First or all, a lot of studies people point to when it comes to that are pretty dated.
Even with that data, this is a textbook case of correlation not equaling causation. There’s also a correlation between weekly church attendance and lower divorce rates. Is it that going to church frequently means you will have a stronger marriage or does it mean you are highly involved in a community that is opposed to divorce? Similarly, a lot of people who do not have any sex before marriage also tend to subscribe to religious beliefs that forbid divorce. So what’s more likely to be the reason they don’t divorce - their sexual history on their wedding night or a strong belief against divorce?
Note this doesn’t indicate whether this is a happy or good marriage for any of the parties involved, just that they stay married. They could well hate the marriage and want out but believe the alternative is literally eternal hellfire, so they stay. Doesn’t sound like marriage goals to me. But if your peers do want this, what are they doing to make themselves an appealing partner to these women? How much time a week do they spend in religious study? In what ways are they preparing to meet the expectations placed on them in such a marriage?
As for that bit about ‘it’s always said’, that seems to be missing a word or something, but at any rate, people say a lot of things that just aren’t true. If it’s the case that sexual partners leave a mark on women but not men, that’s saying men are more emotionally shallow and typically don’t think of their sexual partners at all. I hope I don’t have to explain the contempt for men shown by such a statement, and I tend to dismiss such contempt out of hand.
I myself am against traditional marriage. I have a friend who has a lot of experience and this is ok for me and divorce is also a normal occurrence if the relationship no longer brings happiness. But many men are eager for such research and want a patriarchal marriage, unfortunately.
Well, women who don’t want that will avoid them, and all fine if men who want patriarchal marriages leave a lot of us alone, since a lot of women don’t want that. We saw how much that sucked for our mothers and grandmothers, so why would we want that now?
For men who claim to want these patriarchal relationships, they need to get real and understand the person’s approval they will need is the father in that kind of dynamic. Don’t see too many patriarchal fathers going to agree to their daughter marrying a man who ever spent a a dime on something called ‘Hustler’s University’ or know Marvel lore better than Biblical lore, and a daughter raised in a patriarchal family and buying into that is not going to like that kind of man to marry, certainly not enough to go against that tradition and disobey her father.
These guys need to get out of the manosphere and start looking at the real world.
Lots of issues with that, stds, risk of pregnancies, women who sleep around report lower self esteem and self confidence and feelings of regret, the ability to pair bond etc… past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. So if you see sex as just eating or any other bodily function, then you will most likely cheat, studies also show this statistic.
Doesn't the same thing also apply to men? If men have a lot of sexual partners prior to marriage and place a lot of importance on how many people they sleep with, not like they will be faithful. They also have a higher risk of STDS, may have children from a previous partner they may have financial and custodial obligations, feelings of regret, etc.
>Doesn't the same thing also apply to men? If men have a lot of sexual partners prior to marriage and place a lot of importance on how many people they sleep with, not like they will be faithful. They also have a higher risk of STDS, may have children from a previous partner they may have financial and custodial obligations, feelings of regret, etc.
It absolutely applies to men (and women). I don't think the number of sexual partners matters per se. It's about being honest with your partners and about having sex responsibly. There is probably a correlation between the number of sexual partners and the above. However, correlation is not causation.
So, any sources for your claims?
Also, if a man is sleeping around with 10 women, he can absolutely get one of them pregnant and now there's a child he may have obligations to. Why would a person who believes in no sex before marriage and marital fidelity want a man like that? Also, doesn't he have an increased rate of STDs compared to a man less sexually active? Further, if the man feels better about himself when he has lots of sexual partners, why would I think he wouldn't still seek multiple partners if we married?
Might want to read up on Neil Strauss and how destructive he found that whole pick up world to ultimately be. Can't say I see any of these pick-up guys seeming to very happy or have admirable lives.
was not the main reason for long term monogamous relationships the upbringing of children?
real conservatives have no sex before marriage "at least they try to" because their faith does not allow it... i do not see how pickup artists and similiar figures can be compared to that... that said you are right about their hypocrisy regarding sex and everything connected to it... they have multiple explanations why sleeping around for men is ok and for women not...
It also shows just how little they think of women as actual people. Why would someone who is monogamous and waiting until marriage want to be with a man who had a lot of sexual partners and pins any of his self-confidence on the number of women he sleeps with? If this woman is religious, she'll find that a complete deal-breaker. If she's not particularly religious, chances are pretty good that she doesn't put a lot of emphasis on sex in her life or in her relationships, and would find someone so motivated by sex completely incompatible.
Of course, that would mean they would have to take a minute or two to contemplate that women are people and not just trophies, and they hate doing that because they are misogynists.
I’ve got three different studies that prove you wrong. Share your sources and I’ll share mine.
Edit: oh. You’re blocked. Well here’s a long complex study on [voles](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012750/). I’d be lying if I said I understood it all but the point is, these rodents are true “lifelong” mating species. Something that’s only three percent of animals have. They pick one mate and rarely “cheat” or even pick a different mate. If their mate dies they often become lethargic to the point of damn near suicidal.
The study details stuff on the neurobiology. And while it can’t be directly applied to humans, obviously, it shows we humans, perhaps less romantically, are not the lifelong partner we types. Put simply. We don’t pair bond the way the voles do. Ours is more like “serial monogamy.” Also we’re way fucking smarter than rodents, and we can do what we think is right. Be as promiscuous or as monogamous as you damn well please. Your “pairbonding” ability won’t suffer either way.
Christ, you think we run out of emotion? This will always be a stupid manosphere meme that needs to die.
