85
86

Why do we care about promiscuity in women? (self.asktrp)

submitted by TopherOHoolihan

When I was in an LTR as a teenager into my early twenties, i was that girl’s first. I took her virginity and I had only been with one girl prior. Throughout the relationship there were two competing concepts in my mind.

1 I felt pressure to explore other women and felt like Id regret having only been with two women when I was old. I wasnt sure if this was societal pressure or instinctual pressure to spread my seed. I ended up breaking up with her for this reason.

2 I really didn’t want her to sleep with anyone else as I had grown protective over her. I knew breaking up with her would lead to her sleeping with someone else and of course when she did, it hurt very much as expected.

So first off, is the point of being protective just for paternal certainty? Is that the only reason I cared?

And secondly why is a previously promiscuous women a huge turn off for most men? And why is it not for others? I have a friend who thinks im old fashioned for not wanting to date a girl whos had more partners.

Does anyone have studies on this i can read? What do we know? Someone enlighten me


[–]Senior EndorsedVasiliyZaitzev 116 points117 points  (21 children)

A. The woman knows the baby is hers, the man must have faith. Who are you going to trust more, Polly Pureheart, who stays in at night knitting a sweater and a scarf for you, or Mary Jo RottenCrotch?

B. The pair bonding thing. There’s a reason that there’s such a thing as the “Thousand Cock Stare” but not the “Thousand Twat Stare”.

C. Abt “previously” promiscuous women: You can’t turn a whore into a housewife.

[–]AtlasCuckd 29 points30 points  (0 children)

When it all boils down you gone find in the end:

A bitch is a bitch

But a dawg is a man's best friend

[–]Iamthespiderbro 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Mary Jo RottenCrotch 😂

[–]Workguy77 8 points9 points  (4 children)

This is actually true. Back in the day people didn't have paternity tests and would rely only on faith. No man wanted to spend energy and resources on a child that wasn't his and there wasn't a possible way to prove that.

[–]RedHoodhandles 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Well not only faith. Men can spot their children faster among a crowd of kids than their mothers. We evolved not to get fucked over by female hypergamy. The 'gut feeling' is there for a reason.

[–]Senior EndorsedVasiliyZaitzev 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There was a case of a man in Texas whose gf had twins. Fraternal twins. He was able to figure out that one was not his, which DNA later confirmed.

[–]xrKles 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Wow. To get twins with different fathers is almost impossible. Pretty cool

[–]Senior EndorsedVasiliyZaitzev 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Evidently, it happens in 1 out of 13,000 sets of twins, at least those involved in child support cases. There's another case in NJ.

The technical name for it is "Heteropaternal Superfecundation", but the general term is "Your girl is a ho'."

[–]TheGuyBehindTheWheel 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You can’t turn a whore into a housewife. Touché.

[–]AceMav21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This guy reminds me of Stalingrad.

[–][deleted]  (11 children)

[removed]

    [–]pprstrt 5 points6 points  (10 children)

    Try your local dance club if you're unsure what a thousand cock stare is. $15 cover and $10 budweiser is well-worth the knowledge.

    [–]Kenny_Twenty 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    I've been around the block many times, cousin. There's no such thing as a thousand cock stare. Try thinking objectively instead of accepting every silly, little notion.

    [–]pprstrt 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    Putting aside our abilities to tell a slut from a girl to bring home to mom, let's tackle the reason for your statement:
    I wish as much as you that a girl who sleeps around was as good a catch as one that doesn't. I would love to be convinced. Provide some evidence. Convince me.

    [–]Kenny_Twenty 0 points1 point  (7 children)

    The point is that the value of your woman will be significantly determined by your own value. If she finds you to be valuable, she will behave in a way you find to be valuable.

    Men look for patterns. Men who haven't internalized the dynamic that a woman will be as faithful as you compel her to be fear that promiscuous women will cheat just because they are promiscuous. Promiscuity evolved for a reason.

    [–]pprstrt 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    The point is that the value of your woman will be significantly determined by your own value.

    Her value is determined by mine? How so?

    If she finds you to be valuable, she will behave in a way you find to be valuable.

    A woman in love is eager to please. We haven't got anywhere yet.

    Men who haven't internalized the dynamic that a woman will be as faithful as you compel her to be fear that promiscuous women will cheat just because they are promiscuous.

    Ignoring science is not convincing me... Did you read any other posts before replying to me?

    Promiscuity evolved for a reason.

    Yes, as a way to attain the bad boy's genes and the nice guy's security. This further convinces me of my side...

    [–]Kenny_Twenty 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    Her value is determined by mine? How so?

    Sorry, I meant in the context of her fidelity. That is to say that if she cheats, it's because you aren't good enough.

    A woman in love is eager to please. We haven't got anywhere yet.

    Now you're sounding combative; as if you are adhered to your point.

