Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages - but men do no harm by playing the field,a study has found. According to new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women (53 per cent) who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.This underlines the importance of a low-N wife, particularly for men lower on the socio-sexual hierarchy. Each additional past partner increases the chance that your wife is an Alpha Widow who is settling for you, and who will find you measuring up unsatisfactorily to her previous partners.
But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners. But, for men, the number of partners a man they appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage.
It's also something women should keep in mind. The cost of premarital sex to a woman is a 21 percent reduction in the chance she will be highly satisfied in her marriage. And the cost of premarital promiscuity is a 58 percent reduction in the likelihood of marital satisfaction.
This doesn't mean a man must automatically eliminate all N=10+ women from consideration. After all, there is still a one-in-five chance she might be satisfied, but that's not a chance that any man below Beta status should risk taking.
97 comments:
Ouch. That sound you hear is the weeping and gnashing of teeth of millions of deltas, gammas, and omegas.
This doesn't mean a man must automatically eliminate all N=10+ women from consideration.
If N>10 she's a write-off. The only exception to this would be under extraordinary circumstances.
That said, I find it wildly entertaining how much of Science® is validating the "outdated" biblical model in recent years. Sad that it isn't getting more attention inside churches.
It is also too late. It isnt like a N>1 woman can go back to correct this and a super majority are ruined forever thanks to feminism. This generation is mostly lost as you can't undo the past.
Modern math -
Man: "How many sexual partners have you had?"
Woman: "One. All the others were rapists."
When a woman refuses to eloborate on her past, saying "it doesn't matter".....run.
If N>10 she's a write-off. The only exception to this would be under extraordinary circumstances.
If a man is sufficiently Alpha that his own N is 5x to 10x higher, it's probably not a problem. I suspect the odds are about the same as the usual 50/50. But perhaps that counts as extraordinary circumstances.
Well the other thing to consider is this should depress greatly, marriage rates in the U.S. Most girls lose their virginity in high school and ride the carousel through college. So if you know you're "wife" is going to be unhappy and this is inevitable but you still insist on getting married you have to take precautions like having a second passport, resources abroad she doesn't know about, and essentially spend your married life planning for the eventual divorce. If you have kids you better be prepared to be emotionally distant from them because you'll lose them and of course won't be able to come back to the U.S. ever lest you be jailed for child support. Most men aren't prepared and shouldn't be prepared to do so much if they think about it all so don't get married should logically be the mantra as there are very few "good" girls left anyway.
This generation is mostly lost as you can't undo the past.
I disagree. This generation is running itself off a cliff not because of its past, but because it refuses to change its course. N>1 women aren't in a bad position by default. As long as N remains low, they can likely salvage much of the damage done. The problem is, feminism conditions them to believe N should have no impact on MMV and martial satisfaction (for both partners). This is false. Consequently, N increases at random and its costs multiply exponentially.
Suggesting that the past dictates the future only adds fuel to the fire, as it affords no incentive to change one's ways. Rather, it encourages the N>1 crowd to be more aggressive in their conditioning strategies. If N>1 women can't compete in a mixed market, the easiest and most effective fix is to convert more of the market from N=0 to N=1+. This is what feminism has done since the sexual revolution. Only, instead of converting from N=0 to N=1+, they seem to be trying to pull N closer to some mean, whatever number that happens to be.
@Vox
I would count that as being an extraordinary situation, both for the Alpha's N and his decision to put a ring on a N=10+ girl. It stands to reason that, if he felt it prudent to tie the knot, she's clearly got something going for her that he considers extremely scarce and highly valuable.
This rules out almost every woman I have ever met that was even remotely decent-looking, then.
"I disagree. This generation is running itself off a cliff not because of its past, but because it refuses to change its course."
The study is about a persons sexual past affecting their future happiness as a wife. Your second statement attempts to contradict this. A woman with N>10 per say is *still* a woman with N>10 regardless of whatever new course she sets but we've met our share of 'born again virgins' when it becomes convenient.
"N>1 women aren't in a bad position by default."
Yes they are, that is/was the point of the article. You could make the argument that it is the husband who will shoulder the greater risk and I would agree with particularly under the current legal regime but assuming the girl wants to stay happy in marriage having N>1 is a bad position to be in.
"As long as N remains low, they can likely salvage much of the damage done"
Incorrect. They cannot wipe their minds. This is why the bible says to select a virgin for a wife. The damage is done, period and this article attempts to show what the damage is and how it may manifest.
"The problem is, feminism conditions them to believe N should have no impact on MMV and martial satisfaction (for both partners). This is false. Consequently, N increases at random and its costs multiply exponentially."
N increases due to a a conscious act on the part of the female. Outside of real actual rape it doesn't just happen at random.
"Suggesting that the past dictates the future only adds fuel to the fire, as it affords no incentive to change one's ways"
Irrelevant. If the statement is true then whether you believe it adds fuel or not is simply your opinion of what you want the world to be and not what it actually is. I wasn't trying to change a woman's incentive nor is this my responsibility.
