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.

Fornication discouraged in men, 1892

I don’t like it when SJWs lie about sexuality and pretend men could be the biggest sluts they wanted, forever, without consequence.
I don’t like it when men lie about their historic sexual habits either. There’s no excuse.

I was going to quote but screencaps deter liars. This was the common opinion and backed by the doctors of the time. They just can’t stand the idea their ancestors would be ashamed of them and think of them as just as slutty as the women they insult.

I guess their red pill got stuck?

Continence (sexual control) and sexual hygiene were the rule throughout history, we hear about exceptions because they were exceptions.

(And rich, usually rich and insane, it’s still fun to read about those).

https://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b28050964#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&z=-0.6656%2C0.8599%2C2.8112%2C1.4224

Act like a savage, think like one. Pretty straightforward. Lust isn’t a virtue for men either. Giving in to any desire is a huge display of weakness.

The energy is meant to go to your development. Wasting it elsewhere stunts growth permanently. Degenerate is quite a physical phenomena. If you took identical twins, one would be taller, better-looking and healthier for abstaining compared to a profligate twin.

It does stunt the growth, they’re right. Neuroscience is finding (supernormal) stimulation is really, really bad for you, especially if you’re still developing – the development time is cut prematurely short because the energy gets burnt up. You have a finite supply. Puberty is meant to take many years. Telling men to masturbate, that it’s good for them, might be the first nail in the masculine coffin (same applies for women).

A retardation of your mature sex’s qualities. It’s horrendous.

The best-looking and sounding men I’ve ever seen simply had no desire to masturbate as teenagers (they were busy doing other things). They turned out really well, the so-called “late bloomer” just used to be… normal. By comparison, we all know plenty of people who peaked physically age fifteen then weirdly aged at speed.

Guess what they have in common.

It’s also no coincidence the best geniuses are virgins.

To this day, the life outcomes of those with impulse control are superior, including general health.

Suck on that.

If you want a biological mechanism for this, look into how caloric restriction works. Your body has finite life processing power. Don’t waste it.

Most self-help books for men came in the form of morality lessons.
https://archive.org/details/dangersignals00clar
https://archive.org/details/advicetoyoungmen01cobb

Because they needed it.

No man is beyond reproach.

UNICEF whore

http://www.anothermag.com/design-living/7604/lessons-we-can-learn-from-the-rothschild-surrealist-ball

http://www.renegadetribune.com/17-genuinely-creepy-photos-1972-rothschild-dinner-party/

Flowers

“Also, Stanley Kubrick told fellow jew Frederic Raphael, who co-authored the Eyes Wide Shut script, that “Hitler was right about almost everything” and told him to expunge any jewish influences from the script.”

“discovers an elite secret society and the type of behaviours they exhibit during their “parties.”’
http://blindgossip.com/?p=86192

Comments are interesting.

“While Eyes Wide Shut is shot in England due to Kubricks famous fear of flying, there is actually another movie that was released the same year that is also shot in one of the family castles. But this time it was a french chateau and the movie was Polanski’s The Ninth Gate and it is the same chateau as the ball took place in many years earlier. There is a rumour that Polanski attended the ball but he seemingly managed to avoid the photographer. If that is a myth or not I cannot tell. Your guess is as good as mine.”

“…it should be kept in mind that the book’s author was a Jew. Wiki claims that: Schnitzler’s works were called “Jewish filth” by Adolf Hitler and were banned by the Nazis in Austria and Germany.”

“Kubrick was warning – and then warning more loudly – his fellow Jews that their standard practices would not stand for much longer.”

Who is the modern Audrey?

