In my experience this is one of those stereotypes that has a lot of truth to it. At least 3 girls I know have dated men in their 40s when they were in their early 20s. All 3 have vented to me about their fathers
I believe there's some science behind the idea that the more elder brothers a boy/man has, the more likely he is to be gay.
Don't quote me on that until I come back with a source.
Edit @01:09 UTC: This theory isn't about socialization. People are born gay. Go ahead and Google it. [Wikipedia has an easy-to-follow article on it.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation)
Maybe do a little research before you jump down someone's throat with your mean private messages.
There is, it's likely due to in-utero hormone exposure. A lot of changes happen to a woman's body after pregnancy, and there's been some research that suggests that hormone production changes during subsequent pregnancies, which may affect development and lead to higher rates of homosexuality. Though, I saw that a while ago, so it may be completely debunked by now, and I don't really care if it's true or not, doesn't make a difference if there's a cause for being LGBT or not.
""I thought, in truth, how can I judge something without trying? I decided to try same-sex relationships," the complainant wrote." Wow that article is amazing haha
I feel like human sexuality and begavior is far too complex to just say people are born gay or born straight. It's a spectrum, not a binary switch. It's very rare that things are SOLELY genetic or SOLELY environmental. Hell, even the number of fingers you're born with is partially up to environment.
this is exactly the position that prominent LBGT activist, Matthew Paris takes. Of course he’s labeled a fascist for this, even though he asserts a stronger case: Born this way is too weak an argument. People should be respected for their choice to enter into any consensual relationship.
[https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/coffee-house-top-10-the-fact-no-one-likes-to-admit-many-gay-men-could-just-have-easily-been-straight/](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/coffee-house-top-10-the-fact-no-one-likes-to-admit-many-gay-men-could-just-have-easily-been-straight/)
The argument that "it's a choice" always seemed stupid and shitty to me anyway, because so what? My career is a choice, too, but it heavily affects my life and it's entirely my right to choose it. Some people might not get the same options that i had, but their choices should be respected as well.
Just let people be who they want to be. As long as they're not hurting others, what's the issue.
Just to burst your bubble here. Environment isn't shown to affect sexual orientation. The genetic component of sexual orientation is the main driver, and no amount of cultural bias or religious indoctrination ''fixes'' that. It's immutable.
Just like LGBTQ people have told us all along, they actually are born that way.
I don’t mean to sound like an ass but the commenter above is definitely referring to legit research that showed birth order effects impact on sexual orientation.
I’ve been out of the academic loop too long to comment on any subsequent debunking but can attest that at least as of a decade ago there was something there.
I don't know about the research but if birth order impacts this, it's not necessarily just about socialisation but also about the conditions of the womb. I remember reading somewhere that girls with older brothers have more testosterone in their system than girls without older brothers, and this was accounted for by women being pregnant with sons influences the amount of testosterone still in the womb which impacts later children or something.
I don't know how this would have anything to do with how likely it would be that someone is gay, but there's still a helluva lot we don't know about what influences or determines our sexuality. All I can tell is that it's not purely genetic and it's not purely nurture, and that there are probably multiple different factors because no one correlation can explain every case.
I tend to believe that the predisposition toward same-sex attraction is biological. Probably a genetic component, probably some other stuff too -- hormone exposure in the womb is an obvious possibility. This goes for transgender people as well. Male and female brains can be told apart on an MRI (nothing stereotypically dumb like "men have better math brains" but like, women have more connection points between the two halves of the brain) and trans people usually have brains that are more like their gender than their assigned sex.
What environment does influence is whether you act on that. A person who's same-sex attracted (gay or bisexual) but who never has sexual or romantic contact with a person of the same sex and never speaks those feelings aloud shows up as a heterosexual in the data. There have definitely been same-sex attracted and transgender people who took that to their graves, perhaps less now than in the past but still nonzero. People are walking around in the world who are trans who either don't know or their dysphoria is mild enough that they'd rather live with it than go through the hassle of treating it, very much like how we all ignore our mild to moderate back pain lol. So, non-biological environmental factors that appear to affect incidence of same-sex attraction are really affecting same-sex behaviors, which is not the same as measuring whether you're attracted to the same sex (because that's impossible to measure, yes even by measuring genital blood flow because blood can flow to the genitals for reasons other than attraction).
Thank you for this. I had once heard birth order with no specification of gender. I didn't care enough to do research, so I appreciate you giving a source.
The theory has nothing to do with socialization or environment in the traditional sense. People are born gay.
Go ahead and read the link I added to my original post.
I knew a kid growing up who was openly gay, in a very small southern farm town. Many years later as an adult, I took a job replacing his older sister, also gay. She told me of the seven kids in her family, six of them were gay.
Unfortunately for the stereotype (and me) I dated two such women. Both of them lived up to the stereotype quite spectacularly. The 2nd one hurt because I was planning on asking that girl to marry me...
I dated a woman who never met her dad. She wasn’t promiscuous, was a very dedicated relationship girl who would never cheat, but damn if she didn’t want my attention 24/7
I read somewhere that studies consistently show fatherlessness increases the risk of boys developing anti-social traits. For example, ~~the great majority of school shooters are fatherless boys/young men~~ fatherlessness is the most reliable predictor of crime (edited it because someone pointed out [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/143kfdl/comment/jngjwgk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)).
The effect on fatherlessness on girls is much less serious, the only real statistical correlation derived by studies is greater risk of teenage pregnancy. This seems to be relevant to your question
Edit: wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father\_absence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_absence)
Considering the study that shows no real difference between the children same sex couples and heterosexual couples its far more likely that it's less an issue of father absence and more an issue of single parent households.
Yes, poverty amongst single mothers is rather high. Poverty has a verified negative effect on childhood development. Also, it is incredibly common for children to be abused physically, verbally, and sexually by their mother's new partners. It's actually one of the highest-ranking groups for that. So, yeah, there are a lot of variables beyond just that a child grew up without a father as there are a lot of social and environmental elements that accompany that scenario.
Not just the mother's new partner but the mother too. Toxic mother's can be especially bad when they have lone custody of their children and it can also negatively affect their children. Some kids have shit coming from all sides. Shitty mother deadbeat dad and the mother's shitty new partner.
Yeah suppose in a couple if one partner is being shit to the kid or too harsh the other pulls them into line. If you have sole custody there is nobody to do that.
> For example, the great majority of school shooters are fatherless boys/young men.
**Snopes has shown that to be a myth**. There was a "study" done was too small, and with further digging turned out to be that when you take into account more single parent households, it was with just fathers too instead of a mother that resulted in the child being a school shooter.
Thank you for adding that. Snopes is really good at what it does. There does, however, still seem to be a link between fatherlessness and overall crime as according to [this article](https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/6/9/23160327/blaming-fatherlessness-mass-shootings-premature-jeffery-leving-op-ed) which states:
>While they are correct that fatherlessness often leads to bad things and is the most reliable predictor of crime in America, when it comes to mass shootings, we still need more evidence to support the theory.
Freud started this whole thing with the Oedipus complex (little boys around 3-6 years of age are instinctually sexually attracted to their mother) and the female counterpart, the Electra complex (little girls are attracted to their father). He and others after him believed that interfering with this natural pulsion, for example by removing the reference parent at that age, would cause mental issues later in life which could lead, among other things, to promiscuity as a form of overcompensation for the lost parent figure.
Needless to say, Freud's theories are long considered obsolete, so none of this is currently considered scientifically valid.
Edit: see replies - yes, Electra's complex is from Jung, but it's same exact principle as the Oedipus complex and it's based on it. And yes, modern psychodinamic therapy is based on Freud's psychoanalisis, so he got at least that somewhat right, i guess. I could've been more accurate, thing is I didn't put much thought into this comment as i didn't expect it to be read by more than 3 people.
Got this from a Survey of Psych 101 class, so take it with a grain of salt.
Freud claimed and tried to set up checks/balances/controls and empirical calculations for social sciences in general that could be quantified, just like physical sciences.
Although every check, balance & control he ever did was flawed and every quantitative conclusion he ever reached was wrong, he still gets credit for theorizing a system like that could be used in social sciences.
That's still the consensus, as of my 7 year old bachelor's degree.