"Rather, it encourages the N>1 crowd to be more aggressive in their conditioning strategies. If N>1 women can't compete in a mixed market, the easiest and most effective fix is to convert more of the market from N=0 to N=1+. This is what feminism has done since the sexual revolution. Only, instead of converting from N=0 to N=1+, they seem to be trying to pull N closer to some mean, whatever number that happens to be"
What I expect is for women to lie as much as possible about their past. Feminism argues that the number shouldn't matter, reality dictates otherwise. When reality starts knocking on the door the women will start lying more vigorously about this but it's harder with facebook and the internet now. Feminists are angry and unhappy at the universe and simply want the rest of the world to unhappy and angry also. Encouraging promiscuity is a means to achieve this.
“instead of converting from N=0 to N=1+, they seem to be trying to pull N closer to some mean, whatever number that happens to be.”
It’s the logical progression from what has already happened, which is that N=0 has been pathologized and N=1+ has been normalized. The question now, is what number beyond 0 is “normal” or “acceptable”? What number now for men is an “acceptable” risk? Or, more to the point, what number will society dictate to men is “nonslutty” or “acceptable” or “normal”?
N=0 was a hard and fast rule that everyone could follow. N=1+ now throws the “rules” into disarray, such that no one gets to decide what is “normal”. Most men “in the know”, or red pill guys, get really, really uncomfortable committing to a woman with N>3. So a lot of men will say N=1 or 2 is “normal” and “acceptable”, and presents a tolerable or manageable risk. That’s quite a remarkable achievement of feminism, really.
So what you’re going to see more now is that the lane changers who get to N>3 and more will say this is not fair, that they have “changed lanes” and are tolerable risks because their life circumstances have changed and they now want marriage and babies. So it’s “unfair” to judge them more harshly than one would N=1 or 2, because the N>3 have “changed” and now are willing to do what they wouldn’t or couldn’t do before (commit to one man).
Comments to such articles are quite revealing. The ease with which anything that goes against "core beliefs" is readily discarded.
Monica: "Goodness, How surprising. Men get the better deal."
Hayley: "Well if you don't know any different then you probably 'think' you are happier."
Homo fag D-Dog: "what a disgustingly sexist article."
Then again the Dailymail looks like top notch chavs/proles journalism. This "YOLO" mentality, lack of traditional values, hedonistic low social class is clearly "les idiots utiles du sytème". Imbeciles (not to be understood in a voltairian way).
You would be quite surprised to know that a lot of Mensans are right-wing partisans (at least in some small french speaking country in Europe). When smart people converge to the right, it might be a sign that leftist ideologies should be questioned.
"After all, there is still a one-in-five chance she might be satisfied, but that's not a chance that any man below Beta status should risk taking."
I wouldn't even give a Beta the "go get em tiger" and pat on the back in this fight. He doesn't have the dog for it either.
Sidney Poitier said it best in To Sir With Love: "No man likes a slut for long. Only the worst sort marries one."
Short, sweet and to the point. (And as an added bonus, if you disagree, you're racist).
I prefer Nate Dogg's "If you're in love with a whore, you ain't never listened to me" (You can't call me racist)
The study is about a persons sexual past affecting their future happiness as a wife. Your second statement attempts to contradict this. A woman with N>10 per say is *still* a woman with N>10 regardless of whatever new course she sets but we've met our share of 'born again virgins' when it becomes convenient.
First, I wasn't addressing the article, I was addressing your response. As indicated by my own response, I see an N>10 women as being in an inherently bad position.
Secondly, nowhere does the linked article state that an N>1 woman is necessarily in a bad position. It specifically discusses the probabilities that she will be. There is a significant difference between a percentage of women experiencing less satisfaction as a result of a non-zero N and all of them experiencing dissatisfaction. That a non-zero N wife cannot wipe her mind of past experiences is utterly irrelevant. If she is able to have a mutually satisfying marriage, she's salvaged her position, by definition. This is perfectly doable with a low N.
N increases due to a conscious act on the part of the female. Outside of real actual rape it doesn't just happen at random.
N increases based on a woman's emotional/sexual whims. It is a conscious act, but one that occurs at random intervals. Unless, of course, women keep a strict bang schedule on their calendars? I imagine there are a few chicks out there who do, but they probably are not representative of the mean.
Irrelevant. If the statement is true then whether you believe it adds fuel or not is simply your opinion of what you want the world to be and not what it actually is. I wasn't trying to change a woman's incentive nor is this my responsibility.
Clearly I think you haven't accurately portrayed the reality. The statement that the past cannot be changed is true. The suggestion that this past dictates the future is demonstrably false.
What I expect is for women to lie as much as possible about their past...
Agreed.
I can attest that this impacts one more than would be expected.
