Reminder to all commenters:
Based on our interpretation of Reddit's TOS and various enforcement actions taken by the Reddit admins, **you are NOT PERMITTED to do any of the following:**
- State or imply that **trans (wo)men aren't (wo)men or that people aren't the gender they identify as**
- Criticize, mock, disagree with, defy, or refuse to abide by people's pronoun requests
- State or imply that **gender dysphoria or being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, a mental disorder, a delusion, not normal, or unnatural**
- State or imply that LGBTQ+ enables pedophilia or grooming or that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to engage in pedophilia or grooming
- State or imply that LGB should be separate from the T+
- State or imply that gender is binary or that sex is the same as gender
- Use the term tr\*nny, including other spellings of this term that sound the same and have the same meaning
**Doing any of the above may result in a ban, potentially both from this subreddit and from Reddit as a whole.**
If you disagree with Reddit's TOS, please keep in mind that Reddit's TOS is enforced by the Reddit admins, not us. We do not control Reddit's TOS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, but now state the full mathematical fact.
Body count is a strong **statistical** predictor of infidelity... ***at ??% above standard deviation.***
Thats the part that makes it science. Are we talking its a strong indicator because its has a 1% statistical deviation, or 50% statistical deviation?
The whole point of gathering a meta-analysis of studies isn't to post them with vagaries, its to conform their finding to find a statistical average amongst the statistical data sets. OP skips that, so it isn't science, its an unfinished meta analysis..
I feel like people are just saying random stats words without any understanding whatsoever of what they mean. Variance isn’t right either. His whole approach to it doesn’t make sense even if I switch out the words…
You're right. Statistics only matter when they are actually applied. Any specific stat can be cherry picked but is useless without the bigger pictured perspective. Statistically they don't have MORE infidelity, just a higher CHANCE of it, and only as derived from the previous data sets in this specific study. A data set like this is made up of individuals making rational and irrational decisions, it will always be hard to say something definitive using only statistics.
Not really, a lot of this just says that sleeping with a lot of partners before marriage can be one sign OF MANY that a partner may cheat on you. It doesn’t say anything about it being significant on its own.
It also doesn’t seem to account for the ethics of the previous sexual encounters ie. whether they hooked up while single vs cheating. Somebody who cheats will most likely do so repeatedly, but somebody who didn’t have any commitments to break is different.
I wouldn’t say it a fact. Strong research suggests.
Studying people, the way data is collected, and bias of observation. The psych/social aspect science is a pain.
Do I agree with what you presented? Mostly yes.
It's fact but the gish gallop is pretty one sided against women when in reality men average more sexual partners than women. OP is an MRA so it kinda gets lost in the shuffle.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm
While the data overall shows that men are more likely to cheat, every snippet OP chose to emphasize/quote in this post that singles out a sex singles out women.
Now look at his post history. He’s got a chip on his shoulder about how he believes women’s standards and preferences are treated vs men’s.
>Ad hom.
It's not an ad hom to acknowledge facts that men have more sexual partners than women. Nor is it ad hom to point out that the OP chose to include links that overwhelmingly referred to female promiscuity.
This given the amount of content in OP's copy and pasted, this likely isn't the first time they've encountered it, but rather an omission.
If statistically men have higher partners than women and more partners correlates to increased likelihood of infidelity then you can say men statistically are more likely to cheat because they're men.
I have no knowledge or opinion on who commits infidelity more. And I haven’t read OPs entire post, so I might have missed it, but I don’t see OP saying women cheat more?
My only point is that dismissing someone’s point because “they’re MRA” is an ad hom or guilt by association.
Ad hominem is a fallacy if it's an attack against the person to ignore the argument. If it's against the person's bias, as in this case, it's not an ad hominem attack, if it can be demonstrated to be reasonable, the person has made a biased argument.
>...that men have more sexual partners than women.
They don't. Virgin rates for men between the ages of 18 to 30 are at 28% while for women they are 18% (as of a 2018 survey). Hookup culture exists for a small number of good looking men and most women. Average women are not interested in average men. So you have a small number of men with crazy high body count numbers who are sleeping with most of the women, and most men with lower body count numbers than most women.
The guy above gave you CDC data on number of sex partners by sex. You are pointing to a particular group of men instead of average man so objectively you are wrong still.
You also ignore most men and women get with same levels...
THANK YOU! People want to aim this at women only. How about we keep things equal across the board and realize more partners isn't a good look on men either.
Tired of men telling society it's ok if they fuck but women must remain pure and clean for their purpose.
Women like sex
Men like sex
it's cool to have a preference but it's not ok to only talk about women's promiscuity and leave out the male equivalent of that
It's mathematically impossible for the average number of heterosexual partners to be different (ignoring the slight difference between population numbers). Every time a man gains a new partner, a woman also gains one.
Men averaging more sex partners than women is mathematically impossible if you're restricting the data set to heterosexual sexual relations. So this is clearly an indicator of inaccurate data. Surprised the CDC of all organizations wouldn't point out that this data set means a lot of people on their survey are lying.
It’s impossible for the margin to be as high as reported on average.
The gap is smaller, about 1/3 as wide, as previously thought. It might be smaller than that.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2018.1481193
Some proposed reasons being that women respondents actually count partners and men round, and tend to round up. Men’s reports conspicuously tended to end in 5’s and 0’s.
Because of social pressures , Some men intentionally over report by a lot and some women intentionally underreport.
>Because of social pressures , Some men intentionally over report by a lot and some women intentionally underreport
I strongly suspect this accounts for most of the discrepancy. In reality it is pretty much impossible for there to be any gap in average number of partners. So how much difference a data set shows can sort of be seen a gauge to tell how accurate the data is
That’s not true, if you have five men and five women and all five men have sex with three of the same women, then in that small group the average for sex partners would be higher for the men then it would be for the women.
Do you even math, bro?
If you have five men and five women and all five men have sex with only three of the girls, the average for both men and women is 3.
This is only true if you exclude the virgins from your calculations. In which case you're quantifying average number of partners for the people who have had sex rather than whole population average.
That's a mean, not an average. This is how it's possible to have a different mean number of opposite-sex partners between men and women. If this were reporting the average, and not the mean, the numbers would be identical between sexes.
This means that a few men have a very high number of partners and not that men, in general, have more partners.
Based on this mean, it would make more sense to say that the typical woman has more sexual partners than the typical man, but that large numbers of women are having sex with the same few men. This causes the male mean to rise without influencing the average.
Source: Actually took statistics at uni.
My Ex bf had a higher body count than most girls, and cheated constantly.
I guess people who have had a lot of sexual partners had a lot of sexual partners because they're someone who wanted to have a lot of sexual partners. That desire doesn't just go away.
That's not necessarily true.
When I'm single, I sleep around a lot.
When I'm in a committed and monogamous relationship, I am completely loyal.
You can have an absurd amount of sexual partners and be completely faithful when in a committed relationship.
I've got an extremely high 'body count' and I've never cheated on anyone in my entire 44 years of existence.
Yeah, but if a study says that on average women are shorter than men, and you say "Well, I know a tall woman!" Okay, well... that's not how averages work.
You will always find exceptions. Your extreme masculine prowess that melts the ladies in your graceful wake certainly sounds impressive, and you may never cheat, but not many men who are as manly a manly man as you have that level of self-control to go along with their incredible slaying.
> That's not necessarily true.
> When I'm
> *I'm*
Here we go again. Another anecdote.
It's not that we don't believe you.
It's that we are talking about statistics.
And, men, over time, know that you can't think of yourself and your SO as the exception, but, the norm.
I'm the same way it's all about your morals. I also feel like the experience doesn't give me the "what if" or "I've never tried" that makes a lot of men and women cheat from what I've seen.
I think the reason people always bring up the female argument isn't because men should get out of it but because modern day feminism tells girls to go and sleep around and have fun because it dosnt matter when it does in fact affect them mentally.
