Why female sexuality needs to be repressed; premarital sex and failed marriages

[Bartholomert]

The nuclear family structure provides the best outcomes for children; this has been exhaustively demonstrated. There is a compelling public interest to promote families and marriages for this reason. Keeping that axiom in mind, please tell me how promoting female promiscuity and sex positivism can be justified:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman

[Toby]

Ask your nuclear family to teach you to use image tags properly.

[igor_balis]

Please fuck off.

[Lewis]

Because balls to the children. People should do what they want.

[Magic]

Bring back Harold.

[Baz]

That graph shows if you only ever shag one bird, then what?

[Bartholomert]

That graph shows if you only ever shag one bird, then what?

...are you serious

[Reg]

Kind of ironic that it's you asking that question.

[Boydy]

So you want women to only ever have one partner but you want to bang loads of sloots?

[Yevrah]

The nuclear family structure provides the best outcomes for children; this has been exhaustively demonstrated. There is a compelling public interest to promote families and marriages for this reason. Keeping that axiom in mind, please tell me how promoting female promiscuity and sex positivism can be justified:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman

How is promoting male promiscuity ("WELL DAN MOI SAN" and all that) any different in regard to keeping the nuclear family together?

Unless you're saying it should be one rule for Women and one for Men, which is just bonkers.

[Bartholomert]

So you want women to only ever have one partner but you want to bang loads of sloots?

I wouldn't hate a total shift in our thinking on the issue of sexual promiscuity.

At the very least these are shocking realities that should be common knowledge and inform the decisions of men and women.

[Boydy]

Well, start enacting that change in your own life.

[Magic]

Who is promoting promiscuity?

[Lewis]

'I'm not a geezer. I'm Yevrah.'

[Yevrah]

Why have I only got 500 vcash? I lumped it all on that game where the betting stayed open after the match had finished. :moop:

[Reg]

Who is promoting promiscuity?
Nelly Furtado.

[Baz]

Why have I only got 500 vcash? I lumped it all on that game where the betting stayed open after the match had finished. :moop:
Bet was cancelled. I was annoyed cos I'd legitimately bet on Arsenal before the cheating happened.

[Yevrah]

Oh, sorry Baz. If there's a way to donate, you can have my 500 if you like.

[Jimmy Floyd]

How is it mathematically possible for men to shag lots of different people, but women not? Unless the men are mainly shagging each other, that is.

[Magic]

He's either trolling us with his shit in the relationship thread or trolling us with this middle America conservative bullshit.

Both scenarios are equally unsavoury.

[Toby]

How is it mathematically possible for men to shag lots of different people, but women not? Unless the men are mainly shagging each other, that is.

[crude joke about mert's mother]

[Reg]

He's trolling pretty much whenever he posts, I think. And has admitted to trolling in the past.

Credit where it's due, he's not bad at it. He's been a member for a decade or something, and still gets 17 replies in half an hour.

[randomlegend]

At this point it doesn't really matter whether he's trolling or not, it's equally sad and retarded either way.

[Bartholomert]

Note how none of the posts have even had the courage to actually address the underlying argument I'm making. Why am I wrong, are we not to tailor our social norms to maximize the outcomes within our society? Is not promoting female promiscuity as being effectively value neutral at odds with this goal or at the very least dishonest?

[Lewis]

You should tailor your social norms to maximise your own outcomes. Don't be a communist, mate. Not you.

[Magic]

At this point it doesn't really matter whether he's trolling or not, it's equally sad and retarded either way.

Most were about vCash to be fair.

[Magic]

Also why does he hate women so much?

[Bartholomert]

You should tailor your social norms to maximise your own outcomes. Don't be a communist, mate. Not you.

I'm dealing with communists here I'm trying to speak their language and trap them in their own hypocrisy.

And anyways 'cultural libertarianism', like actual libertarianism, remains a theoretical ideal to work towards, but in the meantime I don't hate practical ideological compromises to win shorter term critical conflicts.

[Bartholomert]

Also why does he hate women so much?

I don't hate women, in fact I might go so far as to say that I'm an enthusiastic fan. They are just rational actors responding to incentives and power dynamics.