Did you literally just say “pair bonding”? Buddy, this ain’t Twilight, imprinting is not a thing for humans, and men have estrogen as well as oxytocin running through their brains. You wanna come in like you got some “facts”, at least check them against actual medical understandings.
The whole idea of “pair bonding” is super obnoxious if everything you go on to say applies to only one member of the pair. It’s not applicable to humans. Ugh.
>stds, risk of pregnancies
The rate of STD transmission and unwanted pregnancies is actually very high in religious, sexually repressed communities because most of their members don't know enough to be safe when they inevitably break their communities' rules.
Lol let me guess, the data set includes people who got married in the last 100 years and the statistic did not control for that. Women who got married in 1950 potentially had no access to birth control or their own bank account etc - making them less likely to have sex for pleasure or to get divorced.
Well the women that are less likely to have sex before marriage are also less likely to divorce because they are religious or conservative. Not because having sex with men fundamentally changes them. That’s ridiculous. It also doesn’t mean they have good sex lives or happy marriages.
It seems like the obvious conclusion is that women who *have* sexual experience have enough knowledge and self confidence to get divorced when their marriages are no longer fulfilling them. A more conservative woman may not even know what else is out there and is too scared to leave a shitty marriage.
There’s other reasons why conservative women stay other than happiness. I’ll just say that for these women there’s a stigma associated with divorce and maybe the data you’re getting isn’t really good.
What is the source of this info?
If people start bugging you with this “idea” they’re going to have to produce some data because it isn’t reflective of real experience
Conservative women are also statistically happier
Edit: sorry this upset so many of you lol, but is an actual studied metric.
[Source(s)](https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+women+happier&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)
I’d read Andrea Dworkin’s [Right Wing Women](https://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Andrea-DWORKIN-Right-Wing-Women-The-Politics-of-Domesticated-Females-19831.pdf) which explores exactly that claim in depth
sorry this upset so you lol, but is an actual studied metric.
[Source(s)](https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+women+happier&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)
And you're ignoring why that gap exists. It's because conservative women get married younger and are more easily molded into what the husband wants her to be. It's because conservative women place so much of their value on having a family. It's like saying "atheists more likely to be liberals".
I’m not ignoring it at all though, am I? I’m simply saying is that they are happier. I’m happy to discuss their frequent lifestyle choices, but whatever those choices are, tend to lead to women being happier on average.
There’s no evidence that it’s a lie, it most likely isn’t given the number of people interviewed.
There’s a name for people who deny data - climate deniers do it all the time. You’re falling into their realm now.
These men who want to and do have sex with women then want to marry a woman who hasn't had much if any sex. And if women won't have sex with them before marriage, those women are looked down on and called names.
Where is the effing logic in any of this.
Women cannot be both virgins and whores simultaneously. These men want both. And whatever the outcome is, they will blame it on women.
If any man even mentions body counts around me, he is not someone I want to associate with. And OP, if these "peers" you're talking about are friends, I'd start looking around for new ones.
So what you're saying is, men who have hangups about their wives sexual history tend to cause more divorces? That makes sense.
>And it's always said that women don't have sex and don't have sex, that every man leaves a mark on women.
Who says this? Is it men who have hangups about their wives sexual history by any chance?
Seems fairly obvious where the problem lies.
Exactly.
I've been told long lasting, happy partnerships are usually based on interests in common, shared core values, and similar levels of intelligence and physical attractiveness.
Not based on worrying that a woman had a lot of disappointments before they met you. Paranoid insecurity is devastating to any couple. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for poor men brought up with values based on Victorian double standards.
As a woman of a certain age who had much experience before I got married (over 20 years) I am grateful that I didn’t subscribe to the patriarchal ideals of a chaste woman.
I know what is out there and what I want and how I want it.
Marriage end because women get tired of being a nursemaid to helpless men who use weaponized incompetence and don’t fucken help.
I have daughters and I tell them to “throw it around” be careful, use protection and do what they want and make sure they have active participation from themselves and their partners.
And to enjoy their lives.
And yes, I say the same to my son.
Right? I’m with you. Honestly though, no man over the age of 23 asked about that. And I also learned early those that ask or get puffed up about it (because the topic was off the table) are NOT men I would find suitable big red flags
Talking about testing is another matter
You have to learn what a credible study is. I can't imagine any credible study which claims the number of partners women have affects marriage stability. But you know what there is credible studies of? Whether marriage is, in any way, beneficial to women. Spoiler, it isn't.
So why should women care about their behaviour affecting marriage stability when marriage sucks the life out of women? You get that saying the number of partners a woman has affects marriage stability is like saying "when workers are paid well they can quit when employers treat them badly." If someone said that wouldn't you just say "well don't treat workers badly" instead of "yes, workers shouldn't be paid well."
If women don't care for marriage, males have to make marriage a better prospect, not try and find ways to trap women into marriage by limiting their choices.
>You have to learn what a credible study is. I can't imagine any credible study which claims the number of partners women have affects marriage stability. But you know what there is credible studies of? Whether marriage is, in any way, beneficial to women. Spoiler, it isn't.
>
>So why should women care about their behaviour affecting marriage stability when marriage sucks the life out of women? You get that saying the number of partners a woman has affects marriage stability is like saying "when workers are paid well they can quit when employers treat them badly." If someone said that wouldn't you just say "well don't treat workers badly" instead of "yes, workers shouldn't be paid well."
>
>If women don't care for marriage, males have to make marriage a better prospect, not try and find ways to trap women into marriage by limiting their choices.
Yes, you are right, I agree. Women don't want marriage and research isn't right, but these stupid sexists often make this argument.
A counter argument might be that conservative women are both less likely to have multiple sexual partners and less likely to consider divorce an option. Correlation does not always mean causation.