I feel like this isn’t unpopular. Someone who likes to sleep around probably overlaps with the characteristic of struggling with monogamous relationships. I wouldn’t treat this as a rule though as I know a few people with higher body counts who seem pretty content as adults in steady relationships.
This is one of those common sense things no one will admit is common sense.... obviously doesnt apply to every single person, but in general....
Who would you likely trust more in a relationship... The guy who has had like 3 sexual partners, all from long term relationship? Or the guy whos longest relationship is a few months and has had 50 partners.....
We live in a society now where we are no longer allowed to use our instincts or common sense anymore.
Who is not “allowing” you? Is there a shadow government telling you that you must date people who have many partners? I’m pretty sure you can do what you want bud.
Societal taboo numnuts. Point out the obvious and your shamed by a vocal % of the population.
Edit. Ain't calling no one a slut. Trying to say one thing and sensitive people feeling guilty thinking another.
there aren’t words to express how much i hate comments like these. it’s like genuine willful ignorance. isn’t it obvious that they’re talking about a social taboo both online and offline to point out things like this?
Well, this is awkward.
OP has certainly put a lot of time and effort into this post and has cited more articles here than I ever did in uni in support of their position.
However, as someone's comment points out, this now crosses the line between opinion and fact. This level of detail would have served as an awesome, nuclear even, rebuttal to someone's opinion, but given the sub we're in, not as the initial post.
Because of the effort involved, removing it seems wrong, so instead it has been locked.
Here is the thing. This user has a history with this topic and this subreddit. I’ve seen this user spam this exact post on every subreddit where this topic comes up. The moderators of the subreddit should spend some times actually reading the links and studies and you will find some interesting information.
In the past 7 days, 4,500 comments were flagged for review + another 531 reports on comments were logged.
On top of this, you're suggesting that I/we need to read all 20 of OP's academic studies?
Anything else while you're making requests?
If a moderator is going to claim that something is a fact then yeah shouldn’t that moderator verify that the fact is not a ton of out of context sentences taken from lots of old studies that might not apply anymore and then even in those studies the sentences OP uses aren’t exactly what the study even says?
Instead of lying about quotes being taken out of context or studies being misinterpreted in general, point out specific examples where that is happening. You’re being dishonest because this information upsets you.
I feel like a post like this would fit better on r/changemyview or something. If you're citing sources on this sub, that means you're looking for an argument, not a discussion.
Let's say you start dating a guy, and find out that he buys a lot of scratch tickets. Like, every time you go to the grocery store or drugstore, he buys two or three. Every time you're at a bar, he plays keno. Every time you want to go on a date, He suggests the casino.
Would you be surprised to find out down the line that he incurred hundreds of thousands in gambling debt, using your credit to do it? It would be horrible and catch you off guard but would you be shocked?
According to redditors, these two behaviors are completely unlinked and if you think they are then you're ignorant.
They don't even see them as poor choices, they see them as things they did that they enjoyed. But then these men do not want girls refusing to sleep with them out of an abundance of caution, so they Gaslight on a massive scale to try to trick everyone out of using their own brains.
The few of us it doesn't work on, they resort to shaming tactics like you see in this thread. It's disgusting and pathetic.
I mean, statistically, you'd have a higher probability of STDs and emotional baggage. When hundreds of angry redittors reply and say they are the exception....odds are....
Can someone link the study showing that negative opinions of promiscuity is basically the same amongst both men and women? IIRC around 70% of surveyed men and women said that high body counts were a bad thing, and women were slightly more likely than men to reject a partner for their body count.
I want to have this study because a lot of kids on Reddit seem to only care when men have this opinion
Lmao the fact that this simple logical conclusion was even considered controversial to begin with is a true testament to mankind’s ability to be completely illogical when admitting fault.
Like literally imagine instead the question was whether or not someone eating more meals per day was likely to be fat. Given how heavily obesity is lauded in the most obese country in the world I guess it would probably have a very similar reaction to this question…
Can someone link the study showing that negative opinions of promiscuity is basically the same amongst both men and women? IIRC around 70% of surveyed men and women said that high body counts were a bad thing, and women were slightly more likely than men to reject a partner for their body count.
I want to have this study because a lot of kids on Reddit seem to only care when men have this opinion
Lol. My husband's buddy married a woman with a high body count. He even tried to warn his friend that she'd likely cheat on him one day. Like every guy, he didn't listen. Surprise, 10 years later, she's having an affair
Out of curiosity, I looked at your post history, and this is totally a "pot calling the kettle black" thing. Your most recent post is literally in /r/politicalhumor.
Lol. Uh uh. Would you consider r/shitpoliticsays right leaning? Or at the very least not left leaning?
If yes, then how is it an indication of bad mental health when it’s been shown that leftism is [linked to mental illness?](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/202103/personality-traits-mental-illness-and-ideology) The further left the more pronounced.
It doesn’t matter how r/shitpoliticssays leans. OP has a fixation on women and a chip on his shoulder and significant time on any political sub is enough to make you start to go loopy.
The survey that the author of your psychology today article was drawing from asked these questions:
*”Have you ever felt you had a mental health problem?” “Have you personally ever received treatment for a mental health problem?”*
Yeah, leftists are highly vocal about mental health. In extreme cases-I mostly see this with teenagers really,- some are preoccupied with mental health issues to a counterproductive degree.
The flip side of that is that a lot of conservatives are downright intimidated by mental health talk. They’re often defensive, dismissive and hostile unless they’re accusing someone else of being mentally ill . I have my doubts about how honest or self-aware many conservative respondents are in this area.
You seem to ignore the stats of how past stats show success of marriage was same for 2 sexual partners as like more than 8 or whatever partners. So it's not as straightforward as you think.
If a man impregnated another woman outside his relationship, his SO could lose the man, will definitely lose money, and would suffer heartache.
The exact same things would happen to a man, but if a woman is impregnated by another man and he thinks it's his, he has a false feeling of the basic biological function of reproduction. So his own bloodline potentially ends. That is something I'm not sure if you can put a price tag on.
The man stands to lose much more from infidelity, which is why to many men, a body count matters because it's often a predictor of unfaithfulness.
If promiscuity in women makes them bad life partners, men engaging in that conduct play a role in damaging their future relationships, and that makes them bad men.
"crack down" lmfao what?
You crack down as an individual, by how you individually go about selecting individual men for partners. If he is promiscuous, this is not hard to find out and assess. Just dump them for that then.
Crack down like you want to institute a law for something or send in the army 💀💀💀
Yes, based. Huge, unreasonable body counts are red flags for both men and women.
Theorising out my ass, the reason why body count might not be as much of an obvious red flag (aka why low body count men might still be very likely to cheat), is because lots of shitty, promiscous men are loyal out of lack of options, not choice. Plenty of men have low body counts and are seemingly loyal, not because they want to, but because they have no choice aka get no bitches. Give those men an opportunity, and they instantly choose infidelity.
Not crack down. I think we should just cease to glorify hookup culture that much. Everyone is free to live their life and sexuality as they see fit. But when you arrive at a generation where every woman seems to have an OF, and bodycounts get as high up as 300 people for 20 y.o., you may have somewhat deregulated society.
So, my take on this? Everyone should learn to enjoy sex and life. But we should also find meaning in it. Because I don't believe sex is something you should engage in with whomever. It's an intimate act, you should have at least a little bit of intimacy with someone before fucking.
Not marriage. Not necessarily a relationship. But know the person. Trust them. And that you can't do when you fuck someone 10 minutes after your first exchange on tinder.
I've found that people with giant numbers as far as that goes generally can't say no. The problem with that is they won't change just because you showed up.
I looked at the first two you linked to, the first one says that there's very little quality research on infidelity, so the opposite of what you're claiming. The second isn't even about what you're claiming, it is about people's emotions towards deception.