I do strongly dislike the values promoted by the near sighted progressives on gender issues.

[ItalAussie]

Mert, don't just come back and troll. The board has been ticking along just fine without you, and it'll do so again quite comfortably if required.

[John]

Unless you can find me a similar study with regards 'male promiscuity', or have Photoshop and fancy conducting one by changing the values on that graph, I don't see how this has any value.

I'll echo Ital here, too. If you're here to troll and nothing else, kindly fuck off and don't come back. If you're here to do something other than troll then I suggest you get to it quickly or you won't have any choice in the matter.

[Lewis]

It's not trolling. We could have all ignored this, unlike when Harold goes on his child-like rampages and spams other threads.

[Shindig]

This graph's not the reason for your parent's divorce, mert. It's you.

[John]

Using that logic there's no such thing as trolling, since we could all conceivably ignore any individual. This couldn't be any more blatant.

[Lewis]

Not really. He isn't latching onto existing discussions and ruining them (Harold), or filling existing threads with bollocks videos (Harold). It's about as much trolling as somebody being boring.

[Spoonsky]

I wonder what the male equivalent to the graph would look like. Maybe all sexuality just needs to be repressed.

[Spammer]

Haven't read the thread so this might have already been said, but I tend to associate not having sex before marriage with the kind of conservatism which highly stigmatises divorce, which to me goes far in explaining the difference.

[Bartholomert]

I wonder what the male equivalent to the graph would look like. Maybe all sexuality just needs to be repressed.

Women don't marry men who are virgins because of their pattern of mate choosing, so such a study doesn't exist. However there is evidence to suggest that men are largely unaffected in terms of emotional satisfaction within marriage by prior promiscuity (whereas women suffer all sorts of negative consequences):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html

[Spammer]

How you suggest bringing this about then?

Seems like a waste of time to me.

[Bartholomert]

How you suggest bringing this about then?

Seems like a waste of time to me.

I mean it was the norm for most of human existence and for most humans living today, doubt it's too unfeasible to bring back.

[Sam]

One way to stop divorces? People not marrying.

:serious:

[Queenslander]

Triggered!

[Chrissy]

Note how none of the posts have even had the courage to actually address the underlying argument I'm making. Why am I wrong, are we not to tailor our social norms to maximize the outcomes within our society? Is not promoting female promiscuity as being effectively value neutral at odds with this goal or at the very least dishonest?

Note how absolutely boring this has become already.

You are in fear of strong, independent, sexually experienced women, we get it.

[Byron]

I mean it was the norm for most of human existence and for most humans living today, doubt it's too unfeasible to bring back.

Then answer the question. How would you propose changing social norms in the way you are suggesting.

Also to echo others, when you can stop 'hooking up' and 'banging sloots' then you can start judging us.

[leedsrevolution]

Well this is a blatant troll.

[Henry]

mert is a schizophrenic. He needs to be pitied, and probably treated for this terrible affliction.

[Bartholomert]

Then answer the question. How would you propose changing social norms in the way you are suggesting.

Also to echo others, when you can stop 'hooking up' and 'banging sloots' then you can start judging us.


Note how absolutely boring this has become already.

You are in fear of strong, independent, sexually experienced women, we get it.


mert is a schizophrenic. He needs to be pitied, and probably treated for this terrible affliction.

Note how none of you have responded and instead resorted to ad hominem attack, the refugee of those who have no adequate rebuttal.


How you suggest bringing this about then?

Seems like a waste of time to me.

So you accept that it's a worthwhile end to pursue?

[Byron]

Answer the question.

[Magic]

One must understand Mert's idea of 'the norm' is those clowns off Only Way Is Newcastle Shore or whatever it is.

NEWSFLASH: Most women aren't complete gutter sluts.

[igor_balis]

I've actually known a couple of lads just like Mert; they used 'pick-up artist' tactics, called women 'females', and spoke about dating in really weird pseudo-scientific terms. Whilst they had some success, they were only ever able to pull incredibly insecure or incredibly thick girls.

