Friday, June 30, 2017

Relationships bore women

A counterintuitive survey result prompts Heartiste to take yet another victory lap:
Over the last few decades almost all research studies have found that men are much more eager for casual sex than women are (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). This is especially true when it comes to desires for short-term mating with many different sexual partners (Schmitt et al., 2003), and is even more true for wanting to have sex with complete and total strangers (Tappé et al., 2013).

In a classic social psychological experiment from the 1980s, Clark and Hatfield (1989) put the idea of there being sex differences in consenting to sex with strangers to a real life test. They had experimental confederates approach college students across various campuses and ask “I’ve been noticing you around campus, I find you to be very attractive, would you go to bed with me tonight?” Around 75 percent of men agreed to have sex with a complete stranger, whereas no women (0 percent) agreed to sex with a complete stranger. In terms of effect size, this is one of the largest sex differences ever discovered in psychological science (Hyde, 2005).

Twenty years later, Hald and Høgh-Olesen (2010) largely replicated these findings in Denmark, with 59 percent of single men and 0 percent of single women agreeing to a stranger’s proposition, “Would you go to bed with me?” Interestingly, they also asked participants who were already in relationships, finding 18 percent of men and 4 percent of women currently in a relationship responded positively to the request.

Did you catch the glint of that sparkly truthgem? On the question of having sex with a stranger, the percentage of men willing to do so dropped from 75% if they were single to 18% if they were already in relationships…..while the percentage of women willing to fuck a stranger rose from o% if they were single to 4% if they were in relationships.
At this point, do we actually need social scientists when we have Le Chateau?


Mountain Man said...

This is why its absolutely vital for a married man to keep his game strong....yes even married men who are Christians.
Its as simple as keeping yourself fit, dressed well, unpredictable, somewhat selfish, upbeat and regularly flirting with pretty women. The flirting doesn't have to be sexualized in any form or fashion..just light hearted teasing, banter and conversation.
The positive reactions that come from this will boost a married man’s confidence in ways nothing else can. This confidence will cause a mindset shift that will be rather profound. It takes our (men’s) innate tendency towards "spouse worship” and gives it a proper burial. Your woman will intuitively sense this and realize she really did snag a high value guy. This alone will not give any guarantees that she wont cheat..but when combined with a rather strong “patriarchal hand” ( thats a whole other topic) ..will reduce a mans chance of his wife straying to nearly imperceptible odds.

Aeoli Pera said...

At this point, do we actually need social scientists when we have Le Chateau?

Because Le Chateau tires of fanning himself, and requires able servants.

Matt said...

Never feel comfortable.

Mr.MantraMan said...

A woman's life is a never ending struggle in the female hierarchy. If you lose your game you are of less value to her and she slides down the most important thing in her life the female hierarchy, and then you will end up with six colored babies so she can out virtue signal that bitch in the first row of pews or she gets the friskies.

DeploraBard said...

Did we ever need them?

VFM #7634 said...

This is why it doesn't matter squat if she has a boyfriend. What does matter is how hawt you are relative to her boyfriend, and how into him she is feeling.

What I'd find interesting would be the differences between single, "in a relationahip", and married, since they conflated the last two. One would hope the married value is closer to the single value than the "in a relationship" value. Perhaps even break it out to "married with children" and "married without children".

DeploraBard said...

I enjoy reading CH. Master level word smith

شركة تنظيف said...

شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
شركة تنظيف منازل بالاحساء

Artisanal Toad said...

When the man gives a woman his commitment, it means the cat finally caught that moving piece of string that she found so interesting. The problem with modern marriage (since around 500 AD) is structural in nature because the imposed requirement of monogamy does three things.

First, it presents the woman with a monopoly that exempts her from any female competition that could pressure her to provide her husband with good service. Thus, without competition, there is no accountability for the woman other than her own standards or the physical force her husband is willing to bring to bear, because she has no motivation to provide him with good service.

Second, without any competition, not only is she bored but she perceives her husband as less attractive. Part of the initial attraction to him was stimulated by the desire to win the competition for him and another part was his ability to say "Next!" Making the commitment means both of those are gone, so the commitment means the husband is automatically somewhat less attractive. This is part of the reason why wives lose attraction for their husbands over time. Yes, the men get lazy and stop holding a dominant frame, but at the same time the commitment has made her less attracted to him.

