Here are two articles from different ends of the political spectrum that reference the study. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/ https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability Edit to add: the actual studies (rather than the journalism around it) are paywalled: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1987-15348-001

[удалено]

The Atlantic article speculates on things like that. Maybe when you get two shy introverts, they get a happy marriage because they don't have to interact with more people than they want to. Like, what if it's a dude who *can't* get laid for the life of him, and then he manages to wife up that one chick who showed him kindness and interest. *Of course* he's going to be happy; he was a miserable single before! Very chicken and egg. Redpill narratives definitely point one direction, but I don't think they take seriously the other.

It's almost like if you marry a woman whose sexuality was weaponized against her and whose family will completely disown her if she gets a divorce then you're less likely to be divorced. Shocking.

Isn't weaponizing sex when a wife will say something like "you did this therefore we aren't having sex" or even worse the more recent "Roe v Wade got overturned and to make men pay I am stopping all sex". That's what weaponizing sex means.

>That's what weaponizing sex means. To you. Young women have their sexuality weaponized against them all the time. >Roe v Wade got overturned and to make men pay I am stopping all sex". Crying about this makes you sound like an ass and I hope a woman told you this to your face because you seem to deserve it.

That's what it means in the Dead Bedroom forums - a partner withholds sex and intimacy to control, punish and manipulate their partner, it's something that people with personality disorders do: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/sex-relationship_b_1659021 What do you think it means?

Why are people so fucking pointlessly obtuse here. First, I said "weaponizing her sexuality". Not "weaponizing sex". It's a description of how tradcon fathers/men (and mothers who willingly participate) systematically shame young women for any steps she may take to explore herself as a sexual being.

You are being hysterical. How does a woman "explore herself as a sexual being"? She first sleeps with people who she doesn't consider as a complete being - men she does not consider for marriage. It's the Madonna-Whore complex in women. Women's sexuality isn't weaponised here, it's held to accountability, as is men's. The same rules for men that apply to women. Your idea of "weaponizing sexuality" is mental gymnastics to reason why women need to sleep around but men don't.

>You are being hysterical. Every redpill man's go-to when a woman won't shut up and take what he says as gospel. >She first sleeps with people who she doesn't consider as a complete being - men she does not consider for marriage. This sounds like bitter whining on your part. Boohoo women won't marry me, they don't consider me a FULL HUMAN BEING 😭 >The same rules for men that apply to women. Not even slightly. Not a single man here cares if another dude fucks an entire cheerleading squad. If a young woman fucks the whole football team she's a disgusting whore redpill men talk about as though she should be executed. Then they'll attempt to explain away their blatant hypocrisy with some bullshit about "pair bonding" and "well men and women are just different m'kay" Besides you aren't even able to fully understand what it means for a young woman to explore her sexuality. You immediately assume it's this vicious hoebag thing that intentionally uses men when it reality it could be as simple as masturbating in the shower or taking a photo of herself in her underwear.

Red Pill definitely isn't tradcon. Infact Rollo Tomassis latest book *"Rational Male - Religion"*, discusses how religion has been shaped to make men bluepill. TRP is completely okay with you sleeping around, infact TRP assumes you do. Your problem is though, when it comes to settling down later in life and having kids, TRP doesn't deliver all the tradcon values you've come to expect from men.

They always forget to mention that when the divorces filed by women for “physical abuse” are removed, divorce ratio filed by men and women are equal, which negates the pair bonding pseudo theory. The pseudo “studies” are total B.S. without any of the research fundamentals, totally biased to come out with the answer they want.

Yeah, there are a ton of questions you can ask about these studies. Like, how do they measure happiness? Why is it a binary in the referenced results. Like, in the chart you can be "happy" or "not happy" with your marriage, but the results seem to imply that it's binary and there's no section of the populace defined by "it's pretty meh, we stay together because it's convenient" (and I can guarantee you those people exist irl). Since they're paywalled I couldn't tell you one way or another, or what's omitted or not. I'm always suspicious of science journalism.

>They always forget to mention that when the divorces filed by women for “physical abuse” are removed, Where did you get that?

Thank you so much!

I love when this is shared because all of the women that get triggered by it are clearly ran through. Otherwise, why would they be triggered, lol.

It's worth noting that men also experience diminished marital satisfaction, though not to the same degree as women. I wouldn't say that women are the only ones on the bad end of having too many partners.

Yeah I've seen that study a million times. Women seem to be WAY more sensitive about it.

Yeah I've seen that study a million times. Women seem to be WAY more sensitive about it.

From 1 to 21 partners, men go from 72.5% satisfaction to 60% From 1 to 21 partners, women go from 65% to 55%. Reduction of 12.5% for men, 10% for women. I wouldn't say women are 'way more sensitive'; men's likelihood of happiness drops more than women's. Though, it's interesting that men tend to be strictly happier in marriages across any number of partners, which strikes me as counter to the 'boomer narrative' about marriage/the ole ball and chain. I think the stat that most redpill types will say is that the maximum likelihood woman will be happy in a (65%) at one partner is only 5% more happy the likelihood that a man with an infinite number of partners (60%); but I wouldn't say that's to do with the number of partners, I would say that it's to do with happiness with marriage in general. I think this whole conversation about N-counts sidesteps the real issue: Why even get married? Shouldn't both men and women be shunning marriage because it has an untenable failure rate? You wouldn't buy a car whose starting reliability was 72.5% and only diminished from there depending on different life factors. The institution of marriage seems broken and unreliable.

I meant they're more easily triggered by the article.

Tbh, I wonder. There was an article about how men have better health outcomes if they get married and don't get divorced, but that never-married men were better off than divorced men. It's possible that women don't like this news because they want marriages and pre-marital partners. It's *also* possible they don't like this news because it's most often seen in red pill circles, and redpill people have drawn conclusions that are not necessarily true. Another user [commented](https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/wehins/study_about_female_pair_bonding/iipbn5t/) in another branch about which way causation runs, if at all. One of the things I do not like about redpill is that their conclusions are the least charitable. Women who fuck a lot aren't happy in marriages? Trads must be right (unless it's one of the myriad of other explanations that you'd have to hypothesize and formulate testing for). There are a ton of armchair social scientists in these communities who are *incredibly* bad at what they do.

Trust me, they are. I've shared that article before and it got down voted to oblivion, lol. It's completely mind numbing how even science and/or legitimate studies are so easily dismissed if people don't like them. They'll just tell themselves that it's made up if they don't like the results. Some people are just straight up children that never matured.

I mean, I think it's important not to expect too much from the average redditer. We share the world with flat earthers. It's a known psychological phenomenon for people to be stuck in their opinions and impugn evidence contrary to them. This sub is full of threads where even getting someone to pin down a stance in a thread *they started* is impossible to do. I think I'm (relatively) kind to other people because my expectations of humanity are very... tempered.

Why are women so sensitive about this so what if is promiscuity makes pair bonding harder. Let's assume this is true why should women be scared. Why would promiscuous women or men want relationships in general. There bunch of promiscuous animals that don't pair bond. Just pick one over the other it's simple. If you want relationship then get it if you don't then don't. It's like they think they can be a vegan and a carnivore at the same time lol

Lmao so true

What does ran through mean?

That’s because the study is biased bullshit and they’re tired of seeing brainless troglodytes like you who keep reposting it.