    Ignoring science is not convincing me... Did you read any other posts before replying to me?

    Have I read any other posts? What? I mean, I've been a regular here for many years and I know this theory inside and out and have seen it debated many times. Are you new here or something?

    If you're trying to represent the statistic that women with high sexual partner counts as "science", that's a silly, semantic argument that is also a fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Furthermore, correlation doesn't equal causation.

    So the fact that a woman has had a lot of sexual partners doesn't compel her to be promiscuous. I don't know if this is your first experience with applying statistics to an argument but that's not how it works. All the statistic says is that women who are promiscuous cheat more than women who aren't promiscuous. If you imagine a scenario where a woman is in a population of many betas and very few alphas, she's going to cheat more. There isn't anyone to hold her attraction. You (personally) are tending to view her behavior, without the clarity of context, as a function of promiscuity leading her to cheat. When really, there are countless other variables at play and without adequate context, you can't be sure.

    You're referencing science and you're not thinking like a scientist.

    Yes, as a way to attain the bad boy's genes and the nice guy's security. This further convinces me of my side...

    lol

    I don't know what to say here. This dynamic is supposed to work in your favor. You are the one that's supposed to be the bad guy who fucks the girls dating the nice guys. It also is completely consistent with everything I've been saying. It also fits me scenario I outlined before I even read this part of your post.

    I'm gonna outline it very clearly for you:

    Women will cheat if you aren't good enough. Nice guys aren't good enough. Be good enough.

    PS - If a woman hasn't found an alpha, she'll keep swinging branches until she does. That's how statistics can sometimes be misleading. So as is consistent with everything that's taught here, be an alpha and your woman is unlikely to cheat whether she's been promiscuous in the past or not.

    [–]pprstrt 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    That is to say that if she cheats, it's because you aren't good enough.

    Agreed.

    Now you're sounding combative; as if you are adhered to your point.

    This was a sidetrack that annoyed me, that is all. We likely agree on this, let's move on.

    Have I read any other posts?

    replies* above me. They're referencing studies, you're referencing nothing. Here are some I've used in the past:

    1. Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds?
    2. Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution among Women
    3. The Relationship Between Multiple Sex Partners and Anxiety, Depression, and Substance Dependence Disorders: A Cohort Study
    4. Sexual Hookups and Adverse Health Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of First-Year College Women

    If you imagine a scenario where a woman is in a population of many betas and very few alphas, she's going to cheat more.

    Yes, we definitely are on the same page. She also might be content settling for a piece of an alpha instead of a whole of a beta.

    You (personally) are tending to view her behavior, without the clarity of context, as a function of promiscuity leading her to cheat.

    I could accuse you of the same, assuming that she only dates betas which leads her to cheat. Instead of betas getting a bunch of action I assume something closer to the top 20% getting 80% of the girls, meaning she usually goes with someone leaning more alpha than beta. And if these studies were done properly we can assume that they're fairly representative of the population. Therefore, assuming I can put myself as far into that 20% as possible, and if I want girls that won't cheat, good girls are a better bet than sluts. Harder to bed (for the very reason we're discussing), but a better bet.

    I don't know what to say here. This dynamic is supposed to work in your favor. You are the one that's supposed to be the bad guy who fucks the girls dating the nice guys. It also is completely consistent with everything I've been saying. It also fits me scenario I outlined before I even read this part of your post.

    I'm gonna outline it very clearly for you:

    Women will cheat if you aren't good enough. Nice guys aren't good enough. Be good enough.

    PS - If a woman hasn't found an alpha, she'll keep swinging branches until she does. That's how statistics can sometimes be misleading. So as is consistent with everything that's taught here, be an alpha and your woman is unlikely to cheat whether she's been promiscuous in the past or not.

    I'm not contesting this. Maybe I'm missing your original assertion. Are you saying that girls don't get a thousand cock stare (or at least not one they can't hide) or that a thousand cock stare doesn't mean anything [in the scheme of spinning a plate]?

    [–]Kenny_Twenty 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    replies* above me. They're referencing studies, you're referencing nothing. Here are some I've used in the past: 1. Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds? 2. Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution among Women 3. The Relationship Between Multiple Sex Partners and Anxiety, Depression, and Substance Dependence Disorders: A Cohort Study 4. Sexual Hookups and Adverse Health Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of First-Year College Women

    Ok great. Perfect. I feel like the fact that you cited these studies as supportive of your assertions is indicative of an ignorance of the "correlation doesn't equal causation" concept. Could it be likely that women who are promiscuous are doing so because they are low value and not the other way around? The majority of women found to have mental illness associated with promiscuity could be low value women who are not generally considered to be girlfriend or marriage material. Not to mention the fact that the mental illness could be the reason for the promiscuity in the first place.