[Bartholomert]

Does nobody else think it's odd how nearly the entire board's reflexive response to my thread is self-satisfied dismissal of the argument I'm making, without providing ANY reasoning as to why what I've said is wrong? Think about that. Nobody even feels the need to justify themselves, what I've said is perceived as being so inherently offensive and flawed that it does not even warrant consideration. Is this not the epitome of illiberal intolerance? You are rejecting an idea on the basis of the emotional discomfort it causes you to suffer, a response ingrained in you by through the incessant exposure to and promotion of progressive principals by the education system and the media.

Try and be an independent thinker; why am I wrong? There ARE real answers (that I would give personally), but it is not "ugh you're so boring/sexist/misogynist."If that's the best you can do you need to seriously reconsider the extent to which you are forming your own thoughts about the world objectively.

[Henry]

Correlation is not causation. Done.

Now, answer the question mert.

[Davgooner]

You ain't no Muslim bruv.

[Bartholomert]

Answer the question.

I'm in a monogomous relationship with a future pediatric neurosuregon who comes from a good family, was in a sorority at an elite university, and would be considered objectively attractive. She also absolutely despises whenever I try to talk about this sort of thing with her. So, I think I'm doing alright.

And anyways, the argument exists on its own merits removed from the person making it.

[Chrissy]

Note how none of you have responded and instead resorted to ad hominem attack, the refugee of those who have no adequate rebuttal.


My comment wasn't an attack merely an observtion, it's clear as day you are in fear of strong, independent, sexually experienced women. Hence why you seem to value pumping daft wee lassies with no experience so you perhaps don't get "found out".

[Bartholomert]

My comment wasn't an attack merely an observtion, it's clear as day you are in fear of strong, independent, sexually experienced women. Hence why you seem to value pumping daft wee lassies with no experience so you perhaps don't get "found out".

I don't fear them at all, I'm just aware of the long-term emotional damage caused by promiscuity and would rather make a statistically rational decision when choosing the future mother of my children. Seems reasonable to me.

[Magic]

This is because your ex-girlfriend cheated on you, isn't it? :D

[Bartholomert]

This is because your ex-girlfriend cheated on you, isn't it? :D

I've never had a girl cheat on me.

Stop trying to discredit me, as if that changes the content of my argument. Address the argument.

[Toby]

Does nobody else think it's odd how nearly the entire board's reflexive response to my thread is self-satisfied dismissal of the argument I'm making, without providing ANY reasoning as to why what I've said is wrong? Think about that. Nobody even feels the need to justify themselves, what I've said is perceived as being so inherently offensive and flawed that it does not even warrant consideration. Is this not the epitome of illiberal intolerance? You are rejecting an idea on the basis of the emotional discomfort it causes you to suffer, a response ingrained in you by through the incessant exposure to and promotion of progressive principals by the education system and the media.

Try and be an independent thinker; why am I wrong? There ARE real answers (that I would give personally), but it is not "ugh you're so boring/sexist/misogynist."If that's the best you can do you need to seriously reconsider the extent to which you are forming your own thoughts about the world objectively.

It has little to do with the argument itself, there's just no value in engaging with you. Were these arguments being made in a public platform maybe it'd be worth countering, but we're a small group unlikely to be seen by any non-member and pretty much everybody has disagreed with you. You're not going to be convinced by any argument, and nobody else needs to be convinced by any argument, so what would be the point?

[Magic]

So you lied about that then?

[randomlegend]

a future pediatric neurosuregon

Hasn't she pretty much just started med?

[Bartholomert]

It has little to do with the argument itself, there's just no value in engaging with you. Were these arguments being made in a public platform maybe it'd be worth countering, but we're a small group unlikely to be seen by any non-member and pretty much everybody has disagreed with you. You're not going to be convinced by any argument, and nobody else needs to be convinced by any argument, so what would be the point?

Lazy rationalization. "I won't argue with you because there's no point and I'm right"; lol grow up.

[Magic]

Pity it's paediatric otherwise she could have reversed the lobotomy you've so clearly had at some stage in your life.

[Bartholomert]

So you lied about that then?

What are you on about?

[Spammer]

So you accept that it's a worthwhile end to pursue?