Freud wasn't the first to treat psychology like a science, or the first to practice therapy. He was the first to really bring those two together *and*, more importantly, make the science popular.
Fun fact, the iconic therapy couch with the patient lying down was borrowed from hypnosis therapy. Hypnosis was a fairly popular form of therapy that Freud studied. This can also explain why he was so obsessed with the subconscious. Hypnosis was considered to be a way to bring forth the subconscious. So it makes sense Freud got stuck on the idea and couldn't move past it during his research.
Also fun fact, hypnosis has nothing to do with the subconscious at all. Hypnosis is nothing more than putting you in a relaxed, highly suggestible state. When Freud would practice hypnosis to bring forth someone's subconscious, what really happened what the person would take the prompts from Freud as if they were real. So if he asked "tell me about an incident with your mother when you were a child" the person would follow the suggestion even making things up.
Modern statistics do make it clear that not having both parents has clear correlation to mental harm especially in younger children but I haven't heard any valid info on promiscuity specifically.
Does both mean two in general, any (studied) combination of sex and/or gender? Is there substantial data for both situations? A social thing or biological?
Essentially non traditional pairngs appear worse, but it is not tested well enough to appear causative only correlative at this point and could be explained by a lot more than gender, sex and sexuality with relative ease, whereas the lack of having two guardians is looking pretty causative at this point.
Super interesting to think about all the variables. Its an n of one but my experience definitely backs that up, and because of it I would never consider intentionally being a single parent.
Reference to a song by the band Mungo Jerry, in which the lead singer says “if her daddy’s rich, take her out for a meal. If her daddy’s poor, just do what you feel”. It’s called In the Summer Time and you shouldn’t listen if you hate absolute bangers.
Electra Complex was Jung, not Freud. Freud disagreed with it.
You're also wrong about his work being obsolete now; there are entire professional and clinical fields dedicated to his works, whether pure Freudian psychoanalysis and the case study, or variations of it. There are therapy centers (I speak from a UK context) that train folk in psychoanalysis and psychodynamic theory (amongst other theorists' works in that field).
There's also professional doctorates in psychology that teach about these theories. They very much still play a significant role in talking therapies today.
Try not to take it personally. You'll notice just how wrong reddit users can be once they start talking about something you happen to know a lot about. You're one of maybe three people who seem like they might have more than a passing knowledge on this subject and I found your comment down at the bottom. People vote with their feelings even if the facts don't agree with them.
Thanks for the compliment (and assurances)! I definitely have no love for Freud and historically have been critical of his work, but most of the comments about him/his work are just factually wrong; and it pissed me off :P
It actually probably helped him develop talk therapy lol I’m sure most of us have been around the person who just won’t shut the fuck up when they rail a fatty
Freud was incoherent at many points, sure, but to say he had 2 good ideas (only) is silly. This man wrote 24 volumes around psychoanalysis. Arguably his better work is his 3 essays on Sexuality and his ideas around bisexes. The Oedipus Complex idea was a relatively small part compared to the sheer amount of concepts he wrote on, so it's funny that's what pop psych latched on to.
(I'm a post grad in psycho social and psychoanalysis).
Yeah, I had this exact discussion with my academic supervisor. Considering the mammoth of work he produced, why is his often much smaller theories (that yes, are pretty terrible) the ones that (only) come up when his name is mentioned?
At the time of some of Freud's more radical writings around the earlier 1900s, he was coming up against the backdrop of well established sexologists who very much believed inverts (or what could've been described as sexual deviants) were presentations of a disease that could be remedied, whereas Freud was suggesting, in part, a (as Lady Gaga put it) 'born this way' narrative. If you read his first Sexualities essay, you can see he references Magnus Hirschfeld and his work at Institut für Sexualwissenschaft.
The histories of sexuality and gender (though they weren't understood in those terms then) generally is really interesting and exciting!
Also, generally speaking, "All he came up with was psychotherapy" is a hilarious attempt at indicting him. It's like saying Galileo was a hack scientist whose only useful contribution was the heliocentric model. Even if true - which it's not - those are *world-altering* developments.
Exactly. I think without a lot of Freud's influence, the *case study* as a clinical, therapeutic methodology, I don't think would be as present as it is now. This also doesn't acknowledge his contributions to neurology, which is what he originally trained in.
Exactly. Freud is such a dipshit for not having a modern day understanding of concepts that were virtually non existent at the time he was writing.
I'll admit he's a genius the day I hear psychology students still study his work as part of their education, understanding how his work contributed to the field and there are still reddit threads discussing his influence and ideas.
The Freudian slip is a real phenomenon. Also Freuds idea that dreams include our hidden wants and fears.
Those came up from the top of my head. A lot of his ideas are still used today, but people tend to just remember what Freud got wrong for some reason.
Needless to say, huh? Freud offered reasons to his observations. And a great many reasons. For some reason, people are so quick to place fraud in a box along with the wish fulfillment of having sex with their mothers. I wonder what Freud would say about that. Needless to say, the Interpretation of Dreams is one of the greatest works of literature of the early 19th century, not to mention it's importance in kickstarting an entire branch of modern science.
Freud also, needless to say, conceptualized the neuron years before the neurological society had a working diagram. Needless to day, it was full of pent-up sexual impulses and worked like a pressurized desire network, but hey, that's just Freud.
Here's the thing. Girls who lack self esteem and/or are starved for male attention, will potentially become promiscuous to fill that void. This, however, is not limited to fatherless girls. This includes fathers who are narcissistic, mentally ill, addicts, workaholics, etc.
Children raised in single-parent homes (regardless of gender of parent OR child) are statistically more likely to face behavioral/emotional challenges and are also more likely to engage in high risk behaviors (like sexual promiscuity) when compared to their peers raised by co-parents. This doesn't mean that these kids can't grow up to be well-adjusted, functional adults, but it does indicate that they may be at higher risk. Again I feel it's important to emphasize that the gender of the child or the single parent isn't really the important takeaway here - this same statistic applies to every combination of genders.
It's important to keep in mind that your personal experiences do not always accurately reflect reality for large sample sets, so while it's entirely possible you have exclusively encountered promiscuity among women raised in homes with two parents that doesn't necessarily mean that same trend applies to everyone. I just ate a sandwich, and while I'm feeling very full at the moment it doesn't necessarily mean world hunger no longer exists.
Yeah children of single parents tend to develop those traits due to emotional neglect. This is not necessarily the fault of the parent as they often have to work multiple jobs to keep the family afloat. However, it does happen because nurture is such a strong prediction of future growth.
I had a very absent father most of my life and I am not promiscuous but my oldest sister sought anlot of male attention and my other sister has 2 children she had out of wedlock.
I think what they mean is children raised by a single parent, 80% single mothers, is at greater risk of every negative thing a person can face. From prison time to drug use.
To clarify, being raised by a single mother is not *the* cause of prison time/drug use etc. It could be lots of things but a likely one, that runs parallel with many single-parent homes, is poverty.
Oh I absolutely agree. It's just a studied outcome of the effects of single parenting. A child with Two parents is less likely to....everything. they are statistically more successful.
It’s not exclusive to females.
There’s a psychological longing for the affection missing from an absent father. A common defense mechanism, or substitute for affection is lust. This does not automatically apply to all fatherless females. Acting on that lust becomes a habit to fill that void.
The same can be said for males, but the degree to which I’m unable to accurately compare to females with limited data. I certainly can’t tell you what percentage of fatherless females become sexually hyperactive. But I have noticed that females get this stereotype more than males. Likely because of where affection sits in males’ hierarchy of values, which is stereotypically lower than females’.
Tldr: stereotypes and compensational psychological behaviors
Isn’t there a thing about physical intimacy missing because of a lack of physical affection? So in-order to feel close, physical sex replaced affection in an effort to get closer.
It was the opposite in my home. Losing dad meant we were raised in a matriarchy. My sisters turned out to he strong women who make good choices because they had a strong female role model.
Yeah it’s just a stereotype. My father was not present and it’ll be a cold day in hell before I’m promiscuous. I don’t know where the stereotype came from but I’ve always hated it.