Third, the dissatisfaction on the part of the man (think dead bedroom) combines with the dissatisfaction on the part of the woman to create an environment in which the woman is inclined to be unfaithful and "cheat" her husband out of his monopoly on her. When a woman does that she is rejecting him, which typically leads to the destruction of the relationship. And, of course, it is now easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a cell phone contract.

However, there is a hidden moral element beneath the surface. Does God does take a hand in the lives of individuals based on their behavior?

If one believes that God blesses the upright who obey Him and curses those who do not obey Him, it becomes a simple equation: for a blessed life, obey God. (I'm not talking about salvation). So, when it comes to marriage, it should be easy, right? Unfortunately, no. Because God's design for marriage got tossed out with the trash by the church in the 400's and replaced with a mix Stoic philosophy, Pagan belief and Roman law. There are two critical questions that must be answered correctly in order to understand modern marriage:

1) When does marriage begin, according to the Bible? In other words, what action must be taken each time, every time, for all time, by all people in order that God recognizes a marriage? Marriage is not a social construct, it was instituted by God. In order for adultery to be a crime, there must be an irrefutable point at which all women are definitely married (more on that later).

2) What are the commitment standards of marriage, according to the Bible? In other words, what is God's standard of commitment for husbands and what is God's standard of commitment for wives? Contrary to feminism, there is a double standard for sexual morality contained in the Bible, one for men and one for women. The commitment standards of marriage are part of that.

All the various points of church doctrine concerning sexual morality take place at a level above those foundational questions. The problem is standard church doctrine teaches answers to the above questions that are not the answers the Bible teaches. In most cases, standard doctrine wildly contradicts the Bible. They teach as doctrine the precepts of men.

When I started studying this about 5 years ago I was forced to look at not only the answers the Bible teaches but also why the doctrine taught in churches (across the board) was so contradictory to what the Bible teaches. I found the answer in the early history of the church (Most notably Brundage: "Law, Sex and Christian Society In Medieval Europe").

Artisanal Toad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gary Eden said...

The Bible commands the husband to lead and teach his wife, to sanctify and perfect her. If he does that, she'll be far from bored. To the contrary it will put her in the position of trying to please her man which game teaches is valuable to the relationship.

But if you're a churchian cuck who thinks women are more spiritual, men shouldn't lord over wives and its sinful to upset her; well then that won't happen and their eyes will start to wander.

Artisanal Toad said...

Continued from the previous comment.

The Bible defines adultery as the crime of a married woman having sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10), therefore, adultery requires a married woman. No married woman, no adultery. The question is, what happens if God's definition of marriage is not the same as the one that is used today? Which one will God go with? God stated "I, the LORD, do not change" (Malachi 3:6) so it's safe to believe that God will go with His definition of when a marriage begins.

God's Law defines what sin is (c.f. Romans 4:15 and 5:13), therefore it applies to all people of all time in all places. Adultery is the same everywhere because the standard of marriage is the same everywhere: God's standard, not man's.

Marriage begins when the virgin has sex with a man. Period. Whether she knows it or not, whether she approved or consented to marry or not. She's married. Nobody likes thinking they are living in adultery because their so-called wife gave her virginity to another man. They moan about how horrible it is and how God would never cause such a thing to happen that would require that 80%-90% of the couples in the church separate and stop committing adultery. They say that because they have not studied.

According to Numbers 30, if she does this while she's in her youth and living in her father's house, her father has the authority to review that decision. He may choose to allow the marriage and he may forbid her agreement to marry (she agreed to have sex) which annuls the marriage. An example of this is given in Exodus 22:16-17. Interestingly, translators added the "to be" to verse 16 in order to make it appear there was something more that needed to be done that made them married. That is nailed down with Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states that if they are discovered, the not-betrothed virgin who gets raped is married to the man who did it. Not she "will be married" but rather she is married to him and he can never divorce her all the days of his life. Interestingly, nothing was said about the widow or divorced woman who get raped.

Genesis 2:24 describes the requirements of the ceremony by which every man and woman become married, which is where the man has sex with his wife, the point at which God joins the two as one flesh (c.f. Matthew 19:6). Jesus made the point in Matthew 19:8 that we are to understand that divorce was never part of God's plan because the man was only authorized to marry, not to end the marriage once it was started. Which points to the fact that no restriction was placed on how many marriages a man might start. Interestingly, the standards of commitment are based on what is not said, rather than what is said. The man's commitment to his wife is permanent but not exclusive. The woman's commitment to the man is both permanent and exclusive.

