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.

Men sluttier than women

Nobody is ‘lying’ either. Learn to read the research, not the commentary feed from some butthurt bloke. The lie scales are applied to both sexes (independent variables) in a given study. That is how they are constructed, literally. For comparison’s sake aka the study, it holds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/sexual-health-and-advice/8958520/Average-man-has-9-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-women-have-4.html

Why the discrepancy? you wisely ask.

There are fewer female sluts than male, but they put out a lot more per…. ahem, head.

cute wink

Result? Men gain more ‘experience’, to put it politely.

Now, a little theory…

Remember, this studies frequency of switching. The cause can be traced back via IV to frequency of sex acts too, as the two variables are intertwined (men and women). Otherwise, logically, and sexual congress requiring one male and one female, you would expect even results e.g. men 5, women 5. Men are switching between more women, as you can see from their mean, but they are switching among the same pool of women, necessarily, whereas the total of females is much lower. The average female switches partner less, yes, but what type is the average woman? …

Told you promiscuity, the act, was the problem, and male in face. If you insist on blaming one sex, they’re at the centre of anything sexual, online and off.

If you have data, go ahead and prove me wrong, manwhores.

This is as silly as arguing cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing.

In short, this suggests, pending further results, that men use and use up a lower quality of woman before trading up socially to their final partner. Kinda like a good hand to hold in blackjack. To have and to hold.. They crave the social security like women crave the sexual kind. Hypergamy is a mass neurosis of projection, to anyone who can read.

You don’t see large groups of women on the prowl, versus Pull Nights ( lads on the pull). [SATC is fiction, globally and historically.]

Pool* = sample, arguably the SMP in practice.
Female mean = the total available females in theory, e.g. including the married, the aged, the ill and the celibate.
You see the issue? They’re all lumped together, the data isn’t stratified correctly. Deliberately.
Even a bar chart based on partner count or sexual frequency in a week would be illuminating.
However, the number of count for slutty males must be even higher, because as not-practicing women hold down the slutty average, the number of non-practicing men hold down the manwhore mean too.

dean winchester supernatural evil smirk lol laughing amused

Isn’t science fun?

This accurately traces the perils of lumping the sexes in together, obscuring mating patterns which crossover i.e. promiscuity. Further data computation was required to assess this question.

Obviously none of this data includes rape or other sexual crimes.
Accusing all men of being rapists is exactly as stupid as accusing all women of being whores. They’re both over-reactions designed to defame the opposite sex’s reputation from different sides (take/be taken, force/choose). Instead it cleverly plays on an old question Can a whore be raped?

Nobody mentions this. So I have to.

r-types want r-types

Study Claims To Reveal The Ideal Number Of Sex Partners You Should Have

If you ask cheating, adulterous sluts whether they want someone with sexual experience for a ONS, of course they’re going to pluck the first suspiciously round number that pops into their head. If you asked them whether cheating within marriage was moral, they would also lie. The MSM wouldn’t post the surveys result of a Christian dating website or an arranged marriage-minded one.

This ‘study’ has nothing to do with fidelity or relationships, they step out on their own spouse. They are incapable of that.

Adultery is the only grounds for divorce for good reason.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-4.htm

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

You don’t own your own bodies once you’ve made the marriage vow, the other person keeps guard over it, as they also belong to you, that’s the whole commitment! That’s literally the entire point.

http://www.onaverage.co.uk/sex-averages/35-average-sexual-partners

The mean average is skewed by the sluts, once accounted for the median drops like a rock. About 4-5. Maybe 7 would be pushing it. To make the sluts feel better, many studies count kissing as sexual activity. You know, the thing you do to your grandma probably.

Add to it that men lie through their teeth. Self-report bias.

A quarter of the men have had sex with over 10 different partners throughout their lifetime. For women the average is a lot lower with only 4.7 sexual partners.

Notice all the dodgy wording. A quarter – over 10 different, lifetime, lot lower, only. Weasel words. Comparing a quarter of men with the whole mean average of women is not scientific. Yet the demand is to report on it in a way that hurts nobody’s feelings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/have-i-had-an-average-amount-of-sexual-partners-10297819.html

Relate’s  2014 The Way We Are Nowreport found that 31% of men and 21% of women had slept with more than ten people in their lifetime.

See the game theory of marriage post, those people deserve one another. Both are high divorce risk.

And men are the bigger sluts.

the largest gender differences were found among those who’d had sex with over 20 people (8% of women vs 16% of men).

Truth hurts, manwhores.

This is why you can’t find a wife. Even among r-types (see first study) they wanted someone less r-selected than themselves.

I know what a trite response to this will be, divorce risk.

I looked back into the manosphere’s and neoreaction’s most hyped finding: a study that looks at only half demographics. Just women, in a vacuum. As in, nobody has calculated in a study this divorce risk based on male promiscuity, so you cannot claim it isn’t a causal factor in marital dissolution.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

As one comment wisely pointed out;

The number of sex partners a man has is equally important, regardless of the individual impact on relationships. After all, WITH WHOM DO YOU THINK HETEROSEXUAL MEN ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX WITH IF NOT WITH WOMEN?

Men cannot have 20 partners each while women all remain virgins. Unless you are advocating abusing women via prostitution or prostitution-substitutes (the young women with low self-esteem, no family support and/or no healthy boundaries).

We either encourage both men and women to limit the number of sexual partners or we accept that for each man who “gets lucky” a woman who might one day marry is also having (and maybe even enjoying) sex with a non-husband. This is not a single gender issue.

If anybody wants to calculate the divorce risk for manwhores…

This is part of the dataset they used (2002). Oh look, data about men! Finally!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#numberlifetime

nsexualpartnerslifetime

Note the second chart that disproves the manosphere myth about women being more promiscuous in this century. Men are the sluts. For most of history, women were considered the slutty sex due to Eve and our short refractory period, so no, you don’t have the history excuse.

Ouch.

Education is also a factor (actually IQ, smart women don’t divorce, slow to marry, K).

http://freenortherner.com/2013/06/21/sexonomics-odds-of-divorce/

IQ is actually a bigger predictor of female divorce risk than sex.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

But sure, too many women in college, right?

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”