Sluts unhappy monogamously

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.



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….

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.

Why did no-fault divorce actually happen?—1979—bargaining-in-the

Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. [1]

“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”

Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.

Funny they never mention that.

And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.

A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).


“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him

…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.

Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.

If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?

Some simple changes and why:

  1. a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
  2. a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
  3. if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
  4. long engagements only, 6-12 months?
  5. one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
  6. no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
  7. marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
  8. abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
  9. romance must go both ways
  10. if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
  11. 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
  12. if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
  13. real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
  14. complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
  15. no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
  16. adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
  17. all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
  18. no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
  19. a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
  20. earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.

I flatter myself these are common sense.

Maternity leave good for children, misogynists

The mothers are far from being selfish* and lazy.

(*Expecting the man to make the money, his gender role?)

Click to access Brooks-Gunn_Daycare.pdf

Show me the equivalent study on fathers, please. [TLDR Tender Years is true.**]

Past nine months, needs more research to say it’s bad (the positive claim, burden of proof).

**You’d expect this loss of the father is survivable since men died all the time of war, hunting and disease yet we’re demonstrably still here. 

Note for idiots: Survivable is not desirable. Hume is disappointed in you.

Ideally, women should take maternity leave, if the couple can afford to. Whether she does or not is her husband’s business (read: not yours).

“Muh Bible” misogynists

This isn’t the meme you want but it’s the meme you deserve.

Narcissists and atheists always lie (about the Bible).

So I screencapped, provided a link and enough context either side that the meaning is plain.

U mad?

For more real Christian quotes (from the Bible) to trigger liars:

Marriage isn’t a Christian duty

Tradlarpers lie about the Bible.

As in, blatant lying.

Specifically (and atheists shouldn’t marry, that’s repeated* throughout the Bible) on Marriage:
I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. ”
“8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.”
“17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.”
“But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”
“38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

I don’t criticize MGTOW for being unmarried…. as long as they’re moral.

I do criticize larpers who insist everyone must marry (like vain them) as if that were 1. possible or 2. desirable.

They think they have a right to “give away” these people’s bodies!

*There’s an interesting point in a commentary, since it’s against marrying diversity:

“The Greek word for “unequally yoked together” is not found elsewhere, and was probably coined by St. Paul to give expression to his thoughts. Its meaning is, however, determined by the use of the cognate noun in Leviticus 19:19 (“Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind“).”

However, a man can only love as a husband sacrificially

Your mother no longer comes first, nor your friends.

Divorce is acceptable for abuse, adultery, abandonment of either party.

The poorer, innocent party should receive alimony for supporting the richer’s efforts to earn it.

Re-marriages of the sinning party are not Biblical.

Video: Virgin before marriage or not?

Literally the best video I’ve ever seen on this topic.

Pair bonding is chemical and sex-based.

That glue is meant to be for marriage and pair bonding is impaired in both sexes.

The haters will be jealous you aren’t rushing to the divorce courts.

Cheating risk is lower too.

It’s all around better.

I disagree with the idea that she isn’t superior. Morally, she is superior. She demonstrated the virtue of chastity, that makes her superior. She just doesn’t use it as an excuse to treat normal people like dirt, which is arrogance.


Ideal age to marry?

..Would you look at that?

The medieval range of mid-twenties, which also happens to be when women are most fertile and men are fertile but capable of self-control (both bodies and cortices are finally matured).

” The greatest indicated likelihood of being in an intact marriage of the highest quality is among those who married at ages 22-25″

“However, the findings do suggest that most persons have little or nothing to gain in the way of marital success by deliberately postponing marriage beyond the mid twenties.”

They’re going to marry someone else. Dating is like musical chairs and after 30 the options are grim.

The 20s are neurobiologically intended to equip you for parenthood.
You can’t waste them.
For a relatively good breakdown:

You find the right person? You put a ring on it.
That sort of thing doesn’t happen twice in a lifetime.
Obviously, you need to be self-improving and on the lookout for the One in the first place.

Link: Overselling Patriarchy

It isn’t the All Man dominate All Womankind scenario the feminists try to paint, it’s a complex system of traditional social exchanges for the mutual benefit of most, if not all. The people who go with the SJW Woman’s-Only Apocalypse view aren’t selling Patriarchy at all, much like atheists who try to flaunt it as an anti-belief belief system. Oxymorons. There’s a reason we conceive government as a man and justice as a woman. Both sexes are needed to bring balance to the Force, whether you think it’s divine or evolution.

A portion of the Alt Right continues to believe in these ad hoc virtues. And many of these ad hoc virtues are true, just not true enough to justify Patriarchy. Let us look at few examples:

Women are so much less rational than men that, for the good of society, they should be denied all political and economic power.

Don’t be such a drama queen! I agree that, on average, men have slightly more logical minds than women. Researchers are divided on the existence of gender differences in intelligence, but even those who support the notion that men are smarter find that the gap is no more than 5 IQ points.

My God the man knows his stuff.

Such a pleasant change.

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

So what? Is the plan to confine all social and political power to the smartest 1%? Then why discriminate based on sex? Why not just ask prospective voters to take an IQ test or solve a Sudoku puzzle?