Nope. On both humanitarian and practical grounds.

[Magic]

What are you on about?

If that's the way to want to perceive it. :harold:

Nice edit.

[Toby]

Lazy rationalization. "I won't argue with you because there's no point and I'm right"; lol grow up.

There's no point because you think you're right, and you are too stubborn to change your mind. Add that your arguments are rarely as insightful as you think they are and there is simply no benefit in engaging. You vastly overestimate the influence or importance you have. If I want challenging discussion of the issue I'm going to look elsewhere, because you've shown us time and again that you're not really capable.

[Bartholomert]

There's no point because you think you're right, and you are too stubborn to change your mind. Add that your arguments are rarely as insightful as you think they are and there is simply no benefit in engaging. You vastly overestimate the influence or importance you have. If I want challenging discussion of the issue I'm going to look elsewhere, because you've shown us time and again that you're not really capable.

Condescendingly lecturing me instead of presenting an argument. I think you've still lost this one bro.

And no I don't think 'I'm right', I don't think we should really be deliberately shaping cultural norms to further any perceived ideal (regardless of whether I agree with it). I do think it's repressive and illiberal to stifle open discussion of any topic, and certainly the negative long-term effects of female promiscuity should not be off-limits or stigmatized. It seems self-destructive that the current status quo actively suppresses and attempts to emotionally discredit facts that have bearing on the health of our society.

[Bartholomert]

If that's the way to want to perceive it. :harold:

Nice edit.

I edited because I thought surely you weren't stupid enough to apply the term 'girlfriend' to that fling I had, and didn't want to come off as a try hard who was perceived as subtly bragging about his sexual past.

[Mazuuurk]

First of all, Mert, your title is kind of inconsistent with what you are saying in the thread. You seem to equal sexuality (libido) with promiscuity (polygamous tendencies) which is just weird. Do you really think you should repress your neurosurgeons sexuality - even though that would mean you would get to shag less?

In fairness, I'm a little surprised she'd argue with you on that.


Secondly, Mert, has it occured to you the "damages" and "emotional duress" or whatever you want to call it that you claim promiscuous women (but not men) experience later in their marriages are due to perceptions in most societies that women shouldn't be promiscuous - and that men can be if they so choose - thus inflicting a whole bunch of shame and guilt upon those women that are.

It's the same sort of logic as (maybe someone suggested this) arguing that men should in fact indeed be promiscuous prior to marriage, so that they may - when in said marriage - resist all that carnal temptation that men simply are programmed - biologically of course, if not through divine guidance - to get.

[Toby]

Condescendingly lecturing me instead of presenting an argument. I think you've still lost this one bro.

Keep trying, you might get a nibble eventually, but most of us are simply bored of you and know there's nothing to gain from engaging your tired arguments.

[Lewis]

Hasn't she pretty much just started med?

Let's send her on a baking course and ruin his life.

[Byron]

I'm in a monogomous relationship with a future pediatric neurosuregon who comes from a good family, was in a sorority at an elite university, and would be considered objectively attractive. She also absolutely despises whenever I try to talk about this sort of thing with her. So, I think I'm doing alright.

And anyways, the argument exists on its own merits removed from the person making it.

Well despite your claims of 'AD HOMINEM' it's valid to raise that whatever your thoughts are no, your previous behaviour has done nothing to suggest that you are capable of following the behaviours you want women to follow.

But looking at the paragraph above, what you've basically said is 'I've got a fit girlfriend, who's doing well for herself' which does nothing except allow you to boast about your own circumstances. Where you've said 'She also absolutely despises whenever I try to talk about this sort of thing with her.' suggests to me that she doesn't agree with you, but doesn't want to engage you on the subject. If that's the case, you're in a monogomous relationship with someone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint, not that that's hardly a deal-breaker, but what does it say when the most important woman in your life right now doesn;t want to engage you on this?

But the core thing here is that you've still avoided the question. Would you fit women with chastity belts? Would you shame those women who are promiscious? I would mention that harkens back to the 1900's but you would probably like that sort of thing. Would you make it illegal to have sex before marriage? In which case lol considering your past. People mention these arguments reek of insecurity, but I want to avoid that since it would be ad hominem.

