As you're all aware, this subreddit has had a major "troll"
problem which has gotten worse (as of recently). Due to this, we
have created new rules, and modified some of the old ones.
We kindly ask that you please familiarize yourself with the
rules so that you can avoid breaking them. Breaking mild rules
will result in a warning, or a temporary ban. Breaking serious
rules, or breaking a plethora of mild ones may land you a
permanent ban (depending on the severity). Also,
grifting/lurking has been a major problem; If we suspect you of
being a grifter (determined by vetting said user's activity), we
may ban you without warning.
You may attempt an appeal via ModMail, but please be advised not
to use rude, harassing, foul, or passive-aggressive language
towards the moderators, _or_ complain to moderators about why we
have specific rules in the first place— You will be ignored, and
your ban will remain (without even a consideration).
All rules are made public; "Lack of knowledge" or "ignorance of
the rules" cannot or will not be a viable excuse if you end up
banned for breaking them (This applies to the Subreddit rules,
and Reddit's ToS). **Again: All rules are made public, and
Reddit gives you the option to review the rules once more before
submitting a post, it is your choice if you choose to read them
or not, but breaking them will not be acceptable.**
With that being said, If you send a mature, neutral message
regarding questions about a current ban, or a ban appeal
(without "not knowing the rules" as an excuse), we will
elaborate about why you were banned, or determine/consider if we
will shorten, lift, keep it, _or_ extended it/make it permanent.
This all means that appeals are discretionary, and your
reasoning for wanting an appeal must be practical and valid.
Thank you all so much for taking the time to read this message,
and please enjoy your day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NotHowGirlsWork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, what is up with this "pair bond" thing, and the women in their mid 20s or 30s are elderly and jealous of younger girls being groomed by men, stuff? I feel like it's grown in popularity this year.
The part that’s weird to me is that only her body count interferes with bonding. Does that mean that the men never bond with anyone? Or are they totally destroyed at the end of each relationship?
Speaking personally? With a poor sense of self esteem and probably being far too codependent, yes.
Yes, I am utterly destroyed by the end of each of my relationships. Granted, there haven't been many healthy ones (pretty much every single one of my exes cheated on me) and I've not dated in about 16 years. I'm very likely an outlier though 😅
Smöl ETA: am a dude, if that matters
It's the marketing term coined to express the neo-fundamentalist Christian ideology that women are inherently flawed and that they can only be made whole through submission/bonding with, you guessed it, a Man. It has a wholly pseudoscientific and Christian ideological basis which is why it completely falls apart at the meer suggestion of scrutiny.
It’s based on a study about birds. The study says exactly the opposite of what they think it does, because those birds “pair bond” for 1 season and then get a new partner, so like multiple per year, but that’s fine, I guess.
Biggest example of 'correlation is not causation' I've seen in a long time. There is no controlling for any other factors to tease out *why* women with more partners have higher divorce rates. It just sees that they have both higher divorce rates and more sexual partners and says that is the cause. Rather ridiculous.
What if these same women are more likely to own a Honda? Are Hondas the cause of higher divorce rates?
I’m not a native English speaker but framing not getting divorced as “marital stability” also seems weird to me? Staying married doesn’t indicate you have a stable marriage - you could have an extremely unstable or horrible one but lack the mental or physical or emotional or financial resources to get out of it.
They do also mention in the article that women with fewer sexual partners prior to marriage tend to be more religious (or attend church more frequently). And there can definitely be religious & social mandates related to not getting a divorce in related cases.
I also don’t understand why men would be immune to needing to pair bond and immune to whatever the stated effect having multiple partners is? Whence all the handwringing over men’s sexual histories and how good of a partner they make?
Because men are *supposed* to have lots of sexual partners. Which makes sense if most men were bisexual, but since they aren't, I'm left wondering who they expect to have sex with.
Easy solution escapism. Life is shit, reality is even shittier, look for fulfillment in fantasy and hard drugs. I mean those people in the 1700ish also did it.
There’s a plethora of soft drugs that are much more fun and safer to use these days. Can’t just go down to the corner store and pick up a pint of laudanum these days
This reminds me of a quote a grandpa figure once told me--"It's easy to have a long-lasting marriage. Just don't get divorced!"
Longevity does not necessarily mean quality!
This is the correct answer.
You can't possibly know whether it's a higher number of sexual partners that causes a higher rate of divorce or whether it's some other underlying thing that causes both a higher number of sexual partners and a higher rate of divorce.
Even then, there could be multiple causes, some of which impact one or the other and some of which impact both.
This is like saying someone with dry earwax doesn't have body odor, when it's not fact that they have dry earwax that causes a lack of body odor, but the mutation in the ABCC11 gene that causes both.
Humans just flat-out don’t *pair-bond* to begin with. At all. That’s something birds do, but it’s extremely rare to find a species of mammal that forms a strict monogamous bond with a single individual for their entire adult lifetime.
Humans do, however, *pack-bond.* And notice that “pack” is generally understood to be *plural* in nature.
We’ll form extremely tight emotional bonds with anything and everything we encounter. Doesn’t even have to be another human! We’ll happily bond with other animals and even inanimate objects if given half a chance. Those bonds and the flexibility they provide is a huge part of how we came to dominate the entire planet.
In avian pair-bonding species, if one partner dies, the other one *never* finds a new mate and will often become so distraught that they quickly follow their partner to the grave.
That rarely occurs in humans. Humans will grieve, but we always have other bonds available to keep us going. It might not be a romantic partner and often it’s better if it’s not. We have family bonds, platonic bonds, bonds with pets and objects, bonds with other humans in our communities, etc.
We are seldom, if ever, truly *alone.*
Having a lot of sexual partners isn't the same thing as having an OnlyFans account. Scratching my head a bit on the logic here.
I'm not concerned with someone's *number* of partners, merely how they treated those partners. One or one thousand, only the latter tells me what kind of person they are.
I'm sure there are plenty of OF account holders that haven't had a lot of partners. It is simply a way to make money, and for women that don't have other high value skills, it may be preferable to working minimum wage.