    If a study finds that women who had a lot of sexual partners in college are likely to suffer from mental illness doesn't mean that the promiscuity caused the mental illness. It could mean the mental illness caused the promiscuity. It could also mean there are other variables causing both conditions. That's why the studies word things the way they do, often using words like "association" and vey rarely words like "causing".

    Now let's consider your own example where you claim 80% of the women are pursuing 20% of the men. That means the remainder of women who are not able to secure one of the 20% are left to bounce around, seeking one of the 20% they'll likely never find - another likely reason for mental illness. It's also indicative to me that many of those particular women are of low value so they will have a difficult time sustaining a relationships. So they end up moving from guy to guy, seeking what they will never find. The relevance here is that these are basically fat/ugly chicks who aren't on your radar anyway.

    These are just a few dynamics off the top of my head. Ultimately, what men often claim here concerning women and promiscuity is not researchable. There are too many variables to control for and you seem to be misinterpreting the current studies in the first place.

    [–]nicyhasreddit 136 points137 points  (24 children)

    A driver with 10000 driving hours is experienced. A car with 100000 miles isn't worth much.

    A key that can unlock multiple locks is a master key. A lock that can be unlocked by many keys should be discarded.

    [–]OilyB 60 points61 points  (0 children)

    The bowsman needs exercise, the target doesn't.

    [–]u-had-it-coming 18 points19 points  (20 children)

    Why are we assuming men to be driver and women to be car?

    Or lock to be women and key to be men?

    Edit : thanks for assuming this a genuine question and answering it instead of thinking it as a troll and downvoting it.

    [–]OilyB 56 points57 points  (2 children)

    Because women don't woo or initiate, they don't provide and they don't lead. They don't want to.

    [–]u-had-it-coming 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    True.

    [–]u-had-it-coming -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

    True.

    [–]1redhawkes 15 points16 points  (0 children)

    Men are the fuckers (transmitter)(active)(dominant), women are the fuckee (receiver)(passive)(submissive).

    Can't go more sperg than this.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]BewareTheOldMan 4 points5 points  (4 children)

      "Women...go for quality. Thus they have to be selective."

      Women are supposed to go for quality and are supposed to be very selective and discriminating when producing a child - and presumably with their husband.

      I offer you this:

      The USA is holding steady with a 40 percent of out of wedlock birth-rate as of 2016. This means 40% of women have essentially eliminated themselves from serious consideration for commitment and/or marriage.

      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm

      Just saying...

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]growingstronk -1 points0 points  (1 child)

        You misread the statistic. Not all 40% of women have babies out of wedlock, 40% of all babies are born out of marriage. Keep in mind the average white woman has 1.5ish babies, while the average minority woman has more than 2. And the women who have babies out of wedlock are more likely to be the ones who have multiple kids.

        In other words, the amount of women having babies before wedlock is actually much lower than 40%

        [–]BewareTheOldMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I realize the ACTUAL number of women with OOW kids is likely lower than a general 40%.

        Here's the deal - it doesn't matter if it's 30%, 35% or 40% of actual women...the real problem is all these damn kids who likely have Single Mothers as parents - ALL 40% of them.

        I know there are exceptions, but these are the 40% who generally have much worse childhood to adulthood life-outcomes.

        Also - cohabitation doesn't count. Any man NOT tied to a woman and his kids through marriage can leave any second he's tired of playing Baby Daddy. Married men can abandon their kids as well, but they do so at much, much lower rates...if at all because child support is generally a court-ordered requirement.

        Divorced men with jobs/careers BEFORE and DURING marriage rarely get out of paying support because jail is the next step in punishment. Hell - marriage is mostly the only thing keeping some of these dudes in line. If a man is not married to the mother of his kid(s), he can be gone at the drop pf a hat. It's much harder for married men to behave in a similar manner. It's one of the base reasons women desire and push for marriage in the first place.

        Also - let not give these Single Mothers any quarter or any more excuses to be irresponsible with their reproductive choices.

        [–]1Terminal-Psychosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        This is so simple and self-explanatory it is amazing that anyone even asks.

        It has to do with spreading our genes. Men want to ensure that the child their mate has is really theirs. And have as many as possible.

        (not necessarily actual babies, but the drive for sex with many women is there, as is keeping other men away)

        Women have the opposite, they want the best genes, while keeping a stable provider. Not many are high quality enough to have both in one man.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]u-had-it-coming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I meant why we are talking about women being locks figuratively not literally.

          [–]IVIaskerade -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

          Why are we assuming men to be driver and women to be car?

          We aren't assuming anything.

          [–]Kenny_Twenty 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          Then why mention cars?

          [–]IVIaskerade 0 points1 point  (4 children)

          That's what's called an analogy.

          The point was that saying "men are the driver" isn't an assumption.

          [–]u-had-it-coming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I mean why are men being car in analogy?

          Don't take it literally dude. Tey to understand the essence. Cut me some slack. I am not a native.

