Notchcount and fidelity stats

[oldnemesis]

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/03/19/relationshipstrategies/vox-days-fidelity-survey-results/

It is worth pointing out that those are the results of an online survey run by a game blogger with a very limited attendance (232 male and 59 female responses). And their interpretation is indeed one-sided.

4. Female infidelity was strongly correlated to lifetime number of sex partners:

The correct interpretation is that "female reporting of infidelity was strongly correlated to reported lifetime number of sex partners". Which is a very different thing - for example it is possible that females with more lifetime sex partners are more open about their infidelities (i.e. will not lie about having them).

More, the correlation may be simply casual - surely a girl who had 20 partners had more chances to cheat than a girl who only had one.

In short, this is not necessary true.

I also know that women with over 50 notches have a divorce rate of 90% It's 10% for women with only one (their husband).

May be caused by different things. For example I'd expect a chick with 50 notches to be much more attractive/social than a chick with one. Same as in 4 - the chick with one notch may actually want to cheat, but being fat and ugly she simply has no such options.

The next time somebody doesn't like you using the word slut, point out these statistics to them and own them completely.

I really doubt anyone could be "owned" with this kind of statistics...

 

[Cincinnatus]

If you are a guy who enjoys getting laid then you should consider this a very good thing.

Yes. As I wrote in my earlier post:

All of us players here at the RooshV forum are eating up the feast that this has led to

However, I don't think it bodes well long-term for social harmony and the advance of civilization.

 

[oldnemesis]

Non-virgin, non-keeper.

LOL.
Every one of those girls with 20+ partners was a virgin once. Did it make her a keeper?

 

[Lumiere]

it's about calling a spade a spade. its not "my problem" when i call a slut a slut and a fattie a fattie. sounds like feminist-speak

When you call a spade a spade you are stating a fact

When you call a fattie a fattie you are stating a fact

When you call a woman a slut you are expressing a fear that is rooted in something that does not exist any more.

See the difference?

slut (websters) - a promiscuous woman

pretty straight forward, but im not going to get into a definitional debate

You did not answer my question.

As for your websters definition, a promiscuous woman simply means a woman who is having more sex than your approve of.

Which leads us to the inevitable question ... how is that your fucking business anyway?

It also begs the question of why you consider the root cause of the fear (being cuckolded) relevant in a DNA paternity testing world?

 

[soup]

If you never hold them responsible, they will never behave responsibly. If they can't behave responsibly, I wouldn't be mooring myself to them.

I'm not sure that holding them responsible is the best way to get them to behave in general. What exactly do you mean holding them responsible- calling them out on cheating? By then, it's over.

I believe with the right game, you can get girls to do anything, even not cheat. So, I guess that makes me an "internalist."

 

[Samseau]

The only women who do not cheat are those who are in love with their men.


Does perfect game get any girl to fall in love with you? I don't think so. Love is more complicated than just tight game. But perfect game gets some girls to fall for you. If you keep running perfect game on them, they should remain in love. But, who can remain perfect forever and ever? No one is perfect.

Realistically, the only way to have a successful LTR is to find a girl who loves you, and then decide if you can continue to run the game necessary to keep her in love. If you find the relationship a chore, there's no way it will work.

 

[Deluge]

I left a link directly to HUS at the top of the OP. I believe the survey was done between both HUS and Vox Populi (sic?).

As for your use of the word slut, its just a shaming word for women that don't subscribe to your view of what they should do with their sexuality.

As such, its your problem, not theirs.

No. Slut is shorthand for 'higher risk for exclusive relationships.' That's the point of mentioning these studies - they prove that designating girls as sluts has a useful purpose.

Nail on the head. Any women can cheat, to assume that a girl could never cheat because of how "good" she is, is textbook pedestalisation. However it is possible to severely reduce the chance of being cheated on, divorced or cuckolded by a woman. And it should be painfully obvious that one of the best ways to do so is not to commit to a slut.

My mother likes to tell me "There are girls to have fun with, and girls to marry." Yup, she actually says that to me because she wants me to marry a girl from my own culture (South Asian) rather than marrying a white girl. Although it can apply to anyone.