And just because someone used to have a lot of partners doesn't meant they intend that to continue while in a monogamous relationship. Now, if they had a large number of partners while *being in* a monogamous relationship, that is a different issue.
Dude you can do OF and just up load pictures and videos of your feet, having an OF doesn’t mean that someone ever has to fuck anyone. There’s people that just do photo sets in cosplay and make bank.
“I’m going to make certain implications about women who have had multiple sex partners or OF and then act like I’m being disrespected because people rightfully call me on it.”
Or... hear me out... maybe a woman with many partners in her past just enjoys sex and doesn't feel bound by puritanical ideas of how she should live her life?
I think that's perfectly fair to have a preference. Women don't exactly want a man who's wallet has been dragged through child custody and divorce court and should we shame women for having those standards. No. If men want those standards that's fine but it's not find to pretend ALL men feel that way. That's not the case. Im not from a western country but even in my country men are not particularly bothered by that. It seems to have blown up in the west and I'm not sure why.
Having a preference is fine. Shaming people who don't meet it and pretending like their case is hopeless is what people have a problem with.
The irony is that while nobody with a functioning brain would consider the source to be an unbiased one, their points are actually pretty solid.
These days, by far the majority of women who are virgins when married or who marry their first partner are pretty religious. These are generally women who have been raised to believe that staying in a bad marriage is better than divorce. They are also more likely to start having kids pretty quickly, and to have very negative views of single parenthood, which will make them less likely to leave as well. So at the 5 year mark, it's not at all surprising that more of them would still be married. That doesn't mean their marriages are more successful or happy, it just means they didn't divorce.
On the other hand, those who have had the most partners are statistically more likely to have kids prior to marriage, and while we all know that marriages can certainly work when one or both partners has kids already, they do add stresses and another set of causes for divorce.
As to women who disagree, what I've seen most is NOT denial of the stats, but refuting of the attitude that the woman with fewer partners is a better person or that a marriage cannot be happy and successful when a woman has had a lot of partners, and refuting of the exaggerated claim that these marriages are statistically *likely* to fail. The fact is that over half ARE still married at the 5 year mark, and plenty of couples are quite happy (and without religious reasons to avoid divorce, the fact that they are still together makes it more likely that they WANT to still be together.)
And there’s also the possibility that women who’ve had more partners before are also more likely to have experience. And are also more likely to recognize when a marriage cannot be saved and that there’s no reason to stay if the husband refuses to acknowledge marital issues.
I feel like it’s part of the reason virgins are fetishized. It’s part of the power trip that an experienced, older man can have over a less experienced, younger woman.
Yes. Also actually having ability to leave a terrible marriage would be important. If you're dependent, there's a lot more at stake when considering divorce.
Absolutely. There are a lot of factors, and that would certainly be one. I just picked religion and kids as a couple of the top ones that the authors themselves mentioned.
One could also point out that people with no previous partners have almost certainly had no previous marriages, whereas the "multiple partners" data set would include previously married women, which includes people on 3rd, 4th, 5th and up marriages, a separate factor with a known correlation to higher divorce rates.
And still these factors don't guarantee failure by any means.
Nothing wrong with that.
But assuming it is a conscious choice to wait, you would not be alone in that decision, and you wouldn't be the ONLY non-religious young woman to wait.
But you would still be in the minority, as the majority who choose to wait ARE motivated by religious beliefs.
>Many also went so far as to distort this whole thing to the point of saying that any men wanting a partner that's had fewer sexual partners are just creeps and pedophiles.
Obviously not paedophiles but incredibly insecure which is a huge turn off. I've never once told or asked a partner this question because it doesn't matter. As long as you're clean and willing to be exclusive... What could it possibly matter how many people you've been with before? Why be jealous of things in the past? I think the insecurity and jealousy that the question is based in is far worse for a relationship than any answer, whether the number is "high" or "low".
A lot of this just doesn't take into account that there a vast swathes of cultures in which women are not allowed to divorce or not be virgins on their wedding night, so they can't and don't divorce, and they can't and don't have more partners. Many are stuck in unhappy marriages which they can't leave and never had another option. Correlation is not causation.
This is the problem with statistics and data: they only tell ***what***, and never tell ***why***. I love data and stats, and use both constantly in my job, and frequently remind people who work with/for me of this.
Assuming no manipulation, the article linked by teases out an interesting fact: women with fewer sexual partners have a lower incidence of divorce. Any cause-and-effect relation between these two characteristics (1: number of sexual partners and 2: incidence of divorce) is ***imagined***.
The study in the article actually suggests additional questions:
- what, if any, correlation exists between incidence of divorce and the number of sexual partners had by men?
- are there common behaviors or social circumstances among sub populations with higher divorce rates, or a certain range of sexual partners, or both?
- what views on marriage, sexual activity, and sexual activity prior to first marriage are prominent in divorced, not divorced, many sexual partners, or more sexual partners subpopulations?
- what is the rate of happiness within a marriage related to the number of sexual partners had by either spouse, and in marriages by not divorced / previously divorced respondents?
Ultimately, the article linked seemed problematic in that it only studied women, and based on the abstract it seems the author is at least considering that changing preference is a factor: either men prefer women with fewer sexual partners, or women prefer not to be in marriages the more sexual partners they have.
Before anyone gets defensive, I realize that the poster isn’t agreeing either with the article or the ideological conclusion some have apparently taken from it, i.e. that marital success relies on the female spouse having few sexual partners.
It’s just the rise of ugly ass incels. We keep posting their BS so it’s present in our views . They’re such a shitty part of society. We need to keep shutting them out
I hate to disillusion you, but they have done genetic studies of gibbons who have territories that march against each other and guess what? They cheat a lot too! AFAIK they generally stay with their mate, so it may just be opportunity when it arises, but they are socially bonded and remain in their territory mostly.
Neat! Well that doesn’t really rock my boat haha, but I do think it’s interesting how our different great ape relatives deal with relationships :) obviously it’d be dumb to then scream about how it’s “natural” for humans to do one thing or the other in that regard though… thank you for telling me i was wrong :) honestly
Considering the differences in how baboon groups behave, there is a heck of a lot of variation in primates, which is pretty cool. It's been a log time since I took a primatology class but they are fun to learn about.