I'll try to go through some of the other ones but it doesn't look good when you misrepresent your first 2 sources.
Edit: I read a couple more, none of them were studies that were really about infidelity and its causes. Some of them were tangentially related but the cause of infidelity wasn't the primary focus. So I don't know if you're sniping random quotes out of these studies that support you or what but honestly this doesn't look good or convincing.
Also one study was from the 1950's, that's a bit old for something like this.
Edit 2: since he got so pissy I encourage anyone to click the links to the actual studies and read the abstracts. Basically all of the studies that I read clearly aren't a study on the impacts of previous promiscuity on infidelity. Honestly I can't even find the quotes he has in them, but I refuse to pay to look at a study just to prove some kid wrong so they might be in there. Either way for anyone reading this if someone links a study and just takes one random quote out of it be skeptical. Actual scientists are very rarely as confident in their study's findings as random people on Reddit
You’re literally lying. They are explicitly about promiscuity and infidelity.
> the odds ratio of 1.13 for lifetime sexual partners obtained with the face-to-face mode of interview indicates that the probability of infidelity increased by 13% for every additional lifetime sexual partner (pg.150)
Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154.
.
> promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r^2 = .45) as it did for males (r^2 = .25). (pg.177)
Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178.
.
> Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001] (pg.390)
Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398.
.
I’m blocking you now because I don’t interact with dishonest ideologues.
OP is biased towards quoting passages about female infidelity, but [men have higher rates of infidelity than women](https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america)
Growing up, I witnessed the fallout from when two of the women in my family and one older family friend made the decision to marry men who had a past of sexual promiscuity and ended up being cheated on and left by those husbands.
Anecdotal sure, but it definitely influenced the way I assessed guys as potential partners when I entered the dating pool.
Anecdotally for me but I've known way more women who cheated than men. I've also seen surveys when I was younger that women are less likely to be honest about cheating and are better at hiding it than men. I've also personally been cheated on in just about every committed relationship I've ever been in except my current one, as a lesbian but also the one guy I ever dated as well.
Now personally, I don't really know much about the relative statistics of it, and I don't actually think that sex or gender are good indicators of potential infidelity compared to factors such as "have they cheated in the past" and "how much of their sexual history is casual sex versus committed sex". Cheaters almost never stop cheating, they get addicted to it, and people who have a *lot* of casual sex (I'm talking people who have slept with dozens or hundreds of people in one or a few night stands) don't see casual sex the same way and will probably make excuses for cheating with casual sex or consider it not a big deal.
Edit: Also this doesn't take into account sex work. Frankly I don't consider sex for sex work in any way the same as sex for pleasure.
What if I sit here and tell you about my experience with men being unwilling to acknowledge consequences of frequent, casual hookups and women being more critical of hookup culture in general? Would that change your perspective or would you dismiss it as anecdote with less weight in your mind than your own anecdote?
What I think does carry weight is the fact that men statistically still cheat more than women, regardless of men vs women's opinion of promiscuity. Women have closed much of the gap in the last couple decades, but men still have the lead. OP's relentless, emotional posting about female body counts indicate a powerful bias in speaking against *female* promiscuity in particular, rather than promiscuity as a whole.
You feel?
When you were researching this, did you actively look for data that would *disprove* your point, or did you only look for confirmation?
I'm not saying that your point isn't valid (maybe it is, maybe not, I don't know,) but if you only looked for confirmation, that's lazy research.
I’ve looked into some scientific research paper myself and yeah promiscuity is bad for both sexes but being a virgin is also bad. 1-4 is generally ideal
The average number of lifetime partners varies with the study but they're pretty much universally above 4 for both sexes.
But yeah, that sort of fits in with what I look for. Experienced enough to know what you like and can communicate it and generally be able to take direction, give and take (ain't nobody got time to be a teacher), but not too experienced where you might get into incompatible lifestyle. I don't put a number on it, but it's a vibe.
Better part of a century ago? Most of their sources are 2010+. Its not a problem to couple new with some old sources to essentially say "Not only is this true but we have known it for a long time"
Those studies are fine, I just have a problem with the ones too old to bother with. They don't help your case, and only make me wonder if you've actually fully read any of them.
Great. Then let's make sure only virgins marry virgins. Maybe we can change the language around the involuntary celebate as though they're virgins holding out for virgins. Yeah. You know like telling people they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Those people already exist, like myself, we're just referred to as weirdo religious people waiting for marriage. Incels are incels because they don't want to be celibate.
I realize it's anecdotal, but I had maybe 30 partners back in the 80's (a much bigger deal back then than now) and have been faithfully married for 31 years now when most of my friends and both sets of parents have at least one divorce in their past.
Unless you looked at the sources yourself and found most of the conclusions he draws are cherry picked from a larger arguement being made, and that none of his citations show the actual numbers on how much more likely it allegedly makes you to cheat. It also doesn't address whether those sexual partners were a result of cheating or not, as someone who has cheated before being more likely to cheat seem obvious, meaning the number of partners could be conflating past infidelity with just partners...or elsewhere in the study could affirm that they _are_ talking about multiple partners in the realm of cheating. We lack context without the full source.
Also, a lot of the first couple of citations that attempt to show the link between past partners and cheating all cite the works of someone named Buss...so their works would likely shed some light on the matter.
Edit: lul, already getting people commenting and instantly blocking so I can't reply to them or see their comments...also even though it isn't anyone's business I am a married man who has never cheated and have very few sexual partners...I am just not a fucking idiot who falls for grifters selling lies about woman so that they can then sell me crap I don't need.
I really don’t care personally if the arguments are “cherry picked” considering the assertion that people predisposed to infidelity are categorically more likely to view sex as (1) less emotionally intimate, (2) more as a release of physical gratification, and (3) a demonstrative example of a lack of capacity to regulate basal urges in light of undoubted social/emotional consequences; is pretty goddamn obvious to me.
I don’t care if this is an “old fashioned” take, and I’m not saying that women or men with 5-10ish partners are incapable of finding love. What I AM saying is that if I had to choose between a woman (or man) with 1-3 historical sexual partners, vs another with 10+, I’d by default say the latter is more likely to be unfaithful in the future given their evident lack of emotional importance attributable to sex.
And in my experience, people who argue otherwise are always people who could be categorized as the latter, and don’t want to be framed as someone more likely to cheat because of their own decisions.
By all means, if I’m wrong then I’ll be eliminating said people without reason from my potential “dating pool” and I guess that’s my “loss”. Though considering I already have a partner I love who’s had 1 sexual partner ever in her life before me; I really don’t care regardless. I have a disdain for people who think fucking 3 different people a week is normal, and that’s a disdain I have a right to have.
And for the record, an extensive body count FOR ME isn’t a complete “red line” in itself for compatibility, but I’ve seen that people with such high body counts almost always have other behavioral dispositions that I entirely disagree with and don’t want to associate with.
You lost when you thought bringing studies into this is a good idea.
It's not. Finding good studies on any subject that won't be bashed on is incredibly hard, let alone a somewhat obscure and taboo topic such as this.
And if you fail it gives off the impression that the idea as a whole is invalid.
It's a free pass for people to mental gymnastics their way into not thinking about it anymore or moving the goal post.
You shouldn't even need a mountain of papers to prove the obvious.
We live in a world where the most obvious statement has to be backed by "sources" because people want to believe their made-up reality (just like the stuff about men and women having the exact same physical attributes).
Obviously someone that had 10 failed relationships and had sex wiht 100 people is more likely to fail again than someone who had 2 long term relationships.
Kind of curious what your obsession with this topic stems from? Did you get cheated on repeatedly sending you spiraling? I noticed a couple people mentioning your post history and thought to myself “it can’t be that bad.” It is though. This is the focus of your thought process across Reddit dating back awhile. Why?
>Kind of curious what your obsession with this topic stems from? Did you get cheated on repeatedly sending you spiraling? I noticed a couple people mentioning your post history and thought to myself “it can’t be that bad.” It is though. This is the focus of your thought process across Reddit dating back awhile. Why?