Where did she buy land?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/virginity-for-sale-cambodia-sex-trade
“After she’d paid her sick husband’s medical bills, given cash to her ageing parents and bought Chamnan a gold necklace to “raise her spirits”, there wasn’t much left.”
R-types. It was the daughter’s wage to spend.
“Where to begin unravelling the shadowy, painful layers of Uy and Chamnan’s story? It is not straightforward. Often overlooked by more dramatic tales of enslavement in brothels, the trade in virgins is one of the most endemic forms of sexual exploitation in Cambodia. It is a market sustained by severe poverty and ingrained gender inequality. Its clients are influential Cambodian men and other members of Asia’s elite who enjoy total impunity from a corrupt justice system. Most misunderstood of all, many of those involved in the transactions are not hardcore criminals. They are mothers, fathers, friends and neighbours.
Cambodia is far FROM the only place where women and girls are treated as commodities. But in this country of 15 million people, the demand for virgins is big business that thrives due to cultural myth and other local factors. “Many Asian men, especially those over 50, believe sex with virgins gives them magical powers to stay young and ward off illness,” says Chhiv Kek Pung, president of Cambodia’s leading human rights organisation, Licadho. “There’s a steady supply of destitute families for the trade to prey on here, and the rule of law is very weak.””
What IQ?
“But there’s another reason the trade is virtually invisible. Says Licadho’s Pung: “In terms of activism, few organisations highlight virgin buying even though it’s a devastating abuse of young women.”‘
“But they are especially dire for women, who earn an average of only 27 cents for every dollar earned by a man, according to the Asian Development Bank.”
“In fact, chbab srey also dictates that women must obey and help their parents, a rule that is almost universally followed. It would have been difficult for Chamnan to refuse.”
An abuse of filial piety.
“(Buyers insist on proof of virginity to make sure they are not being tricked.)”
?
No such thing, ask a gynecologist.
It isn’t like a ringpull on a can.
“He relates how he has been warned by “people high up” not to pursue cases of virgin buying (and also rape) because “having sex is human nature” and such issues were “not serious”.”

No difference. There is no such thing as prostitution, look at the laws closely.

Note to conservatives;

Why is family honour important?

comment
“As a man I struggle to understand having sex with prostitutes of whatever age or whatever gender. Just the idea of having sex with someone who fundamentally doesn’t want to have sex with you is totally unappealing. Obviously this is just me as millions of men seem to have no issue with and then there is the moral/health side of it.
Then you read this, keeping a young woman in a hotel room, having sex with her when she is obviously distressed by the experience.
Just on a selfish level; where is the pleasure in it?
Just don’t get it.”

Cabal logic: It isn’t rape if you bribe them to keep quiet?

The concept of coercion gets a look-in. They can make you poor.

Factually?

Misogyny and sadism. Hurting a man or some adults would have consequences.

Video: Virgins, post-Revolution

That isn’t possible at all.
The Sexual Revolution was designed to reduce the pool of suitable wives.
And to a lesser extent, the suitable husbands (no cheating, no regret, can be satisfied sexually).
Virgin shaming, as it’s been dubbed, is the entire purpose.
This ‘defense’ against slut shaming is based on two lies 1. promiscuity is good for individuals and/or society and 2. sex is a sport, it is athletic and you must do it frequently and well then brag about it or you are missing out on the human experience or you’re less than human/adult. Those are both evil ways to think, if you look. Many of feminism’s problems would dry up if neither of those cruel mindsets applied to people.

It’s like introverts and extraverts, both groups will always exist.
They shine in different times but now society is larger, populations denser and we’re supposed to stay civilized.

When society favours one, things go wrong. Naturally, the sexual experiment has shown all those pesky religious types were right – adultery is up, children have more psychiatric issues than ever, various fetishes are normalized, deviants such as pedophiles are gaining acceptance in tolerance, and undeniably, there are now STDs which cannot be treated. This is a regression, society is devolving and going backwards.
Those with a natural sense of temperance and what’s been called sexual modesty, and it is natural and good to be modest (we evolved for small tribes after all) will naturally feel disgust to those.. lacking.
Those lacking it won’t understand it, and choose to project their feelings of confusion and shame onto those who feel an emotion they cannot, labeling it wrong and unnatural to soothe their conscience (it’s really prostitution the longer you think about the requirements, all intended to serve).