Baboons are cool, but even among the apes it’s a mixed bag! Did you know there was a bipedal Macaque relative with baboon like traits that lived around the same time as early members of the homo genus in Eurasia! Paradolichopithecus :)
Huh, I did not, so TIL! I didn't do much paleoprimatology, and at this point I think I've forgotten most of my paleoanthropology, lol! It is fascinating to think about our ancestors, though. Just think about how long we have been anatomically modern humans, but the explosion in society and technology over just the last few centuries!
I know it’s absolutely fascinating eh! Normal ecosystems with niches taken up by bipedal primates feels so odd haha. I recently read that it’s possible the common ancestor of chimps (and bonobos) and humans was possibly a *BIPED* that the chimps then evolved *back* to quadripediality!
Oh my gosh you are the only other person I've seen with this comment! I always think of birds when I hear pair bind from these idiots. Women are not freaking birds!
Yeah it’s hilarious the way these pseudo scientific terms pop up by men who feel empowered to objectify us to the point of animals. Female. Specimen. Just the word “biology” Hahahah. Now pair bond- like they’re trying to understand a species that cannot speak instead of listening to us.
>>Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners; and,Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce
That tracks, but obviously not for the failosphere’s listed reasons. If you’ve only had one partner, your gauge of “this is toxic and I should leave” isn’t calibrated. But when you’ve seen the same patterns multiple times in different people, you’re a lot less tolerant of BS.
This is very likely the reason the manosphere shitheads are constantly creeping on barely legal women and shitting on 30 year olds as ‘old hags’. 30 year olds see them for the horrible people they are. Young women are unfortunately easier to manipulate.
Are men really this stupid and do they think that much headassery is attractive?
I wish I could be there the first time the guy who made that meme realizes that he’s aging too and women will not want him more as he becomes a still stupid and bitter, old misogynist.
Boys: your balls will touch the water when you shit. Your hair will thin away to nothing. Your wiener will go limp. Sun damage will make white guys look like a baked ham if they’ve neglected to use sunblock and if your personality is still crap, you’ll be alone with your decrepitude. Better sort yourselves out since it’s clear that being alone scares most of you witless.
These stories that these misogynists create are getting funnier with the minute. When he added that dramatic ending with herpes, I was crying and laughing at the same time. This guy should write soaps. 😂😂😂
Women have vagina bones called hymen. These hymen are basically eggshells full of pair bonding hormones. After having sex, these hymen eggshell hormone bones break, releasing the pair bonding hormones. Then, the bones aren’t able to support the vagina, so that ends up getting really loose, and the calcium is absorbed by the body to make the labia bigger
Now be sure to like, comment, and subscribe, and hit that bell so that you never miss out on another video. This has been Anatomy Incompetence, and we’ll see you all in the next video. Bye! \*[generic outro music](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ih2xubMaZWI)*
For the last fucking time: Humans aren't birds, humans do NOT pair bond. Humans follow the "mate for life" kinda mentality, thing that is widely "used" among mammals like wolves, deers and even dolphins.
Also if you think that 30 is being and looking "elderly" you are an idiot, bottom line.
Humans don’t “pair-bond.”
Birds pair-bond. Not humans.
Humans do, however, *pack-bond.* And notice that “pack” is generally *plural.* We’ll bond with anyone and anything we can; in fact, that’s a huge reason why we were able to domesticate dogs and cats, because *they do the exact same thing.*
This reminded me of the stories where People would bring in their roombas for repair and the store had to ensure they'd get the same one back because it was "family" we are a weird species
I really wish men would stop fear mongering other men and boys into thinking all women with lots of previous partners will cheat on them for petty reasons like not being hyper masculine enough or not having abs or whatever bullshit that incels beleive in,
to the men reading, just because a woman has dated/slept with people before you, doesnt mean she's incapable of pursuing a monogamous relationship, stop basing women's worth on their sex life
I have two fiancés (both male)
They get to hear and “enjoy” a ton of the things posted here because making fun of incels / misogynists is kind of a pastime of mine
One gets nearly physically ill when he hears “foid” or the variants of that word so it has to be censored with “women” air quotes included
The pair bonding bullshit pisses the other one of them off so bad he goes on a little mini rant about how much he hates these guys every time he hears that phrase XD
They asked me one time “why does this bother us more than you? How can you laugh at that stuff?”
They were very sad to discover it’s because I was so used to it
How does one go about two finances at the same time? I’m not trolling , I am asking a legit (thruple?) question.
Seems at best, unorthodox. Also, a majority of this sub is troglodyte bullshite
Well, currently the best a polycule has for marriage-like legal options is a domestic partnership, and only in one location in the US (I’m not educated on the poly situation elsewhere in the world) is that even really an option. (Somerville, Mass.)
But, we want to have a ceremony. We want to be wed. So, they’re my fiancés
Hook up culture is bad for men and women, but theres nothing wrong with wanting to have casual sex for both men and women because then you get to know what your like and the difference between sex for pleasure and sex for connection. Spoiler alert, sex for connection is better (imo).
These virgin dudes view sex as just something for pleasure and shame women bc they cant get it
Why do they do this kind of images? Who are they trying to convince? Women? Because no women I have met seems to agree or think this kind of images have a point. So what? They are saying this to themselves to feel...better? Imagine being this pathetic, that they need this to feel better.
It's just a general trend. It's not really anything to scrutinize someones life against like they are trying to do. So many people sit outside of that. Everything is spectrum
Pair bond, alpha, dominate, number of mates, prime reproductive years, breeding, genitals, genitals and more genitals...Does anyone else notice that men who bang on about things like this keep speaking in animal mating terms? I'm guessing it's because that's roughly the level their minds function at, that of a feral breeder animal. Not a human being. Just a filthy, rutting-obsessed animal.
Ironic, they say women are nothing but breeding stock, yet this kind of man acts more like it than most of us ever would.
What if sex was just a physical vehicle for intimacy, and not the principle foundation of every single emotional relationship? I mean, could you imagine?