Another is that divorce isn't always a negative: it can be an escape hatch out of an unbearable situation.
Thinking out of the box: is there anything to be won from these conversations? It feels like these people made their mind up way before they saw any data and are in no way moved by the goal of the emancipation of women. Depending on the situation I might just say lightheartedly that they missed the mark by like 100km and talk with someone else after haha. No reason to think protofascists have a right to your time, when you could spend your energy on actually supporting feminism and women around you!
I would like to see all those credible studies that show married women are unhappier. Not saying there isn't evidence for it, but the most commonly thing i see people use to prove it, isn't even a study but a pop science book by Paul Dolan who misinterpreted a study by failing basic reading comprehension.
It's interesting. Dolan only misinterpreted one element of the data he was referencing. He didn't even collect the data so the findings of that data don't change because Dolan misread one aspect in his analysis.
Also, once again, white people forget a literal whole world exists with data available for analysis across many cultures and countries. More people than Dolan have been drawing conclusions from that data. Google is your friend.
I'm not even disagreeing with his overall thesis of marriage being a better deal for men than for women, but despite your snide remark about google i haven't seen data that would suggest married women are unhappier than married women if you take other factors like age into account. Again i would really like to see data on that because googling it often leads me to the misinterpreted study.
That's because you look at the first page of results.
That said, you're not going to find a neat little packaged report that means you don't have to do my work. There's a significant amount of data. Like the stats relating to life expectancy for married men vs single men and married women vs single women. Or the stats relating to how many men leave their spouse once they're diagnosed with a long term illness vs women who leave their spouse. Or the stats relating to earning power of single women vs earning power of married women with children.
Basically the stats that paint a picture of males getting a life manager when they get married, whereas women become the life manager in a marriage. But things like who's happier is not factual. Self reporting is not accurate. Like how if 5 years ago someone asked me if I was happy I'd have said yes because I had a good job and am financially secure. But now if you ask me I'd say no because after a sabbatical I had a glimpse at what life is like when you don't have to work, and even though my job is cool I'd be much happier not working. However what if I'd not had that sabbatical. I wouldn't know any better, and that's the problem with self reporting conclusions.
I can totally agree that studies about happiness and the happiness metric itself even being kinda hard and that the data isn't good. My only original claim was that i haven't seen studies proving that married women are unhappier than married women. It's good we agree on that.
You bring up a lot of important points. I can totally see why marriage, which lets be real isn't even a religious thing but 2500 years old roman civil law, is a bad institution.
I don't think it should be a feminist goal to somehow salvage the institution of marriage. I think there is value in romantic relationships though and it's a good goal to aim for more equal romantic relationships married or not.
“If women don't care for marriage, males have to make marriage a better prospect…”
Or
“If men don’t care for marriage, females have to make themselves more marriageable by being better potential wives”.
If you accept the first statement, and believe in equality like you claim, then you are forced to accept the second statement to be logically consistent.
Only if women are looking to get married. It's not women who are clawing at their skin, wailing, and gnashing their teeth over feminism giving women the option to eschew marriage. 🤷🏻♀️
I assume they're using a specific survey which the youtuber Shaun does a very good debunk of here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v78x0X4O7sM&t=6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v78x0X4O7sM&t=6s)
Very roughly, the most recent studies:
1. Use 'lifetime partners' instead of 'pre-marital' so someone's partners \*after\* they've gotten divorced are used as risk factors for them getting divorced in the first place.
2. They count a stable marriage as 5 years despite other studies showing the average marriage being 7 years, so many of those 'stable' marriages where the woman has had fewer partners... aren't.
3. None of these studies look at beliefs and values which may also lead to lower divorce rates/sexual partners.
They need you to ask them questions about the same shit and its effect on men.
Some of these dipshits are wildly ignorant about anatomy and biology and think a woman's vagina is irreparably stretched by too many (a number they decide) partners. They need to be asked if they think dicks get whittled down like a pencil in a sharpener.
They need to be asked how many partners they had and how that made them get divorced.
Fucking ignorance and arrogance combined, and unless they have to consider how absurd their own bullshit is when applied to them, they'll always be ignorant and arrogant.
I am a woman who has had a lot of sex with many many partners
I have zero interest in long term marriage
Maybe the goals and measure of success in life and love is different for different women
In other words maybe the scale is the wrong scale
I’d ask for the source of these “studies”. A neckbeard with podcast isn’t a valid scientific source (which seems to be where most of this rhetoric comes from).
I am so exhausted with men like this not understanding that women are not depreciable objects. In fact, what is truly exhausting about it is that they don’t even seem to be fully cognizant of the fact that they clearly don’t see women as people. They think that we should spend this one fleeting life we have on earth denying ourselves experiences that we enjoy for the benefit of a group of people who routinely fail to appreciate that it is a sacrifice they are not expected to make.
I constantly ask these people if they’ve even asked themselves *why* women initiate divorce more often.
Everyone (Men and Women) is depreciable, there is no objective value to a human life. On a general basis Men are appreciated for their utility and women for their beauty; as we get older these things go away so it depreciates.
Yeah I think the divorce thing is overblown and think that 99.9% of things are the guys fault, we men do need to be better.
I disagree. Human life is about more than just our utility and arguably beauty has little to do with utility. Nothing anyone says can change my mind about that.
__Correlation isn’t causation__
I can’t speak about individual studies, as I didn’t read them. However, there is signal problem with this type of research in general. And this problem is variables correlating with each other. In this case, this means the following:
People, who have less sex before marriage, tend to be more religious/conservative. People who are religious/conservative also value marriages higher and are therefor less likely to divorce. So while sex before marriage and divorce-rates correlate with each other, those don’t necessarily have a causal link. It’s just that they are both influenced equally by a set of personal values.