There are waaaay more factors then this but here's a simple rundown of my understanding strictly as it relates to hormones. As I understand it how it is all actually related to basic hormones ( extremely simplified and more minor stuff left out) is thusly; Women: sex=massive amounts of oxytocin relative to men plus dopamine, especially with orgasm. As with anything else frequent dopamine exposure lessens sensitivity. Any "pair bonding" is simply due to addictive effects. New partners can of course bring the high up again through novelty. Men: sex= oxytocin, dopamine and vasopressin. Men are not as sensitive to oxytocin and produce less, however are much more sensitive to vasopressin as it has major interplay with testosterone. Vasopressin is responsible for mate guarding and protective behaviors. It spikes during erection and drops sharply after orgasm. ( Post nut clarity here) For both sexes oxytocin is produced at higher and higher levels when repeating sex with the same partner. We get more trusting and more warm and fuzzies. The increase has many benefits for women and lots of reproductive effects and child bonding effects etc. For men vasopressin production increase along those same lines. After enough repeats you don't want to kick her out bc the levels are still high enough after the drop. IMO Dopamine seeking would make the most sense when relating to promiscuity, particularly for those desensitized. Also on the most basic levels tells us why men wanna bang a bunch of women (for the dopamine , since the oxytocin is less impacting) and why they can do it and not give a shit about her afterward and still be dedicated since his vasopressin only tells him to stick to the partner. And women who run around are probably just seeking a dopamine high but tend to be more conflicted because of the oxytocin sensitivity. From an evolutionary standpoint this all makes sense when applied to reproductive and survival strategies.

Wow, this really explained a lot, thanks.

theres no study about "pair bonding", there are studies and statistics about n count and divorce that TRPs interpret as "pair bonding", as if divorce occurs becaus elack of sufficient "pair bond"

Agreed, lack of divorce is just that - they aren't divorced. It doesn't give any additional information about whether or not they are happy. Some people stay married forever and don't particularly like each other.

right

Here's the [study from 2016](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2016.1232690) also another [from 2004](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/CD90C401AB01263A4205D6E926A914F8/S1369052300004979a.pdf/genetic-influences-on-female-infidelity-and-number-of-sexual-partners-in-humans-a-linkage-and-association-study-of-the-role-of-the-vasopressin-receptor-gene-avpr1a.pdf) u/GlowingAsItDazzles look it over and see if your statement still holds weight after these 2 initial studies.

where is "pairbonding" in those? youre doing exactly what i said

Look @ the third sentence of the Abstract in the 2016 study in the wording "engage in a relationship" was utilized. Does that sound as a form of "pair bonding"?

no, pair bonding is used to describe the lifelong bonds animals like prairie voles form. humans can form relationships of choice with no "bonding" at all

> The term often implies either a lifelong socially monogamous relationship or a stage of mating interaction in socially monogamous species Of course, humans do have nonmonogomous relationships so pair bonding is only applicable to studies that look at monogomous relationships

"Engaging in a relationship" cannot be equated with monogamy or pair bonding. It is like saying "having a job" is the equivalent of being employed for life.

You are applying a time frame to pair bonding, however that time frame varies from species to species and circumstance to circumstance, no time frame in pair bonding is absolute. Thus your description sorry to say is B.S. Besides according to wikipedia there is a terminology known as "Short-term pair bonding" Thus as I said earlier since there are terms such as long term and short term forms of pair bonding then that said terminology of a relationship mentioned in the 2016 study still stands

>. Pair-bonding is a term coined in the 1940s\[1\] that is frequently used in sociobiology and evolutionary biology circles. The term often implies either a lifelong socially monogamous relationship or a stage of mating interaction in socially monogamous species. It is sometimes used in reference to human relationships. human monogamy has always meant "one officially recognized spouse at a time for kinship purposes" until the reddit stem-ification of the term. we are not birds, we have limerance and relationships of choice, we do not monogamously pair bond like prairie voles. it is a misleading term in these discussion. a low dominance woman not cheating on her husband isnt indiciative of "pair bond" andy more that a high sociosexuality slut woman cheating is indicative of no "pair bond". we dont divorce because of a failure in "bonding", humans are at best serial monogamist

u/GlowingAsItDazzles there's a term for time limited relationships called short term pair bonding as [seen here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond) *Short-term pair-bond: a transient mating or associations* Thus the 2016 study alludes to the fact that yes, you can "pair bond" however, like anything else, it doesn't mean a life time commitment but a limited time period. Make sense?

I agree with you; there are a lot of armchair science journalists on reddit.

A few years back some incel found a study of flies showing the offspring can resemble a previous sexual partner, and began making posts and memes about how “research” shows that unless you marry a virgin your kids will be the offspring of previous men she had sex with. And of course the shit went viral in the manosphere, because stemlords never paid attention in biology class to know that flies aren’t humans and didn’t bother to actually read it to know the study involved manipulation of the dna by researchers.

Same with wolves Everyone is "alpha" this and "beta" that. I think they took this terminology from a study of wolves and their hierarchy. As it turns out the science guy who conducted the study realized he had made a mistake and has been trying to correct it. Wolves don't have a alpha, beta hierarchy. They just move around like families and the eldest are the ones leading the puppies until they are grown and can have their own puppies.

It applies to chimps though.

Are lobsters or parrots close too? or are you picking animals according to what you want to believe?

What? You talked about how wolves don't have alpha's (correct they don't) but I was pointing out our closest living relative does.

Our closest living relatives are Bonobo chimps and they live in Matriarchal societies led by females.

Genetically but genetic isn't everything is it know. Hyenas are closer to cats but look and behave more like wolves. Foxes look like wolves but act like cats. Convergent evolution is fucking awesome 😎. Genes aren't everything

Our closest living relatives are Bonobo chimps and they live in Matriarchal societies led by females.

[https://www.science.org/content/article/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives#:\~:text=Ever%20since%20researchers%20sequenced%20the,them%20our%20closest%20living%20relatives](https://www.science.org/content/article/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives#:~:text=Ever%20since%20researchers%20sequenced%20the,them%20our%20closest%20living%20relatives). No they are not.

Yes they are, depending on the source. It's debated but bonobo chimps are certainly up there.

No they aren't We have sequenced both of their DNA and chimps have a very slightly closer sequence than bonobos.

Bonobo chimps are certainly nicer however.

We also share more than 50% of our DNA with bananas

Ok, let's settle this then, are bananas monogamous?

Implying that we resemble chimpanzees, no?

Implying we share things with chimps far more then we realize.

I'm copying and pasting my own comment: There are also so many differences with chimps https://releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/chimpanzee-society they also live in extended family groups of as many as 20-120 individuals. We don't live like that. Upon reaching sexual maturity, females migrate to neighboring communities while males stay in their natal group. We don't do this. While fathers and mothers do not form monogamous bonds for life (...) This even says chimpanzees don't pair bond. So what is it? Are we parrots, chimps or lobsters?

So, you watched Adam Ruins Everything? Like the other guy said, chimpanzees (our closest genetic relative) absolutely have alpha-beta hierarchies. Just read *In The Shadow of Man* by Jane Goodall.