If you become serious with a slut, there is a far higher chance of a A LOT of bad things happening. Sluts are bad candidates for commitment, every man and woman instinctually knows this on a primal level. The whole "being a slut is okaaay" shindig that a lot of guys and girls have been brainwashed with is basically a femcentric "eating their cake and keeping it too" which allows them to whore around from their teens to mid-twenties and then "changing their ways" and trying to clean the slate so they can marry the highest value male they can get (per hypergamy).

Solomon II in his archive (blog now sadly defunct) beautifully illustrates this point in his post Meat Market Economics.

Read it: http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/proverb-30-meat-market-economics/

 

[Vicious]

Guys guys, the sampling size for this survey was less than 300 people. FAR too few to make it statistically reliable. Add to that that only 59 females were polled. As it stands now you can't make any conclusions at all from the data.

 

[xsplat]

The thing that men who value lifetime commitment and purity will never be able to empathize with, is that some men don't hold lifetime monogamy in as much esteem, and do hold sexual heat in a relationship in relatively higher esteem. The tradeoff is worth it to them.

I personally would every time choose a high fidelity risk hottie with overpowering sexual heat over a tepid hottie who would never possibly cheat every day.

And when we divorced, I'd get another.

 

[Deluge]

Guys guys, the sampling size for this survey was less than 300 people. FAR too few to make it statistically reliable. Add to that that only 59 females were polled. As it stands now you can't make any conclusions at all from the data.

Try this: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

One can clearly see a slide towards divorce with greater sexual partners.

 

[soup]

The only women who do not cheat are those who are in love with their men.


Does perfect game get any girl to fall in love with you? I don't think so. Love is more complicated than just tight game. But perfect game gets some girls to fall for you. If you keep running perfect game on them, they should remain in love. But, who can remain perfect forever and ever? No one is perfect.

Realistically, the only way to have a successful LTR is to find a girl who loves you, and then decide if you can continue to run the game necessary to keep her in love. If you find the relationship a chore, there's no way it will work.

Yes- it can't be a chore, it has to feel natural or easy in general (with slight tension, and an occasional drama). That said, maintenance of any kind of game, or being in an LTR, requires persistence and is not something you can get lazy with.

There's no way around it- intimacy isn't free.

 

[Deluge]

http://patfagan.blogspot.com.au/2011_09_01_archive.html

 

[Vicious]

Guys guys, the sampling size for this survey was less than 300 people. FAR too few to make it statistically reliable. Add to that that only 59 females were polled. As it stands now you can't make any conclusions at all from the data.

Try this: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

<images snipped>

One can clearly see a slide towards divorce with greater sexual partners.

Yeah, it shows that there's a 13-14% higher divorce risk from women than men with higher numbers of non-martial sexual partners.

Those are not percentages that I find any grounds for the blanket statements about women's fidelity (I don't even see a relation) in this thread.

 

[kosko]

I want to know if skanks make shitty mothers? Where's the study on that.

 

[Hotwheels]

It was quickly discovered that no in depth study was required on that Kosko.

 

[Kona]

I want to know if skanks make shitty mothers? Where's the study on that.

I did a study and the answer is yes. Also, skank mothers tend to produce skank daughters.

Fast forward to 4:24 in this video for some evidence of this:

See what I mean?

Aloha!

 

[oldnemesis]

The only women who do not cheat are those who are in love with their men.

This is not true. She can be in love and still cheat. The "alone on vacation/business trip" is a rather common example.

Cheating is the people's nature (i.e. both for men and women). Our species were not monogamous, it is the artificial development. Therefore the only person who wouldn't cheat is someone with a serious shift in their mind (like being a very religious person).

Does perfect game get any girl to fall in love with you? I don't think so. Love is more complicated than just tight game. But perfect game gets some girls to fall for you. If you keep running perfect game on them, they should remain in love. But, who can remain perfect forever and ever? No one is perfect.

Interesting. This is major improvement from what you said before. Notably a "perfect" game is now required, and even with the perfect game only "some" girls would fall in love with you (which makes me wonder how many of those would include the top 5% ). The most significant shift, however, is that you start understanding that you won't be able to game someone 24/7/365 unless you're a machine who doesn't get sick or hungry and has no emotions. I'm glad you learned something from that discussion.