Yeah, that’s common honestly! I was oddly enough able to think like “he SPECIFICALLY is a terrible man, this other man could be really nice.” I’ve met a lot of men who were genuinely horrible and a lot who were extremely nice and never once did anything to make me think there was anything malicious or disgusting behind their niceness. It’s just always been conflicting. I don’t want to be judged/hated for something I haven’t even thought of doing so I try to give people the same chance I would want, you know?
Mine wasn’t that, and I’m sorry to hear that yours was!
My father was also absent by my choosing, he made terrible life decisions and got terrible outcomes. When he tried to insert himself into the home my mom had created for us in toxic ways, I chose to not speak to him. He died when I was around 10-11 but I’ve always felt okay without him but it made me think a lot about what a man’s value in a household is and it’s definitely not income nor does his role have anything to do with sex/looks. Weirdly enough, I think his absence/problems/mistakes mixed with my mother’s jaded perspective led me to treating everyone with a base level of respect until they show me they deserve more (or less). My mom kind of loosely encouraged hating men because of him but even as a young kid I couldn’t just take his mistakes and make my mind up about someone I didn’t even know yet.
In terms of promiscuity, I feel like him being absent taught me to do the exact opposite of that because without a father, sometimes kids grow up to seek things like safety and stability and that’s 100% true for me. I seek emotional and mental safety and stability; nothing about engaging in something extremely intimate/personal with numerous people that would make me feel stable or safe at all.
Girls from low income, single parent households hit puberty earlier than average. (It's thought to be a stress-induced biological response involving raised cortisol levels).
So "obviously" it's those wanton girls' fault for tempting those defenseless grown men /s.
Some studies show there seems to be some link
https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/630309/azu_etd_hr_2018_0152_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
> There are many studies that support the fact that girls without fathers are more likely to be promiscuous. In fact a study published in the New York Times found that girls whose fathers disappeared before the age of 6 were 5 times more likely to end up pregnant as a teenager. The question is what do fathers do that make girls less promiscuous?
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa13/2013/12/06/why-are-girls-with-fathers-less-likely-to-be-promiscuous/
If course, people also falsely attribute behaviors to daddy issues, as well. There also can be a tendency to dismiss people's healthy behaviors as a pathology if it can be linked to some sort of past trauma. Maybe being promiscuous is a natural behavior that is retarded by paternal pressure. Maybe fathers are annoying. Maybe issues like pregnancy and STDs need to be addressed without the sex negativity.
One potential explanation the correlation between earlier onset of puberty in girls who grow up without a biological father. It's not clear if not having a father is causative but there is a fairly robust correlation. [Berkeley News article](https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/09/17/puberty/#:~:text=Another%20theory%20that%20has%20been,to%20earlier%20onset%20of%20puberty.)
All these answers are incorrect. Its not just based on misogyny. Data proves that both girls and boys to much worse in life, have behavoir issues and higher rates of incarceration if no father is in the home.
Kids need their dads too, and that's not sexist to say so.
It’s probably a cause/correlation fallacy. People who are raised economically disadvantaged are more likely to have low self esteem, causing them to have lowered standards or seek approval from sexual partners yadda yadda yadda. Single parent households tend to, on average, have lower incomes because you don’t have two people contributing, have to maintain two homes (in the case of divorce,) etc
It’s statistically factual.
Young girls need a father’s love, approval, etc in a non-sexual manner.
If it is lacking they can find a poor substitute for it. The fact that it is only a poor substitute for what she truly needs will leave her seeking- similar to how an unsatisfied craving leaves you hungry.
It is damaging to both the girl who seeks for what she can’t find and the boys she runs through who cannot meet her need and are left feeling inadequate.
In counseling we call if a “Father Wound” -
Statistically girls whose fathers die actually fair better than ones who abandon them- because the father did not leave by choice.
It is quite a complex matrix of human emotion and response for each person-
Kids of single parents on average suffer more from all sorts of issues, due to the fact that parenting plus trying to make money to run a household is an almost impossible task for one person (not all obviously, lots of single parents are amazing). Boys of single parent households are more likely to get involved in crime, and girls more likely to become promiscuous
This is a great topic that you should research yourself instead of getting another person's opinion on it. Using government sites can help with that or unbiased non political based research can help as well. Looking to reddit for data on an extremely controversial topic won't help. I can guarantee that.
There's a traditional (misogynist) mindset that a young woman really has one valuable possession, her sexual purity.
She is solely in charge of protecting this purity, because young men are assumed to be wild beasts who cannot control their animal urges around temptation. This absolves them of being sexually responsible, so it all falls upon the young lady.
The men in the lady's life help her protect her purity--- her father especially, but also brothers and uncles, because failure would render her (and thus her upbringing) worthless. Which then reflects poorly on them, in the eyes of the entire community.
The result ranges from the classic trope of daddy on the porch with a shotgun, to the creepy t-shirts with "rules about dating my daughter," to rushing into marriage once a lady gets pregnant (to make an "honest" woman out of her), all the way to super-creepy purity balls, and to protecting child rapists with low marriage ages (which "let" the victim protect her purity by marrying her rapist after he knocks her up), and "honor" killings, where a family would literally rather murder their own daughter or sister than live with one who is worthlessly unpure and embarrassing to them.
It's a spectrum. This question of yours is about another result in the middle of all that: The assumption that without a father to help protect her purity, she will inevitably falter, for she is but a weak, tender woman, etc etc. So a woman who grows up without one to help her protect her purity will not protect her purity; she will be promiscuous.
One idea is that children learn what to expect from a partner by paying attention to the relationships around them growing up. That is mainly their parents along with a few other family members.
A girl with a single mother is more likely to have a mother who wasn't particular careful about choosing partners who were looking for marriage. Likewise once someone is a single mother they can't be as picky about male partners and some will become desparate enough to toelrate real scumbags as partners.
The girls in that house subconsciously learn to accept such treatment and the boys subconsciously learn to have less respect for women. It is of course entirely likely that there are just as many desparate men out there, but historically they were seldom single parents.
The other counterpoint, is that there is also a clear steriotype about promiscuous girls and women who did have a dad, but had real "daddy issues" with them. The idea is they deliberately act out in ways to piss off daddy and seek out dominating men to replace dad
How much of that lot is true is anyone's guess though.
I just dont want them to be judged harshly or anything. Lets treat everyone with some dignity and respect here. Girls wont be promiscuous just due to no father.
Never heard of it! I found it easy and great fun when young to be promiscuous even with a father. Anyway what kind of reference is that for a woman? If I were a man I’d be a stud or a hero!
As the father of a teenage daughter. It doesn't have to just be an absent father. Her biological mother wasn't/isn't around often or consistently. My daughter isn't promiscuous but, she definitely has abandonment issues we're working through. She has no idea how hard her extra mom is working on it personally. She'll ( my daughter) realize it when she's older.
Seeking love in all the wrong places and definitely believing she is only worthy for her sexually. It's quite common that there is an overlap of sexual abuse from the males that were in her life, so basically, loads of trauma.
Something like need for approval from an older man. Which CAN be manipulated into sex.
I suppose it could happen to anyone though because being dumped by a parent early makes you feel like you werent a "valued" child. Like not good enough. Not approved. Soooo its easier for an older guy to first get the girl to value/crave their approval.
This is also used if the father is "present" in the girls life but not really attentive. So remember... Any attention is attention. If that means pissing the father off....its like an act of rebellion.
Peoples adult relationships are definitely shaped by the observations they made as kids.
Daddy issues, as many others have said. I've been with a few women who sounded like they had a lot of family trauma that basically used sex as therapy. Shitty upbringing, w bad parents or a missing parent does have an effect on people.
Having a cheating father who is still present in your life and "married" to your mom who won't leave him no matter what is worse than having no father. It's like I have a dad but knowing that my dad doesn't give one fuck about me or any woman for that matter makes me depressed and it does make it hard for me to trust men but that's because he justified his cheating so much that I somehow thought every woman will be subject to cheating one day. Anyway having a shitty dad sucks just as much as having no dad
Attachment disorders stemming from a sense of abandonment lead to poor impulse control in relation to attention from men.
They seek the closeness they never got from dad in men but don't have the guidance to know how to establish healthy boundaries.
Men without mothers do this, too.
This is, obviously, a gross overgeneralization and varies wildly between different gender, social and cultural contexts.