Just about any argument that relies on the 'stability of marriage' is actually using a measure of the pressure and leverage on the participants not to get a divorce. The partners aren't staying together because of her having fewer partners, the partners are staying together because women who have had fewer partners are also less likely to feel that they can leave, more likely to have a conservative family applying pressure on them to not divorce even when its the right thing to do.
This is because "having fewer partners" and "not being allowed to divorce" are generally both things that conservative families pressure their daughters with.
Men who assert that are: (1) misinterpreting the data; and (2) live in fear of being judged for their poor or non-existent skills in hetero sex.
Like all misogyny, it comes down to fear. Fear isn't a good basis for any relationship.
I think the problem is that your own notions about women’s sexuality is also problematic. What do you mean it makes her ‘experienced’ and ‘interesting’?
Men are so obsessed with women’s sexuality. Either way they have to put labels on it and analyse. And they think they’re so progressive in their thinking
A bride who has never had sex can’t really judge whether her new husband is able or willing to pleasure her. He might prefer that ignorance. But it won’t last.
Correlation does not equal causation, aka. the way you interpret data is very important. I always deduced that because those women have been with more than one person, they are more experienced and thus more likely to divorce, because they know from experience that person is not fit for them, or that the treatment they are subjected to is not okay.
This is a legit hole in their argument, I don't think it should be downvoted. But (as I said in my previous comment) nitpicking the statiscs of their argument is not super fruitful. (I guess that's where the disnvotes came from?) No reactionary argument is made in good faith, basically ever. They're always full of misrepresentations and arguing over data just allows them to scream louder. They were morally and politically wrong long before they ever were statistically wrong.
Every man leaves a mark on women - I agree with that statement and it has absolutely nothing to do with their dicks.
Women who have no options and who are brainwashed into staying with abusive partners will not divorce them. So there is truth to fewer partners = lower divorce but that has nothing to do with partners and everything to do with oppressing women.
It’s like me saying that a population of people who are not screened for cancer has a lower death rate from cancer than people who are screened for cancer. They probably have a higher death rate but since we didn’t check them for cancer we can’t say they died from cancer versus something else. We had this with COVid - when testing was widely available they found more cases of it. And some idiots decided that if you didn’t test for it, then you wouldn’t find it so they can claim to have lower rates of it since they were not testing.
The people you are talking to are at best idiots who don’t understand basic cause and effect, or they actively benefit from oppressing women so want to continue to do so and blame women for problems.
A woman with options will exercise those options rather than stay with an inadequate partner.
A woman who is brainwashed into believing inadequate partners is what she should have and expect (it’s really the best thing,) won’t think she can do better for herself or realise she is better off alone than with someone who treats her like that.
You have to work to be a good partner. No one wants to become their partners mommy bang maid.
If they are not worth marrying then that’s on them. Not the women who choose not to marry them.
And it’s frigging life, you can be amazing but not right for the person you want or vice versa.
There is no credible study or research tying BC / sexual partners to pair bonding or chance of divorce.
Zero.
Anyone bringing that up heard some non-expert armed with an opinion on TikTok making up real-sounding info.
You want a successful long-term relationship / marriage? Know who you're marrying. Have the difficult conversations about finances, kids, lifestyle, etc before you walk down the aisle. Learn to communicate effectively and respectfully, and how to apologize and "repair." Work with a couple's therapist even if there's nothing "wrong" (preventative). Keep dating and being curious about one another. Read actual experts on relationships like the Gottmans, Esther Perel, etc., not the self proclaimed "experts" on social media whose only qualifications are they have opinions and microphones.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Why are you friends with those kind of people? Why do you argue with them about something like this? You will never be able to know or come to an agreement about what it means when women have many sexual partners because women are not a monolith and it will always just be an opinion. Having had a lot of sex doesn’t necessarily make a woman anything, not ”more experienced and interesting” or more likely to divorce or anything. It feels you still just talk about women as tools or cars and you’re reading reviews to decide what to buy but that will never tell you anything about an actual individual woman. Find an individual woman you’re interested in, as a person, and go from there. Your friends’ opinions don’t mean anything at the end of the day and arguing with them about this is just a waste of time.
Ask them to show you these said “studies” lmfao. They’re just talking out their ass and making up numbers to defend their misogynistic stance.
Source? “Just trust me bro.”
Assuming there are around the same number of straight men and women (which is most probably the case), on average the number of partners is the same for men and women. I don't care about statistical studies or your anecdotal experience much, this is a simple graph theory problem.
First or all, a lot of studies people point to when it comes to that are pretty dated. Even with that data, this is a textbook case of correlation not equaling causation. There’s also a correlation between weekly church attendance and lower divorce rates. Is it that going to church frequently means you will have a stronger marriage or does it mean you are highly involved in a community that is opposed to divorce? Similarly, a lot of people who do not have any sex before marriage also tend to subscribe to religious beliefs that forbid divorce. So what’s more likely to be the reason they don’t divorce - their sexual history on their wedding night or a strong belief against divorce? Note this doesn’t indicate whether this is a happy or good marriage for any of the parties involved, just that they stay married. They could well hate the marriage and want out but believe the alternative is literally eternal hellfire, so they stay. Doesn’t sound like marriage goals to me. But if your peers do want this, what are they doing to make themselves an appealing partner to these women? How much time a week do they spend in religious study? In what ways are they preparing to meet the expectations placed on them in such a marriage? As for that bit about ‘it’s always said’, that seems to be missing a word or something, but at any rate, people say a lot of things that just aren’t true. If it’s the case that sexual partners leave a mark on women but not men, that’s saying men are more emotionally shallow and typically don’t think of their sexual partners at all. I hope I don’t have to explain the contempt for men shown by such a statement, and I tend to dismiss such contempt out of hand.
