>>34156592
it doesn't matter how many dicks she's had, as long as you have the mindset your dick will be the last

>>34156592
It's true for both men and women. Other men may object and say that means can separate love from intimacy and their love bonding isn't affected. That's exactly what female whores thought, too. They also compartmentalized their sex from the love bonding and eventually they lost the ability to have satisfaction from both.

>>34156592
>Is it true that the more men that a woman has had sex with, they lose their ability of how they form a strong emotional connection?
No. Complete fiction.

>>34156592
Yes, this is based off a scientific study

>>34156592
All of the women I've met who have fucked around are gross.

>>34156592
Yes. The more random sexual encounters you have with different people the more your pair bonding ability diminishes.
Imagine having a relationship with someone after having fucked 300 other people, including their friends.
What exactly would be special about your intimate moments when you've done this with half the town already?

>>34156592
The irony of this being used by sexless virgin chud autists who never had an emotional connection with anyone.

>>34156777
>Yes, this is based off a scientific study
Which you can't cite, because it doesn't actually exist.

>>34156842
>The more random sexual encounters you have with different people the more your pair bonding ability diminishes.
And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

>>34156600
KEK

>>34156842
>Imagine having a relationship with someone after having fucked 300 other people, including their friends.
Been there, done that, it was great. Only woman I've been with who was a genuine 9.

To be fair, when you meet someone with a body count of several hundred, that is a indication that they're probably a bit messed up. But them being a bit messed up is the *cause* of their body count, not the result of it. There is also a bit of a fucking difference between someone with a BC of 300 and someone with a BC of 8. There is, however, no useful difference between a BC of 8 and a BC of 0: neither of those indicates anything good or bad.

>>34156592
I think that it's the other way around, a woman with some problems, can't pair bond, seeking attention, daddy issues or she was molested, will use sex as a coping mechanism or will use sex as a way to get things.

>>34156592
Souls are shared through intercourse

>>34156592
>>34156717
>>34156892
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/

>>34159319
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

Most people are spray and pray animals, don't care about monogamy and long term investment.

>>34156777
>>34156592
>>34156600
>>34156602
>muh science
Spiritual schools knew this shit for thousands of years yet you retards need
>le heckin science
to confirm or deny what you already know is true.

Love and sex should be between two people and two people only like doves. Anything else is venturing into sodomy territory and not because it's sinful against God, it's sinful against yourself and your future.
Trying to brainwash everyone that there's nothing wrong with it through porn and shitty tv shows won't work either because it's going against nature. It's like brainwashing people to become vegan, it only works on complete retards

>>34156592
Biologically, yes, it erodes the pair bonding ability and creates emotional instability within the individual and their sense of identity. It's not hopeless, abstinence is still important to repair the damaged parts, but there is damage, and we should stop encouraging premarital sex.

>>34159353
I meant a study that had some actual scientific credibility, not that bollocks. Any study that makes no attempt at all to distinguish between people who are happily married and people who are unhappily married can be discounted immediately. Obviously people who think that premarital sex is a bad thing also think that divorce is shameful; so when their marriages go wrong, instead of getting divorced, they stay trapped in unhappy marriages for life. That is A: blindingly obvious, and B: not in any way a desirable outcome. Show me a study which demonstrates that the people who didn't have premarital sex are actually *happier* in their miserable marriages than the sex-havers are after they get divorced, and maybe I'll take it seriously.

>>34159378
Most of the things people started believing thousands of years ago have since been shown to be bollocks. If something is "ancient knowledge" you should work on the assumption that is false unless proven true, not vice versa.

File: married incel.png (50 KB, 1516x210)

50 KB PNG

>>34159644
It's a horrible deal for the man. You are investing time, finances and emotional energy into a woman who isn't fucking you. What exactly would you be gaining from that situation?

>>34159736
The solution to this shouldn’t be demonizing relationships, the solution should be empowering men with knowledge about abusive relationships and teach them self-confidence, autonomy, and boundaries. It’s tempting to demonize women as some ontologically evil separate species, but this completely ignores the heart of the issue which enables women to be abusers.

>>34156592
>Is it true that the more men that a woman has had sex with, they lose their ability of how they form a strong emotional connection?

No. This is a popular myth pushed by redpillers and online incels that logically puts the cart before the horse. People are sexually compulsive and have a lot of different partners BECAUSE they can't form strong emotional connections, not the other way around. Its like saying that drinking a ton of alcohol to excess will make you an alcoholic. Wrong. Being an alcoholic causes you to drink a ton of alcohol to excess.

The basis for this is that attachment styles and relationships with intimacy are formed very, very early on in human develop. Everything from skin to skin contact as an infant to being left in a crib alone and having no soothing influence from a parent figure can cause people to struggle inter-personally as they grow older. When a person endures abandonment, abuse or lack of agency in their formative years this manifests itself as an inability to form strong attachments as an adult.

Essentially, there is no such thing as a person who grows up in a healthy home with loving parents who goes to college, has sex with 10 dudes and now suddenly they're unable to build meaningful relationships. I don't know who first started peddling this bullshit but the causations are all switched around. Unhealthy people who struggle with deep intimacy seek shallow, surface level intimacy through hook ups and abusive relationships because that's what they were taught. Long term, emotionally trusting relationships are a foreign concept to them. Having sex isn't what triggers this mechanism. It was triggered very early on in life and compulsive sexual behavior is just a symptom of it.