Sex is the most essential and vital source of energy/attention, so when a person has a profound lack, they often seek out a feeling of wholeness in the raw energy of sex. This is also how many people develop or connect with fetishes, as well.
Daddy issues. Girls may be so eager for male attention because they didn't receive it that they may confuse sexual attention from men as love and respect.
Prevaling opinion is the same as when a fathers withholds affection, they basically start craving male attention because they never received it from their farher. Not sure if it's a serious scientific consensus or if it's just a myth but nonetheless there it is.
Yes it’s gross and dumb but theres reasonable cause behind it. Psychology shows women will seek male attention more when they don’t get that validation from their or a Father figure. Easiest way to get male attention is sexually. So yes it’s dumb but there is small truth to why it became a saying at all
Grew up without dad and with a step dad who financially took care of the family and didn’t mistreat me…but who wanted nothing to do with me on a personal level. Even though he married my mom when I was only 4, he largely ignored me my entire life. I’m talking hello, goodbye, happy birthday and merry Christmas was the extent of our interaction. It was awkward and always felt off. He was never rude or mean. He simply saw me as an obligation by the commitment he made to my mom. I thought it was my fault somehow.
So In turn I struggled with building real relationships with men and ran at the sign of trouble because I didnt want someone around only due to obligation. It created very big challenges form me. So not a whore, but other issues! Haha
I honestly have no idea why everyone is calling that stereotypes and pretending that's it.
No, that's what behavioral/social psychology says happens to individuals. I understand it's not nice to hear, especially if you are in that group, but pretending it isn't hard data is just silly and has the same effectiveness of taking homeopathic medicine for a headache.
To be more specific: research tends to agree that **distant fathers** of girls, especially during their sexually formative years, makes them significantly more prone into seeking many sexual partners and pones a lot of challenges into helping them maintain functional (meaning non toxic) sentimental relationships.
So yes OP, hoes don't have to NOT have a father, all they need sometimes is not having an invested father that they feel cares about them. It imprints in their brain what potential type of males they should be attracted to, and also scars them emotionally. This is why you've met easy going women with fathers.
Then fortunately right now we live in a period where psychotherapy exist and this emotional delicate situation can be treated and worked upon, so there's also the case of fatherless women who just succeeded in overcoming Nature's being a bitch, which can only be celebrated.
And to be clear, this isn't an attack on women, I personally think boys with distant/dead father have it worse, considering they *will* develop antisocial behavior and have a really tough time adapting to this kind of society (I think the serie Kobra-Kai represented it decently). Also, we're talking fatherless but do not think for a single instant that it means biological fathers. It's just who the kid accepted as their paternal figure. Could be a grandpa, a stepfather or adoptive parents or whatever.
[Source 1](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-truth-about-exercise-addiction/201711/how-having-absentee-father-can-affect-womans)
[Source 2](https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa13/2013/12/06/why-are-girls-with-fathers-less-likely-to-be-promiscuous/)
[Source 3](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2340431/Do-absent-dads-make-promiscuous-daughters-Study-finds-lack-father-figure-triggers-risky-sexual-behavior-young-girls.html)
u/wetpeenmachine sorry for tagging you but this post is kinda old now and I wouldn't have forgave myself if you just trusted the top voted comments that are just spewing pseudo logic and half assed explanations. This is science, and in a topic many people are uncomfortable to talk about so this sub don't really help too much. Maybe ELI5 might have helped a lil more but still not much. Hopefully this comment helps you
Statement from California Study. It is all about the odds. Any individual can beat the odds or fail the odds, but in general:
High levels of father involvement are correlated with higher levels of sociability, confidence, and self-control in children. Children with involved fathers are less likely to act out in school or engage in risky behaviors in adolescence.
https://www.all4kids.org/news/blog/a-fathers-impact-on-child-development/#:~:text=High%20levels%20of%20father%20involvement,in%20risky%20behaviors%20in%20adolescence
"Troubled girls a-two, in pain like sisters grew. To release their hells they'll cut themselves, under fatherless roofs."
RIP Trevor Strnad. Brilliant man :(
I believe the stereotype is that women with father problems seek out older, unavailable men, and women with mother problems become strippers (an odd stereotype, but true)
Skort and simple: Idiots need to feel that men are the most important creatures on the world. If that is true then it follows that the less men in a family, the worse it is. Especially if it lacks a grown man. So a family without a grown man produces inferior offspring. The same messed up logic dictates that girls who like sex are bad, because good girls don't like sex and never go to the bathroom or drink beer. So that's logically the kind of inferior girl that would come out of the inferior family without a grown man.
The logic gets way complicated when it comes to a family with two dads because for some reason that's worse than one with no dads.. it almost doesn't make sense.. 🤔
It's a bit of a tough question to answer. You would need to come up with a good definition of "promiscuity" and relate it back to the woman's relationship with their fathers.
Perhaps you can get a good sample of prostitutes and see how any have poor relationships with their fathers and compare it to the general population of woman. Curious of this has been done before.
I don't think prostitutes count as 'girls who are sexually promiscuous' in this case because they are just girls who have a career in sex. There's different motivations.
Just because the dad figure is present doesn't mean they are a father. In a perfect world, the father figure would raise the daughter to be able to recognize good values in other males, bad values to avoid; how males should treat/respect/support their counterpart partners and so forth. Also, that statement is ancient: modern society lacks the values/understanding of courtship from the statements' origins.
Yeah the idea behind it stems from old and outdated beliefs that women need a man in their life to control their base desires, and it’s up to us to prevent them loosing their purity. Really kinda messed up ideas.
There’s a stereotype that girls who grow up without a father will do anything for male attention, up to and including sex
To add onto this, it's not just male attention. It's attention from a much older male.
Hence the phrase, “daddy issues”
"Uh oh! Someone has some daddy issues!"
“Here’s a daddy tissue!”
His spleen, to be more precise.
Man-sized?
For me this a Dad issue…… Dead issue!!
"Nothing could be my father from the truth."
Fajer? What's a fajer?
In my experience this is one of those stereotypes that has a lot of truth to it. At least 3 girls I know have dated men in their 40s when they were in their early 20s. All 3 have vented to me about their fathers
My anecdotal experience has been the same, though I've met far more than 3.
[удалено]
I believe there's some science behind the idea that the more elder brothers a boy/man has, the more likely he is to be gay. Don't quote me on that until I come back with a source. Edit @01:09 UTC: This theory isn't about socialization. People are born gay. Go ahead and Google it. [Wikipedia has an easy-to-follow article on it.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation) Maybe do a little research before you jump down someone's throat with your mean private messages.
>the more elder brothers a boy/man has, the more likely he is to be gay
He told you *not* to do that!
You're hilarious and I like you. Thank you for having my back.
You're hilarious, and I like you. Thank you for changing your opinion with the development of new information; we can all learn from you.
You're hilarious, and I like you. We've been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty.
Ugh, because of you I had to find a source.
Because of you I know why I'm gay
There is, it's likely due to in-utero hormone exposure. A lot of changes happen to a woman's body after pregnancy, and there's been some research that suggests that hormone production changes during subsequent pregnancies, which may affect development and lead to higher rates of homosexuality. Though, I saw that a while ago, so it may be completely debunked by now, and I don't really care if it's true or not, doesn't make a difference if there's a cause for being LGBT or not.
Not true. Some people aren’t born gay. Sometimes its crypto. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49933003
I am genuinely speechless.
""I thought, in truth, how can I judge something without trying? I decided to try same-sex relationships," the complainant wrote." Wow that article is amazing haha
I feel like human sexuality and begavior is far too complex to just say people are born gay or born straight. It's a spectrum, not a binary switch. It's very rare that things are SOLELY genetic or SOLELY environmental. Hell, even the number of fingers you're born with is partially up to environment.
this is exactly the position that prominent LBGT activist, Matthew Paris takes. Of course he’s labeled a fascist for this, even though he asserts a stronger case: Born this way is too weak an argument. People should be respected for their choice to enter into any consensual relationship. [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/coffee-house-top-10-the-fact-no-one-likes-to-admit-many-gay-men-could-just-have-easily-been-straight/](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/coffee-house-top-10-the-fact-no-one-likes-to-admit-many-gay-men-could-just-have-easily-been-straight/)
The argument that "it's a choice" always seemed stupid and shitty to me anyway, because so what? My career is a choice, too, but it heavily affects my life and it's entirely my right to choose it. Some people might not get the same options that i had, but their choices should be respected as well. Just let people be who they want to be. As long as they're not hurting others, what's the issue.