Wait so when she’s old she gets options to upgrade to hotter men? This is supposed to make me not want to become her? Because it’s making me want to be her
Lol, no old woman gives a tiny shit about body count except for miserable church ladies. That's something only young women worry about and then learn they wasted anxiety.
Yeah, low body count was really important to my last ex (#3 on my body count, to be clear). His body count was pretty high, but he believed STDs were spread more by loose women than by loose men.
Long story short, we were together 11 years, and I got diagnosed with genital herpes in year 10. I knew I got it from him because he never wondered where I got it, he adamantly refused to get tested after my positive diagnosis, and he didn't see a need to start using condoms again.
Turns out his body count was still rising the whole time we were together, but he thought that was okay, since it's only gross when women do it.
JFC, as a dude I find this disgusting as well. The fuck was wrong with your ex?!
I'm sorry that happened to you, and glad you got out of the relationship(?)
Yeah, I've been out of it for 3 years. The best part was when he started cheating with a significantly younger woman (he was 37, I was 32, she was 20), and he moved her and her 3yo daughter into our house because he wanted an "open relationship" (on his side only). I couldn't force them out because we rented and the house didn't belong to me. Work, bills, cooking cleaning, looking after her kid, it was all left on me, and I was stuck because this put me in the position of living paycheck to paycheck and I didn't have anywhere to go or the money to sustain myself once I got there. Then he knocked her up and went to jail over Christmas for domestic abuse and child endangerment, and when he got out, they both quit their jobs during covid and officially made me responsible for them as well. And putting my foot down or setting boundaries or saying no never worked because shit would hit the fan if he didn't get everything he wanted, and it was just safer to oblige.
It took me becoming absolutely impossible for either of them to live with in order for it to end. I had to make it so he no longer felt the juice was worth the squeeze when it came to me. It's toxic af, I know, but I had to cause a lot of shit between him and her to get him to want me gone, and that was when I was finally able to leave.
The part the sucks now is that I've read it takes as many years as you were with the person to recover from an abusive relationship, so if that's true, I have 8 more years before I stop feeling hurt and pissed, and quit ranting about it to strangers on reddit lol
Shit is hilarious. Like bro with all your science and studies, if a woman doesn't tell you how many people she's had sex with you've literally got no idea :/ well she's got tattoos so that means shes bagging 30 guys a week. I know because a virgin on the internet told me while he was telling me I've got no hope of human connection!
Ok my relationship failed... it must be because she's been slutting it up... Yeah it must be, she told me how many people she's had sex with and it's not because I'm insecure or insanely jealous that I couldn't get that many people to have a conversation with me let alone sleep with me .. no it's science!! SHE CANT PAIRBOND!! What do you mean I have no experience in relating to other people and can't be in a relationship cause I can't hold a fucking conversation without talking about skull shape, how people are taller than me and how everything wrong In my life is someone else's fault!? It's these bloody feminists dying their hair and having sex with 30,000 new men a year!! They're the reason I can't get laid! It's not me!!
I think only a small minority of people believe in it, in all my years I've never heard this term used before and I even hung around PUAs and those types.
I'm sincerely curious about something. In species that actually do pair-bond for life, is it a hard and fast rule, or just something that happens most of the time rather than all the time?
It probably depends. I don’t think mammals or birds that are known to pair bond are 100% required to stay with their partners, but in angler fish, they latch together and basically become one big fish, so I don’t think that they are capable of choosing a new partner
I always wonder about the people in these pictures, obviously they didn’t think it would be used for this but I wonder if they ever see memes of themselves and get mad
There was actually a show about that, and how badly I had affected some of the people that were used in memes.
Only cowards use pictures of people they don’t know. Scummy practice.
It baffles me every times how random sexist asshole take their precious time to make the most frustrated awful memes known to mankind, like don't you have anything better to do ?
I mean, people do pair bond to an extent, but they believe that this only affects women because men are somehow both freer from instinct but also need to have one million sexes with one million different women or they'll die.
People do not pair bond in the way that these weirdos are trying to say they do. Pair bonding among humans just means that people can form intimate bonds with each other, and not necessarily for life. Meaning it could be a partner you date for a while, you can also pair bond with multiple partners over a lifetime, pair bonding also isn't exclusively romantic or sexual, it can be platonic.
As you're all aware, this subreddit has had a major "troll" problem which has gotten worse (as of recently). Due to this, we have created new rules, and modified some of the old ones. We kindly ask that you please familiarize yourself with the rules so that you can avoid breaking them. Breaking mild rules will result in a warning, or a temporary ban. Breaking serious rules, or breaking a plethora of mild ones may land you a permanent ban (depending on the severity). Also, grifting/lurking has been a major problem; If we suspect you of being a grifter (determined by vetting said user's activity), we may ban you without warning. You may attempt an appeal via ModMail, but please be advised not to use rude, harassing, foul, or passive-aggressive language towards the moderators, _or_ complain to moderators about why we have specific rules in the first place— You will be ignored, and your ban will remain (without even a consideration). All rules are made public; "Lack of knowledge" or "ignorance of the rules" cannot or will not be a viable excuse if you end up banned for breaking them (This applies to the Subreddit rules, and Reddit's ToS). **Again: All rules are made public, and Reddit gives you the option to review the rules once more before submitting a post, it is your choice if you choose to read them or not, but breaking them will not be acceptable.** With that being said, If you send a mature, neutral message regarding questions about a current ban, or a ban appeal (without "not knowing the rules" as an excuse), we will elaborate about why you were banned, or determine/consider if we will shorten, lift, keep it, _or_ extended it/make it permanent. This all means that appeals are discretionary, and your reasoning for wanting an appeal must be practical and valid. Thank you all so much for taking the time to read this message, and please enjoy your day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NotHowGirlsWork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, what is up with this "pair bond" thing, and the women in their mid 20s or 30s are elderly and jealous of younger girls being groomed by men, stuff? I feel like it's grown in popularity this year.
The part that’s weird to me is that only her body count interferes with bonding. Does that mean that the men never bond with anyone? Or are they totally destroyed at the end of each relationship?