>>34159815
Yeah, exactly. This is another thing that none of the so-called scientific studies has EVER taken into account: the question of whether a person is good at relationships or shitty at them. Someone who is shitty at relationships will have a string of failed relationships behind them, AND the one they're currently in is more likely to be unhappy and more likely to end in separation and divorce. Someone who is good at relationships will probably find the right person fairly early, get into a good relationship, and both people will be happy in it indefinitely. Dumb incels look at this pattern and say "Aha! A larger number of previous partners means your relationship is more likely to fail!" But the reality is that if you're the sort of person whose relationships fail, you will rack up a larger number of exes. Cause and effect is the other way round.

>>34159736
It's a horrible deal for everybody.

>>34159796
The solution is for people to GET DIVORCED.

>>34159815
Don't you think that hookup culture has something to do with it? It's not just that people do stupid things, but that culture promotes the behavior.
The only reason why anyone would promote casual sex is because it's the complete opposite of what conservatives believe, so of course people have to take the opposite stance to identify themselves as liberal. But speaking strictly from logic, it doesn't seem like fucking random people is a healthy thing to do. Things like oxytocin create attachment.

File: b94bc422-eff5-4024-912b-b(...).gif (2.8 MB, 330x250)

2.8 MB GIF

>>34159882
>The only reason why anyone would promote casual sex is because it's the complete opposite of what conservatives believe

>>34159647
>Most of the things people started believing...
Like what? Like some shite mainstream media or some poofter university professor tells you "we" did a few centuries ago is barbaric or oppressive or whatever nonsense? Most of that is propaganda and cherry picking.
The human brain hasn't changed in roughly 30,000 years, we weren't bumbling retards shitting ourselves until modern science saved us from the dark ages. The average human's ability to problem solve has steadily gone down and most anthropologists will agree we are actively trying to rediscover knowledge that was common to ancient civilizations.
>tldr; ur gay

>>34159937
>Like what?
Well, for example, there's exactly one reason why female virginity was ever considered important in historical times, and that was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human biology. Back then, people believed that if a woman had sex with a man even once, any child she had at any point for the rest of her life might be that original guy's child, and not the child of a man she'd had sex with recently. That meant that, in the minds of men back then, if they married a non-virgin, even if she only ever had sex with her husband from that point on, she could still give birth to someone else's child years later. That one fundamental misunderstanding was the sole reason why rules about a woman needing to be a virgin when she married (but no one caring if the man was) was introduced into first religions and then laws.

You want some more examples of things that people used to believe that we now know are bullshit?

- Absolutely everything is made up of different quantities of earth, air, fire, and water.
- The Earth is at the centre of the universe, and the sun, moon, planets and stars rotate around it, attached to the inner surfaces of invisible, crystalline spheres.
- Malaria is caused by bad smells.
- Human sacrifice is a good way to get the gods on your side.
- Living creatures can be created spontaneously from non-living material (for example, maggots appear spontaneously in rotting meat - we now know they don't appear unless flies lay their eggs there).
- Chameleons feed exclusively on air.
- Dragons are real.
- You can treat baldness by smearing goose shit on your head.
- Small amounts of arsenic are good for you.
- Draining someone's blood is a good way to treat disease.
- Bulls are enraged by the colour red.
- Babies can be swapped for non-human duplicates by fairies, and this is a fairly common occurrence.
- Witches can steal your penis and keep it as a pet.
- Trepanning is a good idea.
- Vampires are real.

>>34159882
>Don't you think that hookup culture has something to do with it? It's not just that people do stupid things, but that culture promotes the behavior.
I think if you exist solely online I can understand how you could come to that conclusion but, statistically, zoomers and gen xers drink less alcohol, take less recreational drugs, smoke less cigarettes and have fewer sexual partners than pretty much every generation going back to the 20's. Baby boomers had almost twice the reported amount of sexual partners than Gen exers. The problem isn't hook-up culture its intimacy culture. Society being transitioned from a real world community to an online one has torn people away from real life connections. People are having less sex and getting into fewers committed relationships in general. People are lonelier now than they've ever been.

>The only reason why anyone would promote casual sex is because it's the complete opposite of what conservatives believe
Come on now, anon. Don't let your disagreement with something turn your brain off to argument. I don't believe that you're dull enough to think that the motivation for people having sex is driven by political spite.

>But speaking strictly from logic, it doesn't seem like fucking random people is a healthy thing to do. Things like oxytocin create attachment.
Sure, but as I said previously, having sex with random people doesn't cause a lack of intimacy - a lack of intimacy causes having sex with random people. The same way alcohol abuse doesn't cause alcoholism, its the other way around. Having the disorder causes the abuse.

