and they know this, it’s throughout the Bible and hinted that sin is energy to Satanic forces, depriving the forces of good. Well, why has Satanism been strongest since the Sexual Revolution? Revolution of what? Q better deliver a full explanation of what this Revolution actually was, it had better be in the 40%.
https://biblehub.com/exodus/22-16.htm

Laws of Social Responsibility

16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and sleeps with her, he must pay the full dowry for her to be his wife.

It also opposes fornication with a married person, with adultery proscriptions in the Ten Commandments.

So no sex unless married. Can’t really move outta that command. No wriggle room.

Not even hookers, there’s still a soul tie (how Satanism works).
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A16&version=NIV

And anyone who says men can’t be virgins is outright lying.

Clearly stated in Rev 14:4, it’s a gender-neutral term (gender being linguistic).

http://biblehub.com/revelation/14-4.htm

4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.

That word again.

Coincidence, sure.

The sections on the anti-Christ are also compelling reading.

I link so you can check up on all this for yourself. Bible Hub allows you to search by keyword.

How screwing around ruins men for marriage

I’ve pointed out before that women aren’t breeding because men aren’t proposing.

The proposals come first. Sub-replacement fertility extends from sub-replacement marriage rates.

http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/theyve-learned-nothing.html#c1952481587955180873

As much as women have to learn (and be taught) how to be wives and mothers again, men have to decide to be husbands and fathers again….”

No binge-drinking, drug-taking, clubbing and promiscuity.
No wonder they’ve yet to act their mumbled Principles.

You’re not a Christian by what you do, you are a Christian by what you don’t do.

“You Nailed It.

My sons grew up with the following:
1. I would pay huge $$$ to prevent a grandchild being aborted.
2. Be careful with whom you “dally.” Making a baby with a bat-shit crazy bitch will cement her crazy in your life forever.
3. Every Damn Thing You Do Becomes A Part Of You! Every girl you bed will leave that memory and you’ll never escape it downstream. What might this look like?
A. Crazy bitches want to put their faces on every orgasm you have for the rest of your life, so sex with them will in all likelihood be the craziest Monkey Sex you can imagine. Then you’ll forever compare sex with subsequent girls (INCLUDING YOUR WIFE) with her technique, and GUESS WHAT? (quoting a previous coworker) “My wife is not the woman about whom I was most passionate.” (Denouement? He’s divorced. Small wonder, huh?)

Alpha widows?

A marriage isn’t made on eros, and eros is temporary, the honeymoon chemicals in your brain. It never lasts. It’s impossible. If your dealbreaker for marriage is ‘passion‘, you might be spouting Boomer BS. All together now, “But I’m not haaaa-ppy!”

It’s like they don’t know the meaning of the word ‘commitment’.
What did they think they were saying “for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, til death do us part”?
What, like that’s such a casual line?

Crazies use the male weakness for novelty to snare them. Yes, weakness.
If you want a wife who fucks like a porn star, marry a porn star or never marry. Those women are damaged, so unless you wanted a damaged wife and mother to your children, you don’t really want what you think you want.

……..And why can’t you train your wife up? If you’re All That?

The sexual entitlement of modern men is the worst part, the traits they tend to want in a woman are mutually exclusive – so they never ‘settle’. Thank God they’re not breeding. I think a feminist must’ve started MGTOW – fish/bicycle is easier to sell when the r-men are leaving the r-women anyway.

They’ve ruined their value to a wife, even if they manage to avoid STDs, there’s psychological distress and other emotional damage, since men do pair sex with emotions moreso than women – in a marriage.

You can’t expect something you also didn’t do. It’s assortative mating.
R-types do NOT deserve K-wives.
That’s your bed, lie in it.

B. It doesn’t matter what you do, if you have lots of “experience” with other women your memory will screw with you and you’ll be stuck with “Angel was best at A, Betty was best at B, Camille was best at C,…and my wife isn’t the best at anything.” That’s hardly a prescription for lifelong marital bliss.

It’s almost like the virtue of chastity applies to men as well?
The Bible says to stone non-virgins, the example might’ve been female, but it didn’t permit the male promiscuity, which must also occur in heterosexual relations. Considering it forbids adultery, prostitution and fornication, it’s astute to recognize men aren’t off the hook because they lack an explicit mention.
Giving virgins a bad name is explicitly fined and you cannot divorce a woman because she sexually displeases you compared to other women. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21

I don’t know what the answer is. I fretted like crazy while my sons navigated the fetid swamp that is the Dating Pool. By all appearances each seems to have found a needle in the haystack of harpies, whores and psychotics. All three girls come from intact families (but two of the three families are hardly what I’d rate as up to our standards, and the third is still short. Not a single family cooked meals at home, so my sons had to teach all their wives to cook.)