Realistically, the only way to have a successful LTR is to find a girl who loves you, and then decide if you can continue to run the game necessary to keep her in love. If you find the relationship a chore, there's no way it will work.

This is the way to disaster. Not only you still overestimate your ability to "game" someone when you spend the majority of time together, but you also assume that you need to keep your game at the constant level and she'd be still in love with you. This contradicts with everything we know about how the human brain works. The brain adapts to major hormonal changes very quickly (which game-triggered emotions are), and reacts on it by building up the tolerance. This means that assuming she wouldn't fall in love with you without game, you'd need to get more and more "game" just to keep her in that state, same as junkies need the larger and larger dose to achieve the same effect. Sooner or later this will exceed your game capabilities. We're not even considering the fact that she's growing up, and her reaction to game when she's 35 would be very different from when she's 20.

Realistically the only way to have a successful LTR is to drop the game altogether, and find the girl who'd accept you the way you're in your everyday life. Then you need to spend a lot of time together (I'd say one year minimum) to make sure you are compatible, your long-term goals match, and you're not struggling to overcome the differences between you. This is already a lot of work, all of which is based on logic. Game is the last thing you need here.

 

[oldnemesis]

Try this: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
...
One can clearly see a slide towards divorce with greater sexual partners.

I was not able to find the survey itself, only the excepts of it which makes it useless. It is very suspicious to me that the author considers only one factor, and does not consider other important factors such as nationality (divorce rate differs dramatically across the countries), age (18-24 has significantly higher rate than, for example, 35-44), race, and so on. It is well-known (from Census for example) that those are relevant for the divorce statistic, and therefore any valid research would have to compensate for them in some way.

The main problem with this kind of statistics - which unfortunately cannot be reasonably corrected - is that essentially you see a snapshot of the current state of the population, without further monitoring. As a result you get a self-contradicting conclusion: a virgin girl has the lowest chance of getting divorced, and since every girl is born virgin, this means - according to this statistics - they all have the lowest chance of getting divorced. Which of course is not true.

 

[oldnemesis]

Which leads us to the inevitable question ... how is that your fucking business anyway?

That's typical Puritan America. See, anyone's sex life is somehow someone's fucking business here. This is where the laws against oral/anal sex came from (and been struck down as recently as 2003!), there are still laws against adultery and prostitution, and so on. Some retarded states even ban sex toys sale in the state, could you believe it?

This is even more ironic when you remember that America is positioning itself as a country which respects the power of an individual. It is even more funny when some individuals who are gaming the system and call themselves "alpha" in fact fall into a simple and stupid social programming which makes absolutely no sense in the modern world (and will hopefully fade away when Christian religion will lose its power here - which I hope would happen in the next ten years).

 

[Deluge]

Try this: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
...
One can clearly see a slide towards divorce with greater sexual partners.

I was not able to find the survey itself, only the excepts of it which makes it useless. It is very suspicious to me that the author considers only one factor, and does not consider other important factors such as nationality (divorce rate differs dramatically across the countries), age (18-24 has significantly higher rate than, for example, 35-44), race, and so on. It is well-known (from Census for example) that those are relevant for the divorce statistic, and therefore any valid research would have to compensate for them in some way.

The main problem with this kind of statistics - which unfortunately cannot be reasonably corrected - is that essentially you see a snapshot of the current state of the population, without further monitoring. As a result you get a self-contradicting conclusion: a virgin girl has the lowest chance of getting divorced, and since every girl is born virgin, this means - according to this statistics - they all have the lowest chance of getting divorced. Which of course is not true.

Read through the study linked again. It's talking about the 10 year divorce rate. Ie. the chance of getting divorced within 10 years of marriage. It's not even discussing those who have never been married. Overall, the 10 year divorce rate for the Teachman Study Group (6,500 women) was 34%. Extend the timespan back to say 20 years and of course the overall divorce rate and individual divorce rates for the notchcount groups would be higher.