My wife was the stereotypical good girl, more religious than I. Her first time was at 22 after getting engaged to a man she dated for 3 years. They broke up due to him changing his mind about children. She got married at 25, and divorced him in the first year when a paternity suit revealed an extra marital pregnancy. Even he said she was a good wife and he messed up, and he commended that she refused to divorce rape as her lawyer encouraged
She married me when she was 28, and my history was exponentially worse than hers. Her otherwise respectable sexual history has caused irreparable damage to our marriage and my esteem. Surprisingly then, though not in retrospect as I've learned more about female rationale, her "honesty" as she defends it, did not become an issue until after we adopted two children and she quit working (IOW, she has the state hammer). Being a high earning, non alpha, executive is not a plus.
Im not asking for advise. I'm dealing and I wouldn't trade my kids for anything. I'm just warning that not even women themselves know how state security and the stability that comes with a non exciting provider will impact them. Even women who do not otherwise fit the modern norm are still women which come with natural emotional turbulence.
It is also too late. It isnt like a N>1 woman can go back to correct this and a super majority are ruined forever thanks to feminism. This generation is mostly lost as you can't undo the past.
You are being particularly thick. Going from 53% to 42% is not being ruined forever. No doubt having a highly satisfying marriage is important, but it is not definitive. And we have no idea what the satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied categories look like, so we don't even know what the true cost is. In a vacuum, the data suggests divorce should be on the table if you aren't very satisfied with your marriage and you have the N count to spare.
And from a biological perspective, it is nearly impossible to land high value men without premarital sex. So while a woman's personal happiness may take a hit, that cost might be justified in terms of the benefits it provides her offspring.
is still a one-in-five chance she might be satisfied, but that's not a chance that any man below Beta status should risk taking.
And not a chance any man above Beta status has to take if he doesn't want to.
This "YOLO" mentality, lack of traditional values...
Y'know, if people weren't so screwy, the more clearly someone understood YOLO, the more they would appreciate traditional values. Quite an advantage to learn from past generations mistakes when you only live once and don't get to restart the game and wipe your own mistakes away. .
"First, I wasn't addressing the article, I was addressing your response."
The topic is the article. My response was about the data in the article. stop splitting hairs.
"Secondly, nowhere does the linked article state that an N>1 woman is necessarily in a bad position."
From the article: 53% of women who had slept only with husband felt satisfied in marriage
Dropped to 42% if woman had more than 2 partners and 22% if more than 10
We go from 52% to 43% from 1 to 3 (more than one). The risk therefore GOES UP when a woman sleeps with more than one man (her husband). Unless you believe the number stays static at 52% then suddenly jumps down to 42% upon N>=3 which is not logical and makes no sense. So yes a woman who has slept with another man aside from her husband is by this article in a worse position for happiness.
"You are being particularly thick. Going from 53% to 42% is not being ruined forever. No doubt having a highly satisfying marriage is important, but it is not definitive. And we have no idea what the satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied categories look like, so we don't even know what the true cost is. In a vacuum, the data suggests divorce should be on the table if you aren't very satisfied with your marriage and you have the N count to spare."
Right so since we can't know everything and this article doesn't specify things they way I want them to be we should ignore it and have the girls sleep around, likely because that's what I'VE done and I don't want to be told unpleasant things. Not the most original argument.
I would reckon that after 10 different partners, she quite literally can't feel the love anymore.
This also ignores that those women who are "satisfied" in their marriage, but have a N>0 but less than 10....
are satisfied that they landed a good beta provider. They may not be all that happy, they may not be putting out very much for their husband, but compared to their trainwreck friend's marriages and their bitter single aging friends, they are at least satisfied.
Even though they cannot be as fully bonded to their husbands as they would have been if their N had been 0 on the day of their wedding.
Yes, men, YOU are the ones settling. For a very, very raw deal.
So yes a woman who has slept with another man aside from her husband is by this article in a worse position for happiness.
Do you not understand the difference between a worse position (a relative measure) and a bad one (an objective measure)?
A woman with a 53% shot at satisfaction is in a decent position. A woman with a 43% shot at satisfaction is in a worse but still decent position. A woman with a 22% shot at satisfaction is in a worse position that is also, statistically speaking, bad. Therefore, a perfectly chaste girl is in a good position. A girl who's slept with only one other man is in a worse position, but still in a good position to achieve marital satisfaction (the damage is salvagable). A girl who's been around the block more times than a rental car with full coverage is probably doomed.
I'm not arguing against the article, nor am I splitting hairs. I'm stating, quite clearly, that your conclusions about the data are wrong.
53% shot at marital satisfaction is not decent. It's worse than a 50% shot of losing your house.
I do get your point, but marriage, especially for a man, is gambling the rest if your life even if the marriage fails. There are no cash and prizes waiting for men who fail the coin toss.
Well this is ironic as fuck... A Game Blog siting a study of female happiness... I mean holy shit isn't a core maxim of game that women say shit for reasons totally unrelated to the truth?
And how do we know the same women won't give totally different answers tomorrow because the chick at Starbucks made her latte better?
And from a biological perspective, it is nearly impossible to land high value men without premarital sex. So while a woman's personal happiness may take a hit, that cost might be justified in terms of the benefits it provides her offspring.
It's for the children.