Bravo and good tidings

That would a meritocracy, Sir. They don’t want that. They want to punch down as males, terrified of other men, and in their mind, that means rhetorically punching down at women. They’re a male supremacy movement as vapid as the feminists. Besides, they’re the first to complain women succeeding in any form of academia are useless in the real-world, and IQ is an academic measure of intellect. It has little real-world value, few billionaires and businessmen would score well. Like any test, it implicitly tests for the ability to sit down, shut up, passively take in information and regurgitate it. I don’t think we require that in more political leaders, thank you.

Discrimination based on anything other than merit is wrong. They’ve thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Merit is such a flexible metric it applies to any situation.

It is true that men are over-represented at both the high- and low-ends of cognitive ability, but again, the difference is nothing compared to the racial gap.


That’s all I ever wanted on this topic, a simple admission of the comparative data. Yes, there are sex differences, I’m first to admit, but those are as nothing compared to race, as you’d logically presume since autosomes outnumber sex chromosomes. I’ve heard people trying to pass themselves off as Alt Right deny this evidence as a terrible case of racism (really, just like the SJWs). The male/female divide can be accounted for by error or chance. The racial divide is so crystal cut (localized evolution ftw), that if you don’t believe in it, you cannot have understood the data. Pointing and shrieking about the exceptions like a White Knight is an error too, because group patterns don’t apply to individual cases. Judging individuals based on group membership conclusively is doomed from the start, it isn’t open-minded or scientific. But when women (like myself) tried to point out that it is, for instance, merely possible for a random woman to be high IQ (because the data says so) I got shouted down, when I was pointing out a logical fallacy and the fact outliers exist. Anyone making conclusive value judgements (and being the closed-minded type of judgemental) about a huge group with such wide variance is an idiot. Prejudice is useful for limited predictions, for groups, and they’re never conclusive, however, when you have case-specific information, that is primary and the rest of the group is meaningless, unless you’re a literal bigot and see the nominal group as something inherently shameful (sex, race, pick a poison to harp about), whatever merit (or other dominant factor) you claim to care about.

I would quote more but I’d feel bad keeping the traffic.
As for intellectual curiosity, it’s almost impossible to define. What most people assume, the learning of random facts as a mode of procrastination, is not it. It’s a trade-off between curiosity and perseverance. Like an RPG, nobody has maxed out all their levels.

Some comments intelligently go into the SJW (Cultural Marxist) tactic of Divide and Conquer. If you wanted to weaken and kill white men (Western Civ’s Patriarchs) who would you divide him against? His women of course! And then he’ll commit cultural (women hold the moral standard) and genetic suicide! Total obliteration. Accusations of White Knighting are common but nobody is saying to defend the outgroup, it defines ingroup in genetic terms (for life, mother AND father, and a future) rather than lesser identity politics (distractions). You don’t have to defend anyone, but everybody will remember the male cowards, who they are and they won’t be flooded by offers once this is over, put it that way. Men used to wish for moments to prove their valour and today’s Metrosexual Male Chickens–ts scurry away like Pajama Boys as if taking a punch is a fate worse than death. Women are attracted to men who protect them, as they keep reminding us yet refusing to act upon, saying it’s …weak (how Orwellian, strength is weak). Arm the women then, if you’re too scared to perform your precious gender role, and we might have a hope in Hell of defending ourselves.

This comment was gold and I reproduce it in full hoping the author will forgive me.

No no, this is all wrong – we’re supposed to blame girls for all of our problems. It wasn’t the jews who ruined us, it was the mean ol’ girls, including those yet to be born. Some people don’t know this, but George Soros is actually a white girl in an elaborate disguise. Tim Wise is also a mean ol’ white girl. All of the great villains and traitors of Western history were actually white girls, like Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Morganthau and Lazar Kaganovich. Hollywood, the porn industry, and global finance are all in the tight grip of these horrible white girls. Clearly, the men of every race should unite and stand as one against white girls. We should join forces with turks, negroes, chinamen, jews, hindus and homosexuals against these infernal white girls.

There have been some suggestions that we follow our own cultural traditions with regard to gender roles and relations. These people have gone so far as to suggest that we show kindness toward women, and that we should protect them from rape and abuse by foreigners. These people are called white knights and cock-blockers. Anglo-Saxon culture is especially white-knighty and we should discard it for the much better traditions of sub-saharan Africa. Africans know a woman’s place: to be a beast of burden, duh! Negroes are such alpha-males, they know what life is all about – muh dick.

As we all know, young white girls are notorious time-travelers; they like to slip into time machines and travel back to the 1960’s where they conspire with radical feminists to destabilize Western culture. It’s only logical, therefore, that we hold these treacherous time-travelers responsible for the damage that feminism has caused. And don’t do anything stupid like fall in love with a pretty girl, marry her and make a bunch of cherubic little blue-eyed babies. That’s beta-male stuff. No, if you have to deal with beastly females, make sure it’s an oriental; unlike mean ol’ white girls, these chinese types don’t have any feministy hangups and will gratefully accept sexual advances from any quarter, the way it should be.

The key feminists and SJWs aren’t white, they’re Jewish.
Will the ever-logical ‘men’ admit this? Nope. It requires decisive action, that’s too masculine for them.
Continue to deny the data, and be comfy in your little safe space where wimminz are the evil. I think those misogynists are so virulent because the (naturally more attractive) white women reject them.

Cheats are brain-damaged

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.”

err what wut wtf scared rdj