As far as a rebuttal, I saw this on Reddit which appears to link to the same study.


I remember looking at these statistics before, and one of the issues with the numbers was that they weren't being careful about counting the number of sexual partners before (as opposed to after) the woman's first marriage.

For example, if we have woman #1, who gets married at 20, who has had no pre-marriage sexual partners (or maybe she just slept with her future husband) and is still married. She gets counted as "near-virgin bride".

Then let's take woman #2. She has a similar situation (no sex before marriage or only slept with her future husband before marriage). She gets married, then divorced, then gets into the dating scene and sleeps with a handful of guys. Now, they count all of her sexual partners (including her post-marriage sexual partners) in their numbers. Then, the higher number count and the divorce are talked about as if the higher-partner-count helped cause the divorce, but it was actually the opposite way around.

In fact, there's an article that often cited by the RedPill as evidence that more sexual partners increase the divorce rate. They often cite these charts as evidence:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QPnsHoU2Pzk/T3GylzESIiI/AAAAAAAAAYI/4USMzLGzm-A/s640/Heritage.jpg

(This is one of the charts cited in the original post.) The problem with this chart is obvious. It measures the percent of women in stable marriages at the age of 30 compared to their number of sexual partners. It's not measuring divorce rates. Imagine woman #1 who gets married early and is still married. She's counted as "still in a stable marriage and has low partner count". Imagine woman #2. She's 30 years old, has never been married, and has had a number of boyfriends over the past 10+ years that she's been sexually active. She's counted as "not in a stable marriage" and "higher partner count". Obviously, you can see the problem here - the fact that she's been single her entire life means that she's had time to have multiple different relationships and have sex with a number of different men. Woman #1 wasn't in a position to do that unless she's going to be unfaithful to her husband.

In short - the chart has too many variables going on to draw any real conclusions.

Chart#2: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4uvCNpBV-Ps/T3Gym13I1bI/AAAAAAAAAYY/8Sm0qt_OU10/s640/linear.jpg

At least this one is limited to women who have been "married at least once". The problem is that they're counting total sex partners (including post-divorce sexual partners). Of course women who have had a divorce are more likely to have a higher sexual partner count -- quite a few of those sexual partners occurred after her divorce. Again, I can't draw any real conclusions about how "premarital sexual partner count" affects divorce rate.

Chart #3. Now this chart actually attempts to compare the number of pre-marital sexual partners to the divorce rate. I should note that I've seen the first two charts cited on the RedPill, but the third one is omitted. I consider that to be an example of bias because the 3rd chart is actually the most straightforward about telling us what's going on, but it's also the least (of the three) in agreement with the "high pre-martital sex partners increases chances of a divorce" theory.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BUQXGYyTqyY/T3GymZwywMI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/_duqJp7yWJ8/s640/UShape.jpg

What's interesting about this chart is that virgin brides are least likely to divorce. However, it get complicated once you get past virgin brides. As you can see, the risk of divorce follows this pattern:
•Highest Risk: Women with 2 sexual partners.
•Women with 21+ sexual partners.
•Women with 1 marital sexual partner
•Women with 3-20 sexual partners.
•Lowest Risk: Virgin Brides.

It's sort of bizarre. If your goal is to reduce your divorce risk, and you can't/won't marry a virgin, then marry a woman with 5-9 past sexual partners.

There are, of course, some other issues going on. I would suspect that maybe a reason virgin brides are less likely to divorce is because they come from very religious backgrounds, where divorce is frowned on, or where the women start having children quickly (which might cause a woman to be less likely to attempt a divorce, for fear that she would have to manage the work and expense of raising the children on her own). Clearly, we would expect some differences in the cultural backgrounds of the virgin brides compared to other women. The article suggests that maybe women with 5-9 sexual partners is more stable (than other non-virgin women) because it's correlated with the age when women get married. Getting married too young is a divorce factor. If I remember right, divorce rates are lowest when the woman getting married is around 25 years-old and has a college degree. The time-gap between becoming sexually active and getting married would likely result in a partner count above 2. I also can't help but wonder if women with 21+ sexual partners have other correlations going on - for example, sometimes when women are sexually abused as children, they become very sexual in adulthood. Being sexually abused as a child is also a risk factor for getting divorced later in life.