>>34160405
>zoomers and gen xers
That's just because they're retarded. They have autism.
It's far more useful to ignore the autists, and to analyze how many of the sex-havers are in committed relationships. I'm willing to bet that it's casual sex and situationships these days, LTRs are not cool anymore.
>I don't believe that you're dull enough to think that the motivation for people having sex is driven by political spite.
It's not. It's driven by beliefs. Most people in cities are liberal, most liberals are not highly religious, and most liberals are sex-positive.
But the root of these beliefs is the fact that conservatives believe the opposite. There are very few liberals who hold any traditionally conservative beliefs whatsoever, or vice-versa, because most people are NPCs who engage in herd behavior.
> having sex with random people doesn't cause a lack of intimacy - a lack of intimacy causes having sex with random people. The same way alcohol abuse doesn't cause alcoholism, its the other way around. Having the disorder causes the abuse.
That would be assuming that culture does not play a role in human behavior. If all the people around you are doing heroin, you are more likely to do heroin.

>>34160476
>If all the people around you are doing heroin, you are more likely to do heroin.
If all the people around YOU were doing heroin, would YOU do heroin?

>>34160522
Of course, I did.

>>34160529
Well, I'm sorry to have to break this to you, anon, but most people aren't that dumb.

>>34160823
I'm clearing 6 figures fully remote, I am probably smarter than you desu.

>>34156592
This is not even remotely true.

>>34156592
Statistically speaking, yes.

>>34159644
>Any study that makes no attempt at all to distinguish between people who are happily married and people who are unhappily married
>Show me a study which demonstrates that the people who didn't have premarital sex are actually *happier* in their miserable marriages than the sex-havers are after they get divorced, and maybe I'll take it seriously.
Sure!

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12009
>"The research objective was to test whether the number of sexual partners was associated with sexual quality, communication, relationship satisfaction, and relationship stability, while controlling for relationship length, education, race, income, age, and religiosity, using the two competing theories of sexual compatibility and sexual restraint. The results, with a sample of 2,654 married individuals, indicated that the number of sexual partners was associated with lower levels of sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability, providing support for the sexual restraint theory."
I.e. at the most charitable, number of sexual partners is neutral to relationship quality, whereas less is consistently better in all other studied areas. It's not the doomscape of unhappy marriages you imagine (though there's always nuance; iirc, some evangelical areas in the US with very young ages of marriage and high rates of teen pregnancy unsurprisingly have unstable marriages).

Also, a separate study on timing itself, rather than number of sexual partners, supports relationship quality as well:
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011
>"Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length."

It's a valid concern to be worried about cherry-picking, so you are of course welcome to look for contrasting results.

>>34160884
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract
>"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution."

>>34160244
>there's exactly one reason why female virginity was ever considered important in historical times, and that was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human biology.
Yes, I'm sure that basically every major religious or philosophical tradition in the civilized world came to the same moral conclusion because they all independently had the same misunderstanding about paternity, and the 99.9% of the population who couldn't even read memorized that justification by heart. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with social dynamics, or simple Darwinism of what mores tended toward stability. It was because everyone pulled the same irrational and unfounded belief out of their asses and decided it was so important that breaking it could even merit the death penalty.
Sure.

Where the fuck do you people come up with this nonsense? Is it really so hard to believe some people simply value exclusivity?

>>34160890
>>34160893
well you didn't need a study for that. of course the sheltered girl is gonna be like "well he drinks and beats me a little, but that probably happens in every marriage a few times, right?" and the girl who has been with a few guys takes less shit

increased risk of marital dissolution is not the same metric as increased risk of marital dissolution for petty reasons where the man didn't deserve it. there are very good reasons why having a few boyfriends before the guy you end up with makes you less tolerant of putting up with bullshit

>>34160918
>moving the goalposts, now instead of people staying in miserable marriages because they supposedly hate divorce that much, they're only happy with being beaten by their spouses (as le conservatives must always do, source: my ass) because they don't know better
I don't know why I expected anything else.

>there are very good reasons why having a few boyfriends before the guy you end up with makes you less tolerant of putting up with bullshit
And this, even if we grant it, is entirely separate from saying that you have to have sex with them. The entire point of waiting until marriage to have sex is so that you AREN'T stuck with the first person you consider.

>>34156777
Not to mention, common sense.

>>34159815
You can put the cart before the horse or wherever you like, the point is these hoes are for the streets.

>>34159882
Culture definitely plays a factor.

>>34160244
Female virginity is important because when a woman has premarital sex, she's essentially cheating on her future husband. Just because cucking has become normalized doesn't mean it's not degenerate and pathetic. Marriage and the birth rate are in sharp decline because of how much of a shit deal it's all become for men; the move for women has become to designate their entire 20s as a "hoe phase" and then the moment randoms stop slipping into their DMs, offering them free flights to Bali, they decide they're "ready to settle down." These hoes actually expect men to give them the rest of our lives, and they can't even bring their best years to the table.

Then Gen Z doesn't wanna have sex at all, go figure. That's an improvement? I guess?

>>34160984
>I don't know why I expected anything else
Bro, there's nothing you can show these fuckers they couldn't google for themselves in two seconds if truth mattered a single isolated fuck to them.

>>34156592
How many dicks you think she took?

>>34161659
>when a woman has premarital sex, she's essentially cheating on her future husband.
Can you people actually hear yourselves?