So... if a man and woman hold a party in the church with the woman wearing a wedding dress dress and they make vows of commitment to each other and claim it''s a marriage... are they really married if she's already married to another man? No.

This is the fault of the church and the early "church fathers" who hated sex so much that they threw out God's rules and instituted their own. This is the fault of current church leaders and teachers who are responsible for teaching the lies they teach.

So, if God takes a hand in the lives of men and women, blessing those who obey Him and cursing those who do not, the answer should be obvious. If one looks at the studies on divorce according to the number of "pre-marital sexual partners" it becomes clear. The real rate of divorce is somewhere between 5% and 8%. All the rest of it is adulterous unions that broke up after time. Why would God bless an adulterous union?

As to ignorance as a defense, see Luke 12:47-48. Acts done in ignorance get a lesser punishment but they are still punished.

Michael Maier said...

I forget which Game writer wrote something like:
"Every man wants a refuge with his woman. Someplace where he can finally relax and be himself and simply be at peace. If he ever gets it, he will quickly lose it."

G. Gordon Liddy was/is a character. He committed crimes, went to jail and was publicly revealed to have cheated on his wife on his own radio show. Last I heard, he was still married to the same woman.

He used to attribute that to his wife saying "You're never boring".

IIRC, it was Vox that said "Bored men entertain themselves. Bored women go find someone else to entertain them."

That obviously includes new lovers.

Days of Broken Arrows said...

Oh no, not "gaming your wife" again. If having a wife means having to entertain her and keep her occupied like a child, maybe it's better to be single. The thought of being married should make a man feel happy, not like he's the keeper of a daycare or animal shelter.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

You can cry about the way the world is, Days of Broken Arrows, or you can make it happen. This is the nature of women. You could also complain about rain, hurricanes and mountain lions.

Days of Broken Arrows said...

No, STG58, this isn't "the way the world is" and your comparison to natural disasters is inaccurate. This is the way women have become because of law, specifically no-fault divorce and family courts. America created this and changing the laws will go a long way in changing it back. The men of the past who did brilliant things like building the Chesapeake Bay Bridge didn't have to worry about "gaming their wife" and running home every hours to entertain them like babies. They were able to pursue greatness.

Your comment reminds me of the preachers Dalrock talks about on his blog. What next? That I need to "man up and marry that single mom!" because ***that's the way the world is?***

SJ said...

Well said mountain man. And yes days of broken arrows this is how it is. The answer isn't whining but to incorporate the correct attitudes so that you naturally game your wife without having to think much about it. As to whether or not it's worth putting in the work for a mid twenties slut whose been sodomized by ten guys before you is another question. I decided it was worth it for myself because I wanted children.

Michael Maier said...

If reality bothers you, go find another blog.

Women are what they are. Quit your bleating.

Further, Gaming them is fun. For you and the wench in question.

Artisanal Toad said...

@ Days of Broken Arrows

Every woman ever born has been this way and it goes back to God's judgment at Genesis 3:16. Women are wired to desire a man who is fit to rule over them because that was God's judgment on women. God said men are to rule over women and He explained how in Numbers 30. Yet, it was your men of 100 years ago who were "able to pursue greatness" who ignored God and allowed women the privilege of voting. Fools, the lot of them.

"America" did not create this situation, women did it after men disregarded what God said and allowed women the privilege of ruling. The laws will not change because women now have the right to vote. There are no political solutions short of war, there are only individual solutions.

Your comments indicate you believe men have not changed, which indicates you have no clue what the modern school system was set up to do. Read John Taylor Gatto. The education system was designed and intended to destroy the intellect of men, "socializing" them into good consumers who behaved in a uniform manner. The unintended byproduct of women invading the schools as teachers was to "socialize" the masculinity out of men. The educational system is working exactly as designed and intended, producing dumbed down betas who are good little feminist consumers.

Women ask where the men are. They're really asking where the men who are fit to rule over a woman have gone. The answer is they were never allowed to develop as men. They grew up to be broken arrows.

How would one describe a man who is fit to rule over a woman? Confident, dominantly masculine behavior would be the beginning. Which is why women are so attracted to thugs these days. Add to that character qualities like loyalty, faithfulness, honesty, courage and wisdom. These are the hallmarks of a ruler and that is the sort of man women desire. The foundation, however, is the confident, masculine dominance displayed by the man.