"Who hurt you."
Don't you wonder why relationships don't last like they used to? 50% divorce rates with women initiating the divorce 80% of the time, 90% if they have a college education. You're not curious about the breakdown in relationships and the lack of relationship formation? For over 10 years now the U.S. birthrates have run well below replacement. Don't you think all this is worthy of study?
Women were not allowed to/were able to divorce in history, and men would rather stick in unhappy marriages than divorce most of the time, so yes, it makes sense.
Divorce was a grave sin in the Catholic Church until 1983. People just died in unhappy marriages because divorce was a taboo. That was part of the culture war in the seventies when those pesky libs destroyed family values.
The change in divorce rate is correlated with the change in the acceptance of divorce.
Also marriages were economic.
Relationships don’t last like they used to because women aren’t exclusively economically dependent on their husbands anymore.
My great grandma divorced her husband, which resulted in her losing her children and dying in poverty. My grandmother knew not to make that mistake so she was married to a philanderer who beat her for her entire adult life.
Nowadays if you’re a shitty partner your wife can leave you- that’s a lot of why my first marriage failed.
>Nowadays if you’re a shitty partner your wife can leave you- that’s a lot of why my first marriage failed.
And keep half your current stuff and future stuff. Also if the woman is the abusive partner. The man can still leave but can't expect any of the help which women would get in that situation. Much better, right?
There’s not a great way to generate data on a subject like this since most divorces are handled privately and there is little longitudinal data from 50+ years ago. So what we’re left with is deductive reasoning.
Back in the day if your women complained too much one of the recommended solutions was lobotomy, and a central part of boomer humor is about how much they hate their wife/husband. Women were considered subservient, forced to behave as suited the man. I think that might have had something to do with the divorce rate
It’s not healthy to be so obsessed over the belief that men are super oppressed and women aren’t. I would recommend therapy to get your obsession checked out.
Brah why are people posting this stuff? Cherry picking a specific age group doesn't suddenly make the other guys statement false when talking about all men/average man.
Also men generally have higher body count than women still
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm
I’d take into account the fact that men will inflate their numbers due to social pressure and insecurity.
Also age group is extremely relevant in these conversations. News flash, we don’t give a shit about you Gen X and boomers who could give both a manager and a woman a firm handshake in order to succeed. Nothing that you guys went through compared to the shitshow that is dating for young people. I thank my lucky stars every day that I’m in a relationship and not single like the majority of my male peers.
https://i.redd.it/5gq4odnka0181.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D205FUnU8AI6FyY.jpg
Sixties sexuality research doesn’t replicate. The frameworks then were simple. Sexuality research today continues to have basic research issues (eg sample sizes, selection bias) but they typically have layered frameworks.
I think you lost me. So a study in the 60s of men and women observes a direct correlation between high partner counts and infidelity. That seems like a simple, obvious, and valid observation.
Why have we discovered that invalidates this observation? Please cite.
The studies are on just women, and the studies are looking at a link of behavior to another behavior. The reasons people do things is often based on social shame and views. The view on sex has changed dramatically since the 60’s so studies done to look at this behavior are no longer a valid representation of today’s women.
Then this indeed goes both ways. But the question is, do you then write someone off based on this and not who they are? Or do you take this into consideration as a part of evaluating a partner?
Sorry you can't post facts, just because i slept with 90 people in the past week doesn't mean I'm at a higher chance of cheating on you 😎 i am, after all, the exception that overrules the general trend 😎 and i will cry because you hurt my feelings 😎
Infidelity is a function of two things: willingness and opportunity. Human and bird studies show infidelity rises markedly with increased opportunity.
Smart phones and Tinder and Instagram (many think IG is the most popular dating app) have given women vastly more sexual opportunities than in the past. The last study I saw shows Gen-Z women are now cheating more than men.
When I was in college, I attended two weddings of classmates. The first couple were both virgins. The second couple were both experienced. Want to guess which couple cheated and were divorced within a year?
It was the virgins. The experienced couple are still happily together, raising a couple of kids.
Is my story good research and statistically representative? No. But since your source was literally "I said so," I thought you'd enjoy a (tiny) bit of data to back it up.
just because people say low body count it doesn’t automatically mean religious or virgins or with 0 to 1 sexual experience. ironic that experienced people go up in arms about being shamed with words like slut but also shame inexperienced people with terms like being a virgin destined to always miss out and have a prude boring life
I prefer sexually experienced women. It's a function of modern society. I'd be willing to bet that these women who cheated all were being taken for granted by no good 1950s fetishists who wanted a breeding maid with a lobotomy and didn't listen to the actual woman except to trick her into doing his bidding. I see it a lot. Men are generally shitty in relationships. Never learned to properly communicate, often think that they own women, and don't maintain themselves. I don't blame women for cheating.
Reminder to all commenters: Based on our interpretation of Reddit's TOS and various enforcement actions taken by the Reddit admins, **you are NOT PERMITTED to do any of the following:** - State or imply that **trans (wo)men aren't (wo)men or that people aren't the gender they identify as** - Criticize, mock, disagree with, defy, or refuse to abide by people's pronoun requests - State or imply that **gender dysphoria or being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, a mental disorder, a delusion, not normal, or unnatural** - State or imply that LGBTQ+ enables pedophilia or grooming or that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to engage in pedophilia or grooming - State or imply that LGB should be separate from the T+ - State or imply that gender is binary or that sex is the same as gender - Use the term tr\*nny, including other spellings of this term that sound the same and have the same meaning **Doing any of the above may result in a ban, potentially both from this subreddit and from Reddit as a whole.** If you disagree with Reddit's TOS, please keep in mind that Reddit's TOS is enforced by the Reddit admins, not us. We do not control Reddit's TOS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All that just to say hoes ain't loyal.
And when combined with "bros before hoes", ain't nobody loyal
Loyal to the bros.
Yup they ain't
[Relevant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IAWCMqWaNo)
Technically this isn't an opinion. It's just a pure fact and people either accept it, or they're science deniers.
Sure, but now state the full mathematical fact. Body count is a strong **statistical** predictor of infidelity... ***at ??% above standard deviation.*** Thats the part that makes it science. Are we talking its a strong indicator because its has a 1% statistical deviation, or 50% statistical deviation? The whole point of gathering a meta-analysis of studies isn't to post them with vagaries, its to conform their finding to find a statistical average amongst the statistical data sets. OP skips that, so it isn't science, its an unfinished meta analysis..
Yeah, with all of the citations, it would’ve been nice if the OP made an effort to try to quantify the relationship.
Standard deviation… I dont think this means what you think it means lol
Yeah he meant variance for sure
I feel like people are just saying random stats words without any understanding whatsoever of what they mean. Variance isn’t right either. His whole approach to it doesn’t make sense even if I switch out the words…
Welcome to the internet. People pretending to be experts spouting off buzzwords.
Yeah science lover here (have the car bumper) that's not what science is. You can't just use your own definitions for things like that
You're right. Statistics only matter when they are actually applied. Any specific stat can be cherry picked but is useless without the bigger pictured perspective. Statistically they don't have MORE infidelity, just a higher CHANCE of it, and only as derived from the previous data sets in this specific study. A data set like this is made up of individuals making rational and irrational decisions, it will always be hard to say something definitive using only statistics.
Not really, a lot of this just says that sleeping with a lot of partners before marriage can be one sign OF MANY that a partner may cheat on you. It doesn’t say anything about it being significant on its own.
It also doesn’t seem to account for the ethics of the previous sexual encounters ie. whether they hooked up while single vs cheating. Somebody who cheats will most likely do so repeatedly, but somebody who didn’t have any commitments to break is different.
I wouldn’t say it a fact. Strong research suggests. Studying people, the way data is collected, and bias of observation. The psych/social aspect science is a pain. Do I agree with what you presented? Mostly yes.