>>34160912
>I'm sure that basically every major religious or philosophical tradition in the civilized world came to the same moral conclusion because they all independently had the same misunderstanding about paternity,
Oh my fucking God, you are so dumb! Do you actually not get that there was a point when the entire human race consisted of a few thousand people, all living in one tiny corner of Africa?

>>34156894
You see the type of whores that go on those trashy podcasts and proudly state their body counts? You see the type of person these people are and how they treat sex as a sport? There's your evidence.

>>34160884
Exactly. It's entirely true.

>>34160890
>>34160893
(NTA) No offence, anon(s), but you don't understand the first thing about science. I mean that quite literally: the very *first* thing you need to understand about science is how Occam's Razor works; and you don't.

There are various ways of phrasing Occam's Razor, but let's go with "Given competing hypotheses, each of which explains all the available observations, choose the one which requires the smallest possible modification to existing theory." In other words, if you are trying to provide evidence for a mechanism outside the boundaries of known science, you have to explicitly eliminate *all* possible explanations for your results within *known* science first.

It's well established that there is typically no detectable biological difference between someone who has had sex and someone who hasn't. So you're proposing a mechanism completely outside known biological science which somehow causes a person who has sex now to experience marital breakdown many years later, despite there being no observable biological mechanism involved. If you're going to propose something that, you have to eliminate all possible explanations for your data within known science.
(1/2 - to be continued!)

>>34162249
(continued)
None of your so-called scientific studies even comes close to crossing that threshold, for reasons that I already explained: >>34159872 If a person is shitty at relationships, their current relationship will be unhappy; and their current relationship will quite likely end in break-up or divorce; and their previous relationships are likely to have gone the same way. Similarly, if someone is good at relationships, they will probably end up in a happy, stable relationship early on and not end up with a long string of exes. So there will *inevitably* be a correlation between being in an unhappy, unstable relationship now and having a large number of former partners. And there are plenty of mechanisms within the realm of *known* science which make a person good or shitty at relationships, and which have nothing at all to do with sexual experience. This anon explains some of them very articulately: >>34159815

And of course that's not the only reason within known science why we would expect to see a correlation between partner count and divorce rates - for example (as the anon you're responding to mentioned) the fact that there is a very strong correlation between being opposed to premarital sex and being opposed to divorce, even if the marriage is unhappy, will obviously have an effect.

So, while all of these so-called studies establish that there is a *correlation* between premarital sex and divorce rates, none of them even *begins* to support the hypothesis that there is a causal relationship between the two. The results we are seeing are exactly what we would expect to see if there *isn't* a causal relationship! And no study ever will be able to provide evidence for a causal relationship unless it explicitly eliminates all possible explanations for its observations within known science, including whether or not PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY SHITTY AT RELATIONSHIPS. No study yet carried out has even tried to do this.
(2/2)

>>34162186
And what's your evidence that these people don't go on to have good relationships in the future?

>>34160856
>I am probably smarter than you desu.
Said the former heroin addict.

>>34156592
Isn't she married again?

>>34162260
About as much as your evidence that they do. I guess we'll see in time.

>>34156592
That's true for everyone. Though it might just be a correlation; people with weak pair bonding or no desire to form a relationship naturally have sex with more people.

>>34160890
>Sure!
That is not remotely what I asked. I asked if the people in unhappy marriages who got divorced ended up happier after the divorce than the people in unhappy marriages who remained trapped in the unhappy marriages for the rest of their lives.

You, and people like you, always take it as axiomatic that divorce is necessarily an undesirable outcome. But most of the time it isn't: if a marriage has failed, divorce is the better way forward.

Also worth noting that if people who have only ever been in one relationship claim it's a good one, what are they using as a basis for comparison? Sure, everyone else know is just as miserable as they are, so they assume that it's normal; doesn't mean they're right.

>>34156592
Everyone, men and women, learn real life lessons by experience. Why then do men believe the exception is women becoming emotionally mature through trial and error? No one gets anything right the first time. Knowing what doesn't work makes knowing what does more precious.

>>34156592
Her mother must be a piece of work

>>34160890
>high rates of teen pregnancy
Oh you mean rural blacks

>>34156592
Do you really want to wait until after you're married to someone to discover that the two of you are not sexually compatible?

>inb4 There's no such thing as sexual compatibility.
That's the kind of claim which sounds believable if you've never had sex.

>>34160890
>some evangelical areas in the US with very young ages of marriage and high rates of teen pregnancy unsurprisingly have unstable marriages
Extremely high teenage pregnancy rates are the universal, inevitable consequence of sex education based on abstinence. Sex education such as the system in the Netherlands (where it is extremely exhaustive and explicit) result in teenagers having sex later and not getting knocked up when they do.

>inb4 This is the result of inherent cultural differences in the Netherlands
Interestingly, it's not. A few decades ago, the teen pregnancy rate in the Netherlands was actually quite high. The government at the time made a conscious decision to *change* the culture, by teaching children absolutely everything about sex from a very early age, and getting them to talk about it all the time, and it worked brilliantly.