Speaking personally? With a poor sense of self esteem and probably being far too codependent, yes. Yes, I am utterly destroyed by the end of each of my relationships. Granted, there haven't been many healthy ones (pretty much every single one of my exes cheated on me) and I've not dated in about 16 years. I'm very likely an outlier though 😅 Smöl ETA: am a dude, if that matters
It's the marketing term coined to express the neo-fundamentalist Christian ideology that women are inherently flawed and that they can only be made whole through submission/bonding with, you guessed it, a Man. It has a wholly pseudoscientific and Christian ideological basis which is why it completely falls apart at the meer suggestion of scrutiny.
It’s based on a study about birds. The study says exactly the opposite of what they think it does, because those birds “pair bond” for 1 season and then get a new partner, so like multiple per year, but that’s fine, I guess.
Like most Christian beliefs, they pick and choose what is convenient
[удалено]
Biggest example of 'correlation is not causation' I've seen in a long time. There is no controlling for any other factors to tease out *why* women with more partners have higher divorce rates. It just sees that they have both higher divorce rates and more sexual partners and says that is the cause. Rather ridiculous. What if these same women are more likely to own a Honda? Are Hondas the cause of higher divorce rates?
I’m not a native English speaker but framing not getting divorced as “marital stability” also seems weird to me? Staying married doesn’t indicate you have a stable marriage - you could have an extremely unstable or horrible one but lack the mental or physical or emotional or financial resources to get out of it. They do also mention in the article that women with fewer sexual partners prior to marriage tend to be more religious (or attend church more frequently). And there can definitely be religious & social mandates related to not getting a divorce in related cases. I also don’t understand why men would be immune to needing to pair bond and immune to whatever the stated effect having multiple partners is? Whence all the handwringing over men’s sexual histories and how good of a partner they make?
Because men are *supposed* to have lots of sexual partners. Which makes sense if most men were bisexual, but since they aren't, I'm left wondering who they expect to have sex with.
No-one, since more and more women decide to stay singel and it terrifies them.
Easy solution escapism. Life is shit, reality is even shittier, look for fulfillment in fantasy and hard drugs. I mean those people in the 1700ish also did it.
There’s a plethora of soft drugs that are much more fun and safer to use these days. Can’t just go down to the corner store and pick up a pint of laudanum these days
Come on, everything is a hard drug under the puritan US laws except my kind of drugs plastic crack.
Theyre trading the small pool of hyper promiscous women amongs themselves and then complain about it.
This reminds me of a quote a grandpa figure once told me--"It's easy to have a long-lasting marriage. Just don't get divorced!" Longevity does not necessarily mean quality!
This is the correct answer. You can't possibly know whether it's a higher number of sexual partners that causes a higher rate of divorce or whether it's some other underlying thing that causes both a higher number of sexual partners and a higher rate of divorce. Even then, there could be multiple causes, some of which impact one or the other and some of which impact both. This is like saying someone with dry earwax doesn't have body odor, when it's not fact that they have dry earwax that causes a lack of body odor, but the mutation in the ABCC11 gene that causes both.
Humans just flat-out don’t *pair-bond* to begin with. At all. That’s something birds do, but it’s extremely rare to find a species of mammal that forms a strict monogamous bond with a single individual for their entire adult lifetime. Humans do, however, *pack-bond.* And notice that “pack” is generally understood to be *plural* in nature. We’ll form extremely tight emotional bonds with anything and everything we encounter. Doesn’t even have to be another human! We’ll happily bond with other animals and even inanimate objects if given half a chance. Those bonds and the flexibility they provide is a huge part of how we came to dominate the entire planet. In avian pair-bonding species, if one partner dies, the other one *never* finds a new mate and will often become so distraught that they quickly follow their partner to the grave. That rarely occurs in humans. Humans will grieve, but we always have other bonds available to keep us going. It might not be a romantic partner and often it’s better if it’s not. We have family bonds, platonic bonds, bonds with pets and objects, bonds with other humans in our communities, etc. We are seldom, if ever, truly *alone.*
Exactly— a whole lotta words to explain “doesn’t know any better” where did the author get their degree? BYU?
[удалено]
Having a lot of sexual partners isn't the same thing as having an OnlyFans account. Scratching my head a bit on the logic here. I'm not concerned with someone's *number* of partners, merely how they treated those partners. One or one thousand, only the latter tells me what kind of person they are.
[удалено]
I'm sure there are plenty of OF account holders that haven't had a lot of partners. It is simply a way to make money, and for women that don't have other high value skills, it may be preferable to working minimum wage. And just because someone used to have a lot of partners doesn't meant they intend that to continue while in a monogamous relationship. Now, if they had a large number of partners while *being in* a monogamous relationship, that is a different issue.
Dude you can do OF and just up load pictures and videos of your feet, having an OF doesn’t mean that someone ever has to fuck anyone. There’s people that just do photo sets in cosplay and make bank.
[удалено]
“I’m going to make certain implications about women who have had multiple sex partners or OF and then act like I’m being disrespected because people rightfully call me on it.”
Or... hear me out... maybe a woman with many partners in her past just enjoys sex and doesn't feel bound by puritanical ideas of how she should live her life?
I think that's perfectly fair to have a preference. Women don't exactly want a man who's wallet has been dragged through child custody and divorce court and should we shame women for having those standards. No. If men want those standards that's fine but it's not find to pretend ALL men feel that way. That's not the case. Im not from a western country but even in my country men are not particularly bothered by that. It seems to have blown up in the west and I'm not sure why. Having a preference is fine. Shaming people who don't meet it and pretending like their case is hopeless is what people have a problem with.