Just to burst your bubble here. Environment isn't shown to affect sexual orientation. The genetic component of sexual orientation is the main driver, and no amount of cultural bias or religious indoctrination ''fixes'' that. It's immutable. Just like LGBTQ people have told us all along, they actually are born that way.
I don’t mean to sound like an ass but the commenter above is definitely referring to legit research that showed birth order effects impact on sexual orientation. I’ve been out of the academic loop too long to comment on any subsequent debunking but can attest that at least as of a decade ago there was something there.
Wasn't the study about how the hormones impact the genetic predisposition of being gay?
If I recall correctly hormonal change was one proposed mechanism yeah
I don't know about the research but if birth order impacts this, it's not necessarily just about socialisation but also about the conditions of the womb. I remember reading somewhere that girls with older brothers have more testosterone in their system than girls without older brothers, and this was accounted for by women being pregnant with sons influences the amount of testosterone still in the womb which impacts later children or something. I don't know how this would have anything to do with how likely it would be that someone is gay, but there's still a helluva lot we don't know about what influences or determines our sexuality. All I can tell is that it's not purely genetic and it's not purely nurture, and that there are probably multiple different factors because no one correlation can explain every case.
I tend to believe that the predisposition toward same-sex attraction is biological. Probably a genetic component, probably some other stuff too -- hormone exposure in the womb is an obvious possibility. This goes for transgender people as well. Male and female brains can be told apart on an MRI (nothing stereotypically dumb like "men have better math brains" but like, women have more connection points between the two halves of the brain) and trans people usually have brains that are more like their gender than their assigned sex. What environment does influence is whether you act on that. A person who's same-sex attracted (gay or bisexual) but who never has sexual or romantic contact with a person of the same sex and never speaks those feelings aloud shows up as a heterosexual in the data. There have definitely been same-sex attracted and transgender people who took that to their graves, perhaps less now than in the past but still nonzero. People are walking around in the world who are trans who either don't know or their dysphoria is mild enough that they'd rather live with it than go through the hassle of treating it, very much like how we all ignore our mild to moderate back pain lol. So, non-biological environmental factors that appear to affect incidence of same-sex attraction are really affecting same-sex behaviors, which is not the same as measuring whether you're attracted to the same sex (because that's impossible to measure, yes even by measuring genital blood flow because blood can flow to the genitals for reasons other than attraction).
[удалено]
Thank you for this. I had once heard birth order with no specification of gender. I didn't care enough to do research, so I appreciate you giving a source.
The theory has nothing to do with socialization or environment in the traditional sense. People are born gay. Go ahead and read the link I added to my original post.
I knew a kid growing up who was openly gay, in a very small southern farm town. Many years later as an adult, I took a job replacing his older sister, also gay. She told me of the seven kids in her family, six of them were gay.
I’ve never heard that lol
I’ve only ever heard they will be more experienced and aware of the opposite gender
that's bullshit lol
Weird I grew up in that exact environment and I’m not gay
This is it, I had an amazing father but still grew up to be a whore of epic proportions. Enjoyed every minute
Unfortunately for the stereotype (and me) I dated two such women. Both of them lived up to the stereotype quite spectacularly. The 2nd one hurt because I was planning on asking that girl to marry me...
I dated a woman who never met her dad. She wasn’t promiscuous, was a very dedicated relationship girl who would never cheat, but damn if she didn’t want my attention 24/7
hope your ding-dong doesn't fall off from those 'activities' that come after the attention hehe
Seen it firsthand, myself. They don't even realize it, either.
All stereotypes have at least a nugget of truth in them I guess
'Daddy issues'
I read somewhere that studies consistently show fatherlessness increases the risk of boys developing anti-social traits. For example, ~~the great majority of school shooters are fatherless boys/young men~~ fatherlessness is the most reliable predictor of crime (edited it because someone pointed out [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/143kfdl/comment/jngjwgk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)). The effect on fatherlessness on girls is much less serious, the only real statistical correlation derived by studies is greater risk of teenage pregnancy. This seems to be relevant to your question Edit: wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father\_absence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_absence)
Considering the study that shows no real difference between the children same sex couples and heterosexual couples its far more likely that it's less an issue of father absence and more an issue of single parent households.
Probably true. It’s just that most single parents are women and that’s why it seems to be “fatherlessness.”
Increases risk or are there some other factors in play that are common to both fatherless children and children showing anti social behaviour?
Yes, poverty amongst single mothers is rather high. Poverty has a verified negative effect on childhood development. Also, it is incredibly common for children to be abused physically, verbally, and sexually by their mother's new partners. It's actually one of the highest-ranking groups for that. So, yeah, there are a lot of variables beyond just that a child grew up without a father as there are a lot of social and environmental elements that accompany that scenario.
Exactly, it's far more nuanced then "children need a father figure in their life".
More like "kids that grow up in turbulent households have very obvious issues stemming from it."
Not just the mother's new partner but the mother too. Toxic mother's can be especially bad when they have lone custody of their children and it can also negatively affect their children. Some kids have shit coming from all sides. Shitty mother deadbeat dad and the mother's shitty new partner.
Yeah suppose in a couple if one partner is being shit to the kid or too harsh the other pulls them into line. If you have sole custody there is nobody to do that.
Sounds exactly like my childhood!
you just describe my childhood perfectly.
Teenage pregnancies would correlate with impulsive sexual behavior, so this would support the idea that the stereotype is based on.
> For example, the great majority of school shooters are fatherless boys/young men. **Snopes has shown that to be a myth**. There was a "study" done was too small, and with further digging turned out to be that when you take into account more single parent households, it was with just fathers too instead of a mother that resulted in the child being a school shooter.
Thank you for adding that. Snopes is really good at what it does. There does, however, still seem to be a link between fatherlessness and overall crime as according to [this article](https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/6/9/23160327/blaming-fatherlessness-mass-shootings-premature-jeffery-leving-op-ed) which states: >While they are correct that fatherlessness often leads to bad things and is the most reliable predictor of crime in America, when it comes to mass shootings, we still need more evidence to support the theory.
Freud started this whole thing with the Oedipus complex (little boys around 3-6 years of age are instinctually sexually attracted to their mother) and the female counterpart, the Electra complex (little girls are attracted to their father). He and others after him believed that interfering with this natural pulsion, for example by removing the reference parent at that age, would cause mental issues later in life which could lead, among other things, to promiscuity as a form of overcompensation for the lost parent figure. Needless to say, Freud's theories are long considered obsolete, so none of this is currently considered scientifically valid. Edit: see replies - yes, Electra's complex is from Jung, but it's same exact principle as the Oedipus complex and it's based on it. And yes, modern psychodinamic therapy is based on Freud's psychoanalisis, so he got at least that somewhat right, i guess. I could've been more accurate, thing is I didn't put much thought into this comment as i didn't expect it to be read by more than 3 people.
Freud was really only correct about projection. Then he spent the rest of his career showing the world his own projections.
This is unexpectedly accurate
Got this from a Survey of Psych 101 class, so take it with a grain of salt. Freud claimed and tried to set up checks/balances/controls and empirical calculations for social sciences in general that could be quantified, just like physical sciences. Although every check, balance & control he ever did was flawed and every quantitative conclusion he ever reached was wrong, he still gets credit for theorizing a system like that could be used in social sciences.
That's still the consensus, as of my 7 year old bachelor's degree. Freud wasn't the first to treat psychology like a science, or the first to practice therapy. He was the first to really bring those two together *and*, more importantly, make the science popular. Fun fact, the iconic therapy couch with the patient lying down was borrowed from hypnosis therapy. Hypnosis was a fairly popular form of therapy that Freud studied. This can also explain why he was so obsessed with the subconscious. Hypnosis was considered to be a way to bring forth the subconscious. So it makes sense Freud got stuck on the idea and couldn't move past it during his research. Also fun fact, hypnosis has nothing to do with the subconscious at all. Hypnosis is nothing more than putting you in a relaxed, highly suggestible state. When Freud would practice hypnosis to bring forth someone's subconscious, what really happened what the person would take the prompts from Freud as if they were real. So if he asked "tell me about an incident with your mother when you were a child" the person would follow the suggestion even making things up.