[randomlegend]

Let's send her on a baking course and ruin his life.

I'll have won bakeoff by this time next year and be basking in book profits by the year after.

[Bartholomert]

First of all, Mert, your title is kind of inconsistent with what you are saying in the thread. You seem to equal sexuality (libido) with promiscuity (polygamous tendencies) which is just weird. Do you really think you should repress your neurosurgeons sexuality - even though that would mean you would get to shag less?

In fairness, I'm a little surprised she'd argue with you on that.


Secondly, Mert, has it occured to you the "damages" and "emotional duress" or whatever you want to call it that you claim promiscuous women (but not men) experience later in their marriages are due to perceptions in most societies that women shouldn't be promiscuous - and that men can be if they so choose - thus inflicting a whole bunch of shame and guilt upon those women that are.

It's the same sort of logic as (maybe someone suggested this) arguing that men should in fact indeed be promiscuous prior to marriage, so that they may - when in said marriage - resist all that carnal temptation that men simply are programmed - biologically of course, if not through divine guidance - to get.

1. I agree, but sensationalist headlines are in (I thought it sounded better) and I'm trying to get clicks. I remember seeing a graph about how there was an inverse relationship between number of partners a women had before marriage and reported sexual satisfaction and frequency of sexual activity. So you're right, it's about repressing the number of partners females have, rather than their sexuality generally.
2. I disagree, why should that 'emotional duress' have an effect on their ability to commit within a relationship? Why should feeling guilty about past behavior affect divorce rates? I guess you can make an argument that social stigma generally affects mental health of promiscuous women (who have much higher rates of mental disorders) and that this in turn affects their relationships, but isn't it more likely that there is an effect independent of social stigma?

[Ian]

Presumably there must be some crossover between those who get married a virgin or to their first sexual partner and women who think marriage should, for whatever reason (vows being "sacred", thinking they have to miserable for a decade or two because they have a child, whatever), be endured regardless of whether the marriage is actually working.

And the reason people don't engage you on things like this, Mert, is because you genuinely seem to think wanting to fuck women and pick yourself a partner who matches your shopping list of requirements is the same as having respect for them.

[Bartholomert]

Well despite your claims of 'AD HOMINEM' it's valid to raise that whatever your thoughts are no, your previous behaviour has done nothing to suggest that you are capable of following the behaviours you want women to follow.

But looking at the paragraph above, what you've basically said is 'I've got a fit girlfriend, who's doing well for herself' which does nothing except allow you to boast about your own circumstances. Where you've said 'She also absolutely despises whenever I try to talk about this sort of thing with her.' suggests to me that she doesn't agree with you, but doesn't want to engage you on the subject. If that's the case, you're in a monogomous relationship with someone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint, not that that's hardly a deal-breaker, but what does it say when the most important woman in your life right now doesn;t want to engage you on this?

But the core thing here is that you've still avoided the question. Would you fit women with chastity belts? Would you shame those women who are promiscious? I would mention that harkens back to the 1900's but you would probably like that sort of thing. Would you make it illegal to have sex before marriage? In which case lol considering your past. People mention these arguments reek of insecurity, but I want to avoid that since it would be ad hominem.

As far as a rebuttal, I saw this on Reddit which appears to link to the same study.

It took #73 posts for an actual response. Shame on you TTH.

[randomlegend]

Following on from Ian just because a marriage grudgingly survives doesn't make it the best thing for anyone involved.

I'm much happier that my parents divorced than I would have been if they'd stayed together whilst hating each other. If my mum only had the strength to end it because she was a mega-slut before she got married, then good for her.

[Bartholomert]

Presumably there must be some crossover between those who get married a virgin or to their first sexual partner and women who think marriage should, for whatever reason (vows being "sacred", thinking they have to miserable for a decade or two because they have a child, whatever), be endured regardless of whether the marriage is actually working.