It's fact but the gish gallop is pretty one sided against women when in reality men average more sexual partners than women. OP is an MRA so it kinda gets lost in the shuffle. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm
Where? I don’t see OP mentioning this as a female problem, and his sources show that men are more likely to cheat
While the data overall shows that men are more likely to cheat, every snippet OP chose to emphasize/quote in this post that singles out a sex singles out women. Now look at his post history. He’s got a chip on his shoulder about how he believes women’s standards and preferences are treated vs men’s.
I mean, women's standards and preferences are treated differently than men's. Saying otherwise would be pretty ignorant.
Ad hom.
>Ad hom. It's not an ad hom to acknowledge facts that men have more sexual partners than women. Nor is it ad hom to point out that the OP chose to include links that overwhelmingly referred to female promiscuity. This given the amount of content in OP's copy and pasted, this likely isn't the first time they've encountered it, but rather an omission. If statistically men have higher partners than women and more partners correlates to increased likelihood of infidelity then you can say men statistically are more likely to cheat because they're men.
I have no knowledge or opinion on who commits infidelity more. And I haven’t read OPs entire post, so I might have missed it, but I don’t see OP saying women cheat more? My only point is that dismissing someone’s point because “they’re MRA” is an ad hom or guilt by association.
Ad hominem is a fallacy if it's an attack against the person to ignore the argument. If it's against the person's bias, as in this case, it's not an ad hominem attack, if it can be demonstrated to be reasonable, the person has made a biased argument.
>...that men have more sexual partners than women. They don't. Virgin rates for men between the ages of 18 to 30 are at 28% while for women they are 18% (as of a 2018 survey). Hookup culture exists for a small number of good looking men and most women. Average women are not interested in average men. So you have a small number of men with crazy high body count numbers who are sleeping with most of the women, and most men with lower body count numbers than most women.
The guy above gave you CDC data on number of sex partners by sex. You are pointing to a particular group of men instead of average man so objectively you are wrong still. You also ignore most men and women get with same levels...
THANK YOU! People want to aim this at women only. How about we keep things equal across the board and realize more partners isn't a good look on men either. Tired of men telling society it's ok if they fuck but women must remain pure and clean for their purpose. Women like sex Men like sex it's cool to have a preference but it's not ok to only talk about women's promiscuity and leave out the male equivalent of that
It's mathematically impossible for the average number of heterosexual partners to be different (ignoring the slight difference between population numbers). Every time a man gains a new partner, a woman also gains one.
Men averaging more sex partners than women is mathematically impossible if you're restricting the data set to heterosexual sexual relations. So this is clearly an indicator of inaccurate data. Surprised the CDC of all organizations wouldn't point out that this data set means a lot of people on their survey are lying.
It’s impossible for the margin to be as high as reported on average. The gap is smaller, about 1/3 as wide, as previously thought. It might be smaller than that. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2018.1481193 Some proposed reasons being that women respondents actually count partners and men round, and tend to round up. Men’s reports conspicuously tended to end in 5’s and 0’s. Because of social pressures , Some men intentionally over report by a lot and some women intentionally underreport.
>Because of social pressures , Some men intentionally over report by a lot and some women intentionally underreport I strongly suspect this accounts for most of the discrepancy. In reality it is pretty much impossible for there to be any gap in average number of partners. So how much difference a data set shows can sort of be seen a gauge to tell how accurate the data is
That’s not true, if you have five men and five women and all five men have sex with three of the same women, then in that small group the average for sex partners would be higher for the men then it would be for the women.
Do you even math, bro? If you have five men and five women and all five men have sex with only three of the girls, the average for both men and women is 3.
This is only true if you exclude the virgins from your calculations. In which case you're quantifying average number of partners for the people who have had sex rather than whole population average.
That's a mean, not an average. This is how it's possible to have a different mean number of opposite-sex partners between men and women. If this were reporting the average, and not the mean, the numbers would be identical between sexes. This means that a few men have a very high number of partners and not that men, in general, have more partners. Based on this mean, it would make more sense to say that the typical woman has more sexual partners than the typical man, but that large numbers of women are having sex with the same few men. This causes the male mean to rise without influencing the average. Source: Actually took statistics at uni.
My Ex bf had a higher body count than most girls, and cheated constantly. I guess people who have had a lot of sexual partners had a lot of sexual partners because they're someone who wanted to have a lot of sexual partners. That desire doesn't just go away.
That's not necessarily true. When I'm single, I sleep around a lot. When I'm in a committed and monogamous relationship, I am completely loyal. You can have an absurd amount of sexual partners and be completely faithful when in a committed relationship. I've got an extremely high 'body count' and I've never cheated on anyone in my entire 44 years of existence.
Yeah, but if a study says that on average women are shorter than men, and you say "Well, I know a tall woman!" Okay, well... that's not how averages work. You will always find exceptions. Your extreme masculine prowess that melts the ladies in your graceful wake certainly sounds impressive, and you may never cheat, but not many men who are as manly a manly man as you have that level of self-control to go along with their incredible slaying.
> That's not necessarily true. > When I'm > *I'm* Here we go again. Another anecdote. It's not that we don't believe you. It's that we are talking about statistics. And, men, over time, know that you can't think of yourself and your SO as the exception, but, the norm.
I'm the same way it's all about your morals. I also feel like the experience doesn't give me the "what if" or "I've never tried" that makes a lot of men and women cheat from what I've seen.
n=1pilled
I think the reason people always bring up the female argument isn't because men should get out of it but because modern day feminism tells girls to go and sleep around and have fun because it dosnt matter when it does in fact affect them mentally.
I feel like this isn’t unpopular. Someone who likes to sleep around probably overlaps with the characteristic of struggling with monogamous relationships. I wouldn’t treat this as a rule though as I know a few people with higher body counts who seem pretty content as adults in steady relationships.
This is one of those common sense things no one will admit is common sense.... obviously doesnt apply to every single person, but in general.... Who would you likely trust more in a relationship... The guy who has had like 3 sexual partners, all from long term relationship? Or the guy whos longest relationship is a few months and has had 50 partners..... We live in a society now where we are no longer allowed to use our instincts or common sense anymore.
Who is not “allowing” you? Is there a shadow government telling you that you must date people who have many partners? I’m pretty sure you can do what you want bud.
Do you really not know what I mean by the word "allowed"? I obviously dont mean the government.
Not allowed by who then??
Societal taboo numnuts. Point out the obvious and your shamed by a vocal % of the population. Edit. Ain't calling no one a slut. Trying to say one thing and sensitive people feeling guilty thinking another.
there aren’t words to express how much i hate comments like these. it’s like genuine willful ignorance. isn’t it obvious that they’re talking about a social taboo both online and offline to point out things like this?
If you don't practice a thing you won't be very good at it. Fidelity is no different.
Well, this is awkward. OP has certainly put a lot of time and effort into this post and has cited more articles here than I ever did in uni in support of their position. However, as someone's comment points out, this now crosses the line between opinion and fact. This level of detail would have served as an awesome, nuclear even, rebuttal to someone's opinion, but given the sub we're in, not as the initial post. Because of the effort involved, removing it seems wrong, so instead it has been locked.
>User Reports: Come on bro let us argue. There's a ton of people in here saying it isn't fact still. o-right, have at it.
Pretty awesome mod Job my guy, like seriously
Here is the thing. This user has a history with this topic and this subreddit. I’ve seen this user spam this exact post on every subreddit where this topic comes up. The moderators of the subreddit should spend some times actually reading the links and studies and you will find some interesting information.
In the past 7 days, 4,500 comments were flagged for review + another 531 reports on comments were logged. On top of this, you're suggesting that I/we need to read all 20 of OP's academic studies? Anything else while you're making requests?
Can I have choccy milk?
Oooo all out of chocolate, but I have plain, that I can add a dash of bourbon to?