          [–]Kenny_Twenty 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          But what's applicable to a car isn't necessarily applicable to people. It just sounds clever but offers no actual insight.

          [–]IVIaskerade 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          A) It's an analogy. It doesn't have to be a perfect 1:1 comparison.

          B) It offers plenty of insight because the two are comparable.

          [–]Kenny_Twenty -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          It's not applicable because they are not comparable. They sound clever and that causes people who are not smart enough to apply due diligence to subscribe to them.

          The fact that a particular type of lock may be incorrect inefficient is not indicative that promiscuity in women is detrimental.

          You are not applying reason.

          [–]TopherOHoolihan[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Well said.

          [–]Kenny_Twenty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Can you relate that to reality for me?

          [–]spider_1337 46 points47 points  (12 children)

          The amount of oxytocin produced by women during sex diminishes as her sexual partner count increases thereby reducing her ability to create a stable pair bond with a mate by diminishing the release of oxytocin during typical LTR activities that would other wise produce a healthy oxytocin response in a non promiscuous mate.

          [–]420-69er 12 points13 points  (7 children)

          very fascinating, would you mind providing some sources on this?

          [–]spider_1337 21 points22 points  (0 children)

          Here's an excerpt:

          Brendan P. Zietsch, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, Australia, has tried to determine whether some people are just more inclined toward infidelity. In a study of nearly 7,400 Finnish twins and their siblings who had all been in a relationship for at least one year, Dr. Zietsch looked at the link between promiscuity and specific variants of vasopressin and oxytocin receptor genes. Vasopressin is a hormone that has powerful effects on social behaviors like trust, empathy and sexual bonding in humans and other animals. So it makes sense that mutations in the vasopressin receptor gene — which can alter its function — could affect human sexual behavior.

          He found that 9.8 percent of men and 6.4 percent of women reported that they had two or more sexual partners in the previous year. His study, published last year in Evolution and Human Behavior, found a significant association between five different variants of the vasopressin gene and infidelity in women only and no relationship between the oxytocin genes and sexual behavior for either sex. That was impressive: Forty percent of the variation in promiscuous behavior in women could be attributed to genes. That is surprising since, as Dr. Zietsch points out, there are so many other factors that are necessary for promiscuous encounters, like circumstance and the availability of a willing and able partner. Although this is the largest and best study on this, it’s not clear why there was no relationship between the vasopressin gene and promiscuous behavior in men.

          Other studies confirm that oxytocin and vasopressin are linked to partner bonding, which bears on the question of promiscuity since emotional bonding is, in a sense, the inverse of promiscuity. Hasse Walum at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm found that in women, but not in men, there is a significant association between one variant of the oxytocin receptor gene and marital discord and lack of affection for one’s partner. In contrast, there was a significant correlation in men between a specific variant of the vasopressin receptor gene and lower marital quality reported by their spouses.

          Data in animals confirm that these two hormones are significant players when it comes to sexual behavior. An intriguing clue came from the pioneering work of Dr. Thomas R. Insel, now the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, who studied the effects of vasopressin and oxytocin in a little rodent called the vole. It turns out that there are two closely related species of voles: montane voles, which are sexually promiscuous, and prairie voles, which are sexually monogamous and raise their extended families in burrows.

          After sex, prairie voles quickly develop a selective and enduring preference for their mate, while mating for montane voles is more of a one-night stand.

          Dr. Insel described is that the strikingly different sexual behavior of these two species of voles reflects the action of vasopressin in their brains. The vasopressin receptors in the montane and prairie voles are in completely different brain regions so that when these receptors are stimulated by vasopressin, there are very different When vasopressin is injected directly into the brain of the monogamous male prairie vole, it triggers pair bonding; in contrast, blocking the vasopressin receptors inhibits monogamy, but does nothing to stop sexual activity. In other words, vasopressin promotes social bonding, and blocking the activity of this hormone encourages social promiscuity.

          In the monogamous prairie voles, the vasopressin receptors are close to the brain’s reward center, but in the philandering montane voles, these same receptors are mostly found in the amygdala, a brain region that is critical to processing anxiety and fear.

          So mating for the prairie voles activates the pleasurable reward pathway, which reinforces mating and promotes attachment and thus monogamy. For the promiscuous montane voles, sex has little effect on attachment; any vole will do.

          It is even possible experimentally to take a home-wrecking montane vole and make him behave like a family-oriented prairie vole. Using a virus as a delivery vehicle to transmit the vasopressin receptor gene, it’s easy to artificially boost the number of vasopressin receptors in the brain’s reward center, and make a male vole behave monogamously. The story for female voles is similar except that it is oxytocin, not vasopressin, that triggers monogamous behavior.

          We don’t yet know from human studies whether the vasopressin receptor genes that are linked with infidelity actually make the brain less responsive to these hormones, but given the animal data, it is plausible.