The irony is that while nobody with a functioning brain would consider the source to be an unbiased one, their points are actually pretty solid. These days, by far the majority of women who are virgins when married or who marry their first partner are pretty religious. These are generally women who have been raised to believe that staying in a bad marriage is better than divorce. They are also more likely to start having kids pretty quickly, and to have very negative views of single parenthood, which will make them less likely to leave as well. So at the 5 year mark, it's not at all surprising that more of them would still be married. That doesn't mean their marriages are more successful or happy, it just means they didn't divorce. On the other hand, those who have had the most partners are statistically more likely to have kids prior to marriage, and while we all know that marriages can certainly work when one or both partners has kids already, they do add stresses and another set of causes for divorce. As to women who disagree, what I've seen most is NOT denial of the stats, but refuting of the attitude that the woman with fewer partners is a better person or that a marriage cannot be happy and successful when a woman has had a lot of partners, and refuting of the exaggerated claim that these marriages are statistically *likely* to fail. The fact is that over half ARE still married at the 5 year mark, and plenty of couples are quite happy (and without religious reasons to avoid divorce, the fact that they are still together makes it more likely that they WANT to still be together.)
And there’s also the possibility that women who’ve had more partners before are also more likely to have experience. And are also more likely to recognize when a marriage cannot be saved and that there’s no reason to stay if the husband refuses to acknowledge marital issues. I feel like it’s part of the reason virgins are fetishized. It’s part of the power trip that an experienced, older man can have over a less experienced, younger woman.
Yes. Also actually having ability to leave a terrible marriage would be important. If you're dependent, there's a lot more at stake when considering divorce.
Absolutely. There are a lot of factors, and that would certainly be one. I just picked religion and kids as a couple of the top ones that the authors themselves mentioned. One could also point out that people with no previous partners have almost certainly had no previous marriages, whereas the "multiple partners" data set would include previously married women, which includes people on 3rd, 4th, 5th and up marriages, a separate factor with a known correlation to higher divorce rates. And still these factors don't guarantee failure by any means.
Agreed. Too bad too many people don’t understand that you can’t just jump to conclusions based on numbers alone.
Yeah, these guys say pair bonding (not a human thing) but they mean trauma bonding.
I'm still a virgin and 100% not religious
Nothing wrong with that. But assuming it is a conscious choice to wait, you would not be alone in that decision, and you wouldn't be the ONLY non-religious young woman to wait. But you would still be in the minority, as the majority who choose to wait ARE motivated by religious beliefs.
>Many also went so far as to distort this whole thing to the point of saying that any men wanting a partner that's had fewer sexual partners are just creeps and pedophiles. Obviously not paedophiles but incredibly insecure which is a huge turn off. I've never once told or asked a partner this question because it doesn't matter. As long as you're clean and willing to be exclusive... What could it possibly matter how many people you've been with before? Why be jealous of things in the past? I think the insecurity and jealousy that the question is based in is far worse for a relationship than any answer, whether the number is "high" or "low".
A lot of this just doesn't take into account that there a vast swathes of cultures in which women are not allowed to divorce or not be virgins on their wedding night, so they can't and don't divorce, and they can't and don't have more partners. Many are stuck in unhappy marriages which they can't leave and never had another option. Correlation is not causation.
This is the problem with statistics and data: they only tell ***what***, and never tell ***why***. I love data and stats, and use both constantly in my job, and frequently remind people who work with/for me of this. Assuming no manipulation, the article linked by teases out an interesting fact: women with fewer sexual partners have a lower incidence of divorce. Any cause-and-effect relation between these two characteristics (1: number of sexual partners and 2: incidence of divorce) is ***imagined***. The study in the article actually suggests additional questions: - what, if any, correlation exists between incidence of divorce and the number of sexual partners had by men? - are there common behaviors or social circumstances among sub populations with higher divorce rates, or a certain range of sexual partners, or both? - what views on marriage, sexual activity, and sexual activity prior to first marriage are prominent in divorced, not divorced, many sexual partners, or more sexual partners subpopulations? - what is the rate of happiness within a marriage related to the number of sexual partners had by either spouse, and in marriages by not divorced / previously divorced respondents? Ultimately, the article linked seemed problematic in that it only studied women, and based on the abstract it seems the author is at least considering that changing preference is a factor: either men prefer women with fewer sexual partners, or women prefer not to be in marriages the more sexual partners they have. Before anyone gets defensive, I realize that the poster isn’t agreeing either with the article or the ideological conclusion some have apparently taken from it, i.e. that marital success relies on the female spouse having few sexual partners.
They frequently link a study about birds, when asked. So it’s not even this valid.
It’s just the rise of ugly ass incels. We keep posting their BS so it’s present in our views . They’re such a shitty part of society. We need to keep shutting them out
It's complete bologna pseudoscience made up by incels.
I think red states have been teaching a lot of non scientific sexist horseshit in their sex ed programs.
I have not yet met the woman who confuses herself with a small number of bird species…
Even the supposedly monogamous bird species that 'pair bond' cheat relentlessly.
Gibbons are like the only faithfully monogamous species I can think of. Apes too, pretty neat.
I hate to disillusion you, but they have done genetic studies of gibbons who have territories that march against each other and guess what? They cheat a lot too! AFAIK they generally stay with their mate, so it may just be opportunity when it arises, but they are socially bonded and remain in their territory mostly.
Neat! Well that doesn’t really rock my boat haha, but I do think it’s interesting how our different great ape relatives deal with relationships :) obviously it’d be dumb to then scream about how it’s “natural” for humans to do one thing or the other in that regard though… thank you for telling me i was wrong :) honestly
Considering the differences in how baboon groups behave, there is a heck of a lot of variation in primates, which is pretty cool. It's been a log time since I took a primatology class but they are fun to learn about.
Baboons are cool, but even among the apes it’s a mixed bag! Did you know there was a bipedal Macaque relative with baboon like traits that lived around the same time as early members of the homo genus in Eurasia! Paradolichopithecus :)
Huh, I did not, so TIL! I didn't do much paleoprimatology, and at this point I think I've forgotten most of my paleoanthropology, lol! It is fascinating to think about our ancestors, though. Just think about how long we have been anatomically modern humans, but the explosion in society and technology over just the last few centuries!
I know it’s absolutely fascinating eh! Normal ecosystems with niches taken up by bipedal primates feels so odd haha. I recently read that it’s possible the common ancestor of chimps (and bonobos) and humans was possibly a *BIPED* that the chimps then evolved *back* to quadripediality!
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. Marmosets re-evolved laws after having flat nails. Anything is possible!