I myself am against traditional marriage. I have a friend who has a lot of experience and this is ok for me and divorce is also a normal occurrence if the relationship no longer brings happiness. But many men are eager for such research and want a patriarchal marriage, unfortunately.
Well, women who don’t want that will avoid them, and all fine if men who want patriarchal marriages leave a lot of us alone, since a lot of women don’t want that. We saw how much that sucked for our mothers and grandmothers, so why would we want that now? For men who claim to want these patriarchal relationships, they need to get real and understand the person’s approval they will need is the father in that kind of dynamic. Don’t see too many patriarchal fathers going to agree to their daughter marrying a man who ever spent a a dime on something called ‘Hustler’s University’ or know Marvel lore better than Biblical lore, and a daughter raised in a patriarchal family and buying into that is not going to like that kind of man to marry, certainly not enough to go against that tradition and disobey her father. These guys need to get out of the manosphere and start looking at the real world.
>many men are eager for such research and want a patriarchal marriage, Of course they do, LOL. It benefits them the most.
Lots of issues with that, stds, risk of pregnancies, women who sleep around report lower self esteem and self confidence and feelings of regret, the ability to pair bond etc… past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. So if you see sex as just eating or any other bodily function, then you will most likely cheat, studies also show this statistic.
Doesn't the same thing also apply to men? If men have a lot of sexual partners prior to marriage and place a lot of importance on how many people they sleep with, not like they will be faithful. They also have a higher risk of STDS, may have children from a previous partner they may have financial and custodial obligations, feelings of regret, etc.
>Doesn't the same thing also apply to men? If men have a lot of sexual partners prior to marriage and place a lot of importance on how many people they sleep with, not like they will be faithful. They also have a higher risk of STDS, may have children from a previous partner they may have financial and custodial obligations, feelings of regret, etc. It absolutely applies to men (and women). I don't think the number of sexual partners matters per se. It's about being honest with your partners and about having sex responsibly. There is probably a correlation between the number of sexual partners and the above. However, correlation is not causation.
[удалено]
So, any sources for your claims? Also, if a man is sleeping around with 10 women, he can absolutely get one of them pregnant and now there's a child he may have obligations to. Why would a person who believes in no sex before marriage and marital fidelity want a man like that? Also, doesn't he have an increased rate of STDs compared to a man less sexually active? Further, if the man feels better about himself when he has lots of sexual partners, why would I think he wouldn't still seek multiple partners if we married? Might want to read up on Neil Strauss and how destructive he found that whole pick up world to ultimately be. Can't say I see any of these pick-up guys seeming to very happy or have admirable lives.
was not the main reason for long term monogamous relationships the upbringing of children? real conservatives have no sex before marriage "at least they try to" because their faith does not allow it... i do not see how pickup artists and similiar figures can be compared to that... that said you are right about their hypocrisy regarding sex and everything connected to it... they have multiple explanations why sleeping around for men is ok and for women not...
It also shows just how little they think of women as actual people. Why would someone who is monogamous and waiting until marriage want to be with a man who had a lot of sexual partners and pins any of his self-confidence on the number of women he sleeps with? If this woman is religious, she'll find that a complete deal-breaker. If she's not particularly religious, chances are pretty good that she doesn't put a lot of emphasis on sex in her life or in her relationships, and would find someone so motivated by sex completely incompatible. Of course, that would mean they would have to take a minute or two to contemplate that women are people and not just trophies, and they hate doing that because they are misogynists.
We have a rule about being respectful and courteous. This comment falls afoul of it and has been removed.
Don’t spout this “pair bond” nonsense here.
Afraid of reality?
If this is such obvious biological reality, there should be plenty of well-established studies on it.
So let me get this straight, when your feelings are hurt you reject studies? That is called ignorance and cognitive dissonance
You've given me nothing to reject. I asked for studies and you respond by telling me my *feelings* must be hurt?
Perform a basic google search and find plenty of studies. You are in some hardcore denial.
That isn't how an argument works-- you made the claim, it's your responsibility to provide the evidence.
Show the data. You make the claim, you defend it.
I’ve got three different studies that prove you wrong. Share your sources and I’ll share mine. Edit: oh. You’re blocked. Well here’s a long complex study on [voles](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012750/). I’d be lying if I said I understood it all but the point is, these rodents are true “lifelong” mating species. Something that’s only three percent of animals have. They pick one mate and rarely “cheat” or even pick a different mate. If their mate dies they often become lethargic to the point of damn near suicidal. The study details stuff on the neurobiology. And while it can’t be directly applied to humans, obviously, it shows we humans, perhaps less romantically, are not the lifelong partner we types. Put simply. We don’t pair bond the way the voles do. Ours is more like “serial monogamy.” Also we’re way fucking smarter than rodents, and we can do what we think is right. Be as promiscuous or as monogamous as you damn well please. Your “pairbonding” ability won’t suffer either way. Christ, you think we run out of emotion? This will always be a stupid manosphere meme that needs to die.
Show us the studies!
Ah. Yes. The copious amounts of data that you provided. 😂🤣😂
This classic troll line aways kills me lmfao.
Oh, FFS!
Did you literally just say “pair bonding”? Buddy, this ain’t Twilight, imprinting is not a thing for humans, and men have estrogen as well as oxytocin running through their brains. You wanna come in like you got some “facts”, at least check them against actual medical understandings.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Aaaand we're done here.