Tend your own garden. I did my part, and from early indications my sons are doing theirs. They can’t fix other people’s “broken.” The other people have to fix themselves, hopefully soon and in high enough proportions that the entire civilization doesn’t rot to stinking gangrene right down around my extending family’s ears.”

You can tell his true issue is encouraging his sons to gain the 20th century joke called “experience” which does two things 1. ruins another man’s daughters* (in Patriarchy, you care about other families too) and 2. ruins their pair bonding, their sexual satisfaction and increases divorce risk, although nobody has had the balls to study the last one in men, it’s neurobiological. There’s no reason it wouldn’t apply to men.

However, there is no way to prove a woman’s virginity, as with a man. A gynecologist can’t tell, they must ask. Even pregnancy could’ve been a case of contamination. Ancient men hated discussing menses, they were hardly up on the finer points of female anatomy we began studying two centuries ago and have yet to finish with MRI. Medical science moves on. Being promiscuous without being married (to the subject) is the sin.
For example, the hymen rarely bleeds and isn’t supposed to. It thins with age and slackens (not a pool-cover), considering the child brides of the time, either the bleeding was from a child raped, the hymen was too thick by birth or she was too young, and most of the ‘virginal bleeding’ is the vagina, panicking at poor technique e.g. insufficient lubrication, too much, too fast. It’s a sign that a man is bad in bed. The vagina is acutely sensitive, and well-supplied in the vascular system. The hymen? Hardly. If it’s fully intact, the woman cannot bleed and it must be cut surgically. It isn’t medically desirable either.

The only reason they don’t stone the defamatory husband is because the deflowered woman would have issues with remarriage and might be pregnant. However, adulterous men are stoned to death, so arguably it’s just plain extramarital adultery or premarital fornication that are the death sentence offences.

*This is a death sentence offense alone and the reason seduction is a crime.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Men insulting their own wives are committing offences, they must cherish according to their vow.
The woman’s ability to be a good wife may be in doubt, but the man’s ability to be a good husband has been proven questionable in his actions.
Also, how weak to point the finger at the person you swore to protect. How childish, how arrogant.

No celibacy or virgin shaming

http://sluttygirlproblems.com/guide/deal-sexual-pressure/#.Vkt0zrfhDZ4

It’s bizarre to mock people for the default, something they were born as. Shaming virgins for NOT doing something has never made logical sense, except to make sluts feel better about their non-sexual desirability and scupper the competition by making them conceal their advantage.

This doesn’t solely apply to traditional women, either.

I don’t know any masculine men who define their masculinity by their sex lives.

Honestly, not a one. They have other stuff going on, and whatever happens there, they don’t kiss and tell and keep that stuff private – one reason people respect them.

As one guy put it a tad bluntly, ‘dogs rut and they aren’t men either’.

Reminded me of the foolish definition of man as bipedal and featherless so some smartass philosopher plucked a chicken and said “Behold! A man!”

It’s the one biological function people feel the need to brag about, but it makes them look bad.

STD-free blood tests before marriage kept it good

I was rather shocked to hear from an American that some states (increasingly few) require a blood test (historically from the man, but now both parties) and a physical examination (of the man, historically) prior to granting a marriage certificate. I was shocked because 1. it’s a brilliant idea and 2. they’re phasing it out and 3. we have no equivalent in Europe…

One of my most popular posts was “Which laws kept marriage intact?” – found here. This information feeds into that topic.

Historically, all women would be presumed virgins before marriage (and in a time without ready contraception, not being pregnant was a reliable sign). However, men were presumed cads until proven otherwise  (to the father of the bride too, the patriarch) and had to prove themselves – in a way they couldn’t lie. Sure beats a lie detector. It single-handedly eliminated public health risks before they began in the population. This kept women safe from the pain, suffering of what we now call STDs, miscarriage and probable death that VD could and continues to cause on a pregnancy, as well as checking Rh factors (when negative in a female but positive in the fetus, from the father, this incompatibility causes miscarriage). Rh factors were a latter addition in need of medical forewarning (all marriages being fertile) and the original reason was to check the man was as respectable as he claimed (illegal to deceive under False Light and Misrepresentation). I suppose it would make wicked court evidence. If he visited prostitutes or slept around, he would fail the test and the marriage would be cancelled. In this way, r-types were forbidden from tasting the benefits of K-partner marriage. Here here. It’s easy to speak of protecting women and a good woman’s place in a stable marriage – but hard for the all-talk crowd to come to the logical conclusion: this means protecting them from deceptive men. Which often includes themselves. #burn #partoftheproblem

In short, women weren’t the only ones expected to prove their virtue prior to marriage. That is a myth.

lolmaletears

The manosphere manwhores don’t seem intent on covering this sort of information for some strange reason.

bbc sherlock moriarty eyebrow flash closeup lol flirt really rlly

I did a little digging for UK information and all I could find in public domain was;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268020/marriage.pdf

A few notes before I go on this paper.
Check this first line, the most vital point before we proceed.