This is the one type of freedom that is bad for humans. Always has been. The neuro-pull is too strong.
It might be acceptable – if contraception didn’t exist.
However, sexuality is the most destructive force in society and contraception makes this more toxic.
Sex is neither a need nor a right. Never has been. It is a drive and desire.
Society must never confuse the words. This is the big lie.
It doesn’t help that a cynical society only sexualises (even children) to sell you things, to use this weakness against your best interest.

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.

Related.

Why won’t women* wait until marriage?

TLDR: Because you keep rewarding marrying the whores.
*Applies vice versa too.

This question is absurd if you know the first thing about human psychology.

awkward-darcy

It presupposes you’d marry them.

I want so dearly to post a screencap breaking this to a lost comrade, who thinks marrying a feminist is a sensible prospect. Here’s the gist of that conversation.

Aren’t you a right-wing hypocrite? Since you’re settling with a feminist, plus she (clearly) isn’t a virgin? Despite how you think that’s the ideal model of society and previously thought guys who settled for less were getting cucked, in some way?

Either it’s the standard or it’s meaningless. You’re a literal virtue signaller.

*cue butthurt*

Well, logically, either it’s a standard or it doesn’t matter, but a lot of men keep selecting long-term prospects based on short-term dating needs then complaining why there aren’t more long-term types.
Like, you can’t sit around twiddling thumbs wondering why more women don’t wait, when the ones who sleep around get picked for marriage just as often or even more often.
Women notice.
The reward incentives are skewed toward the whores, regardless of what men ‘intend’ and supposedly ‘believe’ – they aren’t acting like it.

So it doesn’t matter what they say. Women know men lie through their teeth.

Like, they want a woman to wait, but they refuse to wait for her; the type to insist they ‘try before they buy’ (degenerate) – when they also want a virgin bride so, you tell me how that fucking works.

*cue rationalizations*

*nobody can explain to me how that’s supposed to work*

If men don’t shun the ones who get around in favour of the ones with better morals, they can’t say they care about those morals in ‘mother of their children’ material. It clearly doesn’t matter to them, materially.
Because women look at the role models who get the reward of commitment, and imitate them.

That is literally ALL WOMEN DO.

That’s what they are, role models.
They get the intended ‘prize’ by pretending to play the short game then using endorphins against men to blind them to the woman’s quality since they couldn’t ‘snag’ them without that doping.

It reminds me of the welfare principle compared to Don’t Feed The Bears.

Don’t marry the sluts. Unless you want to make more sluts.

Behaviourism, bitch.

This is quite hilarious and I already having a bet going with a mutual friend about how long this will last. I’m not altogether against it, because it’s clearly the only way he’ll learn his lesson.

And I no longer need to listen to any of his inane opinions on the societal cancer of feminism, it’s brilliant; I can simply direct him to His Wife. You’re in favour of feminism if you literally marry it. Protip for women: never let a man use you as an emotional crutch to relieve his SO. It’s good for him and neither of you.

Can you guess which category these matches fall into, given the wealth of research that partners need like-views on matters political and religious?

The Prisoner's Dilemma as Applied to Marriage game theory original

However.

I will post a single line of screencap because it made me almost fall over laughing.

usedup

Why?

His choice of words, not mine.

waistcoat-and-cropped-jacket

The utter hypocrisy of the signalling Right.
The fastest way to kill feminism is to destroy its signalling value. If no man ever married a feminist again, it would go back to being all lesbians. Commitment is the only card you have over us, don’t waste it!

It’s the ONE card men have over the modern woman, the Trump card, if you will.

It’s literally the only form of strike the feminists would ever truly care about, since it’s the only thing other women would care about, moving us either way. Calling them fat on twitter won’t work, see the song Dear Future Husband.

A good old-fashioned public shaming works, but while we’re shaming the sluts (male and female alike), what about the people supposedly on our team who marry them? Shouldn’t the shaming be greater, since they claim to know better?

You have literally fucked the supply and demand curve in the Marital MarketPlace (MMP).

That isn’t on women, that’s on the right-thinking men who marry left.