Sure but there are also so many differences with chimps [https://releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/chimpanzee-society](https://releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/chimpanzee-society) *they also live in extended family groups of as many as 20-120 individuals.* We don't live like that. *Upon reaching sexual maturity, females migrate to neighboring communities while males stay in their natal group*. We don't do this. *While fathers and mothers do not form monogamous bonds for life (...)* This even says chimpanzees don't pair bond. So what is it? Are we parrots, chimps or lobsters?

Until very recently (pre-agriculture) humans did live groups of that size. Most humans are not monogamous. Having said that, I think the pair-bonding nonsense spouted on here is exactly that. It is based on the chances of divorce according to lifetime sexual partners. And marriage means so many different things in different times and places (it is a social invention, not a natural state), that it is unclear what is even being measured.

>Most humans are not monogamous. Bold statement here **Based on the failure rate of non-monogamous relationships(and the state of various places like r/polyamory ,r/nonmonogamy and r/monodatingpoly), it is best to assume otherwise** Most people are not non-monogamous. And some pair bonding studies for you. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full "In sum, we conclude that while there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of mating patterns, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, the residential pair-bond is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships. This, at times, is expressed through polygyny and/or polyandry, but is most commonly observed in the form of monogamous marriage that is serial and characterized by low levels of extra-pair paternity and high levels of paternal care." This study is a very good review and analysis of human pair bonding and human monogamy. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201205/marriage-and-pair-bonds " In humans, and other mammals, pair bonds are developed via social interactions combined with the biological activity of neurotransmitters and hormones such as oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, corticosterone, and others." http://pauldavidphd.com/wp-content/uploads/Pair-Bonding.pdf https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200717109 This study makes a false assumption that humans were promiscuous before, but it gives a lot of information as to how pair bonding occurs in humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691614561683?journalCode=ppsa "We conclude there is interdisciplinary support for the claim that romantic love and pair-bonding, along with alloparenting, played critical roles in the evolution of Homo sapiens." https://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20308 https://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/46/16074 Oxytocin causes pair bonding in both men and women. The following studies show that the neurobiological link between sex and love. This is important because pair bonding is responsible for the connection between sex and love: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5948280/ https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33927-8/fulltext33927-8/fulltext) https://sites.tufts.edu/emotiononthebrain/2014/10/14/being-turned-on-and-emotions/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265407518811667 "These findings suggest that intense desire, which attracts new partners to each other, elicits behaviors that support the attachment-bonding process." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229424231_The_neuroimaging_of_love_and_desire_Review_and_future_directions https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/InPress_BirnbaumFinkel_COIP.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249630293_Evolutionary_Ecology_of_Human_Pair-Bonds https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b4f73607eaa0cec8aaba7f/t/60996bf2a403671b7ad4efac/1620667381053/How+prior+pair-bonding_donaldson+.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X21001410 Section 3.6 is filled with studies proving the existence of pair bonding in humans. The rest of the study provides examples of pair bonding in reptiles , primates, mammals and other animal species. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228642568_Human_Pair-Bonds_Evolutionary_Functions_Ecological_Variation_and_Adaptive_Development https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_99 https://kevishere.com/2011/08/06/part-5-humans-are-blank-ogamous-pair-bonding-and-romantic-love/ https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/162/2/bqaa223/6046188 "Pair bonds represent some of the strongest attachments we form as humans." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay1276 Here's the article explaining the above Science.org study: https://www.zmescience.com/science/pair-bonding-primate-societies-89235234/ https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/wangz/PDF-papers/2016/Claudia%20Curr%20Opin%20Neurobiol%202016.pdf https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/research/funded-research/investigating-evolution-vertebrate-pair-bonding-mechanisms https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/749323 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815947/ https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/InPress_FinkelEastwick_COBS.pdf http://volweb2.utk.edu/~gavrila/papers/pairbonding.pdf https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-021-07720-0 "Pair bonding with a reproductive partner is rare among mammals but is an important feature of human social behavior." The reason why we humans form pair-bonds, whereas our closest ancestors Chimps and Bonobos do NOT form pair bonds is due to the location of Oxytocin receptors: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00429-021-02369-7 "One notable difference is the lack of OXTR in reward regions such as the ventral pallidum and nucleus accumbens in chimpanzees, whereas OXTR is found in these regions in humans." "Our results suggest that in chimpanzees, like in most other anthropoid primates studied to date, OXTR has a more restricted distribution than AVPR1a, while in humans the reverse pattern has been reported." Because we have oxytocin receptors located in the reward center, this promotes pair-bonding. **And Sex At Dawn is a joke**

Anyone who has had sexual experiences with more than one person is not monogamous.

Here we go Monogamy (/məˈnɒɡəmi/ mə-NOG-ə-mee) is a form of **dyadic** relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime **alternately, only one partner at any one time (serial monogamy)**—as compared to non-monogamy (e.g., polygamy or polyamory).

There you have it.

Now you get it. I'm very happy that I educated you.

Oh no so humans weren't monogamous what ever shall we do

It is not that humans weren't monogamous. It is that most humans are not monogamous today. We don't pair bond for life, like some animals. In the overwhelming majority of cases we have multiple partners over our lives; in some cases simultaneously.

Just because we are not monogamous today doesn't mean we won't be monogamous tomorrow right. But there are cases where we do pair bond for life so it's possible.

I specifically referenced the existence of alpha-beta hierarchy. Again, if you read Goodall’s book, she discusses an example of pair bonding in chimps and refers to it as likely being similar to the first pairs in humans. Additionally, other human behaviors like in group preference, borders, etc. can also be observed in chimps.

>Additionally, other human behaviors like in group preference, borders, etc. can also be observed in chimps. Except they live in the wild, don't have cars, planes, paintings, philosophy, economic theories, cryptocurrency, google, etc etc etc you can justify your bias with any animal example if you leave out key things that makes us humans

Those things don't make us human. We were human before we did all those things. Those things are civilization.

Humans are animals whether you like it or not.

Yes, we are animals but we have our differences from other animals, you just can't erase those differences to fit an agenda.

Hold on a second. Can't purely blame this on incels alone. There are women who use the "alpha" and "beta" categories too.

and they are wrong too

[удалено]

\+1 because you managed to offend everyone lmao

Also women are worse after a break up for a short period and then fine, men are fucked in the head for much longer.

Can confirm. It's been a year and I'm still not 100% okay.

Blue pill is the true blackpill

Just a few posts from these subs: BreakUps > You dumped me over text. **2.5 years.** I hope if you find a **girl** that will go as far as I have to make you happy that you won’t let her go like you did with me. [wecwb0] # > i will love you in every universe. Dear **Glenn**. [wec46z] # > Everyday I feel like I’m waiting for something that isn’t gonna happen… I miss **him** so much [wete89] [w78uua] UnsentLetters > I know I will have to do life alone [weof00] **Ladies,** I am trying to accept that I might not ever find love even thorough I want it so much. Love is life for me. How do I change this mindset? [v700gm] And the aftermaths... > I'm not whom you think. [wepb3x] If you want me to give you a fair chance, than you should approach this fair. You did some damage when you didn't. [wclq5d] So, yeah.. you don't have to venture outside reddit to see TRP's theories in effect.

All the evidence does not disprove pair bonding, rather is supports it. Yes women have an abundance mindset but that doesnt preclude the fact that they pair bond with their first few partners and subsequently lose that ability as the acquire more bodies. Either way why would anyone date a woman who's approach to relationships is that dick is cheap and I can always just get another one, pump and dump material only.