1.1 To be valid, all marriages which take place in the United Kingdom must be: • Monogamous

I guess that upsets the human filth who plan on getting married and cheating too, with pathetic excuses that marriage has always been that way (clearly wrong) and they ‘can’t help it’ appeals to weakness covered in the final paragraph here: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/if-you-cheat-on-your-wife-you-deserve-to-be-divorce-raped/ Pardon me for believing that men have presumed agency and legal personhood. The American legal system is based on the English common law in case you didn’t know so this all counts.

Under section 14.3.1 Voidable marriage

Under s.12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a marriage celebrated on or after 31 July 1971 shall be voidable on the grounds that:…

at the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form;

Bad news, sluts!

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

It’s almost like the marriage laws are defined (as is marriage altogether) by the K-types who enter it and specifically written by the K-Patriarchs who wanted to protect their daughters from the likes of you. It isn’t all bad however, because a similar provision is made for the protection of fiances, their sons.

or at the time of the marriage the respondent was pregnant by some person other than the petitioner

I just.... I don't even know what to....what??

Nope, a bitch about how the system supposedly favours women doesn’t fly. It’s a K-law that eliminates the r-type genes from the high investment pool of options. You’re inferior, you chose it, you made your bed. Lie in it.

I shouldn't get this happy over old papers but I do

We should look toward more of the same legal protections if we want to fix the broken modern system of marriage.

Link: ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Gender Identity’ are meaningless

All this coming up. They’re still banging on the pedophilia drum.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/19/we-cant-protect-sexual-orientation-because-it-doesnt-mean-anything/

Not opinion, but a fact. There is no agreed-upon definition in academia.

This gets into arbitrary vagueness, it could literally be like 50 shades of grey. There could be 50 different terms for 5 things, each slightly different along a scale. The scale could be contracted or expanded, from 5 to 5 million terms, and people would still identify themselves along the Likert scale because that is how humans respond to scales in self-report. They fall prey to experimenter’s biases. Kinsey used it to justify his own fetishes. Including the mere use of Likert instead of checkboxes, intended to give firm results. How special do you feel? Do you identify as a snowflake?

In the most logical, hardest scientific terms, here would be the genuine definitions that would work in law (nothing less would work);

Sex (noun): chromosomal. Male, XY. Female, XX. Various genetic disorders would thus be accounted for under Both (still within the binary of a dimorphic species).

Gender: firstly, nothing to do with identity. Masculine, Feminine, Androgyne (both). According to Jung, everyone has both, which makes the last category meaningless, so everyone would fit into masculine or feminine based on their 51%+ score on something like…. The Bem Gender Inventory? Purely psychological, fluid and prone to change.

(Sexual) Identity: behaviour and its choice (see? nothing to do with gender and arguably, sex).

Sexual Orientation: which sex do you identify in sexual terms (physical attraction toward)? Male (sex as a noun), female (sex as a noun) or both (bisexual). If neither, you don’t have one, so it isn’t a valid question to answer, a simple N/A or blank would suffice. Note: non-physical attractions are invalid as all normal humans feel those (agape) and this is a polite descriptor of lust.

This last rules out invalid claims to orientation (based on age, a changing factor, species or other non-humans, or state of life, for example). Paraphilias (fetishes) are likewise discounted, as non-personal attractants by definition.

Social conditioning (inc. pornography) CAN change sexual orientation/identity, as most people know it:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/porn-addiction-studies-sexual-orientation-versus-sexual-tastes/

This does not bode well for the future of Sex Ed at increasingly younger ages pushing abnormative sexualities. Maybe Putin knew something we didn’t? At the very least, porn should be credit-card subscriber-based only, cut off completely from children, the entire video model is truly as addictive as alcohol or drugs (maybe 21 in places);

http://yourbrainonporn.com/can-you-trust-your-johnson

99% of these people were adults and had had time to form a proper sexuality and relationships prior to their issues. This meant, that as one neuroscientist suggested, with the right help their brains could be returned to their previous sexual identity, even if the images they had viewed cannot be completely forgotten.

For a boy aged 10-14, with no previous sexual experience, there is no reset button. [DS: this is because the brain kills off or ‘prunes’ the disused connections] We could have future generations of young men who objectify women and have totally unrealistic ideas of sex and in some cases men who will have their brains re-wired by extreme imagery to the extent that they could be a risk to the women and children around them. We shouldn’t put our heads in the sand and await for some true scientific evidence. We need to do something now.