Guess what Game teaches men? Game teaches men to be confident, masculine and dominant. Not to be a dancing monkey who runs home regularly to entertain women like babies. Your comment indicates you do not understand what Game is.

All of which demonstrates you lack understanding.

You mentioned Dalrock. What do you call someone who presents a non-stop litany of problems, never offering a single solution? It's like complaining that schools need better teachers. No, the teachers are great, it's the structure and curriculum that's intentionally designed to dumb down the children. The same problem exists within the church because God's design for marriage and Gods rules for sexual morality got thrown out 1500 years ago, replaced with a mixture of Stoic philosophy, Pagan belief and Roman law.

Churchians complain about feminism invading the church, not realizing that the church created feminism. Feminism is the moral philosophy that rests on the church doctrine (completely contrary to the Bible) that men and women have the same standard of sexual morality. Until the church denies the current doctrine and teaches God's instruction in this, feminism cannot and will not be defeated.

The only personal solutions men have are to learn and understand God's standards of sexual morality, to learn Game and become fit to rule. She's not a virgin? Make sure she's not married before you commit adultery. What if it's too late and you 'married' another man's wife? In general that can be dealt with because God provided ways to deal with this.

I've written about this extensively on my blog. Click on the "Churchian Challenge" linked on the header of my blog. It's an open book test, all you need is your Bible and a lot of study. Or, you can cut to the chase and read the posts in the link "Theology For Men of the West" which is also linked on the blog header.

Carl said...

Stupid question!! Had they pursued her emotionally, without the creepy bluntness, the results could have been FAR different.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Days of Broken Arrows,

Carefully study my words. What did I tell you to do? And with whom?

Quit your pathetic whining.

Lucas said...

Not all bore them: Females in Calais.

dc.sunsets said...

What is "game?" Is it recovering masculinity lost under feminism? Is it about men getting laid by a succession of (by definition) throwback women? Is it answering female impulsive manipulation with male manipulation?

I have trouble discerning the point.

Whatever it is, I find it inscrutable. My sons are all STEM geeks, only one of them exhibits much "alpha" behavior and somehow all are married & following relatively traditional life paths. Boo hoo, none of them married Victoria Secret models, just normal girls who never rode the carousel and whose goal in life was family, not emulating a man.

Maybe this alpha game thing is a city trend...and I'm just a country boy who married a country girl (who never would have called herself a feminist.)

You don't run a diamond mine by trying to turn every rock into an engagement ring.

dc.sunsets said...

@ toad,
Solution? Figure out how to live yourself. It's not rocket science. It's simply thinking through cause & effect.

I now do realize that the age at which we must decide what kind of life to live is 13-14 years old. Until then, all of life's doors are open, but it's by 14 (sometimes 12/13) when irreversible choices begin to arise. Making those choices volitionally, instead of spontaneously/impulsively, is quite important.

Life is punishing for those who live theirs like a pinball in the machine.

Midnight Avenue J said...

Lucas, soap opera writers couldn't dream up a juicier plot!

D.c., do women have agency? I really wonder. Men are supposed to prey on them but only the weak and careless women will go to bed with them? i suppose there is a reason why women fell under the authority of father or husband at all times. Not just to protect them from bad decisions but also to choose an appropriate mate.

There are some decisions one really cannot make entirely on ones own. Too often instead of turning to family and relying on the personal integrity one ought have, we rely on acquaintances and glossy magazines to inform our morals and decisions.

dc.sunsets said...

Too often instead of turning to family and relying on the personal integrity one ought have, we rely on acquaintances and glossy magazines to inform our morals and decisions.

MPAI. Most people are throwbacks. Most women are not marriagable. Neither are most men. Is the goal to help all people be "better," or learn to discriminate among those predetermined to be keepers?

I, for one, am not happy to simply trust chance. Maybe that's all we've got, but I sure as heck am not going to lay back and accept it. Every man I watched wife up a woman who was high-spectrum for novelty and "career-focused" ended up divorced. Every man who lacked (honestly-based) self-esteem struggled with masculinity. I wanted to insure my sons wouldn't accidentally fall into those traps. I expect them to do the same with their children (and they're well on their way to building strong families where the teens DO turn to family for guidance.)

Post a Comment