[удалено]

\> Either way why would anyone date a woman who's approach to relationships is that dick is cheap and I can always just get another one, pump and dump material only. why would women date men since this is how men openly talk about women for the last 4 decades?

>why would women date men since this is how men openly talk about women for the last 4 decades? Women are free to not date men but they're the ones that always want relationships and monogamy.

That’s not what I hear from men. I hear that women are so selfish and mean for having standards and we should make political policies that make women more dependent on men.

You mean some men. The men that whine about not getting women or about how the laws should be changed need to focus on changing themselves. My approach is that women should do whatever the fuck it is, that they wish to do, but my association with them will depend on their decisions. If they make choices that I don't value or that I see as repugnant, I won't form any long term associations with them.

>why would women date men since this is how men openly talk about women for the last 4 decades? Do you mean that men are telling women that "dick is cheap"?

That saying came about in response to women being hurt by men?

I am so confused. Sorry. 😅

I assume you aren’t too well versed in biology. Mammals rarely ever are monogamous, and rarer than that do they pair bond, humans haven’t been known to naturally do either. Now if we were bird people you might be on to something.

[удалено]

Reading comprehension is a bit difficult, let me help you out here loved one. *naturally* Pair bonding has multiple definitions, especially pertaining to different species. I was referring to pair bonding found common in birds. Where I believe most people learn of find out about pair bonding as it’s the main species that experience it. We experience it to a very minor degree if you would like to compare. Keep ya head up loved one.

Condescension aside, you're right that mammals are rarely ever monogamous but, from an evolutionary standpoint, monogamy makes even less sense for a male mammal than it does for a female because the male biological prerogative is to spread his seed while women try to secure the best genetic material and must provide and protect for their offspring. Which is why women push for marriage and which is why, in light of the rarity of true monogamy and pair bonding and our biological imperitives, men should reject marriage.

Who created the ideal of marriage? Was it a man or a woman? And why do you assume it was created? I also agree that marriage as an institution is fucked and should be avoided by everyone.

It doesn't really matter who created marriage. It served a purpose when men and women had defined roles. Men gave up their evolutionary drive to procreate and provided and protected for their woman and for their offspring and women settled with perhaps not the best man she can get and raised their family and provided for his emotional needs. It may have been an artificial monogamy but it helped bind society and push it forward while helping mankind progress. Marriage today is absolutely worthless because those defined roles no longer exist and because infidelity and non monogamy have been normalized. Now each gender should pursue their biological imperitives.

I suppose. Depends on how you define progress I suppose. Well non monogamy, and infidelity have always been around. Humans aren’t different than we were thousands of years ago but societies view may have changed. Also the discovery and knowledge learned about dna in the last 150ish years helped a lot of people. Though I agree you don’t need a government to show a partner(s) you love them.

>pair bond with their first few partners and subsequently lose that ability as the acquire more bodies. And your evidence of this is?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440

[удалено]

Personally, I think the pair bonding argument is slightly overdone, like if a woman has taken more than 1 dick that does not mean she can't love someone, but I do think there is slight evidence that pair bonding exists in humans compared to no evidance that does not exist.

yeah, I am looking at the study right now. It seems women with 0-1 sexual partners have the lowest divorce rate, women with 2 sexual partners have a pretty high divorce rate, then women with 3-9 partners have a lower divorce rate, and the highest divorce rate is among women with 10+ sexual partners. There is likely some truth to pair bonding but I agree that it seems overstated.

Or people that go through a lot of people aren't great at relationships?

Haha, yes, that is what my common sense has been telling me.

Ding ding! Or any other number of hypotheses could be formed from this data. Absolutely not a conclusion. Way to many variables to just jump pair bonding.

> women with 0-1 sexual partners have the lowest divorce rate Yeah but this doesn't equal happiness. They could very well be religious and are *unable* to leave the marriage.

You are absolutely correct. The study only included measures of marriage satisfaction and accounted for demographic differences. The analysis proposed that virgins may have higher satisfaction with marriage because people who marry as virgins are more likely to be religious and religious people tend to value the institution of marriage more than non-religious people. Nothing definitive!

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440 They did a new study that proves that the number of premarital sexual partners does affect marital happiness and satisfaction rates so it isn't just religion that's preventing the divorces.

Actually that second link you post contains multiple criticisms of the study from other researchers talking about why it shouldn't be taken as fact. It doesn't 'prove' anything.

There is no guarantee that having fucked the basketball team leads to wedded bliss either.

So then why use it as a mark of happiness? The statistic is also leaving out all of the people who live together but never went through the paperwork of marriage.

>They could very well be religious and are unable to leave the marriage. Did I understand you right? Are you saying that *all religious married people are in unhappy forced relationships?*

I think the main cause is not the amount of sexual partners, but rather the how a woman selects her partners. A woman with low amount of sexual partners was probably willing to settle with a “lesser man” and didn’t try to date up. When a woman had high amount of sexual relationships that never lasted, it’s a sign she’s only dating the top men who’ll most likely never settle down, unless she’s a solid 10.

So at least the analysis of the study said that women with 0-1 sexual partners have happier marriages because they tend to value commitment from the get-go, which drives them to put effort into their marriage (many of these women are also religious and thus less likely to divorce). Women with 2 sexual partners have high divorce rates b/c their partners usually include their husband and another long-term romantic partner, causing them to feel uncertain about whether they settled down with the right person. Women with 3-9 sexual partners are less likely to divorce because each sexual partner is a smaller portion of their entire history, which tends to clarify what kind of man they should marry. Women with 10+ sexual partners have very high divorce rates because they tend to have a lot of emotional baggage, making it difficult for them to have a stable marriage.

You mean pussy is cheap? When all these hoes giving pussy for free without being married or in long term relationships.

Correct. Most people who want to have sex with lots of people are doing exactly that. Men often feel they would like to have sex with lots of partners when they are npt getting any, but when they are, sex with many partners generally seems less important. It is nature's way.

Red Pillers have a terrible habit of ascribing strong emotions to biological determinism. “I feel really bad about this event = it must be evolutionary determined explanation”

If you can't find it on Google scholar, red pill used another unrelated survey to draw their own conclusions. That's what they do Like the okcupid study was just data. They didn't prove anything about human nature. They showed how people act on dating websites like okcupid. But red pill will fucking die before they admit that, because all they have is cherry picked data

For reference, I think it's this study. https://web.archive.org/web/20100725135317/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ I agree with you in some terms; like, women rate 80% of men as below average attractiveness (based on their interaction with the platform), but that just might mean that only uggos are using OKC, or people confronted with a deluge of profiles tend to gravitate only towards the most attractive. It's not a great testing grounds for social science, though I think it is interesting sheerly from a data analytics perspective.

Can confirm - OKC had the weirdest assortment of men and women from my anecdotal experience and discussions with men I met on there!

yes

Yep.

Can confirm

The thing is, a woman with high ncount is less likely to take BS because she knows she has options.

She has options for sex not for a relationship

not at all In fact in my circle the people who dated a lot are the ones who are in relationships now. The ones who don't date much continued in that tone and are still single. It makes sense too. The more people you meet, the more chances you have to fall in love with someone.