File: 2b3.jpg (3.88 MB, 4500x3000)

3.88 MB JPG

>>34156592
maybe
maybe not
doesn't really matter in the end

if you start fucking the town bicycle, you don't parade her around as your girlfriend. and you certainly don't marry her/get her pregnant. that's just common sense.
her
>strong emotional connection ability
(if such things exists), or whatever you want to call it, is of almost no importance compared to a man's self-respect

stable marriage for men is an unhappy and captive wife

>>34162263
Yep, I am smarter than you.

>>34162533
>Yep, I am smarter than you
I'm sorry, anon, but most people are not weak-willed junkies who are incapable of resisting peer pressure. The fact that you think they are says a lot more about you than about them.

File: 1647366439170.jpg (94 KB, 537x537)

94 KB JPG

>>34156592
Holy fuck my sides. It's been a long time since I laughed at a video like that. Thank you anon.

>>34162579
Post your work situation and then we'll talk.

>>34156592
The way I imagine it, there is no point in asking how many bodies a woman has because she'll lie
but if you ask
>so did you get all of their names?
>What about their last names?
That'd be informative

>>34162097
Liberals have no trouble convincing themselves that women can have penises. Is it really so difficult a concept to grasp that exclusivity can also apply across time?

No, a woman isn't deliberately wronging a specific man by having sex with anyone else before she even meets him. The point is that lifelong monogamy is something, by definition, you can only have once. You either commit to the first person you give yourself to, or you aren't going to have that level of exclusivity with anyone.
Whether you personally think that's worth looking for is beside the point. The fact is that there's only one way to get it, and sleeping with anyone other than your spouse by definition prevents it.

>>34162120
Ah, yes, because right after a near-extinction of humanity with a global volcanic cataclysm, our ancestors spent all of their mental energy between not dying of starvation and beating each other over the head with sticks on devising a way to create an eternal cultural truth that would guarantee paternity. And the method they chose cleverly ensured that in some 50000 years, different groups of people across the planet would independently rediscover or decide to commit to writing (which they planned to invent separately) that reasoning.
This is impressively schizophrenic. Meds, now.

>>34156592
Just dont be ugly

File: istockphoto-184915585-612x612.jpg (25 KB, 612x408)

25 KB JPG

>>34156777
>t.

>>34161659
>You can put the cart before the horse or wherever you like, the point is these hoes are for the streets.
They teach kindergartners how to show their work, anon. Arriving at the right conclusion is nowhere near as important as having solid method of arriving at it. Its important to know why things happen in life and why people are the way they are. Ignorance doesn't benefit you at all.

>>34156592
Count matters. Anyone who says it doesn't will concede under the slightest bit of questioning. Women all but admit it, disguising their bonding inability as misandry, claims of empowerment or independence, or through a resentful "settling down" relationship. High tier men and low tier men know this to be true through their respective experiences. It's the mid simps who deny pair bond decline, because they have little ability to find someone who actually likes them and can't handle being alone. They enter relationships with women who make them work hard to get a distant, disinterested, and irregular love and sex life, one blatantly inferior to that which she gave past men. They know this is the situation. They claim the past is in the past, but if someone talks about it, or they learn more about her past in any context, they'll shut down, uncomfortable, uneasy, and self-doubting. Or they realize the truth and all that hidden shame, disgust, and anger explodes in a single moment, and their relationship ends.
Dating a high count is a waste of time. It is an exercise in humiliation. Most importantly, it's unnecessary. There are low count girls out there.

>>34160476
>It's far more useful to ignore the autists, and to analyze how many of the sex-havers are in committed relationships. I'm willing to bet that it's casual sex and situationships these days, LTRs are not cool anymore.
>I don't believe that you're dull enough to think that the motivation for people having sex is driven by political spite.
The current generation have fewer sexual partners than the previous generations. This is just statistical fact.

>It's not. It's driven by beliefs. Most people in cities are liberal, most liberals are not highly religious, and most liberals are sex-positive.
None of what you just typed gets us any closer to "libs have sex cause it triggers conservatives".

>That would be assuming that culture does not play a role in human behavior.
No, it just understands its limitations. Culture doesn't alter people's developmental milestones in this way, anon. There's just no evidence of it. Culture merely plays off of people's existing pathologies.

>If all the people around you are doing heroin, you are more likely to do heroin.
Your comparison actually proves my point. Culture can impact your exposure to a certain thing but it doesn't alter your biological pathology. People can be exposed to more heroine but it won't make them an addict. Addiction existed in their pathology long before the exposure.

>>34162249
>but you don't understand the first thing about science
I've heard this coping bullshit before. No, YOU don't, because you're incapable of putting aside your secular bias to consider that maybe, just maybe, those morals you disdain aren't "irrational".
>inb4 christcuck
I'm not religious.

>So you're proposing a mechanism completely outside known biological science
No, I'm not. I'm proposing no more or less than the data you're desperately trying to rationalize away, which shows through multiple controls that, unambiguously, sexual restraint works. It doesn't result in people getting into miserable relationships.