          [–]spider_1337 9 points10 points  (4 children)

          [–]knowledgelover94 10 points11 points  (3 children)

          I read this whole article and it said nothing about oxytocin levels decreasing as partners increase. The article can mostly be summed up in this quote “For some, there is little innate temptation to cheat; for others, sexual monogamy is an uphill battle against their own biology.” I was thinking, this would be a great justification for poly people!

          I still wonder if your claim is a myth or not.

          [–]spider_1337 5 points6 points  (2 children)

          I understand but there is a lot of data that shows that women with a high amount of sexual partners generally leads to an increase in divorce, stds, and higher cases of depression. Youre free to formulate your own conclusion based on the available evidence

          [–]ihaverisen122 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Source?

          [–]vicious_armbar 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          Partner count is negatively correlated with LTR relationship stability. That much we do know. Why is up for debate. This correlation could be measuring: ability to pair bond, conformity to socially conservative values, disagreeableness, the amount of temptation someone is exposed to, some combination of the previous factors, or some other factor.

          For a man that wants to get married and have kids (generally not recommended) or who cares about the length of his LTR's it doesn't matter why a woman pulls the pin on the grenade. It only matters that she did, and the probability of her doing so is highly correlated with her notch count. Making notch count a powerful predictive signal for men.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um3EmS9DKsI

          [–]1Terminal-Psychosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You need to read the sidebar again.

          [–]stat1490 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          Does that happen to men as well?

          [–]leaveitaloneitsfine 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          This is false. There's no data to back it up. The study everyone links is irrelevant because 1. very few men know game, 2. a virgin obviously has no idea what's out there and anxiety/fear/lack of experience/plenty of other variables will keep her from venturing out.

          [–]plymouthSundance 34 points35 points  (11 children)

          1) Ability to pair bond 2) Getting the clap

          [–]TopherOHoolihan[S] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

          Wouldn’t spinning plates ruin a guy’s ability to pair bond as well.

          [–]MisplacedSanityP 12 points13 points  (6 children)

          Yes. Pair bonding is bad for the men as per TRP philosophy. You don't want to be tethered to one woman. But you certainly want women to be tethered only to you.

          [–]yumyumgivemesome 7 points8 points  (4 children)

          Ironically, because I am still somewhat in the beta bux stage, many of my plates develop a strong attraction to me because they still see me as a guy who might settle down rather than an alpha fux who hooks up with women left and right. For this reason, I actually prefer that my plates are not exclusive to me so that I can simply see each of them once every couple of weeks with much less worry that they will catch feelings. Of course, I don't like actually hearing about them dating other guys because it still triggers my jealousies and insecurities, but I see that as more of an internal issue that I need to improve.

          [–]smirk_addict 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          If I was in your situation i would be doing exactly what you’re doing. Every successful guy I know always has girls trying to lock him down for commitment to gain status and use of his resources. They use strategy of both extremes. Fucking them as soon as possible, hoping to sex their way into commitment OR Making them wait indefinitely trying to run some “I’m a good girl” shit. I wouldn’t worry about improving on those internal issues. You only have to “appear” to not care and what they divulge to you allows you to constantly assess if you want to keep seeing the girl. You got it dude.

          [–]TopherOHoolihan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Brilliant.

          [–]pprstrt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          It only affects guys for the first two partners, then it's stable, and does so to less of a degree.

          [–]ElegantCyclist 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          To answer the OP, it depends on what you want. Before DNA tests, a guy with a promiscuous woman risked raising another man's kids. For that reason, jealousy evolved.

          For modern guys, though, having an uncommitted lover can be an interesting game dynamic.

          [–]Da_RectumWrecker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          Hmmm. I wonder if this would be a good way to trade in plates that you are getting bored with.

          [–]TopofToronto 8 points9 points  (2 children)

          Why do companies care if you change jobs every 6 months for no reason when they are going to hire you.

          Because it is pointless to invest time or money or even interest in you if you are not going to be around in 6 months.

          [–]wobbleelbbow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          That's great analogy.

          [–]Musicgoon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          This!

          [–]deltron80 18 points19 points  (6 children)

          Marriages/LTRs are statistically less successful the more partners a woman has. Women damage their ability to form long term bonds by having more partners because they are not designed to handle it like men are.

          [–]420-69er 3 points4 points  (5 children)

          would you mind providing some sources? very curious about this, i’ve noticed this phenomenon in my own life but haven’t been able to explain it

          [–]BewareTheOldMan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          You need sources to explain that it's a smart decision NOT to offer commitment or marriage to a slut?

          Smart men don't take chances with known sluts for any type of serious relationship.

          Paternity issues (i.e. - three to five men are possible candidates for fathering the same child), high to very high risk of sexual diseases, garden-variety infidelity (e.g. - some other dude/dudes hard-slamming your wife while you're at work), etc.