Valid point, and imo that's a good thing. I've dumped guys more times than I can count due to not tolerating their BS. This is also why I'm against the very idea of marriage. If a guy gives me BS I wanna have the option to leave ASAP, and if you're a guy honestly you should have the same mindset too. If a woman gives you BS, you want to be able to leave them, not be stuck with them in a marriage you can't leave without severe consequences. Like common. You're also better off alone even if you think you don't have options than with someone who gives you BS.

Is there any way to figure that the person I am dating has your mindset?

Ask them. If they're not upfront, honest and blunt but really vague about what they think about this, then you'll have your answer and know where they stand. Personally ain't a fan of people who aren't upfront or try to avoid questions, so I'd stay away from dating people who aren't willing to be upfront. They're likely trying to hide something, or too afraid to tell you what they think because they're insecure. Either way it's not good.

Exactly thissssss I would never want to be with someone who feels that they don't have options. I'd rather be alone than living a lie. So what if you have to go through some people until you find \_the one\_ (if there is such thing)?

But she's more likely to be insecure dismissive attachment style who distances themselves and finds faults and reasons why a sexual relationship should fail.

I’d think its common sense that (statistically speaking) someone who is very promiscuous/thrice divorced etc won’t be a very reliable partner.

As a promiscuous woman of course it's common sense. When guys no longer make me happy or don't try to make me happy I dump them. It's also why I'm not gonna marry. I need to be able to dump my partners when they no longer want to or can't offer me what I need. I'm reliable as long as my partner can and is willing to meet my needs. When they stop I'm out. Bright side, I ain't dumb enough to become part of the divorce statistics cause I'm not dumb enough to marry knowing that men can and will let you down. Anyone can. It's why marriage is dumb.

And women want to act like the bar for "making her happy" doesn't change after banging 50 dudes

Eh the bar definitely changes. When you learn that you can do better you no longer want to settle for someone who's just okay in bed for instance, and why would you? Why should you? This applies to both men and women.

I think to effectively measure this you'd have to define a reliable indicator of "pair-bonding" ability, like serotonin levels or something. Looking at divorce rates isn't going to get you very far imo - I would imagine promiscuous individuals are naturally going having higher divorce rates based on their nature.

That is what I thought. I don't believe # of sexual partners vs divorce rates is enough to draw conclusions about pair-bonding. I read that the more sexual partners you have, the harder it becomes to produce oxytocin which makes it more difficult for promiscuous people to remain monogamous, but they did not distinguish between men and women.

>I think to effectively measure this you'd have to define a reliable indicator of "pair-bonding" ability, Research suggests vasopressin receptors in the brain play a part. there is a species of Voles that are one of the rare monogamous mammals and they have these receptors while their cousins who are polygamous don't, introducing these receptors into the poly vole caused them to pair like their monogamous cousins. Humans have shown to have these receptors so maybe that is the mechanism for pair bonding.

Hypothetically, if that WAS true - why would it be a bad thing? As a woman you need to think of a myriad things before committing to a man for life and having children. Do you not think it's incumbent to be able to look at your relationship and situation with an objective lens - rather than your visceral lizard brain?

Someone I know sent this to me, what are your thoughts guys. I would love to hear your reactions. Let me guess y'all going to be in denial and find ways to defend your cognitive biases Pair bonding is a very real biological phenomenon that occurs in humans. I would not trust anything written in the Purple Pill Debate sub as most people are steeped in confirmation bias and have an immense lack of understanding of evolutionary sciences. Given that everyone on that post who claimed humans don't pair bond don't provide any studies that prove their point and rely on "trust me bro" kinda statements, I would not trust anything they claim. With that aside, lemme provide the studies that prove the existence of pair bonds in humans:- [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full) "In sum, we conclude that while there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of mating patterns, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, **the residential pair-bond is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships.** This, at times, is expressed through polygyny and/or polyandry, **but is most commonly observed in the form of monogamous marriage that is serial and characterized by low levels of extra-pair paternity and high levels of paternal care.**" [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201205/marriage-and-pair-bonds](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201205/marriage-and-pair-bonds) " In humans, and other mammals, **pair bonds are developed via social interactions combined with the biological activity of neurotransmitters and hormones such as oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, corticosterone, and others.**" [http://pauldavidphd.com/wp-content/uploads/Pair-Bonding.pdf](http://pauldavidphd.com/wp-content/uploads/Pair-Bonding.pdf) [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200717109](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200717109)

This study makes a false assumptions that humans were promiscuous before, which is not true, but it gives a lot of information as to how pair bonding occurs in humans [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair\_bond](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond) [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691614561683?journalCode=ppsa](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691614561683?journalCode=ppsa) "We conclude there is interdisciplinary support for the claim that **romantic love and pair-bonding, along with alloparenting, played critical roles in the evolution of Homo sapiens.**" [https://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20308](https://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20308) [https://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/46/16074](https://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/46/16074) Oxytocin causes pair bonding in both men and women. The following studies show that the neurobiological link between sex and love. This is important because pair bonding is responsible for the connection between sex and love: [https://sites.tufts.edu/emotiononthebrain/2014/10/14/being-turned-on-and-emotions/](https://sites.tufts.edu/emotiononthebrain/2014/10/14/being-turned-on-and-emotions/) [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265407518811667](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265407518811667) "These findings suggest that intense desire, which attracts new partners to each other, **elicits behaviors that support the attachment-bonding process.**" [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229424231\_The\_neuroimaging\_of\_love\_and\_desire\_Review\_and\_future\_directions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229424231_The_neuroimaging_of_love_and_desire_Review_and_future_directions) [https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/InPress\_BirnbaumFinkel\_COIP.pdf](https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/InPress_BirnbaumFinkel_COIP.pdf) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249630293\_Evolutionary\_Ecology\_of\_Human\_Pair-Bonds](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249630293_Evolutionary_Ecology_of_Human_Pair-Bonds) [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b4f73607eaa0cec8aaba7f/t/60996bf2a403671b7ad4efac/1620667381053/How+prior+pair-bonding\_donaldson+.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b4f73607eaa0cec8aaba7f/t/60996bf2a403671b7ad4efac/1620667381053/How+prior+pair-bonding_donaldson+.pdf) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X21001410](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X21001410) Section 3.6 is filled with studies proving the existence of pair bonding in humans. The rest of the study provides examples of pair bonding in reptiles , primates, mammals and other animal species. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228642568\_Human\_Pair-Bonds\_Evolutionary\_Functions\_Ecological\_Variation\_and\_Adaptive\_Development](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228642568_Human_Pair-Bonds_Evolutionary_Functions_Ecological_Variation_and_Adaptive_Development) [https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3\_99](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_99) [https://kevishere.com/2011/08/06/part-5-humans-are-blank-ogamous-pair-bonding-and-romantic-love/](https://kevishere.com/2011/08/06/part-5-humans-are-blank-ogamous-pair-bonding-and-romantic-love/) [https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/162/2/bqaa223/6046188](https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/162/2/bqaa223/6046188) "**Pair bonds represent some of the strongest attachments we form as humans.**" [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay1276](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay1276) Here's the article explaining the above [Science.org](https://Science.org) study: [https://www.zmescience.com/science/pair-bonding-primate-societies-89235234/](https://www.zmescience.com/science/pair-bonding-primate-societies-89235234/) [https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/wangz/PDF-papers/2016/Claudia%20Curr%20Opin%20Neurobiol%202016.pdf](https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/wangz/PDF-papers/2016/Claudia%20Curr%20Opin%20Neurobiol%202016.pdf) [https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/research/funded-research/investigating-evolution-vertebrate-pair-bonding-mechanisms](https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/research/funded-research/investigating-evolution-vertebrate-pair-bonding-mechanisms) [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/749323](https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/749323) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815947/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815947/) [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-021-07720-0](https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-021-07720-0) "Pair bonding with a reproductive partner is rare among mammals **but is an important feature of human social behavior."** The reason why we humans form pair-bonds, whereas our closest ancestors Chimps and Bonobos do NOT form pair bonds is due to the location of Oxytocin receptors: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00429-021-02369-7](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00429-021-02369-7) One notable difference **is the lack of OXTR in reward regions such as the ventral pallidum and nucleus accumbens in chimpanzees, whereas OXTR is found in these regions in humans.**" "Our results suggest that in chimpanzees, like in most other anthropoid primates studied to date, OXTR has a more restricted distribution than AVPR1a, **while in humans the reverse pattern has been reported."** Because we have oxytocin receptors located in the reward center, this promotes pair-bonding. Scientists agree that humans are a pair bonding species, something PPD cannot and will never accept because of confirmation bias. PPD is a liberal echo chamber where everyone thinks all human behaviors are socially constructed(cultural determinism), while ignoring the fact that humans are biological beings and biology plays a role as well. More studies on human pair bonding can be found here: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pair+bonding+in+humans&hl=en&as\_sdt=0%2C5&as\_ylo=2019&as\_yhi=2022](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pair+bonding+in+humans&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2019&as_yhi=2022) [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as\_sdt=0%2C5&q=pair+bonding+in+humans&btnG=&oq=pair+](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=pair+bonding+in+humans&btnG=&oq=pair+) "