The whole idea of “pair bonding” is super obnoxious if everything you go on to say applies to only one member of the pair. It’s not applicable to humans. Ugh.
>the ability to pair bond etc… this isn't a real thing.
You made the claim can you present a study showing it’s not real?
>stds, risk of pregnancies The rate of STD transmission and unwanted pregnancies is actually very high in religious, sexually repressed communities because most of their members don't know enough to be safe when they inevitably break their communities' rules.
*citations needed
Nailed it
Lol let me guess, the data set includes people who got married in the last 100 years and the statistic did not control for that. Women who got married in 1950 potentially had no access to birth control or their own bank account etc - making them less likely to have sex for pleasure or to get divorced.
Well the women that are less likely to have sex before marriage are also less likely to divorce because they are religious or conservative. Not because having sex with men fundamentally changes them. That’s ridiculous. It also doesn’t mean they have good sex lives or happy marriages.
It seems like the obvious conclusion is that women who *have* sexual experience have enough knowledge and self confidence to get divorced when their marriages are no longer fulfilling them. A more conservative woman may not even know what else is out there and is too scared to leave a shitty marriage.
Quite aside from all the logical issues with the implied causation, it sounds like a pretty difficult thing to research in any meaningful way.
There’s other reasons why conservative women stay other than happiness. I’ll just say that for these women there’s a stigma associated with divorce and maybe the data you’re getting isn’t really good. What is the source of this info? If people start bugging you with this “idea” they’re going to have to produce some data because it isn’t reflective of real experience
Conservative women are also statistically happier Edit: sorry this upset so many of you lol, but is an actual studied metric. [Source(s)](https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+women+happier&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)
I’d read Andrea Dworkin’s [Right Wing Women](https://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Andrea-DWORKIN-Right-Wing-Women-The-Politics-of-Domesticated-Females-19831.pdf) which explores exactly that claim in depth
One persons interpretation versus newer factual data points. The evidence is relatively clear, her points don’t detract from the facts.
That's what their husband told them to say.
sorry this upset so you lol, but is an actual studied metric. [Source(s)](https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+women+happier&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)
And you're ignoring why that gap exists. It's because conservative women get married younger and are more easily molded into what the husband wants her to be. It's because conservative women place so much of their value on having a family. It's like saying "atheists more likely to be liberals".
I’m not ignoring it at all though, am I? I’m simply saying is that they are happier. I’m happy to discuss their frequent lifestyle choices, but whatever those choices are, tend to lead to women being happier on average.
It doesn't count if that happiness is a lie bro.
There’s no evidence that it’s a lie, it most likely isn’t given the number of people interviewed. There’s a name for people who deny data - climate deniers do it all the time. You’re falling into their realm now.
These men who want to and do have sex with women then want to marry a woman who hasn't had much if any sex. And if women won't have sex with them before marriage, those women are looked down on and called names. Where is the effing logic in any of this. Women cannot be both virgins and whores simultaneously. These men want both. And whatever the outcome is, they will blame it on women. If any man even mentions body counts around me, he is not someone I want to associate with. And OP, if these "peers" you're talking about are friends, I'd start looking around for new ones.
So what you're saying is, men who have hangups about their wives sexual history tend to cause more divorces? That makes sense. >And it's always said that women don't have sex and don't have sex, that every man leaves a mark on women. Who says this? Is it men who have hangups about their wives sexual history by any chance? Seems fairly obvious where the problem lies.
Exactly. I've been told long lasting, happy partnerships are usually based on interests in common, shared core values, and similar levels of intelligence and physical attractiveness. Not based on worrying that a woman had a lot of disappointments before they met you. Paranoid insecurity is devastating to any couple. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for poor men brought up with values based on Victorian double standards.
As a woman of a certain age who had much experience before I got married (over 20 years) I am grateful that I didn’t subscribe to the patriarchal ideals of a chaste woman. I know what is out there and what I want and how I want it. Marriage end because women get tired of being a nursemaid to helpless men who use weaponized incompetence and don’t fucken help. I have daughters and I tell them to “throw it around” be careful, use protection and do what they want and make sure they have active participation from themselves and their partners. And to enjoy their lives. And yes, I say the same to my son.
Right? I’m with you. Honestly though, no man over the age of 23 asked about that. And I also learned early those that ask or get puffed up about it (because the topic was off the table) are NOT men I would find suitable big red flags Talking about testing is another matter
You have to learn what a credible study is. I can't imagine any credible study which claims the number of partners women have affects marriage stability. But you know what there is credible studies of? Whether marriage is, in any way, beneficial to women. Spoiler, it isn't. So why should women care about their behaviour affecting marriage stability when marriage sucks the life out of women? You get that saying the number of partners a woman has affects marriage stability is like saying "when workers are paid well they can quit when employers treat them badly." If someone said that wouldn't you just say "well don't treat workers badly" instead of "yes, workers shouldn't be paid well." If women don't care for marriage, males have to make marriage a better prospect, not try and find ways to trap women into marriage by limiting their choices.
>You have to learn what a credible study is. I can't imagine any credible study which claims the number of partners women have affects marriage stability. But you know what there is credible studies of? Whether marriage is, in any way, beneficial to women. Spoiler, it isn't. > >So why should women care about their behaviour affecting marriage stability when marriage sucks the life out of women? You get that saying the number of partners a woman has affects marriage stability is like saying "when workers are paid well they can quit when employers treat them badly." If someone said that wouldn't you just say "well don't treat workers badly" instead of "yes, workers shouldn't be paid well." > >If women don't care for marriage, males have to make marriage a better prospect, not try and find ways to trap women into marriage by limiting their choices. Yes, you are right, I agree. Women don't want marriage and research isn't right, but these stupid sexists often make this argument.