          I don't know any man who questions this wisdom and basic common sense.

          cc - u/rambler429

          cc - u/delton80

          [–]rambler429 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

          Why are sources necessary? You've experienced it so therefore at least in your mind, its reality.

          [–]DownyGall 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Lol right? We get so obsessed with data and we ignore common sense.

          [–]KumonRoguing -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          If you Google it there's a lot of information readily available. It's actually pretty crazy how steep the scale is. Also another parallel is that the less woman that are virgins at marriage, the higher divorce rates have gone.

          [–]Retstortion 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Yes for paternity and child rearing

          [–]mrpoopistan 8 points9 points  (2 children)

          Since there have been a million good answers provided, I'll just try to expand the conversation a little . . .

          Horizontal gene transfer.

          Evolutionary biologists have identified indications that that women absorb small amounts of DNA from their previous partners.

          Here's the hard science showing that it does happen: http://time.com/3461485/how-previous-sexual-partners-affect-offspring/

          The implications of the study are that any mates a female has had may leave some legacy—in the form of physical or other traits that are carried in the semen (but not the DNA-containing sperm)—that could show up in her future offspring with another mate.

          I've seen attempts to refute this, but the hard science refuting it doesn't seem to be there or tends to very cherry picked. Also, a lot of the responses feel very knee-jerk to me.

          We know for a fact that horizontal gene transfers occur between wildly divergent species. The most obvious case is the insane amount of junk DNA in our systems we've accumulated from viruses. There's little reason to believe that interactions between creatures that are near 100% genetically similar wouldn't also produce similar results.

          In other words, even if you made a whore into a house wife (it can happen: my sister proves it), you're still passing on tiny pieces of the genetic legacies of every guy she fucked by making a kid with her, even if you're sure the kid is yours.

          This is another case of "don't argue with the verdict of evolution." Evolution has favored men who prefer non-promiscuous long-term partners.

          [–]knowledgelover94 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          Whaaaa?! This is pretty mind blowing if it’s true. Can you explain how this works? How does the DNA stay inside her forever? Would it be prevented with condom usage?

          [–]mrpoopistan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          There are still a lot of questions about how the process actually operates. It doesn't help that hard science these days tends to stay away from ideas that promise huge blowups over social issues (hence why you do this with flies, but no one seems to be racing to test it in humans).

          Purely speculative and non-scientific on my part, but you can imagine a few vectors . . .

          1) Genetic material adhering to the egg.

          Basically, sperm that failed to get the job done still linger and somehow transfer a bit of their material when it is eventually fertilized.

          This is probably the most direct and plausible vector. There's evidence, for example, that seminal fluid is designed to poison the ingress of additional sperm from competing males. It has also be speculated (highly, highly speculative, tho) that some bug species' sperm engages in parasitic processes to hijack a second mate's sperm.

          2) Multiple horizontal gene transfers.

          The idea here is that the woman's body fully absorbs some material from each mate, essentially what happens to every one of us every time we get a virus. Then an additional horizontal transfer occurs when the baby is growing inside its mother. we already know that in utero gene expression favors DNA from the mother, so this might be an underestimated pathway.

          3) Leftover DNA just lingering in a woman's body.

          Essentially, the DNA is just there until it comes into contact with a baby. This is likely the lowest probability scenario, since its a process that should lead to the DNA either being flushed out of the body or triggering abnormalities.

          - - -

          On balance, DNA works in a much less straightforward manner than we're taught in school. There's plenty of reason to assume that horizontal gene transfers are more relevant than we want to admit because ew. The fact that you might have more DNA from the 1919 pandemic Spanish flu and your mom's first five boyfriends than your great-great-great grandmother isn't precisely reassuring.

          [–]Corvus_Uraneus 8 points9 points  (1 child)

          You can't turn a ho into a housewife, don't be captain save a ho. They're fine for casual sex, but not LTR/wife material.

          [–]BewareTheOldMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Best advice.

          [–]0ggles 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          The more promiscuity, the crazier she gets. This could be good or bad.

          anon - I like getting blow jobs, but I don't like giving them.

          [–]empatheticapathetic 5 points6 points  (4 children)

          I asked this once. My favourite response was: “it indicates weakness and instinctually we don’t want to mate with someone who would bring down the tribe”

          [–]u-had-it-coming -1 points0 points  (3 children)

          Still need clarification.

          Can you please enlighten?

          [–]knowledgelover94 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          “Bring down the tribe” refers to how sexual selection unconsciously considers how the offspring would turn out. It’s saying a promiscuous woman would make a bad offspring. Although, the quote seems to assume that which is up for debate; it assumes promiscuity is bad and would lead to bad offspring without explaining why.

          [–]empatheticapathetic 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          A promiscuous woman may birth children from two rival tribes and this could cause serious issue with the safety and security of one of the tribes.