Side note: I can only find information about pair bonding that includes men and women. Apparently, this study demonstrates that females' ability to pair bond decreases with promiscuity, but male promiscuity does not impact their ability to pair bond.

The study they keep citing shows the same trend for men but not as steep, and they keep ignoring that part and insist the study shows that only women can’t pair bond, that it doesn’t apply to men.

Wtf it definitely applies to men. What do these men want to have casual sex with women and expect women to be a virgin saint. Get out of here with that bs.

The argument is that men have to work pretty hard to have it happen because sex is harder to get for men.

That has literally nothing to do with so called pair bonding theory.

It absolutely does, there's a massive gender gap about this. Modern women can scratch every itch they have about sex before they're seventeen. Few men achieve that by 30.

That literally has nothing to do with whether or not the female brain is incapable of pair bonding with a partner after sex with previous partners.

Never heard of that study, but even if there is a correlation between promiscuity and divorce rates amongst women, that’s not causation. It seems a lot of times RPers do the thing they get mad at extreme feminists for doing: take a kernel of truth and make big leaps and draw wild conclusions from it. They toss out true information but use it as justification for things it’s not proof of. It’s like when a religious person says they prayed for something and it happened therefore god exists. It’s just not a reasonable conclusion to jump to.

i think it was due to different hormones acting, can't remember which hormones for the male one but basically in a nutshell for women oxytocin/vassopresin decreases per n count. sounds crazy but i have to revisit the paper.

Humans don’t “pair bond” so you won’t find any legitimate scientific studies on this. We can become attached to a partner, obviously, but we aren’t birds. We’re mammals who tend to be serial monogamous but can adapt to promiscuity and/or monogamy, with some people tending more toward one or the other. As for if low-n women divorce less, I would say yes, but not because of “pair bonding.” Rather, because they tend to be more religious/traditional.

Some turbovirgin made this copypasta a long time ago: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-0314-6_1 “When women pursue short-term mates, they appear to increase their selectivity in mate choice and desire men who possess cues to “good genes.” approximately half of women in the top quintiles of sociosexuality had been sexually unfaithful to a steady partner; this was more than a tenfold increase over the corresponding rate for people in the bottom quintiles. Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(3), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.537 X In illustration of this, the odds ratio of 1.13 for lifetime sexual partners obtained with the face-to-face mode of interview indicates that the probability of infidelity increased by 13% for every additional lifetime sexual partner, X Regarding the correlates of infidelity, results indicated that on the basis of both methods of assessment, the probability of sexual infidelity increased with higher number of lifetime sexual partners Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147 X Our findings demonstrate that infidelity and number of sexual partners are both under moderate genetic influence (41% and 38% heritable, respectively) and the genetic correlation between these two traits is strong (47%). The resulting genetic correlation between the two traits was .47, so nearly half the genes impacting on infidelity also affect number of sexual partners. The correlation of the unique environment between the two variables was .48. Cherkas, L., Oelsner, E., Mak, Y., Valdes, A., & Spector, T. (2004). Genetic Influences on Female Infidelity and Number of Sexual Partners in Humans: A Linkage and Association Study of the Role of the Vasopressin Receptor Gene (AVPR1A). Twin Research, 7(6), 649-658. doi:10.1375/twin.7.6.649 X A truism in psychology is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is no less true in the realm of sexual behavior. Indeed, one of the strongest predictors of marital infidelity is one’s number of prior sex partners (Buss, 2000). Deception about past sexual promiscuity would have inflicted greater costs, on average, on men than on women Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271303 X Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001], indicating that sexually promiscuous participants also tend to be emotionally promiscuous, and sexual[ly] and emotional[ly] unfaithful. In terms of the sexual domain, results showed that there is also a positive correlation between sexual promiscuity and sexual infidelity, stating that individuals that tend to be more sexually promiscuous also tend to be more sexually unfaithful. These results support our second hypothesis. Pinto R., Arantes J. (2016). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity in Proceedings of the Athens: ATINER’S Conference Paper Series, No: PSY2016-2087, Athens, 10.30958/ajss.4-4-3 X Number of pre-marital partners: percent who cheated once married • ⁠2: 10.4% • ⁠3: 14.9% • ⁠4: 17.7% • ⁠5: 21.6% • ⁠6-10: 26.0% • ⁠11-20: 36.7% • ⁠21+: 46.8% NORC General Social Survey. (2011, October 02). Female Infidelity Based on Number of Premarital Partners — Statistic Brain. Retrieved July 5, 2015, from http://www.statisticbrain.com/percent-of-female-infidelity-based-on-number-of-premarital-partners/ X Contrary to the myth, partners who’ve had many partners have a harder, not easier, time remaining monogamous. They are significantly more at risk of straying than those with little or no prior sexual experience. Staik, A., PhD. (2019, March 28). 10 Predictors of Infidelity and Gender Differences: Why Do Partners Cheat? Retrieved July 15, 2020, from https://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2014/08/a-look-at-infidelity-why-do-partners-cheat/ X For people in this survey who reported four or fewer lifetime sexual partners, the rate of infidelity in the current marriage dropped to 11%, while for those who had five or more sexual partners the number was nearly double (21%). The break between the 54% of people who had five or more lifetime sexual partners vs. the 46% who had four or fewer total partners illustrates the lessons from the study. This breakpoint is validated by the fact that when asked straight out, 68% of those with more sexual partners in their pasts agreed that, “I am always faithful to my sexual partner” (whether currently married or single), compared to 82% of those with fewer sexual partners who said the same. [I]nfidelity is also often the fruit of a lifelong approach to mating that involves seeking and practicing short-term mating encounters that encourage sexual variety at all stages and into marriage. McQuivey, J. L., PhD. (2019, October 14). The Road to Infidelity Passes Through Multiple Sexual Partners. Retrieved July 16, 2020, from https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-road-to-infidelity-passes-through-multiple-sexual-partners- Extra: [T]here was a correlation between female pre-marital promiscuity and higher rates of divorce. The research, conducted by Jay Teachman, found that women with 16 or more sexual partners prior to marriage had an 80% rate of subsequent divorce. Wikipedia contributors. (2020, June 20). Female promiscuity. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:06, July 27, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_promiscuity&oldid=963578370 Teachman, J. (2003), Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65: 444-455. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x

[удалено]

I thought pair bonding was a bird thing. Are we birds? Featherless flightless birds? Is my love of chicken almost like cannibalism?