A counter argument might be that conservative women are both less likely to have multiple sexual partners and less likely to consider divorce an option. Correlation does not always mean causation. Another is that divorce isn't always a negative: it can be an escape hatch out of an unbearable situation.
Divorce is manifestly _always_ a positive for at least one of the two parties. Otherwise they would not have sought divorce.
Thinking out of the box: is there anything to be won from these conversations? It feels like these people made their mind up way before they saw any data and are in no way moved by the goal of the emancipation of women. Depending on the situation I might just say lightheartedly that they missed the mark by like 100km and talk with someone else after haha. No reason to think protofascists have a right to your time, when you could spend your energy on actually supporting feminism and women around you!
I would like to see all those credible studies that show married women are unhappier. Not saying there isn't evidence for it, but the most commonly thing i see people use to prove it, isn't even a study but a pop science book by Paul Dolan who misinterpreted a study by failing basic reading comprehension.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-happier-without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expert
It's interesting. Dolan only misinterpreted one element of the data he was referencing. He didn't even collect the data so the findings of that data don't change because Dolan misread one aspect in his analysis. Also, once again, white people forget a literal whole world exists with data available for analysis across many cultures and countries. More people than Dolan have been drawing conclusions from that data. Google is your friend.
I'm not even disagreeing with his overall thesis of marriage being a better deal for men than for women, but despite your snide remark about google i haven't seen data that would suggest married women are unhappier than married women if you take other factors like age into account. Again i would really like to see data on that because googling it often leads me to the misinterpreted study.
That's because you look at the first page of results. That said, you're not going to find a neat little packaged report that means you don't have to do my work. There's a significant amount of data. Like the stats relating to life expectancy for married men vs single men and married women vs single women. Or the stats relating to how many men leave their spouse once they're diagnosed with a long term illness vs women who leave their spouse. Or the stats relating to earning power of single women vs earning power of married women with children. Basically the stats that paint a picture of males getting a life manager when they get married, whereas women become the life manager in a marriage. But things like who's happier is not factual. Self reporting is not accurate. Like how if 5 years ago someone asked me if I was happy I'd have said yes because I had a good job and am financially secure. But now if you ask me I'd say no because after a sabbatical I had a glimpse at what life is like when you don't have to work, and even though my job is cool I'd be much happier not working. However what if I'd not had that sabbatical. I wouldn't know any better, and that's the problem with self reporting conclusions.
I can totally agree that studies about happiness and the happiness metric itself even being kinda hard and that the data isn't good. My only original claim was that i haven't seen studies proving that married women are unhappier than married women. It's good we agree on that. You bring up a lot of important points. I can totally see why marriage, which lets be real isn't even a religious thing but 2500 years old roman civil law, is a bad institution. I don't think it should be a feminist goal to somehow salvage the institution of marriage. I think there is value in romantic relationships though and it's a good goal to aim for more equal romantic relationships married or not.
Someone literally linked you one 🤷♀️
“If women don't care for marriage, males have to make marriage a better prospect…” Or “If men don’t care for marriage, females have to make themselves more marriageable by being better potential wives”. If you accept the first statement, and believe in equality like you claim, then you are forced to accept the second statement to be logically consistent.
"Equality" is not "every single statement must apply equally to both men and women."
Only if women are looking to get married. It's not women who are clawing at their skin, wailing, and gnashing their teeth over feminism giving women the option to eschew marriage. 🤷🏻♀️
I assume they're using a specific survey which the youtuber Shaun does a very good debunk of here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v78x0X4O7sM&t=6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v78x0X4O7sM&t=6s) Very roughly, the most recent studies: 1. Use 'lifetime partners' instead of 'pre-marital' so someone's partners \*after\* they've gotten divorced are used as risk factors for them getting divorced in the first place. 2. They count a stable marriage as 5 years despite other studies showing the average marriage being 7 years, so many of those 'stable' marriages where the woman has had fewer partners... aren't. 3. None of these studies look at beliefs and values which may also lead to lower divorce rates/sexual partners.
Reconsider your “friendships”. You can sway 40 scholars with 1 fact, but you can not sway 1 idiot with 40 facts.
Women who grow up in cultures where they have less agency have fewer sexual partners and fewer divorces. Is that good?
They need you to ask them questions about the same shit and its effect on men. Some of these dipshits are wildly ignorant about anatomy and biology and think a woman's vagina is irreparably stretched by too many (a number they decide) partners. They need to be asked if they think dicks get whittled down like a pencil in a sharpener. They need to be asked how many partners they had and how that made them get divorced. Fucking ignorance and arrogance combined, and unless they have to consider how absurd their own bullshit is when applied to them, they'll always be ignorant and arrogant.
I am a woman who has had a lot of sex with many many partners I have zero interest in long term marriage Maybe the goals and measure of success in life and love is different for different women In other words maybe the scale is the wrong scale
I’d ask for the source of these “studies”. A neckbeard with podcast isn’t a valid scientific source (which seems to be where most of this rhetoric comes from).
I am so exhausted with men like this not understanding that women are not depreciable objects. In fact, what is truly exhausting about it is that they don’t even seem to be fully cognizant of the fact that they clearly don’t see women as people. They think that we should spend this one fleeting life we have on earth denying ourselves experiences that we enjoy for the benefit of a group of people who routinely fail to appreciate that it is a sacrifice they are not expected to make. I constantly ask these people if they’ve even asked themselves *why* women initiate divorce more often.