I teach math and probability and statistics is one subject I cover so yes I do know the difference Lane between 53% and 43%. I know that if I were given those odds I would bet on and keep playing the game giving me a .53 rather than .43 chance. A .43 is less than 50% and I would say not good. "Decent" as you are defining it is a judgement call but it is the man who pays for the risk of this under the current legal regime thus if you offer me .53 vs .43 I would say you are nuts to play the odds at .43 and expect to win. Lots do obviously however as the divorce statistics can confirm.
Nate, true but I think it is valid in game context even if the woman is lying.
If she's unhappy, she'll make damn sure the man is unhappy too. If she's happy and lying about it, she's feigning unhappiness to manipulate her man into submission and she'll make damn sure he is unhappy.
This is important for a man to know, since women will never permit her man to be happy unless she is happy and is willing to admit it.
Crazy thought... maybe you should try to not be bad at sex.
Yeah, crazy thought considering you're the one who correctly pointed out that women will lie about that for quite a few reasons. It's not really as simple as be good at it.
I didn't ignore the data, I pointed out its limitations which seemed to be necessary based on your complete over reaction to it. Incidentally, that same report that talked about number of sexual partners also said 57% of marriages that had high premarital preparation and 47% of marriages with 150+ guests at the wedding are highly quality, which are things a person could control even with a high N count. As are quite a few other data sets. Like premarital cohabitation, children, etc.
The thing I find the most fascinating about the report is that among non college educated people having a child together prior to marriage or having a miracle 6 month full term pregnancy there was no drop in marital sanctification (both subsets had 38%). However, for college educated people having a child together before marriage or getting married while pregnant was a happiness death sentence (dropping from 44% to 3%). Though if I had to guess I would suspect that the sample size of that subgroup was small enough to make it useless..
"Yeah, crazy thought considering you're the one who correctly pointed out that women will lie about that for quite a few reasons. It's not really as simple as be good at it."
You're messing the logic up. Being great at sex will not guarantee she's happy. But being bad at sex will make her unhappy.
How she reports being happy or unhappy is irrelevant.
53% shot at marital satisfaction is not decent. It's worse than a 50% shot of losing your house.
I identify it as decent only because it represents the mean in the present environment. If you've got a fifty-fifty shot in an environment that hands out fifty-fifty odds, you've got normal odds and therefore a decent position. Not ideal, not great, but decent.
I do get your point, but marriage, especially for a man, is gambling the rest if your life even if the marriage fails. There are no cash and prizes waiting for men who fail the coin toss.
Agreed. This is why I think its important to extensively screen any prospects and promptly dismiss any who don't measure up. If you're only going to get one shot at something, stack the odds in your favor as best you can.
"This is important for a man to know, since women will never permit her man to be happy unless she is happy and is willing to admit it."
This is an astonishing statement. its fascinating to me that you think a man's happiness is somehow contingent on a female.
No female should have that kind of power over you dude. Grow a pair.
"I didn't ignore the data,"
Okay - do you accept the premise?
@Trust
Great post, thanks for that.
Those looking for long-term stability and satisfaction need to face the fact that mere low N-count doesn't secure long term marital bliss. Plenty of women, even those who have shown more sexual restraint than their whore-sisters, are highly effected by the debased and hyper-feminist, selfish culture the West in currently mired in. The whole package is virtually impossible to find these days. Impossible in the US and some parts of Europe. And it seems more and more to me that you need a woman is is fully aware of the evils of feminism and is openly and proudly traditional in her views on life, marriage, and culture.
Agree with Nate - a woman should not determine your happiness. Just make sure you are in a place that you can make that happen (where you can't be asset stripped permanently i.e. not in America). Emotionally though your happiness is your responsibility.
Seriously, you fuck her for your own satisfaction. Let her deal with her unhappiness. Its her job to make herself happy.
"Grow a pair"
Nice. You present yourself as a RealMan(TM). I bet you only tough at a keyboard.
From a Heritage study based upon CDC numbers, the odds of a "stable marriage" were 80% for a virgin bride, a bit over 50% for N=1, about 30% for N=5, and 20% for N=20+. Though it may have a more pronounced effect on lower socio-sexual groups of men, N does matter.
"Nice. You present yourself as a RealMan(TM). I bet you only tough at a keyboard."
Well ask around son. Plenty of folks know me in person.
Charts from the study RC referenced, for those interested: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf
Fair enough.
"Don't be mad in bed." = Give her pleasure.
"Grow a pair." = don't worry about her pleasure.
I find your contradictions amusing, RealMan.
Other red pill results from that study include significantly lower marriage satisfaction in women from broken homes and those with kids from prior marriages. As well as starting the relationship as a hook up, having kids with partner before being married and having sex with others while dating.
Also the men in the study were significantly less happy with their marriage than the women. No love for beta chumps.
Trust, Aug, 25 at 9:03 am:
Yes, exactly right. Concur.