          [–]u-had-it-coming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          That seems true

          She can also do that between friends.

          [–]dukes1998 28 points29 points  (12 children)

          People think slutty girls are more inclined to cheat, be trashy or just generally be shitty partners. And while I’d argue that this is often the case, being a slut in my experience is much more of a mindset girls have than a result of fucking a lot of guys. A virgin can fantasize about getting gangbanged by the football team and a chick with a high body count can still want to settle down and be loyal to one guy.

          If a girl just loves sex and is very sexual, I’m hesitant to call her a slut or whore or whatever. I’m the same way so i can’t judge a woman for doing the same thing regardless of whatever evo psych shit people will bring up. But if she does it because of her low self esteem to feel good about herself (met a lot of girls like this too) that’s when you start to get into the danger zone and should steer clear.

          In my experience it isn’t that difficult to tell the difference and is usually evident in the way they carry themselves (confidence is unmistakable), and to be honest a lot of the more fucked up girls will straight up tell you everything if you pretend you care and make them trust you.

          Anyone who tells you differently really hasn’t met enough girls tbh. I wish it was as simple as sluts=bad, Virgins=good but that isn’t really the case.

          Plus experienced girls are much, much, much better lays. Virgins or inexperienced girls are awful in the sack.

          [–]Xkirbyx 11 points12 points  (3 children)

          I disagree, women in general with a high sex count doesn’t concern you at all? There’s all kinds of red flags that stem from (women) with high sexual counts but if you’re willing do deal with that bullshit then to each here own. I’d rather do my diligence and see what there sex count is then move forward. I don’t wanna date the village bike

          [–]dukes1998 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Correlation doesn't always equal causation, which was my whole point. But as much as you want to "do your diligence" no girl, especially not a chick who actually does have a super high partner count, is gonna be straight up about it.

          [–]SexdictatorLucifer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Always will be a concern in your hindbrain, but the trade-off for a truly sexual woman is 100% worth it. If you can find what above describes, a mentally healthy and sexual being, she will beat a low n-count woman exponentially. Much less likely to use sex for power over you (intentionally), and unafraid to let loose with you. The problem is, women and society are fucked up. So it's unlikely to find a woman who is mentally strong enough and secure enough to have become a sexual being without losing her mind in the process. Comes down to her having a strong father figure and family values. Then again, in the end, these girls are still sluts. Can never let them convince you otherwise over time. But tbh, that kind of makes things more fun and interesting.

          [–]frontyer0077 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Studies proves that women with higher counts are more likely to cheat, and the divorce rates are insane for those women. Virgins/2-3 partners is the lowest risk. This is purley statistical, but I know wich type of girl I would chose for an LTR.

          [–]1Terminal-Psychosis 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          I wish it was as simple as sluts=bad, Virgins=good but that isn’t really the case.

          It is plenty much the case. Enough truth to make easy, fast decisions based on it.

          Your little theory is cute n all, but in the real world, a chick that has had a LOT of different men isn't going to make a good LTR. If she has whatever you think confidence is, or not.

          You're asserting the same old "unicorns do exist!" nonsense that so many newbies insist on.

          If you're looking for a stable relationship, you're much better off training that virgin to be good in the sack, than trying to turn a whore into a housewife.

          Trying to argue otherwise is like saying the moon is made of green cheese.

          [–]dukes1998 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          In the real world you’re not going to a virgin or hottie with a low n-count unless you’re like 23 or you literally find a unicorn lmao. What I’m actually asserting is that not all girls who fuck around are damaged or bad for LTRs which is reality no matter what TRP says.

          [–]dulkemaru51 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          I’m the same way so i can’t judge a woman for doing the same thing

          Yes you can, because you're a man and she's a woman, and men and women are different.

          Besides, caring about her n-count, as is the topic, is a question of more than a judgement of her morals, which is what was implied in what you said. N-count has real consequences, just like excessive eating and drug use do. Reduced pair-bonding, validation requirements and raised standards from whoring are physical, measurable things, whether you "judge" them or not. They will continue to be objective reality, whether you care about "whatever evo psych shit people will bring up".

          [–]dukes1998 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          True but they’re not nearly as different as you’d think.

          Every girl has validation requirements. Every girl has high standards. Arguing that they don’t or that those things come from sleeping around is bullshit. Every hot girl knows most guys will fuck them. That isn’t a secret. I want my chicks to have high standards. I’m not intimidated in the least by that. The pair bonding shit is something I can’t speak on personally so I won’t.

          My point was that correlation doesn’t equal causation. Many slutty girls are damaged but that damage is what causes the sluttiness rather than the sluttiness being what causes the damage.

          [–]dulkemaru51 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Every girl has validation requirements. Every girl has high standards.

          Yes. But they increase in proportion to how many new alpha cocks they conquer and how many orbiters they trap with their beauty.