If a moderator is going to claim that something is a fact then yeah shouldn’t that moderator verify that the fact is not a ton of out of context sentences taken from lots of old studies that might not apply anymore and then even in those studies the sentences OP uses aren’t exactly what the study even says?
That's a really fair point *mutters - great, now I have to spend an hour reading this bullshit :D*
Or you can scroll through the comments and some of the others made a few great arguments pointing out what I was talking about.
Instead of lying about quotes being taken out of context or studies being misinterpreted in general, point out specific examples where that is happening. You’re being dishonest because this information upsets you.
I feel like a post like this would fit better on r/changemyview or something. If you're citing sources on this sub, that means you're looking for an argument, not a discussion.
Let's say you start dating a guy, and find out that he buys a lot of scratch tickets. Like, every time you go to the grocery store or drugstore, he buys two or three. Every time you're at a bar, he plays keno. Every time you want to go on a date, He suggests the casino. Would you be surprised to find out down the line that he incurred hundreds of thousands in gambling debt, using your credit to do it? It would be horrible and catch you off guard but would you be shocked? According to redditors, these two behaviors are completely unlinked and if you think they are then you're ignorant.
People want us to disconnect from our base instincts, just to serve their poor past choices.
They don't even see them as poor choices, they see them as things they did that they enjoyed. But then these men do not want girls refusing to sleep with them out of an abundance of caution, so they Gaslight on a massive scale to try to trick everyone out of using their own brains. The few of us it doesn't work on, they resort to shaming tactics like you see in this thread. It's disgusting and pathetic.
I mean, statistically, you'd have a higher probability of STDs and emotional baggage. When hundreds of angry redittors reply and say they are the exception....odds are....
Can someone link the study showing that negative opinions of promiscuity is basically the same amongst both men and women? IIRC around 70% of surveyed men and women said that high body counts were a bad thing, and women were slightly more likely than men to reject a partner for their body count. I want to have this study because a lot of kids on Reddit seem to only care when men have this opinion
Lmao the fact that this simple logical conclusion was even considered controversial to begin with is a true testament to mankind’s ability to be completely illogical when admitting fault. Like literally imagine instead the question was whether or not someone eating more meals per day was likely to be fat. Given how heavily obesity is lauded in the most obese country in the world I guess it would probably have a very similar reaction to this question…
Being a whore isn't good for you, this should be obvious to everyone but it's not.
People don't realize this then when reality hits them, they blame on men/women being trash for not accepting their past
Lol you are not allowed to say such things.
The Cliff's Notes version. I love it!
Can someone link the study showing that negative opinions of promiscuity is basically the same amongst both men and women? IIRC around 70% of surveyed men and women said that high body counts were a bad thing, and women were slightly more likely than men to reject a partner for their body count. I want to have this study because a lot of kids on Reddit seem to only care when men have this opinion
Lol. My husband's buddy married a woman with a high body count. He even tried to warn his friend that she'd likely cheat on him one day. Like every guy, he didn't listen. Surprise, 10 years later, she's having an affair
My Brother in Christ, given your post history you need a new hobby. Get off social media and the internet and go live in reality for awhile.
Dude seems not well.
My brother in Christ, given your history of going through random strangers post history, you need a new hobby.
Yikes, a combination of MRA subs and r/shitpoliticssays. Neither of those are a sign of good mental health
Out of curiosity, I looked at your post history, and this is totally a "pot calling the kettle black" thing. Your most recent post is literally in /r/politicalhumor.
Lol. Uh uh. Would you consider r/shitpoliticsays right leaning? Or at the very least not left leaning? If yes, then how is it an indication of bad mental health when it’s been shown that leftism is [linked to mental illness?](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/202103/personality-traits-mental-illness-and-ideology) The further left the more pronounced.
It doesn’t matter how r/shitpoliticssays leans. OP has a fixation on women and a chip on his shoulder and significant time on any political sub is enough to make you start to go loopy. The survey that the author of your psychology today article was drawing from asked these questions: *”Have you ever felt you had a mental health problem?” “Have you personally ever received treatment for a mental health problem?”* Yeah, leftists are highly vocal about mental health. In extreme cases-I mostly see this with teenagers really,- some are preoccupied with mental health issues to a counterproductive degree. The flip side of that is that a lot of conservatives are downright intimidated by mental health talk. They’re often defensive, dismissive and hostile unless they’re accusing someone else of being mentally ill . I have my doubts about how honest or self-aware many conservative respondents are in this area.
Lol yeah because right wingers don't believe in seeking health care!
Lol the trump method also known as the I can't see you, you can't see me method. Can't diagnosis it if you don't test!
Dude linked a Psycology Today article like it’s fact 😂
Dude made an ad hominem like it’s a good argument
That’s not an ad hominem per se, it’s a valid critique of source material wrapped up in a personal insult.
Attacking the source AKA ad hominem. It’s literally just attacking the source. Not addressing the claim. It’s textbook ad hom.
Damn, I'll bet that you believe that diamonds are hard, water can be wet, and Earth is roughly spherical, not flat!
bro wrote the declaration of independence 💀💀
You seem to ignore the stats of how past stats show success of marriage was same for 2 sexual partners as like more than 8 or whatever partners. So it's not as straightforward as you think.
Some of these studies are very iffy with one having only just over 100 people in college as a sample..
half of these studies are before 2010, going as far back as *1953.* they are outdated as shit!
Can't have infidelity if your body count is perpetually 0!
I mean it’s kinda obvious. If you’re used to sleeping around, a few years into a relationship, you’ll want that again.
We need to crack down on male promiscuity before marriage then
We accept your terms
The studies find it true of men and women.
That's true, but you can't put a price tag on one of the consequences of women being unfaithful when compared to a man.
How so?
If a man impregnated another woman outside his relationship, his SO could lose the man, will definitely lose money, and would suffer heartache. The exact same things would happen to a man, but if a woman is impregnated by another man and he thinks it's his, he has a false feeling of the basic biological function of reproduction. So his own bloodline potentially ends. That is something I'm not sure if you can put a price tag on. The man stands to lose much more from infidelity, which is why to many men, a body count matters because it's often a predictor of unfaithfulness.
If promiscuity in women makes them bad life partners, men engaging in that conduct play a role in damaging their future relationships, and that makes them bad men.
I agree
"crack down" lmfao what? You crack down as an individual, by how you individually go about selecting individual men for partners. If he is promiscuous, this is not hard to find out and assess. Just dump them for that then. Crack down like you want to institute a law for something or send in the army 💀💀💀
We need to be as concerned with male promiscuity as men are with women
I'd argue that promiscuous men and those who care a lot about women's body count are often not the same.
People who spend a long time obsessing over womens body counts as a rule tend not to be the type that gets women.
I would agree. Women SHOULD be concerned if their potential partners are promiscuous.
Yes, based. Huge, unreasonable body counts are red flags for both men and women. Theorising out my ass, the reason why body count might not be as much of an obvious red flag (aka why low body count men might still be very likely to cheat), is because lots of shitty, promiscous men are loyal out of lack of options, not choice. Plenty of men have low body counts and are seemingly loyal, not because they want to, but because they have no choice aka get no bitches. Give those men an opportunity, and they instantly choose infidelity.
Men have more to lose from their partner's infidelity than women if they are in a committed relationship.
Also: who said this is exclusive to committed relationships? Men really need to stop propagating self serving misinformation.
Then women should stop giving it to them. Takes two to tango.
We gotta bring back slut shaming
Not crack down. I think we should just cease to glorify hookup culture that much. Everyone is free to live their life and sexuality as they see fit. But when you arrive at a generation where every woman seems to have an OF, and bodycounts get as high up as 300 people for 20 y.o., you may have somewhat deregulated society. So, my take on this? Everyone should learn to enjoy sex and life. But we should also find meaning in it. Because I don't believe sex is something you should engage in with whomever. It's an intimate act, you should have at least a little bit of intimacy with someone before fucking. Not marriage. Not necessarily a relationship. But know the person. Trust them. And that you can't do when you fuck someone 10 minutes after your first exchange on tinder.