So what we have is a surplus of high-N women and a shortage of high-N men -- because 80/20 and all that. Meaning that we have a lot of high-N women marrying desperate low-N men with no other options. That's lots of bored wives, and lots of thirsty husbands jumping through hoops and "choreplay" to maybe get laid once a week (or less), while their wives jill off to the men who banged them in college (assuming they're not using Tinder to hook up with them again).
Given the choice between marrying a high-N woman and not marrying, most beta (OK, "delta") men would be far better off not marrying, really.
And, Trust: If I ever find myself single for any reason, I'll never, ever remarry.
@kborz3
The wonders of marriage 2.0. 3.0 will.be amusing as those start to collapse, although it will be interesting to see how lesbian divorces get blamed on men.
Most men, natural aphas, narcisisists, and jerks adir, have a hard time being happy if their wife is unhappy. This used to work in marriage 1.0 when there were expectations on men and women alike. It makes you dizzy that male apathy is almost always either cited as the problem when it exists, and the solution when it doesn't.
Ye cats.
@de ti
I done think in general an individual husband or an individual wife is to blame for the breakdown of marriage. Rather, I believe it is state meddling and pandering. People behave based on incentives, and the state has given wives incentive to harm husbands, and has given husbands incentives to out up with too much. Really easy to tell a man to man up when doing so will separate him from his children. I'm not miserable with my wife, but I'm less happy than I was before the power structure shifted... and there is no way in hell I'm leaving my little girls. Only a coward would do that, no matter how tough he.acts.
Trust:
Yes, the generalized climate has a huge impact on marriages now. As you say, we’re talking about incentives. But we’re also talking about how individuals respond to those incentives, which is indicative of character, really. Not personalizing this at all – I’m also talking about myself – women are in the power position now and responding to that; and men are in the subordinate position and respond to that. Both are, I submit, responding rationally. Of course a woman will be more inclined to leave a less than satisfactory marriage if she can do so without affecting her financial position much. The children, and an income stream from their father, will take care of that. OF course a man will be less inclined to leave a less than satisfactory marriage if his lives, and those of his children, will be ruined. Of course he will be inclined to stay and work to avoid ruining his life; because by preserving his own life he preserves those of his kids. And at bottom, I think women know this.
But in the end, I think a woman also responds favorably to a man’s telling his wife in no uncertain terms that he has wants and needs too, and they require attention, and failure to attend them will result in adverse consequences.
I agree, character has a lot ti do with it, but the tragedy is that when something unethical is incentivized in law over time people start to see it as not inky ethical, but as entitled to the fruits of the plunder. Most of us would never take a cut from a Rockefeller paycheck to fund our own retirement, but when the government does it for us under the title of social security we call it an entitlement and act accordingly. Same with divorce cash and prizes. That's the problem with socialism, otherwise decent people think right and wrong are state legislated constructs.
If she's unhappy, she'll make damn sure the man is unhappy too. If she's happy and lying about it, she's feigning unhappiness to manipulate her man into submission and she'll make damn sure he is unhappy.
Your happiness should not be contingent on your wife's happiness. And you should not allow your wife to act maliciously toward you just because she's not happy.
In any other relationship, that is considered dysfunctional. But for some reason, this is considered normal when it comes to marriage.
Okay - do you accept the premise? Which premise? The one where a super majority of women are ruined forever? Because that is clearly not demonstrated.
Infact, the data doesn't even attempt to speak for say N=1 vs. N=2, as one would suspect there is not a flat 11 point drop from going from 1 to 2, with a plateau until 10 where another drop occurs. They don't even have enough data to make a statistically significant claim between N=1 and N={2-9}.
The sample size of survey was 418, with 272 being women. The sample size of N=1 women is around 63. That has a confidence interval over 12, and N={2-9} is somewhere between 7-9. Those bands overlap.
Now this isn't the only study on the topic, and collectively they produce a more complete picture which lead support to the premise that there is some sort of decline female satisfaction as female N rises with a big falloff between 7 and 15 depending on the study.
One last point, the definition of satisfied marriage is limited in this study to the the participants. So the 40% reporting being the most satisfied is what constitutes being very satisfied. This study however was started in 2007 and only deals with the non married participants who have sense married. So marital satisfaction this survey is clearly not representative of all marriages.
Swift,
That's probably where RealMan misunderstood me.
When i point out what a woman will do in marriage, that's not the same as saying a man should out up with it. It's a warning of what to be prepared for, not an inevitability that cannot be dealt with.
Apologies for any miscommunication on my part.
@ swift
"But for some reason, this is considered normal when it comes to marriage."
For most low value males (Betas qualify), submission is the default response to any female action. Their reaction is standardized and predictable. Look at your low SMV male acquaintances, 90% will ditch you and kneel just for the opportunity to see some pussy. It's rather pathetic and not only observable amongst blue pillers. Their happiness is not only correlated, it is the consequence to their female companion's gaiety. Anything to please really.
Trust,
You should read a bit more before commenting. Nate and I have bumped heads enough, but he is not just a paper tiger as you assert. He may be many things, but that is not one of them.