And the reason people don't engage you on things like this, Mert, is because you genuinely seem to think wanting to fuck women and pick yourself a partner who matches your shopping list of requirements is the same as having respect for them.

Yeah obviously. I think the main take away, combined with Byron's quote from Reddit, is stay away from super promiscuous women, but reasonably/averagely promiscuous women are more less going to be about as much of a roll of the dice as marriage always is.

[Pepe]

Does your sister have a boyfriend mert?

[Magic]

Yeah obviously. I think the main take away, combined with Byron's quote from Reddit, is stay away from super promiscuous women, but reasonably/averagely promiscuous women are more less going to be about as much of a roll of the dice as marriage always is.

Jesus Christ. Is it usually this difficult for you to find common sense?

[Mazuuurk]

1. I agree, but sensationalist headlines are in (I thought it sounded better) and I'm trying to get clicks. I remember seeing a graph about how there was an inverse relationship between number of partners a women had before marriage and reported sexual satisfaction and frequency of sexual activity. So you're right, it's about repressing the number of partners females have, rather than their sexuality generally.

Riiight. Anyway if you're gathering "clicks", you're kind of in the wrong place mate :D Go post something at Buzzfeed.



2. I disagree, why should that 'emotional duress' have an effect on their ability to commit within a relationship? Why should feeling guilty about past behavior affect divorce rates? I guess you can make an argument that social stigma generally affects mental health of promiscuous women (who have much higher rates of mental disorders) and that this in turn affects their relationships, but isn't it more likely that there is an effect independent of social stigma?

Now, you were the one that suggested earlier in the thread that men don't suffer emotionally from pre-marital promiscuity the way women do:


However there is evidence to suggest that men are largely unaffected in terms of emotional satisfaction within marriage by prior promiscuity (whereas women suffer all sorts of negative consequences)

What I'm saying is that any concept of how men and women "should be" within a relationship - that said men and women feel they have trouble fulfilling - will cause stress and anxiety within the parties of said relationship, putting it to the test. Those sort of concepts are usual social constructs. Female promiscuity may well one of such. Mens "need" to shag around a little before settling down is another. The concept of the man providing for the family is another (what if he can't provide enough) or that the woman should stay home with the kids (what if the man wants to spend more time with them, and she less?). The fact that the woman is usually held accountable for any difficulties of even having kids (although theres proof it's not only them now)...

All of these things is stuff that we all struggle with throughout our lives in smaller or larger scale. In society and by extention in our relationships and families (micro-societies). The more of these issues you are struggling with, the more likely I reckon you are to end up quite unhappy about your situation one way or another.



For you, Mert, who is a person that while seemingly intelligent enough, seems to be stuffed to the brim with these sort of ideas of how you and the people around you should ideally be - I'm worried you'll really struggle to be happy in a relationship when you are a few years older and many of these pressures of society starting becoming a little more real for you.

[Henry]

What's the causal mechanism then? Please account for the correlation.

Why did you delete this post?

I don't need to account for the causal mechanism to point out that you haven't established one.
Suicide figures are higher and the summer, as are temperatures. But this is no way means that hot weather causes suicide. Nor are you entitled to assume any link in lieu of discovering the other factors that are behind the correlation.

[Bartholomert]

Riiight. Anyway if you're gathering "clicks", you're kind of in the wrong place mate :D Go post something at Buzzfeed.



Now, you were the one that suggested earlier in the thread that men don't suffer emotionally from pre-marital promiscuity the way women do:



What I'm saying is that any concept of how men and women "should be" within a relationship - that said men and women feel they have trouble fulfilling - will cause stress and anxiety within the parties of said relationship, putting it to the test. Those sort of concepts are usual social constructs. Female promiscuity may well one of such. Mens "need" to shag around a little before settling down is another. The concept of the man providing for the family is another (what if he can't provide enough) or that the woman should stay home with the kids (what if the man wants to spend more time with them, and she less?). The fact that the woman is usually held accountable for any difficulties of even having kids (although theres proof it's not only them now)...

All of these things is stuff that we all struggle with throughout our lives in smaller or larger scale. In society and by extention in our relationships and families (micro-societies). The more of these issues you are struggling with, the more likely I reckon you are to end up quite unhappy about your situation one way or another.