Who does that sound like?

Is this a better test (than erections) for sexual orientation?…………

It is a dangerous practice and any parent who encourages their child to indulge (separate from the debatable issue of masturbation), is frankly guilty of child abuse (as all future centuries will see it, like we see cocaine in Coca Cola for Victorian children now or other hard drugs in ‘cough medicines’): http://yourbrainonporn.com/why-shouldnt-johnny-watch-porn-if-he-likes

There’s a kicker though. The capacity of our teen to wire up new sexual associations mushrooms around 11 or 12 when billions of new neural connections (synapses) create endless possibilities. However, by adulthood his brain must prune his neural circuitry to leave him with a manageable assortment of choices. By his twenties, he may not exactly be stuck with the sexual proclivities he falls into during adolescence, but they can be like deep ruts in his brain—not easy to ignore or reconfigure.

Sexual-cue exposure matters more during adolescence than at any other time in life. Now, add to this incendiary reality the lighter fluid of today’s off-the-wall erotica available at the tap of a finger. Is it any surprise that some teens wire semi-permanently to constant cyber novelty instead of potential mates? Or wire their sexual responsiveness to things that are unrelated to their sexual orientation? Or manage to desensitize their brains—and spiral into porn addiction?

http://yourbrainonporn.com/pair-bonding-101-beware-novelty-as-aphrodisiac

Loneliness can make a person more addiction-prone (as a self-soothing or self-medicating behaviour?)

In short, the same reward circuitry in their brains that makes them want to fall head over heels also leaves them especially vulnerable to addiction. In contrast, most rodents don’t like alcohol. They have to be bred specially to use it. But both prairie voles and humans will drink, suggesting that similarities in their reward circuitry make possible a strong buzz.

…Bottom line: Drugs can hijack the bonding mechanism, and register as a sort of love-substitute.

I’ve never known a lonely man who didn’t have a self-soothing behavior to try and compensate (a lot of alcoholics, some porn addictions, a few other drugs, a LOT video games as a secondary ‘hobby’ – when it’s a time sink like TV) and periods that reminded them of their loneliness acted as weakness triggers to engage.

…It’s almost as if the reward circuitry of a pair bonder has a “little hole” crying out to be filled by a pair bond (even if the individual never bonds). In the absence of a mate, a pair bonder will look around for something else to fill that “hole.” Obviously, we humans often try to fill the “hole” with lots of friends, serial affairs, porn, drugs, alcohol, devotion to a guru or a cause, or whatever—all of which furnish, or at least promise, some neurochemical satisfaction.

The important point is that the brain mechanism that primes a pair bonder to bond is mechanical, not rational.

So no, they aren’t ever choosing to do these things. That is not a plausible answer. Addiction muddles the concept of motivation.

…Note: Pair bonding is not a moral strategy; it is a mating strategy, and arises from a subconscious brain mechanism. The vole example demonstrates that bonding is not a cultural phenomenon…..

Please read The Mating Mind for details.

According to biologist David Barash, normal pair bonder “sexual behavior is neither especially frequent nor especially fervent.”

Manosphere is wrong on marriage again….. (priorities change when children arrive).

The fact that pair bonders stay bonded without constant sexual fireworks suggests that the bond itself is normally rewarding.

K-types ahoy.

All of this means that much of today’s sex advice won’t work well for lovers who want to remain paired.

Including the manosphere (short-termism), while encouraging married men to cheat and bemoaning high divorce rates.

As far as male N sexual partners, more monogamous men (lower count) are happier:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/guys-where-do-you-fall-the-monogamy-spectrum because the novelty factor isn’t guiding/controlling them (impossible perfectionism, hedonic treadmill, they can literally never stop because boredom becomes akin to death).

But hey, they don’t want to be told that because they’ve already screwed up and out of spite they want other men to screw up too, much like slutty feminists who encourage good girls to go bad…. (In sum: the r-types deserve one another).

As the previous link makes clear, in behavioral context, it makes them less human (more like a hollowed-up sociopath they admire);

Such effects impact relationships. Constant novelty is one of the prime reasons Internet porn is a superstimulus for the brain. Erotic training that relies on novelty as aphrodisiac can condition users such that familiar partners quickly lose their luster—confining users affected to shallow hook-ups. Also, the non-climax aspects of sex (skin-to-skin contact, kissing, comforting stroking, playful behavior, etc.) may be too unfamiliar and subtle to register as deliciously rewarding. Unfortunately, these are the very behaviors that soothe the brain and help couples strengthen their bonds.

If you have any doubts as to the damage of these early influences, look up “psychological imprinting porn”