> the fact that there is a very strong correlation between being opposed to premarital sex and being opposed to divorce, even if the marriage is unhappy
And yet one of the links I posted shows the exact opposite, that the most conservative people are also no more likely to be unhappy in marriage. You realize this strengthens the argument for sexual restraint, right? If we assume people are more likely to stay in a miserable marriage, the fact that they're STILL not more likely (and by some measures, less likely) to end up in one means that the protective effect of restraint is commensurate.

>while all of these so-called studies establish that there is a *correlation* between premarital sex and divorce rates
I didn't just do that. I posted one showing the correlations between partner count and various marital outcomes (not just divorce rates, and specifically controlling for the bogeyman of religion), another showing the correlations between restraint and outcomes (controlling for partner count!), and only then did I post the one about premarital sex.

>>34162396
Trailer parks, too, but yes.

>>34162414
>Extremely high teenage pregnancy rates are the universal, inevitable consequence of sex education based on abstinence.
First of all, so what? I'm not talking about "sex ed", I'm talking about actual behavior. I was just saying that, obviously, where religious conservatism happens to coincide with those other factors, marriage doesn't benefit.

But if you want to argue about this, then your claim about sex ed isn't entirely true. It IS a risk of a certain strain of Bible-thumping, generally going along with poverty and at least partially permissive culture (if you've ever been to the South, there are "Jesus is Lord" billboards right next to ones advertising strip clubs. It's wild.). But you also have places like Utah with *lower* rates of teen pregnancy than the US average. It's lower than Oregon, Washington state, or Connecticut.
Now, I am inclined to believe that sex education that involved more than "pls don't have sex outside of marriage" is directly and consistently associated with lower rates of teen pregnancy. But (a) its absence does not guarantee "extremely high pregnancy rates", and (b) the tradeoff of people predisposed to make stupid/impulsive choices also getting pregnant at somewhat higher rates isn't worth the damage to marriage across the board by encouraging a more permissive culture.

Also, at no point did I argue that people didn't have predispositions. They obviously do, and I wouldn't be surprised if that accounted for the bulk of variation in the data. At the end of the day, though, it doesn't change the fact that sexual restraint selects for more stable relationships. Whether you think there's any biological function or not, filtering out people who even you acknowledge are less inclined to maintain healthy relationships is a demonstrable benefit.

Honest question to those who think body count doesn't matter. What's wrong with judging a potential partner by the amount of past partners they had? If you aren't being rude, disrespectful, and showing them the same level of respect you'd show others, then what is genuinely with that kind of preference.

>>34156592
if you climb a different mountain each day, at some point it will be meaningless, as you are doing that everyday.

>>34164652
>Honest question to those who think body count doesn't matter
I don't think anybody is saying its entirely irrelevant. I think the disagreement is over a) what sort of implications can be drawn from someone's body count and b) how high how high that number has to be before the negative effects become relevant. I don't think anyone is pushing the argument that a body count means absolutely nothing

men are born without the ability to have a strong emotional bond with any woman, rendering this question completely useless. I would say no, but if a woman did lose the ability for that bond, I'd say the sexes were even then.

>>34164783
>I don't think anyone is pushing the argument that a body count means absolutely nothing
Maybe not here, but if you go to reddit you'll find a good amount of people there who genuinely think you're in the wrong for not wanting to date a former hoe.

>>34164998
>but if you go to reddit you'll find a good amount of people there who genuinely think you're in the wrong for not wanting to date a former hoe.
You can go to reddit and find people who design sex toys for dogs, anon. I think its more worth your time to engage with the majority opinion, not whatever fringe slop you find on reddit.

>>34165021
Ok, yeah fair enough. That place doesn't represent the majority.

>>34165073
Yeah, I think the vast, VAST majority of people would tell you that body count means something even if they disagree on exactly what it means. It's also worth nothing that there's often a large discrepancy between what people will virtue signal about on the internet and what they actually practice in their daily lives. I doubt even the most hardcore sex positive weirdo on Reddit is actually bedding down crack whores because he thinks body counts mean zilch. I think the great majority of the radical opinions you see posted online are more reactionary to the opposite side than they are actual principled beliefs. The same goes for conservatives. Regardless of how often some autist screeches about how non-virgin girls are garbage and they'd never date one I guarantee you if some 10/10 Stacy hit them up they would suddenly be a lot more flexible. I guess my point is the internet is not real life.

>>34156592
I've been told it's true for guys too but last year I fell in love and dated for a while after a couple of years where I fucked no joke above 100 girls, so I do believe it's doable but old habits die hard, I did slip back into random hook ups the moment we had a fight, I thought it was over, only for her to appear a week later
she was not the kind to sleep around too much (not a virgin either but you know, a normal woman, not that turbo slut you guys seem to think most girls are), so I felt bad that I fucked three girls in that week while she had final exams and was probably not even showering daily.

>>34164498
If you still haven't even understood that correlation does not prove causation, then we are done here. If you ever succeed in understanding that, get back to us.

>>34165276
I just find the act of hooking up with several people a little gross.

>>34165276
shut up you retarded nigger.

>>34164498
>Occam's Razor is just coping bullshit
Honestly, it's amazing I'm still talking to your if you're going to spout that kind of nonsense, but let's have one more go at this.