          Arguing that they don’t or that those things come from sleeping around is bullshit.

          1. Yes.
          2. No. Arguing that they don't come (become enhanced) from sleeping around is not bullshit, it's fact.

          Every hot girl knows most guys will fuck them. That isn’t a secret.

          Yes. But again, the more validation they get and the more high-value men they get fucked by or even get to commit, the more entitled they become.

          I want my chicks to have high standards. I’m not intimidated in the least by that.

          Good for you.

          The pair bonding shit is something I can’t speak on personally so I won’t.

          Watch Molyneux's presentation on The Truth About Sex, if you're interested, in which he talks about n-count, sluttiness and its' consequences. He provides sources.

          My point was that correlation doesn’t equal causation.

          Of course not. It's still a factor. It directly causes bad things, like impaired ability to pair-bond and higher standards.

          Many slutty girls are damaged but that damage is what causes the sluttiness rather than the sluttiness being what causes the damage.

          There'd be a snowball effect either way. Also, which comes first isn't really relevant; whether sluts were damaged before or after their 20th dick, they're still damaged. Damage may be a cause for sluttiness, and in most cases, it is (damage can be something as unseeming as modern Western culture, it doesn't have to be incest or infant abandonment). Sluttiness is also, unquestionably, a cause for damage. Not that they can't be remedied or redeemed by other circumstances and qualities, but sluttiness is a direct cause for damage (damaged pair-bonding ability and raised standards). They are definite factors, without doubt, it's measurable reality. The causation is there and is what causes the correlation wrt to this issue.

          [–]account_for_rel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          This comment is gold

          [–]goodsandwichh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          women that have experience actually know what they want . that don’t mean wife the girl up with 200 bodies . but don’t worry about it as much as people tell you too. if your stroke game is on point , it shouldn’t matter what the broad body count is , cause if she fucks with you she gonna fuck with you. if she’s not , she won’t .

          [–]Bruchibre 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          If it's ONS or FWB, I couldn't care less about how promiscuous she is. Even there, the more the better cause I will care less and she will leave me alone more.

          If it's LTR, there's no way I'm getting involved with a slut. I vet her and if she's promiscuous I'm out. I don't care if she has had bigger or better dick than me before, I am not paranoid about STDs, I am not even concerned that she might cheat me. I simply don't want to LTR a thot.

          [–]SharpestMarbel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Avoiding sluts is like the inverses of pre-selection.

          Women select for quality and men for quantity. A women that selects for quantity, is thereby going for low quality. If you are with her then you are low-quality.

          [–]TheGoldenLeprechaun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Indicates from her side:

          -Lack of discipline

          -Lack of loyalty

          -Poor decision making skills

          -Likelihood of consumerist (NPC) mindset

          Challenges from our side:

          -Increased chance of confrontations with "ex's" / current "flings"

          -Increased likelihood of contracting diseases

          -Increased chance of rep damage. (When she's banged your boss, his cousin, your friend, the presenter at the event and your uber driver it reflects poorly on you)

          To name a few. That ewe feeling you get in your stomach when you hear high double or even triple digits, no one taught you that reaction.

          TL;DR: Shit comes with the wetware

          [–]Throndor_Rising 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Men want to feel needed. Women need to feel wanted. A promiscuous woman wants you, but doesn't need you. A promiscuous man doesn't need the women that he wants, but he wants the women he's being promiscuous with; thereby meeting her needs to feel wanted.

          [–]TopherOHoolihan[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          Confusing tbh

          [–]CharlesChadworth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Simply put don't marry a slut.

          [–]vicious_armbar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Why do we care about promiscuity in women?

          Men evolved to care about promiscuity in women because of their fear of being cucked. As well as the danger posed by STI's. Technology has taken care of those problems.

          BUT a woman's level of promiscuity can still be an issue for a man looking for: marriage, children, cohabitation, or a multi-year LTR. Because a woman's notch count has a strong negative correlation with long term relationship instability.

          Wouldn’t spinning plates ruin a guy’s ability to pair bond as well.

          Maybe. But you're assuming that notch count measures someones ability to pair bond. I could just be a proxy measurement regarding conformity to socially conservative values. When adjusted for things like SMV and level of anonymity provided by population density.

          [–]Str8_Pillin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          So first off, is the point of being protective just for paternal certainty? Is that the only reason I cared?

          Basically yes. Its summed up pretty good here by Andrew Tate on Red Man Group episode 10

          [–]Ravenscar7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          It's just kind of like buying a used car isn't it?

          [–]faustian_talos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          A girl fucked by too many guys become used merchandise IMO. Fucking her is an option but anything else is a big NO.

          Girls do not have a sense of loyalty like guys for evolution purposes.

          As a guy you are suppose to be territorial and protective. A girl you are fighting might easily became your family.