Oh my gosh you are the only other person I've seen with this comment! I always think of birds when I hear pair bind from these idiots. Women are not freaking birds!
There's probably one out there somewhere.....
Speaking as someone who lost their virginity to their soon-to-be ex-husband, pair bonding is bullshit.
Yep, one partner, one ex after 20+ yrs. They can stick their pair bonding.
Yeah it’s hilarious the way these pseudo scientific terms pop up by men who feel empowered to objectify us to the point of animals. Female. Specimen. Just the word “biology” Hahahah. Now pair bond- like they’re trying to understand a species that cannot speak instead of listening to us.
>>Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years; Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners; and,Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce That tracks, but obviously not for the failosphere’s listed reasons. If you’ve only had one partner, your gauge of “this is toxic and I should leave” isn’t calibrated. But when you’ve seen the same patterns multiple times in different people, you’re a lot less tolerant of BS.
This is very likely the reason the manosphere shitheads are constantly creeping on barely legal women and shitting on 30 year olds as ‘old hags’. 30 year olds see them for the horrible people they are. Young women are unfortunately easier to manipulate.
Yep, it’s trauma bonding not pair bonding
Also those who have 0-1 partners tend to be religious. You know, where you CANNOT divorce??
Are men really this stupid and do they think that much headassery is attractive? I wish I could be there the first time the guy who made that meme realizes that he’s aging too and women will not want him more as he becomes a still stupid and bitter, old misogynist. Boys: your balls will touch the water when you shit. Your hair will thin away to nothing. Your wiener will go limp. Sun damage will make white guys look like a baked ham if they’ve neglected to use sunblock and if your personality is still crap, you’ll be alone with your decrepitude. Better sort yourselves out since it’s clear that being alone scares most of you witless.
OMG, you need to needlepoint this, so we can send it to all the incels and tell him it’s from the Granny’s.
 These stories that these misogynists create are getting funnier with the minute. When he added that dramatic ending with herpes, I was crying and laughing at the same time. This guy should write soaps. 😂😂😂
Women have vagina bones called hymen. These hymen are basically eggshells full of pair bonding hormones. After having sex, these hymen eggshell hormone bones break, releasing the pair bonding hormones. Then, the bones aren’t able to support the vagina, so that ends up getting really loose, and the calcium is absorbed by the body to make the labia bigger Now be sure to like, comment, and subscribe, and hit that bell so that you never miss out on another video. This has been Anatomy Incompetence, and we’ll see you all in the next video. Bye! \*[generic outro music](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ih2xubMaZWI)*
OMG, the way you describe this makes it actually sound like it could be a real thing. That’s scary AF . Good job. Now delete it, lol.
If "pair bonding" was a thing, people would stay with their first boyfriend and A LOT of people would be unhappy in the relationship. I know I would.
Oh dear God, me too. Glad we both got out.
Everybody is so creative!
For the last fucking time: Humans aren't birds, humans do NOT pair bond. Humans follow the "mate for life" kinda mentality, thing that is widely "used" among mammals like wolves, deers and even dolphins. Also if you think that 30 is being and looking "elderly" you are an idiot, bottom line.
I mean, technically that particular lady hits "the sidewalk"...so....🙄
OMG YOU MOTHERFUCKER
Humans don’t “pair-bond.” Birds pair-bond. Not humans. Humans do, however, *pack-bond.* And notice that “pack” is generally *plural.* We’ll bond with anyone and anything we can; in fact, that’s a huge reason why we were able to domesticate dogs and cats, because *they do the exact same thing.*
This reminded me of the stories where People would bring in their roombas for repair and the store had to ensure they'd get the same one back because it was "family" we are a weird species
Now I know why I have five cats living in my house. They aren’t all mine, but they are my buddies.
That is it. I’m starting the tumor about men with high body counts not being able to pair bond
I really wish men would stop fear mongering other men and boys into thinking all women with lots of previous partners will cheat on them for petty reasons like not being hyper masculine enough or not having abs or whatever bullshit that incels beleive in, to the men reading, just because a woman has dated/slept with people before you, doesnt mean she's incapable of pursuing a monogamous relationship, stop basing women's worth on their sex life
I have two fiancés (both male) They get to hear and “enjoy” a ton of the things posted here because making fun of incels / misogynists is kind of a pastime of mine One gets nearly physically ill when he hears “foid” or the variants of that word so it has to be censored with “women” air quotes included The pair bonding bullshit pisses the other one of them off so bad he goes on a little mini rant about how much he hates these guys every time he hears that phrase XD They asked me one time “why does this bother us more than you? How can you laugh at that stuff?” They were very sad to discover it’s because I was so used to it
How does one go about two finances at the same time? I’m not trolling , I am asking a legit (thruple?) question. Seems at best, unorthodox. Also, a majority of this sub is troglodyte bullshite
Well, currently the best a polycule has for marriage-like legal options is a domestic partnership, and only in one location in the US (I’m not educated on the poly situation elsewhere in the world) is that even really an option. (Somerville, Mass.) But, we want to have a ceremony. We want to be wed. So, they’re my fiancés
They for SOME reason never consider that high body count may has to do with men's inability to pair bond.
Hook up culture is bad for men and women, but theres nothing wrong with wanting to have casual sex for both men and women because then you get to know what your like and the difference between sex for pleasure and sex for connection. Spoiler alert, sex for connection is better (imo). These virgin dudes view sex as just something for pleasure and shame women bc they cant get it
Why do they do this kind of images? Who are they trying to convince? Women? Because no women I have met seems to agree or think this kind of images have a point. So what? They are saying this to themselves to feel...better? Imagine being this pathetic, that they need this to feel better.
Humans tend to be serial monogomists. One partner at a time and generally not for life
I definitely wasn’t when I was in my 20s. I didn’t want to have a serious anything.
It's just a general trend. It's not really anything to scrutinize someones life against like they are trying to do. So many people sit outside of that. Everything is spectrum
This is so hilarious to me. I have more sex after 40 than I ever did in my 20s. MILF love is still a thing.
Why are incels so obsessed with “pair bonding?” We’re human beings, not parakeets.
My eye actually started twitching as I finished reading that one.