You better guard yourself too. Perhaps your adopted children will be it, but I can tell you they can easily dump you when they turn adult as well. All 4 of ours did and I have gotten to deal with effectively not having children since a dysfunctional birth family was far more compelling than ours.
You also need to get your own life centered better. My wife knows better than to try and make my life hell. I know it would be sin, but I will leave if it remained that way for long. I refuse to let myself be ruled by anyone but my Lord. Grow up and learn that life is more than just you.
The phrase "if momma ain't happy, ain't no body happy" is one that many, especially in the Church, have let pervert proper family relations. Proverbs does tell us that it is better to live in the corner of the roof than in a house with a contentious woman, but it does not tell us that should ever remain a desirable state of affairs!
As a biological construct the only thing your DNA wants from you, is to make more DNA. Whether or not you enjoy how this happens or even if you survive the process is completely irrelevant to your gene code’s desired endstate.
Humans are unusual in that both sexes find sex enjoyable.
It is the great truth of the Game in that we accept, that women are quite different from men in terms of sexual desire. We can look at these differences dispassionately and plan accordingly. Feminists can only look at these differences and lie to themselves.
Women are holistically sexual.
A woman needs to be emotionally involved in the act of sex.
The reason for this, is that a woman's DNA is faced with a fundamental paradox. A woman can only reproduce once per year at most. While her DNA would benefit most from her selecting a different father for each infant. In a state of nature she is vulnerable and unable to provide for herself prior to and after birth. If her child is survive to maturity. A female needs an emotional driving force to pair-bond.
A woman who can have sex without emotion, while fun to play with, is fundamentally defective. Whether born that way or having embraced the lies of feminism. The end result is the same, they are damaged goods, you can’t fix them.
Don’t try.
When dealing with women with a high n, men just need to be much harder, more demanding, and less forgiving. Sort of like becoming a psychic girdle. Most men aren't up to the challenge. When done right, the woman in question can feel arrogantly innocent through contrition and right punishment, she will be as satisfied as she can be. It's sort of like training wheels, and it has to be adjusted. There are added limits and additional freedoms with the method. But it does work. Still, I would never consider marrying such a woman. Marriage would give her the pig snout path under and away from the controls needed to keep her in check, through the legal and social, even most so-called Christian, systems. Such a woman is a huge risk, but makes a fine lover if you are willing to keep on top of her issues. Among other things. They are more sexually demanding, and less willing to offer it, so... Just understand it's a mess, even when you do it just right.
Cataline,
Or having been made that way through numerous encounters and relationships with different men.
"Grow up and learn that life is more than just you."
You're a jerk. Telling me to grow and that it's more about just me had no place in the discussion. I relayed parts of my experience for other men to learn from. Nothing more, nothing less. I know it's not all about me, and the fact that you read something else from my posts says more about you than I.
@kbswift
I'm afraid the end result is the same.
Insofar as nate being a paper tiger, I don't think he is. But he shares your predilection for shaming language a 'look at how alpha I am' machismo. Talk to someone that way and you should fully expect them to respond in kind.
Just today one of my colleagues called me a jerk, she even went through the trouble of finding a nice "Mister jerk" illustration and sending it via email. She needs my d**k yesterday.
I do want to clarify one thing about my story about my wife. I did not bother saying how it was resolved, because I'm not an alpha and not a natural with women. My resolution really isn't as good as someone like Vox could come up with, and an alpha probably wouldn't have had.the problem to begin with. That said, the ONLY reason I shared was because it was a very good example of the N>1 topic in this thread. She was the last person I would have expected to have such a problem with given her religious conviction and her respectable history. Fact is, it impacted her more that even she realized. That was the whole point. The only point really. If.it weren't for.that I wouldn't have shared. I don't care about a solution, but I do care about other men being aware of the probabilities.
Let me get this straight.
Women who only ever slept with their husband claim they are "highly satisfied" with their marriage at a rate indistinguishable from a coin toss? And we're supposed to take that as a Good Thing?
What this tells me is that even marrying a virgin is playing Russian roulette with a half-loaded revolver. Who in their right mind would take such a risk?
"Who in their right mind would take such a risk?"
Anyone who finds themselves having to play the game. This is one reason why the hookup/pickup culture is so prominent in non-religious circles and why consistent religious believers have been delaying marriage. It's a high-risk gamble, unless you go in with the appropriate legal protection.
trust:
"I do want to clarify one thing about my story about my wife. I did not bother saying how it was resolved, because I'm not an alpha and not a natural with women. My resolution really isn't as good as someone like Vox could come up with, and an alpha probably wouldn't have had.the problem to begin with."
How was the situation resolved?
@ de ti said... How was the situation resolved?
The beta way. Very difficult discussions, a refusal to succumb to anger, shame, tears, or an insistence that I was too sensitive. A stubborn persistence to make her think about how she would feel in my shoes. My willingness to call her out surprised her because I'm not alpha, but my career is based on conflict so I know it's easier to set boundaries earlier. I rarely have to deal with the same shit twice, unlike most betas. Of course, this is calculated... I was mistaken for a sigma (I'm not one) while dating bc.my refusal to engage was mistake as apathy. That trick doesn't work in my beta provider role. I just have ti endure.the discomfort of standing up to it so I don't endure hell that comes with rewarding it.