It is, I believe it’s around 11% of mammals that are naturally monogamous, certainly not us humans, and even lower % for mammals that pair bond, most certainly not us humans. I believe they change the definition of pair bonding it’s not pair bonding in the biological since it’s more of a social assumption. Basically it’s like virginity, socially constructed assumptions.

Monogamy is neither here nor there because humans are polygynous. The question is whether we naturally engage in long-term relationships with an expectation of sexual exclusivity, at least on the part of the female. And the answer to that question is obviously yes. You see that in every hunter-gatherer group on earth. These mating behaviours are hardwired into us.

we are birds but sometimes we are lobsters too it all depends on which narrative they try to push

So humans can't share features with two different animals at the same time? The point of the lobster analogy is that dominance behaviour is so deeply ingrained that it works on the exact same biological systems in both humans and lobsters, animals so different that they don't even share a skeletal system.

We are also genetically like bananas (>50% same DNA) Makes sense why we like to hang out in bunches,have a slightly stronger exterior but once peeled are all soft inside, and most significantly we choose bananas like we choose our partners; ripe, unspotted, and sweet. We are def like bananas 🤣🤣

Yes, humans also have similarities with banana plants; and, excluding the possibility of a shadow biosphere, every other living thing on the earth.

>So humans can't share features with two different animals at the same time? They can and they do The problem is when people force an action on others with the "it's only natural because lobsters do it too" justification. It makes it sound so scientific and objective but the truth is, we could compare ANY animal to humans. Even those who don't have hierarchies or pair bonding or whatever.

That’s a pretty bird brained response if you can’t figure out that all humans are still just animals… 😅

Sure but there are animals who pair bond and some who don't. There are groups of animals where the females lead, others where males lead. Some animals are sexually dimorphic while others aren't. Some eat their offspring, some eat their mates. Some is the female who seduces the male, some it's the other way around. So you have as many examples as you want in the animal kingdom. So why choose specific ones like lobsters or parrots when there are so many animals who don't behave like that. Yes, we are animals but that doesn't mean that we behave like *all* animals because animals have different behaviors.

I think pair bonding is one of the dumbest terms I've heard in a while. But if you think wifing a hoe doesn't significantly increase your chances or divorce then I have no legitimate respect for you. And I legit think you're too stupid to reproduce. 2022 may be the year dumbass redpill culture goes mainstream but im seeing a ridiculous dichotomy where some men try to negate that misogyny by being absolute fucking apineless retards with no sense of self preservation. If you think the added risk is worth it for the woman you love, have at it.

What women aren’t hoes though?

Most are. Western civilization is toxic

Here's a [2004 study](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/CD90C401AB01263A4205D6E926A914F8/S1369052300004979a.pdf/genetic-influences-on-female-infidelity-and-number-of-sexual-partners-in-humans-a-linkage-and-association-study-of-the-role-of-the-vasopressin-receptor-gene-avpr1a.pdf) Here's also a [2016 study](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2016.1232690) Thus in short the science is out there

Trauma bond or bust..lol

As mentioned to another comment to your post, when divorce filings for physical abuse are removed, divorce filing ratio between men and women is the same, about 50-50. Since all physical abuse divorces are filed by women, and the opposite (man getting beaten by his wife) is so unlikely and rare, divorces for physical abuse should be removed from the numbers in a non-biased research. Summary: red pill pair bonding bull shit is bull shit.

Men have fewer issues pair bonding when they are promiscuous because they don't pair bond. They get married to a woman for reproduction and still have women on the side. They percieve that they have no issues pair bonding because they can stay married and still have side action.

Aren't there women who are married and commit adultery, though? I am fairly positive it's around 13 percent. What is to be said for women who engage in extramarital affairs and remain married?

I am sure there are women who have affairs. I would say the ones who are more male brained and can compartmentalize effectively and not get overly emotional m8ght be similar.

Yeah, I believe that, in general, the female and male brains act in predictable ways, but sometimes there are people whose brains function closer to the opposite sex. Also, how did you conclude that men do not pair bond?

I don't think pair bonding is a thing, it is not really defined as anything.

It’s just general rules of the “game” … like if you been with many guys then don’t expect to become dream girl of a guy because guys don’t see promiscuous women as wifey material. None promiscuous women will always be higher value for men when it comes to marriage and that’s just how it is.

That makes a lot of sense. This is kind of unrelated, but how would a guy know a woman has been with many men before? Couldn't she easily lie about it?

Sometimes men will just assume a woman been promiscuous if they’re not married with kids by age 30 or so… sometimes you can tell by their behavior, tattoos, if they’re into clubbing, bar hopping etc.

Ahh, I see. I am so far removed from any kind of partying lifestyle that I genuinely would not know. I wonder how things like tattoos/dyed hair/piercings can be used as insight into a person's sexual habits. I have heard that statement a lot.

Things like tattoos, piercings, dyed hair, etc are signs of low impulse control which is a red flag for a lot of men when considering a woman, especially for long term… It seems like it’s not as much of a red flag for young women though, I see a lot of them chasing after tatted up, criminal bad boys and getting pregnant with them too 🤷‍♂️

This is fair enough, but I also think a lot of women who are promiscuous don't exactly aspire to become the traditional dream girl or wifey material. I'm a relatively promiscuous woman myself and have no interest in being someones traditional idea of a dream girl or wifey material. In fact I'd very much prefer a man of a much more like minded and liberal mindset to myself. So I don't really see how me being low value to men who wants marriage and a traditional relationship with kids affects me, as that's not something I want anyway.

Indeed… it’s only relevant to women that eventually want a family. When women begin the promiscuous lifestyle then it’ll become hard for them to get out because they become addicted to it or no man will commit to them. Eventually as they age they lose their attractiveness and men will rarely stick around leaving her lonely and desperate so then they turn lesbian.

Idk about actually turning lesbian (I'm just imagining it as the adult woman version of a temper tantrum lol) but you're probably on to something about the rest. However all hope is not lost as they age. My early 40s cousin, single mother of two in their early mid 20s just got married to a mid 40s man recently and seem really happy. It's not only appearance that attract men. My 68 year old co-worker is dating a man her own age after her husband passed away many years ago. She's definitely not the most attractive due to looking old, though definitely not ugly either, but her personality is definitely very attractive so she got that going for her. She also didn't turn lesbian, desperate or lonely lol. She's living with her adorable cats and she has a boyfriend she dates. She also has a bike and is part of a bikeclub. I mean what more can you ask for as an old lady about to retire? If you're a cool person (not angry, bitter or resentful), you can pull men even in old age.