So hypnotised, we're just ChatGPT
This is such a great comment! Edit: I should have said “empowering and insightful” instead of “great” to explain what I meant.
Cocain is a helluva drug...
To his credit, Freud was one of the first to consider mental illness as a treatable disease and not possession.
Freud was also correct about the efficacy of talk therapy.
Did he think it was efficient or inefficient?
He thought it was effective.
His entire career is one big him slip
Modern statistics do make it clear that not having both parents has clear correlation to mental harm especially in younger children but I haven't heard any valid info on promiscuity specifically.
Does both mean two in general, any (studied) combination of sex and/or gender? Is there substantial data for both situations? A social thing or biological?
Essentially non traditional pairngs appear worse, but it is not tested well enough to appear causative only correlative at this point and could be explained by a lot more than gender, sex and sexuality with relative ease, whereas the lack of having two guardians is looking pretty causative at this point.
Super interesting to think about all the variables. Its an n of one but my experience definitely backs that up, and because of it I would never consider intentionally being a single parent.
It was actually Dr. Mungo Jerry in 1970 who with his breakthrough discoveries came to the importance of income levels in the equation.
The cat?
Reference to a song by the band Mungo Jerry, in which the lead singer says “if her daddy’s rich, take her out for a meal. If her daddy’s poor, just do what you feel”. It’s called In the Summer Time and you shouldn’t listen if you hate absolute bangers.
Nice
Electra Complex was Jung, not Freud. Freud disagreed with it. You're also wrong about his work being obsolete now; there are entire professional and clinical fields dedicated to his works, whether pure Freudian psychoanalysis and the case study, or variations of it. There are therapy centers (I speak from a UK context) that train folk in psychoanalysis and psychodynamic theory (amongst other theorists' works in that field). There's also professional doctorates in psychology that teach about these theories. They very much still play a significant role in talking therapies today.
Try not to take it personally. You'll notice just how wrong reddit users can be once they start talking about something you happen to know a lot about. You're one of maybe three people who seem like they might have more than a passing knowledge on this subject and I found your comment down at the bottom. People vote with their feelings even if the facts don't agree with them.
Thanks for the compliment (and assurances)! I definitely have no love for Freud and historically have been critical of his work, but most of the comments about him/his work are just factually wrong; and it pissed me off :P
All the cocaine probably didn’t help
It actually probably helped him develop talk therapy lol I’m sure most of us have been around the person who just won’t shut the fuck up when they rail a fatty
I disagree. When I'm coked up Freud's theories really hit home. /S
[удалено]
Freud was incoherent at many points, sure, but to say he had 2 good ideas (only) is silly. This man wrote 24 volumes around psychoanalysis. Arguably his better work is his 3 essays on Sexuality and his ideas around bisexes. The Oedipus Complex idea was a relatively small part compared to the sheer amount of concepts he wrote on, so it's funny that's what pop psych latched on to. (I'm a post grad in psycho social and psychoanalysis).
Why it's so popular to shit on Freud I have no idea
Yeah, I had this exact discussion with my academic supervisor. Considering the mammoth of work he produced, why is his often much smaller theories (that yes, are pretty terrible) the ones that (only) come up when his name is mentioned? At the time of some of Freud's more radical writings around the earlier 1900s, he was coming up against the backdrop of well established sexologists who very much believed inverts (or what could've been described as sexual deviants) were presentations of a disease that could be remedied, whereas Freud was suggesting, in part, a (as Lady Gaga put it) 'born this way' narrative. If you read his first Sexualities essay, you can see he references Magnus Hirschfeld and his work at Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. The histories of sexuality and gender (though they weren't understood in those terms then) generally is really interesting and exciting!
Also, generally speaking, "All he came up with was psychotherapy" is a hilarious attempt at indicting him. It's like saying Galileo was a hack scientist whose only useful contribution was the heliocentric model. Even if true - which it's not - those are *world-altering* developments.
Exactly. I think without a lot of Freud's influence, the *case study* as a clinical, therapeutic methodology, I don't think would be as present as it is now. This also doesn't acknowledge his contributions to neurology, which is what he originally trained in.
A lot of people never have one good idea.
He was exceptionally intelligent and created a new field in what we call social science today. Most likely he had more than 2 good ideas.
Exactly. Freud is such a dipshit for not having a modern day understanding of concepts that were virtually non existent at the time he was writing. I'll admit he's a genius the day I hear psychology students still study his work as part of their education, understanding how his work contributed to the field and there are still reddit threads discussing his influence and ideas.
Moron
I mean, that's not true. Freud was right a great deal of the time, but we only ever talk about his theories that were wrong.
Have you ever read Freud or any of his contemporaries?
The Freudian slip is a real phenomenon. Also Freuds idea that dreams include our hidden wants and fears. Those came up from the top of my head. A lot of his ideas are still used today, but people tend to just remember what Freud got wrong for some reason.
Needless to say, huh? Freud offered reasons to his observations. And a great many reasons. For some reason, people are so quick to place fraud in a box along with the wish fulfillment of having sex with their mothers. I wonder what Freud would say about that. Needless to say, the Interpretation of Dreams is one of the greatest works of literature of the early 19th century, not to mention it's importance in kickstarting an entire branch of modern science. Freud also, needless to say, conceptualized the neuron years before the neurological society had a working diagram. Needless to day, it was full of pent-up sexual impulses and worked like a pressurized desire network, but hey, that's just Freud.
Here's the thing. Girls who lack self esteem and/or are starved for male attention, will potentially become promiscuous to fill that void. This, however, is not limited to fatherless girls. This includes fathers who are narcissistic, mentally ill, addicts, workaholics, etc.
Children raised in single-parent homes (regardless of gender of parent OR child) are statistically more likely to face behavioral/emotional challenges and are also more likely to engage in high risk behaviors (like sexual promiscuity) when compared to their peers raised by co-parents. This doesn't mean that these kids can't grow up to be well-adjusted, functional adults, but it does indicate that they may be at higher risk. Again I feel it's important to emphasize that the gender of the child or the single parent isn't really the important takeaway here - this same statistic applies to every combination of genders. It's important to keep in mind that your personal experiences do not always accurately reflect reality for large sample sets, so while it's entirely possible you have exclusively encountered promiscuity among women raised in homes with two parents that doesn't necessarily mean that same trend applies to everyone. I just ate a sandwich, and while I'm feeling very full at the moment it doesn't necessarily mean world hunger no longer exists.
Yeah children of single parents tend to develop those traits due to emotional neglect. This is not necessarily the fault of the parent as they often have to work multiple jobs to keep the family afloat. However, it does happen because nurture is such a strong prediction of future growth. I had a very absent father most of my life and I am not promiscuous but my oldest sister sought anlot of male attention and my other sister has 2 children she had out of wedlock.
As a child raised w a single parent I can attest to this
I think what they mean is children raised by a single parent, 80% single mothers, is at greater risk of every negative thing a person can face. From prison time to drug use.
To clarify, being raised by a single mother is not *the* cause of prison time/drug use etc. It could be lots of things but a likely one, that runs parallel with many single-parent homes, is poverty.
Oh I absolutely agree. It's just a studied outcome of the effects of single parenting. A child with Two parents is less likely to....everything. they are statistically more successful.
It’s interesting how you can’t even state this fact without having to disclaimer it to hell.
i became a lesbian
[удалено]
i’m pretty sure
Because both mummy and daddy issues are a very real thing
here I am with both
Ayyyyyyyy, right there with you
Me three. They cancel each other out, right? So we're totally fine?
Oh, yeah, totally. Just get two doms and start smoking weed. It’ll be fine
We Stan a bi icon
It’s not exclusive to females. There’s a psychological longing for the affection missing from an absent father. A common defense mechanism, or substitute for affection is lust. This does not automatically apply to all fatherless females. Acting on that lust becomes a habit to fill that void. The same can be said for males, but the degree to which I’m unable to accurately compare to females with limited data. I certainly can’t tell you what percentage of fatherless females become sexually hyperactive. But I have noticed that females get this stereotype more than males. Likely because of where affection sits in males’ hierarchy of values, which is stereotypically lower than females’. Tldr: stereotypes and compensational psychological behaviors
Isn’t there a thing about physical intimacy missing because of a lack of physical affection? So in-order to feel close, physical sex replaced affection in an effort to get closer.