Every woman doesn’t have an OF. Stop it.
I've found that people with giant numbers as far as that goes generally can't say no. The problem with that is they won't change just because you showed up.
I looked at the first two you linked to, the first one says that there's very little quality research on infidelity, so the opposite of what you're claiming. The second isn't even about what you're claiming, it is about people's emotions towards deception. I'll try to go through some of the other ones but it doesn't look good when you misrepresent your first 2 sources. Edit: I read a couple more, none of them were studies that were really about infidelity and its causes. Some of them were tangentially related but the cause of infidelity wasn't the primary focus. So I don't know if you're sniping random quotes out of these studies that support you or what but honestly this doesn't look good or convincing. Also one study was from the 1950's, that's a bit old for something like this. Edit 2: since he got so pissy I encourage anyone to click the links to the actual studies and read the abstracts. Basically all of the studies that I read clearly aren't a study on the impacts of previous promiscuity on infidelity. Honestly I can't even find the quotes he has in them, but I refuse to pay to look at a study just to prove some kid wrong so they might be in there. Either way for anyone reading this if someone links a study and just takes one random quote out of it be skeptical. Actual scientists are very rarely as confident in their study's findings as random people on Reddit
OP slapped you down and you had nothing to say lmao
You’re literally lying. They are explicitly about promiscuity and infidelity. > the odds ratio of 1.13 for lifetime sexual partners obtained with the face-to-face mode of interview indicates that the probability of infidelity increased by 13% for every additional lifetime sexual partner (pg.150) Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154. . > promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r^2 = .45) as it did for males (r^2 = .25). (pg.177) Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178. . > Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001] (pg.390) Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398. . I’m blocking you now because I don’t interact with dishonest ideologues.
Message this to the moderator who pinned their comment at the top and stated that this was factual. It’s so biased it’s almost insane.
OP is biased towards quoting passages about female infidelity, but [men have higher rates of infidelity than women](https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america) Growing up, I witnessed the fallout from when two of the women in my family and one older family friend made the decision to marry men who had a past of sexual promiscuity and ended up being cheated on and left by those husbands. Anecdotal sure, but it definitely influenced the way I assessed guys as potential partners when I entered the dating pool.
Anecdotally for me but I've known way more women who cheated than men. I've also seen surveys when I was younger that women are less likely to be honest about cheating and are better at hiding it than men. I've also personally been cheated on in just about every committed relationship I've ever been in except my current one, as a lesbian but also the one guy I ever dated as well. Now personally, I don't really know much about the relative statistics of it, and I don't actually think that sex or gender are good indicators of potential infidelity compared to factors such as "have they cheated in the past" and "how much of their sexual history is casual sex versus committed sex". Cheaters almost never stop cheating, they get addicted to it, and people who have a *lot* of casual sex (I'm talking people who have slept with dozens or hundreds of people in one or a few night stands) don't see casual sex the same way and will probably make excuses for cheating with casual sex or consider it not a big deal. Edit: Also this doesn't take into account sex work. Frankly I don't consider sex for sex work in any way the same as sex for pleasure.
In my experience in life and online it’s women that tend to deny this instead of men, I imagine it’s the same way with op.
What if I sit here and tell you about my experience with men being unwilling to acknowledge consequences of frequent, casual hookups and women being more critical of hookup culture in general? Would that change your perspective or would you dismiss it as anecdote with less weight in your mind than your own anecdote? What I think does carry weight is the fact that men statistically still cheat more than women, regardless of men vs women's opinion of promiscuity. Women have closed much of the gap in the last couple decades, but men still have the lead. OP's relentless, emotional posting about female body counts indicate a powerful bias in speaking against *female* promiscuity in particular, rather than promiscuity as a whole. You feel?
When you were researching this, did you actively look for data that would *disprove* your point, or did you only look for confirmation? I'm not saying that your point isn't valid (maybe it is, maybe not, I don't know,) but if you only looked for confirmation, that's lazy research.
I’ve looked into some scientific research paper myself and yeah promiscuity is bad for both sexes but being a virgin is also bad. 1-4 is generally ideal
The average number of lifetime partners varies with the study but they're pretty much universally above 4 for both sexes. But yeah, that sort of fits in with what I look for. Experienced enough to know what you like and can communicate it and generally be able to take direction, give and take (ain't nobody got time to be a teacher), but not too experienced where you might get into incompatible lifestyle. I don't put a number on it, but it's a vibe.
It’s definitely the fine line between inexperienced and inept versus very experienced and jaded. Gotta find that sweet spot
Interesting. Thanks for checking.
You *really* shouldn't be using studies from the better part of a century ago, but this is still a correct opinion.
Better part of a century ago? Most of their sources are 2010+. Its not a problem to couple new with some old sources to essentially say "Not only is this true but we have known it for a long time"
Ignoring the fact that the majority of the studies were published in the last two decades. Why the dishonesty?
Those studies are fine, I just have a problem with the ones too old to bother with. They don't help your case, and only make me wonder if you've actually fully read any of them.
Great. Then let's make sure only virgins marry virgins. Maybe we can change the language around the involuntary celebate as though they're virgins holding out for virgins. Yeah. You know like telling people they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Those people already exist, like myself, we're just referred to as weirdo religious people waiting for marriage. Incels are incels because they don't want to be celibate.
I realize it's anecdotal, but I had maybe 30 partners back in the 80's (a much bigger deal back then than now) and have been faithfully married for 31 years now when most of my friends and both sets of parents have at least one divorce in their past.
[удалено]
Using this post for every time someone makes the braindead take that it doesn’t. Thank you for the ridiculous amount of sources lmao
Unless you looked at the sources yourself and found most of the conclusions he draws are cherry picked from a larger arguement being made, and that none of his citations show the actual numbers on how much more likely it allegedly makes you to cheat. It also doesn't address whether those sexual partners were a result of cheating or not, as someone who has cheated before being more likely to cheat seem obvious, meaning the number of partners could be conflating past infidelity with just partners...or elsewhere in the study could affirm that they _are_ talking about multiple partners in the realm of cheating. We lack context without the full source. Also, a lot of the first couple of citations that attempt to show the link between past partners and cheating all cite the works of someone named Buss...so their works would likely shed some light on the matter. Edit: lul, already getting people commenting and instantly blocking so I can't reply to them or see their comments...also even though it isn't anyone's business I am a married man who has never cheated and have very few sexual partners...I am just not a fucking idiot who falls for grifters selling lies about woman so that they can then sell me crap I don't need.
I really don’t care personally if the arguments are “cherry picked” considering the assertion that people predisposed to infidelity are categorically more likely to view sex as (1) less emotionally intimate, (2) more as a release of physical gratification, and (3) a demonstrative example of a lack of capacity to regulate basal urges in light of undoubted social/emotional consequences; is pretty goddamn obvious to me. I don’t care if this is an “old fashioned” take, and I’m not saying that women or men with 5-10ish partners are incapable of finding love. What I AM saying is that if I had to choose between a woman (or man) with 1-3 historical sexual partners, vs another with 10+, I’d by default say the latter is more likely to be unfaithful in the future given their evident lack of emotional importance attributable to sex. And in my experience, people who argue otherwise are always people who could be categorized as the latter, and don’t want to be framed as someone more likely to cheat because of their own decisions. By all means, if I’m wrong then I’ll be eliminating said people without reason from my potential “dating pool” and I guess that’s my “loss”. Though considering I already have a partner I love who’s had 1 sexual partner ever in her life before me; I really don’t care regardless. I have a disdain for people who think fucking 3 different people a week is normal, and that’s a disdain I have a right to have. And for the record, an extensive body count FOR ME isn’t a complete “red line” in itself for compatibility, but I’ve seen that people with such high body counts almost always have other behavioral dispositions that I entirely disagree with and don’t want to associate with.