Trust:
This doesn't sound beta. This sounds alpha: standing firm, refusing to accede to emotional responses, persistence, stubbornness in the face of resistance, calling out bad behavior, calculating risks vs. rewards, standing up for oneself.
So the "alpha" way would have been... divorcing her?
Beta bc I reasoned with her. Alphas tend to be naturally tougher than i. It wouldn't have worked except she takes her marital duties more seriously than most modern women, largely because she is religious. Point being with why I told the story that events my respectable low N wife has been influenced by feminism more than she realized. An alpha probably wouldn't have engaged her as politely as I did.
Women who only ever slept with their husband claim they are "highly satisfied" with their marriage at a rate indistinguishable from a coin toss? And we're supposed to take that as a Good Thing?
First, it was percentage based. By definition only 40% of marriages could qualify as very satisfied. You don't know how many additional marriages were considered satisfactory.
Second, the test for satisfaction was the DAS-4 so named because it is a 4 question test that serves as a reasonable proxy to more comprehensive analysis. You might not necessarily define a successful marriage the same way that test does.
Third, the sample size being what it is the Margin of Error is massive at the 95% confidence level.
The value in this study is that it corroborates other studies. So the general premise that N=1 wives are the happiest, and that N>10 wives are the least happy is confirmed in this. As are some nuggets which produce statistically significant results such as couples that go through premarital education are more satisfied.
But he shares your predilection for shaming language a 'look at how alpha I am' machismo.
That's exactly what alphas do. Chest-beating is a core requirement of the job. Which, of course, is why I find them amusing. And that's why I tend to drive them crazy, because alpha games simply don't work on sigmas. Most of the alphas at VP quickly realize this and don't bother.
@ Vox said... That's exactly what alphas do. Chest-beating is a core requirement of the job. Which, of course, is why I find them amusing. And that's why I tend to drive them crazy, because alpha games simply don't work on sigmas. Most of the alphas at VP quickly realize this and don't bother.
______
Funny, I took it as.someone trying to act like an alpha as opposed to actually being alpha.
But, that's why I read your blogs. You understand the hierarchy and women better than I, so I tend to learn a lot from you.
From the article:
http://nypost.com/2012/11/25/nobody-marries-their-best-sex-ever/
"According to a recent study by iVillage, less than half of wedded women married the person who was the best sex of their lives (52 percent say that was an ex.) In fact, 66 percent would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than sleep with a spouse."
"A 36-year-old marketing executive from Chelsea we’ll call Abby says that “what makes sex incredible, or places it into the range of ‘best sex’, is an element of danger. There’s an element of disobedience . . . that elicits a feeling of carnal desperation. [That feeling is often provoked by] the guy who you shouldn’t be with versus the one that you marry.”
RT
Women who only ever slept with their husband claim they are "highly satisfied" with their marriage at a rate indistinguishable from a coin toss? And we're supposed to take that as a Good Thing?
Yes. So if she sleeps with any other men it is like loading additional rounds in that gun you're playing Russian roulette with.
There is a distinct possibility that women who have had multiple partners before getting married are simply unhappy because they have been mislead into believing that casual sex for women is exactly the same thing as it is for men.
Or you can read the study and conclude that men must avoid women who have ever had sex with other men, because obviously, you won't be able to sexually satisfy her and after all, that's really the only thing that matters to women, how well you perform.
So, over at VP, the idea is presented, "This is an interesting test of whether feminism actually concerns itself with what is observably good for women.."
No. This is an interesting test of whether alpha blog actually concerns itself with what is observably good for men. Is it really good to lead men to conclude that the only value they can bring to a relationship is financial and sexual? A relationship with a somewhat two dimensional female creature, who is ruled only by biology?
I am an alpha Trust? Not according to many, including Nate. I don't think even Vox thinks I am an alpha.
Though if you have your head up your rear as far as it seems you better stick with those easy to resolve problems you mentioned. You couldn't make it in the tough times. I pray your adopted children never turn on you as ours did on us. Reasoning doesn't work one bit in that situation. My lowest point was when I went the reasoning route and it almost had my wife leaving me. I was quite the supplicant then. (Losing your children plays havok with your mind.)
Nate doesn't need me to defend him and would likely scorn any comments that way. My comment was designed to note the lay of the land, probably more of a lower level trait, but whatever. Enjoy your self importance.
I did forget to note earlier that you wife was not the angel you portrayed her as since she "gave it up" prior to marriage already, at least that is the case per your story. That is not a good girl, no matter how bad your past.
Brad, I never called you an alpha. Amusing to be accused of having my head up my ass by someone like you who talks like they they know everything when they obviously don't know what they are talking about.
I don't give two shits whether or not you're an alpha. You're an asshole, and you're out of line.
Fuck you.