You obviously don't understand what the word "correlation" means, so let's start with that. If there is a correlation between two things, that means that a variation in one value is *sometimes* associated with a change in the other, to an extent that there is at least a 95% probability that what you're seeing is not *completely* the result of random chance.

Now, someone like you assumes that "there is a proven correlation between A and B" means "we have proved that a change in A causes a change in B". No. There are actually at least three possibilities:
1) Change in A sometimes results in a change in B.
2) Change in B sometimes results in a change in A.
3) (what is clearly happening here) There are one or more *other* factors at work which tend to cause a change in both A and B at the same time. Keep that in mind as we look at your studies.
(1/3)

>>34165970
So, you cite a study which (you claim!) shows a correlation between the number of previous relationships a person has previously been in, and the chances of their marriage ending in divorce. Now, unfortunately, that description is subtly but crucially inaccurate. What (bizarrely) you don't seem to understand is that if a relationship is working really well, and both the people in it are really happy, they tend to stay together. Conversely, if a relationship is not working well, and the people in it are unhappy, there's a good chance they'll split up. Seems fairly obvious to me, but apparently not to you!

So, the first thing we need to note is that this is *not* actually a correlation between "the number of previous relationships" and divorce, it's a correlation between the number of previous *unhappy*, *failed* relationships and divorce. If any previous relationship had been happy and stable, they'd still be in it! They wouldn't have gone on to others. And that's an important distinction.

Now, if the scientists aren't a *complete* bunch of crooks we can assume that they're comparing people of similar ages, so everyone has to be old enough that they *could* have a string of failed relationships behind them. So, what are we *actually* comparing? Let's consider the people at either end of the scale, by way of illustration.

We've got one group of people who met someone fifteen years ago. Partly because they're lovely people who are really good at relationships, and partly from sheer blind luck - they met the perfect person first time out! - they've been in a really happy, rock solid marriage ever since.

Then you've got a second group of people who, over the same time period, have been in at least a dozen unhappy, failed relationships that broke down very fast. We don't know why all those relationships failed, but clearly something went badly wrong, and not just once but a dozen times.
(2 / 3)

>>34165973
So, what the study *actually* proves is that if you compare people who have been in a really happy, stable marriage for 15 years with people who are in a new marriage and who have a dozen failed relationships behind them, the people who have been happily married for 15 years are a bit less likely to get divorced in the near future.

And the only response you can reasonably make to that is, WHAT THE FUCK ELSE WERE YOU EXPECTING?

So, now you wheel out a second study, which shows a correlation between the number of previous partners and happiness level in the current relationship. Again, what are we *actually* comparing here? As your previous study nicely illustrated, if someone has a long string of failed relationships behind him, there is an elevated risk that the relationship he is in now will be an unhappy, dysfunctional one destined to end in divorce. So, what this study is doing is comparing people who have been in a really happy, stable marriage for the past fifteen years with people who are currently in an unhappy marriage that is going to end in divorce quite soon, and it concludes that the people who are in a happy, stable marriage are, on average, a bit happier than the people in unhappy marriages who are going to get divorced.

Again, I have to ask: WHAT THE FUCK ELSE WERE YOU EXPECTING?

And yet you seem to think that somehow these results can't be explained by any mechanism known to science, and you have to propose that there is something else going on. I'm sorry, but nothing you have posted so far even starts to support that.

>>34165973
>You obviously don't understand what the word "correlation" means
I do. I've just heard the nuclear option of
>you just don't understand science
constantly from people who throw a hissy fit whenever they see results they don't like. There's plenty of great articles on how more intelligent people are, in certain instances, MORE biased, not less. Given that you're convinced I'm a moron for claiming something I know for a fact that I didn't, and that you think it is beyond the pale to suggest psychological consequences for acting on one of the strongest human drives in different ways, I suspect that might be you.
I have said multiple times that I'm not discounting the obvious selection effects for the kinds of people who even end up with certain relationship outcomes. I'm saying there is reason to believe people's actions also matter, and getting into the habit of treating intimacy as temporary and replaceable will tend to reinforce that behavior, alongside with but distinct from the predisposition of the individual.

>What (bizarrely) you don't seem to understand is that if a relationship is working really well, and both the people in it are really happy, they tend to stay together.
Duh, but that wasn't in contention; you just reject out of hand the idea that there could be any other subject for debate, and then assume that I must also be arguing on the one ground you think is legitimate. But your idea of selection bias doesn't explain why you not only see this pattern at the extremes (one would expect damaged people to be extremely promiscuous/have unstable relationships, and for the well-adjusted to have fewer) but consistently with ONE extra premarital partner. Are you really claiming that the most well-adjusted, happiest people just don't break up, not even once? And that you see the effect of the unstable and unhappy types when they've broken up just once? Not even I'm saying that. I'm talking about sexual intimacy, not relationships per se.

>>34165973
>So, now you wheel out a second study, which shows a correlation between the number of previous partners and happiness level in the current relationship.
Except the second study is specifically about timing of having sex in relationships, even controlling for partner count.
This isn't timing in the sense of "we surveyed a bunch of people who have been happily married for 20+ years, and it turns out they're happily married! WAOW!!!". It's timing in the sense of when they had sex within their current relationship. Whether it was within marriage, or if it was before, how early.
That's not something you can just wave away by assuming only healthy, well-adjusted people will do it, unless you want to be even more radical than me and say that waiting until marriage for sex is the pinnacle of health. If you aren't making that argument, then if this is also just selection bias, it MUST be a different mechanism.