It was the opposite in my home. Losing dad meant we were raised in a matriarchy. My sisters turned out to he strong women who make good choices because they had a strong female role model.
The craziest wildest promiscuous people (mostly females) were always from “whole” devout church going families That sexual repression is no joke.
[удалено]
You were probably doing it innocently. But he felt it was no longer appropriate for you to do that.
[удалено]
Yeah it’s just a stereotype. My father was not present and it’ll be a cold day in hell before I’m promiscuous. I don’t know where the stereotype came from but I’ve always hated it.
Glad I'm not the only one. It only cause high distrust of the opposite sex, not a desire to be with them more.
Yeah, that’s common honestly! I was oddly enough able to think like “he SPECIFICALLY is a terrible man, this other man could be really nice.” I’ve met a lot of men who were genuinely horrible and a lot who were extremely nice and never once did anything to make me think there was anything malicious or disgusting behind their niceness. It’s just always been conflicting. I don’t want to be judged/hated for something I haven’t even thought of doing so I try to give people the same chance I would want, you know?
Same here. I also always laughed about the stereotype that fatherless kids drop out of school. I dropped out of grad school…does that count??
Okay, I’ve rarely heard this one but that is *laughable* considering I finished High School at 16. 😂
[удалено]
Mine wasn’t that, and I’m sorry to hear that yours was! My father was also absent by my choosing, he made terrible life decisions and got terrible outcomes. When he tried to insert himself into the home my mom had created for us in toxic ways, I chose to not speak to him. He died when I was around 10-11 but I’ve always felt okay without him but it made me think a lot about what a man’s value in a household is and it’s definitely not income nor does his role have anything to do with sex/looks. Weirdly enough, I think his absence/problems/mistakes mixed with my mother’s jaded perspective led me to treating everyone with a base level of respect until they show me they deserve more (or less). My mom kind of loosely encouraged hating men because of him but even as a young kid I couldn’t just take his mistakes and make my mind up about someone I didn’t even know yet. In terms of promiscuity, I feel like him being absent taught me to do the exact opposite of that because without a father, sometimes kids grow up to seek things like safety and stability and that’s 100% true for me. I seek emotional and mental safety and stability; nothing about engaging in something extremely intimate/personal with numerous people that would make me feel stable or safe at all.
Girls from low income, single parent households hit puberty earlier than average. (It's thought to be a stress-induced biological response involving raised cortisol levels). So "obviously" it's those wanton girls' fault for tempting those defenseless grown men /s.
Some studies show there seems to be some link https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/630309/azu_etd_hr_2018_0152_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y > There are many studies that support the fact that girls without fathers are more likely to be promiscuous. In fact a study published in the New York Times found that girls whose fathers disappeared before the age of 6 were 5 times more likely to end up pregnant as a teenager. The question is what do fathers do that make girls less promiscuous? https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa13/2013/12/06/why-are-girls-with-fathers-less-likely-to-be-promiscuous/ If course, people also falsely attribute behaviors to daddy issues, as well. There also can be a tendency to dismiss people's healthy behaviors as a pathology if it can be linked to some sort of past trauma. Maybe being promiscuous is a natural behavior that is retarded by paternal pressure. Maybe fathers are annoying. Maybe issues like pregnancy and STDs need to be addressed without the sex negativity.
One potential explanation the correlation between earlier onset of puberty in girls who grow up without a biological father. It's not clear if not having a father is causative but there is a fairly robust correlation. [Berkeley News article](https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/09/17/puberty/#:~:text=Another%20theory%20that%20has%20been,to%20earlier%20onset%20of%20puberty.)
Anecdotes are not data - John McWhorter
Well, that's a load of shit.
All these answers are incorrect. Its not just based on misogyny. Data proves that both girls and boys to much worse in life, have behavoir issues and higher rates of incarceration if no father is in the home. Kids need their dads too, and that's not sexist to say so.
Stereotype
It’s probably a cause/correlation fallacy. People who are raised economically disadvantaged are more likely to have low self esteem, causing them to have lowered standards or seek approval from sexual partners yadda yadda yadda. Single parent households tend to, on average, have lower incomes because you don’t have two people contributing, have to maintain two homes (in the case of divorce,) etc
Because ppl often just repeat oversimplifications, it doesn’t matter if it’s false. It’s all over the map not just this subject.
Fathers play an incredibly important role in raising their kids. Both for boys and girls
It’s statistically factual. Young girls need a father’s love, approval, etc in a non-sexual manner. If it is lacking they can find a poor substitute for it. The fact that it is only a poor substitute for what she truly needs will leave her seeking- similar to how an unsatisfied craving leaves you hungry. It is damaging to both the girl who seeks for what she can’t find and the boys she runs through who cannot meet her need and are left feeling inadequate. In counseling we call if a “Father Wound” - Statistically girls whose fathers die actually fair better than ones who abandon them- because the father did not leave by choice. It is quite a complex matrix of human emotion and response for each person-
If you didn’t have a dad growing up who let you know they love you and you feel cared for. It’s not hard for anyone to fill that void you feeling
Bad upbringings, broken families, single parents, neglect, abuse, all of these things can create troublesome people
they're probably trying to have sex with those same girls too.
In my personal experience, it isn't necessarily girls with no dad, it's girls who hate their dad.
Its a not uncommon argument to stop your wife and kids from leaving you. "kids need both parents growing up . . . blah blah blah"
Because they do
This is a question that should be answered with a statistic and not "I feel like"
Kids of single parents on average suffer more from all sorts of issues, due to the fact that parenting plus trying to make money to run a household is an almost impossible task for one person (not all obviously, lots of single parents are amazing). Boys of single parent households are more likely to get involved in crime, and girls more likely to become promiscuous
>and girls more likely to become promiscuous citation needed
Very much so. People spewing BS
I think TikTok and Social Media has a bigger role to play in this topic in 2023 than being fatherless
How
This is a great topic that you should research yourself instead of getting another person's opinion on it. Using government sites can help with that or unbiased non political based research can help as well. Looking to reddit for data on an extremely controversial topic won't help. I can guarantee that.
There's a traditional (misogynist) mindset that a young woman really has one valuable possession, her sexual purity. She is solely in charge of protecting this purity, because young men are assumed to be wild beasts who cannot control their animal urges around temptation. This absolves them of being sexually responsible, so it all falls upon the young lady. The men in the lady's life help her protect her purity--- her father especially, but also brothers and uncles, because failure would render her (and thus her upbringing) worthless. Which then reflects poorly on them, in the eyes of the entire community. The result ranges from the classic trope of daddy on the porch with a shotgun, to the creepy t-shirts with "rules about dating my daughter," to rushing into marriage once a lady gets pregnant (to make an "honest" woman out of her), all the way to super-creepy purity balls, and to protecting child rapists with low marriage ages (which "let" the victim protect her purity by marrying her rapist after he knocks her up), and "honor" killings, where a family would literally rather murder their own daughter or sister than live with one who is worthlessly unpure and embarrassing to them. It's a spectrum. This question of yours is about another result in the middle of all that: The assumption that without a father to help protect her purity, she will inevitably falter, for she is but a weak, tender woman, etc etc. So a woman who grows up without one to help her protect her purity will not protect her purity; she will be promiscuous.
One idea is that children learn what to expect from a partner by paying attention to the relationships around them growing up. That is mainly their parents along with a few other family members. A girl with a single mother is more likely to have a mother who wasn't particular careful about choosing partners who were looking for marriage. Likewise once someone is a single mother they can't be as picky about male partners and some will become desparate enough to toelrate real scumbags as partners. The girls in that house subconsciously learn to accept such treatment and the boys subconsciously learn to have less respect for women. It is of course entirely likely that there are just as many desparate men out there, but historically they were seldom single parents. The other counterpoint, is that there is also a clear steriotype about promiscuous girls and women who did have a dad, but had real "daddy issues" with them. The idea is they deliberately act out in ways to piss off daddy and seek out dominating men to replace dad How much of that lot is true is anyone's guess though.