"There is a distinct possibility that women who have had multiple partners before getting married are simply unhappy because they have been mislead.... "
Why they are unhappy isn't the issue - the fact that they are and it affects the man is. This is a mens blog.
"Or you can read the study and conclude that men must avoid women who have ever had sex with other men,"
It lowers your risk of having an unhappy wife. That what the study says.
"No. This is an interesting test of whether alpha blog actually concerns itself with..."
No - you are incorrect. Since feminism says it wants women to be happy it should logically follow that feminists should tell women to keep their legs closed. It won't and it can't claim ignorance, ergo, feminism is not about women being happy.
Or rather I should say why they are unhappy after sleeping with multiple men isn't the issue...
> you're out of line
Fortunately that is not your decision to make. I have a Lord and He directs me.
Because no virgin bride will ever play the field looking for an alpha if she thinks she has a beta.
If you're really an alpha, none of this concerns you. If you're a beta, I guess it sucks to be you.
Remo said...
Well the other thing to consider is this should depress greatly, marriage rates in the U.S. Most girls lose their virginity in high school and ride the carousel through college. ..and essentially spend your married life planning for the eventual divorce. If you have kids you better be prepared to be emotionally distant from them because you'll lose them and of course won't be able to come back to the U.S. ever lest you be jailed for child support. Most men aren't prepared and shouldn't be prepared to do so much if they think about it all so don't get married should logically be the mantra as there are very few "good" girls left anyway.
Not even beta. Gamma.
Retrenched said...
Given the choice between marrying a high-N woman and not marrying, most beta (OK, "delta") men would be far better off not marrying, really.
Which, historically, was true many places.
I've always liked Rho and Tau unrep shit.
If you're really an alpha, none of this concerns you. If you're a beta, I guess it sucks to be you.
From the book, "Women Never Flake an Alpha and Other Myths."
The NYP data Rollo posts describes women, sure, but indicts the men who marry those women. This game only works because men enable lane-changing, telling themselves the same pretty lies that their women tell themselves.
The great philosopher Jack Nicholson notes that women are just like men, just with the notions of "logic and accountability" removed. Well, if men are so smart they'll wake the fuck up and stop enabling this behavior in middle age. The moon is a harsh mistress, and demands a truer, harsher master.
Deti: "So what you’re going to see more now is that the lane changers who get to N>3 and more will say this is not fair, that they have “changed lanes” and are tolerable risks because their life circumstances have changed and they now want marriage and babies. So it’s “unfair” to judge them more harshly than one would N=1 or 2, because the N>3 have “changed” and now are willing to do what they wouldn’t or couldn’t do before (commit to one man)."
Truly, we already inhabit such a world. Men enable it by backing off from observing it, not enjoying the female ripostes:
"You can't say that! Meany! Judgy! What about men! People change! Misogynist!"
I was browsing (not buying!) Sandberg's new book. What does she call a doofus who retires his woman so she can go to yoga at 10 a.m., in between luncheons for a nonprofit designed "to make a difference" on her "journey", before she picks up the kids at 3:45 in the $70K SUV? "Nice guy misogynists."
Really, that's all we should need to know. Now even the enabling betas are "misogynists", because that is the only way to project and externalize a state of sexual ennui with the formerly promiscuous. The system wouldn't exist without the desperate exertions of middle-aged men who believe these tired women at the end of their MMP ropes, saying cheerfully, "I finally know what I want and I am ready to meet The One!"
--BuenaVista
"feminism is not about women being happy.."
Of course it isn't. But implying that men are the entire source of women's happiness or misery isn't exactly about making men happy either.
Remo:
“Well the other thing to consider is this should depress greatly, marriage rates in the U.S.”
It won’t. The Kate Bolicks of the world notwithstanding, the carouselers are still finding men to marry them, even if they have aged out. The thirst is real – men will still wife these women up if that’s what they have to do to get sex, and for most men, that IS what they have to do.
Interesting article. Although I'm still doubtful that a high N doesn't hurt a man's commitment ability. I would predict that a man who had too much success would simply opt out of marriage alltogether, and not count in the statistic. So trying to marry a high N man might still be problematic for a woman.
Btw, what does everyone think of those women who marry their first/marry as a virgin, and then feel like they "missed out"?
@nataliya
It can. My N is much higher than my wife's, and I admit I struggle with passing up options. On the flip side, she's more attractive than most in my history and it's easier to stay faithful if she's engaged.
I think it is different for women. Most carousel riders rack up a bunch of alphas. Where men may go way down on the social scale and nail a woman just bc she is willing and there, women tend to put out upward. So when she marries the provided type, she's marrying a man who ranks lower sexually than most of her history. So typical male/female sexual tendencies create a different pre/post marriage dynamic as to where their spouse ranks in comparison.
Btw, what does everyone think of those women who marry their first/marry as a virgin, and then feel like they "missed out"?
I suspect in those cases they married a low Delta or Gamma (maybe even an Omega) from their church, and are always checking out the more attractive men they see around them.
in thẻ nhựa giá rẻ
great post
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.