You want to talk Occam's razor?
Ffs, dude, do you really think there is no relationship between sexual selection and psychology? That there's zero possible feedback? We have dudes who ruin their family's lives over the dopamine hit of scratch off tickets, and you seriously think loose sexual behavior couldn't possibly have its own effect on the psyche in even such a subtle way as slightly decreased stability of attachment styles?

>>34156592
What does it mean when I listen to love songs or think of romance stuff I always think of either my current gf/crush......or my "first" when I'm single and have no crush

>>34167781
>I've just heard the nuclear option of
>>you just don't understand science
>constantly
Yeah, um, and has it never even once occurred to you that if vast numbers of people are constantly telling you that you don't understand science, the simplest explanation for this is that you ACTUALLY DON'T? You've never considered that possibility?

>Are you really claiming that the most well-adjusted, happiest people just don't break up, not even once?
No. But the fact that you think I am claiming that means that you do, indeed, have essentially no understanding at all of what "correlation" means. I'm saying that if we take, say, a thousand couples who have been happily married for fifteen years, and a thousand couples who were fairly recently married and where the people involved have a long string of failed relationships behind them, that *more* of the couples in the second group will get divorced. And that is all that the study proves. And again, what else would you expect?

>>34167784
>You want to talk Occam's razor?
Not really, no, it would just be nice if you understood its implications.

>We have dudes who ruin their family's lives over the dopamine hit of scratch off tickets
What the actual FUCK are you trying to suggest here? If someone is prone to developing a gambling problem, and does, this will cause a problem in his marriage? Yeah, no shit. Someone who is a sex addict will repeatedly cheat on his partner, and that will also cause problems. But the vast majority of people who play the lottery AREN'T gambling addicts, and will never develop a gambling problem doing it. What's more, the *propensity* to become a gambling addict exists long before they do their first scratch card. In precisely the same way, the vast majority of people who have sex do not go on to become sex addicts, and for those few who do, the propensity for sex addiction exists before they have sex for the first time. Your example is a PERFECT illustration of why you're wrong. Good job.

>>34169223
>Yeah, um, and has it never even once occurred to you that if vast numbers of people are constantly telling you that you don't understand science, the simplest explanation for this is that you ACTUALLY DON'T?
I get told that by people who are willfully ignorant. You know, the kinds of people who accuse me of making up terms like "microdata" because they would rather call me a liar than spend 2 seconds on google to actually learn something. Another one said he isn't obligated to find evidence anything that hasn't already been proven right. So no, I don't take these clowns seriously.
>You've never considered that possibility?
Sure, and that's why I tried to understand your point. But none of them has been convincing. If any one of them could make a coherent argument, let alone actually respond to what I'm saying instead of getting assmad at phantom, maybe I'd be swayed.

>I'm saying that if we take, say, a thousand couples who have been happily married for fifteen years, and a thousand couples who were fairly recently married and where the people involved have a long string of failed relationships behind them, that *more* of the couples in the second group will get divorced. And that is all that the study proves.
They literally controlled for relationship length in both studies, you absolute fucking spastic. Go back and read the quotes. You are so far up your own ass in coming up with ways to rationalize the "spurious" correlation that you won't even read a single quoted sentence. Do YOU know what a control means?
I've been trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume misunderstanding rather than stupidity, that maybe you were just trying to reason your way out of an uncomfortable piece of evidence. Wouldn't be the first time I've been disappointed.

>>34169223
>What the actual FUCK are you trying to suggest here?
Don't be obtuse. Maybe read the paragraph.
I'm not inventing a "mechanism unknown to science". I'm suggesting a role of biology in shaping people's behavior in relationships. Bonus! I'll spoonfeed you another tidbit, to make the analogy more clear, even to someone acting or actually slow:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97287/
>"Several studies have now demonstrated that oxytocin plays a role in the development of the pair bond in the female prairie vole. Injections of an OT antagonist, a drug that blocks activation of the OT receptor, directly into the female prairie vole brain prior to cohabitation and mating inhibits the subsequent development of a partner preference"
>"These regions [of the brain with oxytocin and vasopressin receptors] are excellent candidates for facilitating pair bond formation because they are rich in dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward and addiction."

I won't bother with the word vomit you wrote afterwards, since you completely misunderstood the very basic point and just repeated yourself.

I look forward to your rationalization of
>hurr durr prairie voles not humans
or some other way of completely missing the point again.

>>34160244
The ancients correctly intuited microchimerism? Woah nelly! What else were they right about?

>>34156592
Yes and they often get into this weird mental illness where when they love someone they don't want to have sex with them. They want to have sex only with people they don't have an emotional connection to. It's disgusting.

>>34156592
yes; but, it's true for both ways. Sex is one of the most powerful bonding experiences so having too much of it with various forgettable people will inevitably devalue it.