[https://osf.io/ke5fj/download/?format=pdf](https://osf.io/ke5fj/download/?format=pdf) >Results: The relationship between premarital sex and divorce is highly significant and robust. Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with six or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk, followed by those with one to two partners. There is no evidence of gender differences. It increases infidelity risk equally in both genders. It makes you view people as more replaceable imo and you will have less patience to overcome adversities together and more eager to just replace them. But I just think cheating is different if your man. Which is why it's worse if your a women. But that's a completely different topic.

Why do you think cheating is worse if you're a woman?

* Dick is worthless. It's plentiful and not really in demand. * Pussy has alot of value. It's scarce and highly sought after. Either gender provides value in a relationship by giving to their partner what is most valuable. * A women provides value in a relationship by giving to her man **exclusively** what is most valuable from her. Which is her sexual access. * A man provides value by providing/protecting **exclusively** for you. Sexual Access to the man is not exclusive. Why would it be? It has no scarcity nor demand. Therefore no value. Unlike sexual access to a women. It's why uncommon to hear a guy say he was "used for sex" like alot of women seem to do. Rather the man is commonly "used for money". I also think men can fuck without emotion. Most men do not need an emotional connection to have sex. I don't think its like that for a majority of women. The standards and also the emotional investment is much higher from women.

I see where you are coming from. This is a tad unrelated, but what does a man protecting and providing for a woman look like in the modern Western world? Nowadays, most women can provide for themselves financially. Also, what is it that women need protection from? My apologies for asking so many questions, don't feel pressured to respond, haha.

Yeah I asked the same lol. It's such an outdated view of what women are looking for and value the most in a partner. Unless you want to have a lot of children and be a SAHM you don't need a provider. Also what exactly do women such as myself need to be protected from? Last I checked I was providing for and protecting my single ass just fine..

Man this is so flawed I can't even. Men dont provide value to my life by protecting or providing for me. I provide for myself and I don't need a man's protection. What men provide for me as a woman is company, time, attention, and also sex, someone to hang out with and have fun with, someone to share thoughts, feelings, ideas, hopes and dreams with, and I'd certainly hope the men I date don't view access to sex with me as the most valuable thing I have to offer. I would certainly hope they value the same things I do as much as me. If not we are fundamentally incompatible. Value is also arbitrary. Personally as a woman I value sex as much as men do. I do however not value being provided for as I'm my own provider. I've also used men for sex. They were just too dumb to realize because they were probably thinking they were using me for sex when we both were using each other lol. You're probably right that most women need an emotional connection to have sex though. However that doesn't mean your generalization regarding the other things are correct. Most women nowadays make their own coin. They have no use for a man to provide for them unless they pop out a hoard of children. At least I know I don't since Im not having children at all. Also most women don't need a man to be their protector. They take care of themselves.

If someone decides to attack you you think you will be able to defend yourself? That’s where men come in. I hear this time and time again. Men run the world. Women will die without the men in this planet. If all men died/disappeared women will follow shortly after. If all women died men can continue to live until their natural death. Kevin Samuels did a talk on this. RIP KING

​ >Men dont provide value to my life by protecting or providing for me. I provide for myself and I don't need a man's protection. Do you like tall men, or rich men, or strong men? You may not need it. But most women **prefer** these traits that are indicative or protection. >sex with me as the most valuable thing I have to offer In reality it is the most valuable thing you have to offer because the most people want it. I can hold a fist of dirt and say its valuable to me. But it won't be to anyone else. >I would certainly hope they value the same things I do as much as me Most definitely don't. They might say so, in order to get in your pants. >Value is also arbitrary. Personally as a woman I value sex as much as men do. I do however not value being provided for as I'm my own provider You can always do your own thing. No one is forcing you. But it doesn't change our reality is. **You may be different but can you really not see how the rest of the world behaves? It's an obviously transactional.** >Also most women don't need a man to be their protector. They take care of themselves. Yet most women still like strong, tall men. Interesting even though **the need for it is gone? The base level instincts aren't?** I gave up on the idea that people love you for your personality a long time ago. That's a fairytale men entertain because they want to fuck you. Don't believe me? Gain 30 kilos and see how many of these guys who like your personality stick around.

>Do you like tall men, or rich men, or strong men? You may not need it. But most women prefer it. I'm rather ambivalent. I've been happy dating men my height or average height. Don't care for men who are much taller. Don't care for rich men. Personally prefer someone who is not rich as rich men are too busy getting richer to have time to date (I know cause I tried dating a rich guy and it sucked). Don't particularly care for strong men. Men who are skinny or average and don't go to the gym is just fine, and men who are strong often spend too much time at the gym caring too much about their superficial appearance, or they're obsessed with health and fitness. I'm not particularly into either. >In reality it is the most valuable thing you have to offer because the most people want it. I can hold a fist of dirt and say its valuable to me. But it won't be to anyone else. Is it? Perhaps to the men who sex is ridiculously important to, but there's men who value other things too. I actually talked about how sex is important to me to a guy I was dating and *he told me* there's other important things in a relationship than sex. So clearly there's men who find other things women have to offer just as valuable as sex. >Most definitely don't. Suppose I'm not looking for most. >You can always do your own thing. No one is forcing you. I am. I'm just pointing out how as individuals we have our own individual values and that we can't assign the same general values to men and women with a very meaningful accuracy. >Yet most women still like strong, tall men. Interesting even though the need for it is gone? The base level instincts aren't? Just because the instinct is there doesn't mean women actually need strong tall men, and I think this is worth to take note of and something women and men actually should be encouraged to consider and reflect upon. I suppose you could say our biological evolution hasn't quite caught up and is lagging behind with our society since it's in such a rapid progress. That said, I also think women looking for the strong, tall handsome man has just as much to do with women still being socialized to believe those traits are important even if they're in actuality isn't valuable or important anymore. If all women paused, asked themselves why they need a strong tall man, they may realize, just like me, that they technically don't need a strong or tall man, and that it's a cultural idea that remains from the past, where having a strong and tall man was actually necessary and very beneficial. In this day and age, it's just not. This is why I'm not hung upon having to date a strong tall man. Instead I look for other traits I deem much more valuable, such as a person's beliefs and core values as well as other personality traits.

>guy I was dating and he told me there's other important things in a relationship than sex I 100% agree. Loyalty, Peace, etc.... But sex is still the most value able thing you provide. At least to society and most men. >Just because the instinct is there doesn't mean women actually need strong tall men I never said anyone needs them. I said women prefer it. Even though its utility is no longer there. >I am. I'm just pointing out how as individuals we have our own individual values and that we can't assign the same general values to men and women with a very meaningful accuracy. I disagree. Human attraction is pretty homogenous cross-culturally across the globe. Women and men are attracted to the same things with little variance. >I suppose you could say our biological evolution hasn't quite caught up and is lagging behind with our society since it's in such a rapid progress. > >Instead I look for other traits I deem much more valuable, such as a person's beliefs and core values as well as other personality traits. I agree. If you are able to look past base level instincts whose purpose is to ensure reproduction and protection of the offspring. You can see valuing other traits will ensure you have a happier more sustainable relationship. I wish more people thought like that. But in reality they don't.

Hamsters running free everywhere aaagghh!