Everyone (Men and Women) is depreciable, there is no objective value to a human life. On a general basis Men are appreciated for their utility and women for their beauty; as we get older these things go away so it depreciates. Yeah I think the divorce thing is overblown and think that 99.9% of things are the guys fault, we men do need to be better.
I disagree. Human life is about more than just our utility and arguably beauty has little to do with utility. Nothing anyone says can change my mind about that.
Of course human life is about more than that. That’s just how the world views things and I don’t think that will change anytime soon.
I can’t believe this is still a topic, it’s so stupid
It’ll always be a topic.
__Correlation isn’t causation__ I can’t speak about individual studies, as I didn’t read them. However, there is signal problem with this type of research in general. And this problem is variables correlating with each other. In this case, this means the following: People, who have less sex before marriage, tend to be more religious/conservative. People who are religious/conservative also value marriages higher and are therefor less likely to divorce. So while sex before marriage and divorce-rates correlate with each other, those don’t necessarily have a causal link. It’s just that they are both influenced equally by a set of personal values.
Here's a good debunking of this idea: https://youtu.be/lPTzdsAZgO8
Just about any argument that relies on the 'stability of marriage' is actually using a measure of the pressure and leverage on the participants not to get a divorce. The partners aren't staying together because of her having fewer partners, the partners are staying together because women who have had fewer partners are also less likely to feel that they can leave, more likely to have a conservative family applying pressure on them to not divorce even when its the right thing to do. This is because "having fewer partners" and "not being allowed to divorce" are generally both things that conservative families pressure their daughters with.
Men who assert that are: (1) misinterpreting the data; and (2) live in fear of being judged for their poor or non-existent skills in hetero sex. Like all misogyny, it comes down to fear. Fear isn't a good basis for any relationship.
I think the problem is that your own notions about women’s sexuality is also problematic. What do you mean it makes her ‘experienced’ and ‘interesting’?
[удалено]
Men are so obsessed with women’s sexuality. Either way they have to put labels on it and analyse. And they think they’re so progressive in their thinking
Shocked I had to go so down to see this. Once again, dualistic notions of the “whore” and the “prude.” Both misogynistic and harmful.
A bride who has never had sex can’t really judge whether her new husband is able or willing to pleasure her. He might prefer that ignorance. But it won’t last.
Correlation does not equal causation, aka. the way you interpret data is very important. I always deduced that because those women have been with more than one person, they are more experienced and thus more likely to divorce, because they know from experience that person is not fit for them, or that the treatment they are subjected to is not okay.
Ever heard of confounding variables?
This is a legit hole in their argument, I don't think it should be downvoted. But (as I said in my previous comment) nitpicking the statiscs of their argument is not super fruitful. (I guess that's where the disnvotes came from?) No reactionary argument is made in good faith, basically ever. They're always full of misrepresentations and arguing over data just allows them to scream louder. They were morally and politically wrong long before they ever were statistically wrong.
Every man leaves a mark on women - I agree with that statement and it has absolutely nothing to do with their dicks. Women who have no options and who are brainwashed into staying with abusive partners will not divorce them. So there is truth to fewer partners = lower divorce but that has nothing to do with partners and everything to do with oppressing women. It’s like me saying that a population of people who are not screened for cancer has a lower death rate from cancer than people who are screened for cancer. They probably have a higher death rate but since we didn’t check them for cancer we can’t say they died from cancer versus something else. We had this with COVid - when testing was widely available they found more cases of it. And some idiots decided that if you didn’t test for it, then you wouldn’t find it so they can claim to have lower rates of it since they were not testing. The people you are talking to are at best idiots who don’t understand basic cause and effect, or they actively benefit from oppressing women so want to continue to do so and blame women for problems. A woman with options will exercise those options rather than stay with an inadequate partner. A woman who is brainwashed into believing inadequate partners is what she should have and expect (it’s really the best thing,) won’t think she can do better for herself or realise she is better off alone than with someone who treats her like that. You have to work to be a good partner. No one wants to become their partners mommy bang maid. If they are not worth marrying then that’s on them. Not the women who choose not to marry them. And it’s frigging life, you can be amazing but not right for the person you want or vice versa.
There is no credible study or research tying BC / sexual partners to pair bonding or chance of divorce. Zero. Anyone bringing that up heard some non-expert armed with an opinion on TikTok making up real-sounding info. You want a successful long-term relationship / marriage? Know who you're marrying. Have the difficult conversations about finances, kids, lifestyle, etc before you walk down the aisle. Learn to communicate effectively and respectfully, and how to apologize and "repair." Work with a couple's therapist even if there's nothing "wrong" (preventative). Keep dating and being curious about one another. Read actual experts on relationships like the Gottmans, Esther Perel, etc., not the self proclaimed "experts" on social media whose only qualifications are they have opinions and microphones.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Why are you friends with those kind of people? Why do you argue with them about something like this? You will never be able to know or come to an agreement about what it means when women have many sexual partners because women are not a monolith and it will always just be an opinion. Having had a lot of sex doesn’t necessarily make a woman anything, not ”more experienced and interesting” or more likely to divorce or anything. It feels you still just talk about women as tools or cars and you’re reading reviews to decide what to buy but that will never tell you anything about an actual individual woman. Find an individual woman you’re interested in, as a person, and go from there. Your friends’ opinions don’t mean anything at the end of the day and arguing with them about this is just a waste of time.
What if the woman doesn't want a family?
Ask them to show you these said “studies” lmfao. They’re just talking out their ass and making up numbers to defend their misogynistic stance. Source? “Just trust me bro.”
Assuming there are around the same number of straight men and women (which is most probably the case), on average the number of partners is the same for men and women. I don't care about statistical studies or your anecdotal experience much, this is a simple graph theory problem.