For you, Mert, who is a person that while seemingly intelligent enough, seems to be stuffed to the brim with these sort of ideas of how you and the people around you should ideally be - I'm worried you'll really struggle to be happy in a relationship when you are a few years older and many of these pressures of society starting becoming a little more real for you.

Thanks for your response.

I would separate 'emotional harm'resulting from promiscuity and 'inability to remain committed in a relationship' as two largely independent, although slightly overlapping, effects.

And here I think we have fundamental disagreements. You say these traditional gender roles/expectations are 'social construct' that needlessly cause stress and anxiety. I say they are inherent evolutionary instincts with the corresponding emotions relating as a feedback loop to drive us to increase our reproductive value in the eyes of the opposite sex. It's probably a bit of both. Hopefully I'll manage to stay on top of the game.

[Bartholomert]

Why did you delete this post?

I don't need to account for the causal mechanism to point out that you haven't established one.
Suicide figures are higher and the summer, as are temperatures. But this is no way means that hot weather causes suicide. Nor are you entitled to assume any link in lieu of discovering the other factors that are behind the correlation.

I didn't feel like drawing out an argument from you needlessly when you had discredited yourself already with your juvenile 'causation doesn't equal correlation' response.

[Mazuuurk]

Thanks for your response.
I would separate 'emotional harm'resulting from promiscuity and 'inability to remain committed in a relationship' as two largely independent, although slightly overlapping, effects.

I would too. You realize you're sort of contradicting yourself, right? Again, you are the one implying that promiscuity has something to do with the abilty to stay in a relationship, with the graph in the opening post of the correlation between sexual partners and relationship longevity.

I'm saying that in any relationship, the amount of previous sexual partners of either gender will most likely only be one of a plethora of different problems the people in it will have to deal with to stay together.


And here I think we have fundamental disagreements. You say these traditional gender roles/expectations are 'social construct' that needlessly cause stress and anxiety. I say they are inherent evolutionary instincts with the corresponding emotions relating as a feedback loop to drive us to increase our reproductive value in the eyes of the opposite sex. It's probably a bit of both. Hopefully I'll manage to stay on top of the game.

Fair enough. Although I never really said "needlessly" - it's just something everyone has to work with. And I'm not saying social constructs necessarily cause stress and anxiety, just in general like that, but they do when people feel pressure to live up to them and can't.


As for your views on men, women & relationships, I would suggest you read through things like these, it's worth thinking about for you. Now I'm not saying these are any absolute truths either (!), but your views on men and women seem rather extreme and maybe you ought to think a little more on that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10684179/Men-and-women-do-not-have-different-brains-claims-neuroscientist.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201511/the-male-and-female-brain-are-more-similar-once-assumed
http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2933920/Maybe-women-aren-t-Venus-Study-finds-genders-far-similar-think.html

Also, you may find this interesting:
https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_perel_rethinking_infidelity_a_talk_for_anyo ne_who_has_ever_loved?language=en


By the way, my personal view is not at all that cultural gender identities should be erased and men and women should be some sort of androgynous single gender, before you say anything about that.

[Henry]

I didn't feel like drawing out an argument from you needlessly when you had discredited yourself already with your juvenile 'causation doesn't equal correlation' response.

:rolleyes:

You bitch about not getting a response and then label basic logic as "juvenile".

[Spoonsky]

It took #73 posts for an actual response. Shame on you TTH.

You keep saying this, but it's just not true. These are all serious responses:


Because balls to the children. People should do what they want.


How is it mathematically possible for men to shag lots of different people, but women not? Unless the men are mainly shagging each other, that is.


I wonder what the male equivalent to the graph would look like. Maybe all sexuality just needs to be repressed.


How you suggest bringing this about then?

Seems like a waste of time to me.

I, too, want to know how you would suggest bringing this about. That's "the question" that Byron keeps hammering on about.

[Toby]

Jimmy's post can't really have been serious response.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Everything I post is deadly fucking serious.

[Spoonsky]

Perhaps I'm being thick but his statement made sense to me.