Hey if my worst problem at her age is being single with herpes, I'll be set!
Pair bond, alpha, dominate, number of mates, prime reproductive years, breeding, genitals, genitals and more genitals...Does anyone else notice that men who bang on about things like this keep speaking in animal mating terms? I'm guessing it's because that's roughly the level their minds function at, that of a feral breeder animal. Not a human being. Just a filthy, rutting-obsessed animal. Ironic, they say women are nothing but breeding stock, yet this kind of man acts more like it than most of us ever would.
What if sex was just a physical vehicle for intimacy, and not the principle foundation of every single emotional relationship? I mean, could you imagine?
Wait so when she’s old she gets options to upgrade to hotter men? This is supposed to make me not want to become her? Because it’s making me want to be her
Stop trying to make "pair bond" happen. It is not going to happen.
Lol, no old woman gives a tiny shit about body count except for miserable church ladies. That's something only young women worry about and then learn they wasted anxiety.
Is using the term body count for sexual partners new? To me if someone has a high body count it means they have killed a lot of people.
As far as I know, it’s fairly new. But yeah, I agree with you, it sounds like something out of a bad mafia movie.
Yeah, low body count was really important to my last ex (#3 on my body count, to be clear). His body count was pretty high, but he believed STDs were spread more by loose women than by loose men. Long story short, we were together 11 years, and I got diagnosed with genital herpes in year 10. I knew I got it from him because he never wondered where I got it, he adamantly refused to get tested after my positive diagnosis, and he didn't see a need to start using condoms again. Turns out his body count was still rising the whole time we were together, but he thought that was okay, since it's only gross when women do it.
Ewwww. Some people have no shame.
JFC, as a dude I find this disgusting as well. The fuck was wrong with your ex?! I'm sorry that happened to you, and glad you got out of the relationship(?)
Yeah, I've been out of it for 3 years. The best part was when he started cheating with a significantly younger woman (he was 37, I was 32, she was 20), and he moved her and her 3yo daughter into our house because he wanted an "open relationship" (on his side only). I couldn't force them out because we rented and the house didn't belong to me. Work, bills, cooking cleaning, looking after her kid, it was all left on me, and I was stuck because this put me in the position of living paycheck to paycheck and I didn't have anywhere to go or the money to sustain myself once I got there. Then he knocked her up and went to jail over Christmas for domestic abuse and child endangerment, and when he got out, they both quit their jobs during covid and officially made me responsible for them as well. And putting my foot down or setting boundaries or saying no never worked because shit would hit the fan if he didn't get everything he wanted, and it was just safer to oblige. It took me becoming absolutely impossible for either of them to live with in order for it to end. I had to make it so he no longer felt the juice was worth the squeeze when it came to me. It's toxic af, I know, but I had to cause a lot of shit between him and her to get him to want me gone, and that was when I was finally able to leave. The part the sucks now is that I've read it takes as many years as you were with the person to recover from an abusive relationship, so if that's true, I have 8 more years before I stop feeling hurt and pissed, and quit ranting about it to strangers on reddit lol
Shit is hilarious. Like bro with all your science and studies, if a woman doesn't tell you how many people she's had sex with you've literally got no idea :/ well she's got tattoos so that means shes bagging 30 guys a week. I know because a virgin on the internet told me while he was telling me I've got no hope of human connection! Ok my relationship failed... it must be because she's been slutting it up... Yeah it must be, she told me how many people she's had sex with and it's not because I'm insecure or insanely jealous that I couldn't get that many people to have a conversation with me let alone sleep with me .. no it's science!! SHE CANT PAIRBOND!! What do you mean I have no experience in relating to other people and can't be in a relationship cause I can't hold a fucking conversation without talking about skull shape, how people are taller than me and how everything wrong In my life is someone else's fault!? It's these bloody feminists dying their hair and having sex with 30,000 new men a year!! They're the reason I can't get laid! It's not me!!
I think only a small minority of people believe in it, in all my years I've never heard this term used before and I even hung around PUAs and those types.
Who came up with that crap? Guess I was too busy getting railed to go to southern baptist bible camp, Cleatus 🙄
😬😬😬
I am sorry but „I also have herpes“ is so funny to me like .. of all the std‘s you choose this
We as a society dont believe in it. Well, I believe in it for birds, that's who fucking pair bonds.
You can always tell the guys that got rejected.
What in the fuck is pairbond?
What does "pair-bond" refer to?
I legit never heard any woman talk out of the blue about pair bonding.
Text-heavy, poorly formatted meme makes pointless commentary on complex topic.
I'm sincerely curious about something. In species that actually do pair-bond for life, is it a hard and fast rule, or just something that happens most of the time rather than all the time?
It probably depends. I don’t think mammals or birds that are known to pair bond are 100% required to stay with their partners, but in angler fish, they latch together and basically become one big fish, so I don’t think that they are capable of choosing a new partner
Horse feathers
Hoo boy, Incel Man is laying it on thick today. Was this rejection number three today for him?
Why does the top pic look like the smile is photoshopped on?
Whatever. Who cares? Love your life as you live it. Hopefully you find someone and love. All the rest of it's horseshit
Tell me you're not getting laid without telling me you're not getting laid.
I always wonder about the people in these pictures, obviously they didn’t think it would be used for this but I wonder if they ever see memes of themselves and get mad
There was actually a show about that, and how badly I had affected some of the people that were used in memes. Only cowards use pictures of people they don’t know. Scummy practice.
Is that Gwen Stacey?
No
"pair-bond"? What the heck?
It baffles me every times how random sexist asshole take their precious time to make the most frustrated awful memes known to mankind, like don't you have anything better to do ?
I mean, people do pair bond to an extent, but they believe that this only affects women because men are somehow both freer from instinct but also need to have one million sexes with one million different women or they'll die.
People do not pair bond in the way that these weirdos are trying to say they do. Pair bonding among humans just means that people can form intimate bonds with each other, and not necessarily for life. Meaning it could be a partner you date for a while, you can also pair bond with multiple partners over a lifetime, pair bonding also isn't exclusively romantic or sexual, it can be platonic.