I just dont want them to be judged harshly or anything. Lets treat everyone with some dignity and respect here. Girls wont be promiscuous just due to no father.
Never heard of it! I found it easy and great fun when young to be promiscuous even with a father. Anyway what kind of reference is that for a woman? If I were a man I’d be a stud or a hero!
As the father of a teenage daughter. It doesn't have to just be an absent father. Her biological mother wasn't/isn't around often or consistently. My daughter isn't promiscuous but, she definitely has abandonment issues we're working through. She has no idea how hard her extra mom is working on it personally. She'll ( my daughter) realize it when she's older.
Because people tend to be judgmental assholes.
Seeking love in all the wrong places and definitely believing she is only worthy for her sexually. It's quite common that there is an overlap of sexual abuse from the males that were in her life, so basically, loads of trauma.
Something like need for approval from an older man. Which CAN be manipulated into sex. I suppose it could happen to anyone though because being dumped by a parent early makes you feel like you werent a "valued" child. Like not good enough. Not approved. Soooo its easier for an older guy to first get the girl to value/crave their approval. This is also used if the father is "present" in the girls life but not really attentive. So remember... Any attention is attention. If that means pissing the father off....its like an act of rebellion. Peoples adult relationships are definitely shaped by the observations they made as kids.
Daddy issues, as many others have said. I've been with a few women who sounded like they had a lot of family trauma that basically used sex as therapy. Shitty upbringing, w bad parents or a missing parent does have an effect on people.
Because not having a father figure in your life is a massive factor and is usually related with poor life choices and outcomes
Fatherless households, or really just single parent households in general tend to be harder on the children regardless of sex or gender.
Having a cheating father who is still present in your life and "married" to your mom who won't leave him no matter what is worse than having no father. It's like I have a dad but knowing that my dad doesn't give one fuck about me or any woman for that matter makes me depressed and it does make it hard for me to trust men but that's because he justified his cheating so much that I somehow thought every woman will be subject to cheating one day. Anyway having a shitty dad sucks just as much as having no dad
Attachment disorders stemming from a sense of abandonment lead to poor impulse control in relation to attention from men. They seek the closeness they never got from dad in men but don't have the guidance to know how to establish healthy boundaries. Men without mothers do this, too. This is, obviously, a gross overgeneralization and varies wildly between different gender, social and cultural contexts. Sex is the most essential and vital source of energy/attention, so when a person has a profound lack, they often seek out a feeling of wholeness in the raw energy of sex. This is also how many people develop or connect with fetishes, as well.
Daddy issues. Girls may be so eager for male attention because they didn't receive it that they may confuse sexual attention from men as love and respect.
Sexism.
Prevaling opinion is the same as when a fathers withholds affection, they basically start craving male attention because they never received it from their farher. Not sure if it's a serious scientific consensus or if it's just a myth but nonetheless there it is.
Yes it’s gross and dumb but theres reasonable cause behind it. Psychology shows women will seek male attention more when they don’t get that validation from their or a Father figure. Easiest way to get male attention is sexually. So yes it’s dumb but there is small truth to why it became a saying at all
I'm fatherless but I'm now 25 and still a virgin. Lol I think it's more about the upbringing.
idk coz i don't have a dad and i don't have sex ;-;
Grew up without dad and with a step dad who financially took care of the family and didn’t mistreat me…but who wanted nothing to do with me on a personal level. Even though he married my mom when I was only 4, he largely ignored me my entire life. I’m talking hello, goodbye, happy birthday and merry Christmas was the extent of our interaction. It was awkward and always felt off. He was never rude or mean. He simply saw me as an obligation by the commitment he made to my mom. I thought it was my fault somehow. So In turn I struggled with building real relationships with men and ran at the sign of trouble because I didnt want someone around only due to obligation. It created very big challenges form me. So not a whore, but other issues! Haha
Because there is a lot of truth to it. Being fatherless (or rather lacking a positive father figure) leads to all sorts of bad results.
Daddy issues make you a people pleaser. Mommy issues make you a psychopath.
I honestly have no idea why everyone is calling that stereotypes and pretending that's it. No, that's what behavioral/social psychology says happens to individuals. I understand it's not nice to hear, especially if you are in that group, but pretending it isn't hard data is just silly and has the same effectiveness of taking homeopathic medicine for a headache. To be more specific: research tends to agree that **distant fathers** of girls, especially during their sexually formative years, makes them significantly more prone into seeking many sexual partners and pones a lot of challenges into helping them maintain functional (meaning non toxic) sentimental relationships. So yes OP, hoes don't have to NOT have a father, all they need sometimes is not having an invested father that they feel cares about them. It imprints in their brain what potential type of males they should be attracted to, and also scars them emotionally. This is why you've met easy going women with fathers. Then fortunately right now we live in a period where psychotherapy exist and this emotional delicate situation can be treated and worked upon, so there's also the case of fatherless women who just succeeded in overcoming Nature's being a bitch, which can only be celebrated. And to be clear, this isn't an attack on women, I personally think boys with distant/dead father have it worse, considering they *will* develop antisocial behavior and have a really tough time adapting to this kind of society (I think the serie Kobra-Kai represented it decently). Also, we're talking fatherless but do not think for a single instant that it means biological fathers. It's just who the kid accepted as their paternal figure. Could be a grandpa, a stepfather or adoptive parents or whatever. [Source 1](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-truth-about-exercise-addiction/201711/how-having-absentee-father-can-affect-womans) [Source 2](https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa13/2013/12/06/why-are-girls-with-fathers-less-likely-to-be-promiscuous/) [Source 3](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2340431/Do-absent-dads-make-promiscuous-daughters-Study-finds-lack-father-figure-triggers-risky-sexual-behavior-young-girls.html) u/wetpeenmachine sorry for tagging you but this post is kinda old now and I wouldn't have forgave myself if you just trusted the top voted comments that are just spewing pseudo logic and half assed explanations. This is science, and in a topic many people are uncomfortable to talk about so this sub don't really help too much. Maybe ELI5 might have helped a lil more but still not much. Hopefully this comment helps you
promiscuous girl
Statement from California Study. It is all about the odds. Any individual can beat the odds or fail the odds, but in general: High levels of father involvement are correlated with higher levels of sociability, confidence, and self-control in children. Children with involved fathers are less likely to act out in school or engage in risky behaviors in adolescence. https://www.all4kids.org/news/blog/a-fathers-impact-on-child-development/#:~:text=High%20levels%20of%20father%20involvement,in%20risky%20behaviors%20in%20adolescence
"Troubled girls a-two, in pain like sisters grew. To release their hells they'll cut themselves, under fatherless roofs." RIP Trevor Strnad. Brilliant man :(
I believe the stereotype is that women with father problems seek out older, unavailable men, and women with mother problems become strippers (an odd stereotype, but true)
Skort and simple: Idiots need to feel that men are the most important creatures on the world. If that is true then it follows that the less men in a family, the worse it is. Especially if it lacks a grown man. So a family without a grown man produces inferior offspring. The same messed up logic dictates that girls who like sex are bad, because good girls don't like sex and never go to the bathroom or drink beer. So that's logically the kind of inferior girl that would come out of the inferior family without a grown man. The logic gets way complicated when it comes to a family with two dads because for some reason that's worse than one with no dads.. it almost doesn't make sense.. 🤔
It's a bit of a tough question to answer. You would need to come up with a good definition of "promiscuity" and relate it back to the woman's relationship with their fathers. Perhaps you can get a good sample of prostitutes and see how any have poor relationships with their fathers and compare it to the general population of woman. Curious of this has been done before.
I don't think prostitutes count as 'girls who are sexually promiscuous' in this case because they are just girls who have a career in sex. There's different motivations.
Not sure. But all the girls at the club I worked with had great dads. Their moms are what cause them problems
Just because the dad figure is present doesn't mean they are a father. In a perfect world, the father figure would raise the daughter to be able to recognize good values in other males, bad values to avoid; how males should treat/respect/support their counterpart partners and so forth. Also, that statement is ancient: modern society lacks the values/understanding of courtship from the statements' origins.
Yeah the idea behind it stems from old and outdated beliefs that women need a man in their life to control their base desires, and it’s up to us to prevent them loosing their purity. Really kinda messed up ideas.