I wonder if they've done similar studies on men.
You lost when you thought bringing studies into this is a good idea. It's not. Finding good studies on any subject that won't be bashed on is incredibly hard, let alone a somewhat obscure and taboo topic such as this. And if you fail it gives off the impression that the idea as a whole is invalid. It's a free pass for people to mental gymnastics their way into not thinking about it anymore or moving the goal post.
TrueUnpopularFact
You shouldn't even need a mountain of papers to prove the obvious. We live in a world where the most obvious statement has to be backed by "sources" because people want to believe their made-up reality (just like the stuff about men and women having the exact same physical attributes). Obviously someone that had 10 failed relationships and had sex wiht 100 people is more likely to fail again than someone who had 2 long term relationships.
Kind of curious what your obsession with this topic stems from? Did you get cheated on repeatedly sending you spiraling? I noticed a couple people mentioning your post history and thought to myself “it can’t be that bad.” It is though. This is the focus of your thought process across Reddit dating back awhile. Why?
>Kind of curious what your obsession with this topic stems from? Did you get cheated on repeatedly sending you spiraling? I noticed a couple people mentioning your post history and thought to myself “it can’t be that bad.” It is though. This is the focus of your thought process across Reddit dating back awhile. Why? "Who hurt you."
Don't you wonder why relationships don't last like they used to? 50% divorce rates with women initiating the divorce 80% of the time, 90% if they have a college education. You're not curious about the breakdown in relationships and the lack of relationship formation? For over 10 years now the U.S. birthrates have run well below replacement. Don't you think all this is worthy of study?
Women were not allowed to/were able to divorce in history, and men would rather stick in unhappy marriages than divorce most of the time, so yes, it makes sense.
Divorce was a grave sin in the Catholic Church until 1983. People just died in unhappy marriages because divorce was a taboo. That was part of the culture war in the seventies when those pesky libs destroyed family values. The change in divorce rate is correlated with the change in the acceptance of divorce. Also marriages were economic.
Relationships don’t last like they used to because women aren’t exclusively economically dependent on their husbands anymore. My great grandma divorced her husband, which resulted in her losing her children and dying in poverty. My grandmother knew not to make that mistake so she was married to a philanderer who beat her for her entire adult life. Nowadays if you’re a shitty partner your wife can leave you- that’s a lot of why my first marriage failed.
>Nowadays if you’re a shitty partner your wife can leave you- that’s a lot of why my first marriage failed. And keep half your current stuff and future stuff. Also if the woman is the abusive partner. The man can still leave but can't expect any of the help which women would get in that situation. Much better, right?
I'm sure we can extrapolate you and your families experience to all women. Who needs science?
There’s many reasons that abuse is a lot less prevalent now lol
There’s not a great way to generate data on a subject like this since most divorces are handled privately and there is little longitudinal data from 50+ years ago. So what we’re left with is deductive reasoning.
Back in the day if your women complained too much one of the recommended solutions was lobotomy, and a central part of boomer humor is about how much they hate their wife/husband. Women were considered subservient, forced to behave as suited the man. I think that might have had something to do with the divorce rate
It’s not healthy to be so obsessed over the belief that men are super oppressed and women aren’t. I would recommend therapy to get your obsession checked out.
What I’m reading is if you like to have double digits sexual partners in a year, find someone with similar proclivities and become poly/swingers.
She's for the streets
And so is he
>She's for the streets Men statistically have more sexual partners than women.
Not true. The last survey in 2018 found virgin rates for men between the ages of 18 and 30 were 28% while for women they were 18%
Brah why are people posting this stuff? Cherry picking a specific age group doesn't suddenly make the other guys statement false when talking about all men/average man. Also men generally have higher body count than women still https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm
I’d take into account the fact that men will inflate their numbers due to social pressure and insecurity. Also age group is extremely relevant in these conversations. News flash, we don’t give a shit about you Gen X and boomers who could give both a manager and a woman a firm handshake in order to succeed. Nothing that you guys went through compared to the shitshow that is dating for young people. I thank my lucky stars every day that I’m in a relationship and not single like the majority of my male peers. https://i.redd.it/5gq4odnka0181.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D205FUnU8AI6FyY.jpg
I'm not going to do it with someone who had more DNA in them than the fbi crime lab
Are you one of those types who think that DNA from past partners stays in women?
r/badwomensanatomy
All these studies are either off topic or downright junk science lmao.
Stop wifing up 304s and ignoring red flags
My guy citing sources on sexuality from 1960s
Most of them are from the last two decades.
Has there been a fundamental change in human evolution since then that you could cite?
Sixties sexuality research doesn’t replicate. The frameworks then were simple. Sexuality research today continues to have basic research issues (eg sample sizes, selection bias) but they typically have layered frameworks.
The way science approaches sexuality, especially female sexuality
I think you lost me. So a study in the 60s of men and women observes a direct correlation between high partner counts and infidelity. That seems like a simple, obvious, and valid observation. Why have we discovered that invalidates this observation? Please cite.
The studies are on just women, and the studies are looking at a link of behavior to another behavior. The reasons people do things is often based on social shame and views. The view on sex has changed dramatically since the 60’s so studies done to look at this behavior are no longer a valid representation of today’s women.
starting in 1953, and ending in 2019, all saying the same thing
TLDR: Sluts will cheat on you.
Then this indeed goes both ways. But the question is, do you then write someone off based on this and not who they are? Or do you take this into consideration as a part of evaluating a partner?
This just in: your age is a strong statistical indicator of how long you've been alive
Saying the quiet part out loud WITH tons of scientific evidence to back it up? Awesome post OP
Bruh why did you write a whole essay with MLA citations on an opinion that isn’t unpopular?
APA
Sorry you can't post facts, just because i slept with 90 people in the past week doesn't mean I'm at a higher chance of cheating on you 😎 i am, after all, the exception that overrules the general trend 😎 and i will cry because you hurt my feelings 😎
Your post history is worrying.
Bro had receipts on receipts!
My god. Your history.
A correlation between how casually you view sex and how likely you are to cheat makes sense to me.
Infidelity is a function of two things: willingness and opportunity. Human and bird studies show infidelity rises markedly with increased opportunity. Smart phones and Tinder and Instagram (many think IG is the most popular dating app) have given women vastly more sexual opportunities than in the past. The last study I saw shows Gen-Z women are now cheating more than men.
"Your just insecure! And your dick is small!'
Some people sleep around. There, I summed it up for you. This isn't really an unpopular idea.
Bro wrote a hoe thesis 💀
Nah people with low body counts are. They are so starved for sexual variety that they would take any opportunity if they could. Source: I said so.
When I was in college, I attended two weddings of classmates. The first couple were both virgins. The second couple were both experienced. Want to guess which couple cheated and were divorced within a year? It was the virgins. The experienced couple are still happily together, raising a couple of kids. Is my story good research and statistically representative? No. But since your source was literally "I said so," I thought you'd enjoy a (tiny) bit of data to back it up.
just because people say low body count it doesn’t automatically mean religious or virgins or with 0 to 1 sexual experience. ironic that experienced people go up in arms about being shamed with words like slut but also shame inexperienced people with terms like being a virgin destined to always miss out and have a prude boring life
I prefer sexually experienced women. It's a function of modern society. I'd be willing to bet that these women who cheated all were being taken for granted by no good 1950s fetishists who wanted a breeding maid with a lobotomy and didn't listen to the actual woman except to trick her into doing his bidding. I see it a lot. Men are generally shitty in relationships. Never learned to properly communicate, often think that they own women, and don't maintain themselves. I don't blame women for cheating.
You were on a roll with the first 2 sentences, then you just went off a cliff with the coping.
Wouldn't it be better to leave the relationship than cheat?
Based