Notchcount and fidelity stats

[kosko]

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).

I dont buy this statement. Women will be loyal to high grade Men (game, alphas, dominant providers) a women will cling to death to a man who beats her around like a rag doll... Why?

I agree that Women always smiff around for upgrades but if they 'percieve' the Man they ate with as great they will not look anywhere else AT ALL. I have female friends that were in abusive spots and really they loved their men they were blinded to others. They simply did not care. Once a female crosses that rubicon there is little that will shake her within.

Now only modern technology and protections from The State let women be whores. Women actively always sniff but now they can act on that since The State grants them security and some stability of they fuck up. Contrast this to old times where a whore would be tossed and most likely die. Damn.

Is marriage natural? No but women's allegence to a select man or men is. Men had to pump our kids quick many times mini groups of women, sieving elders and children from a host of different men would be the main unit and would grow up that way. A whore would be outcastes as she would have no value to add to the group.

 

[oldnemesis]

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.

I didn't see you linking the study, just the article about the study. And the link to the study provided by the article is not accessible for free. So if you do have the study, I'd appreciate the link.

The selection is particularly important. As I have said, just getting the random pool of people into this kind of study will give you the spherical cow.

 

[oldnemesis]

I dont buy this statement. Women will be loyal to high grade Men (game, alphas, dominant providers) a women will cling to death to a man who beats her around like a rag doll...

Define "loyal". Assuming you mean that she wouldn't cheat on him, I disagree here.

I agree that Women always smiff around for upgrades but if they 'percieve' the Man they ate with as great they will not look anywhere else AT ALL.

A woman who went alone on vacation or to some business conference, got wasted and ended up in a bed with some random good-looking or good-talking dude was not necessary "looking for upgrades". She may be not looking for anything at all and really love her spouse. But some women are emotional creatures, and - by using game - it is possible to initiate a short-living but very high levels of emotions in her. Which would not survive a relationship, but would be good enough to get her in bed.

Think about one simple thing: a woman who is attractive enough to attract the attention of a self-proclaimed "alpha male with tight game" and fall into it is by definition vulnerable to the emotional highs. What this means? The next "alpha male with tight game" will likely pay attention to her, and use the game on her, and it will likely work.

At the same time there are women who are pretty much immune to the game - the girls who are more controlled by the logic than by emotions. The psychology tricks would still pull her emotions, but since her emotions don't play any significant role in the decisions she makes it won't help you to get laid with her. This one might not cheat as she may think the associated risks (like STD) are too high.

Now only modern technology and protections from The State let women be whores. Women actively always sniff but now they can act on that since The State grants them security and some stability of they fuck up. Contrast this to old times where a whore would be tossed and most likely die. Damn.

You're kidding, right? There were wars started because of cheating. This is definitely not some modern invention.

And what kind of security you're talking about which the state grants?

Is marriage natural? No but women's allegence to a select man or men is.

The point was that monogamy is not natural for humans. Selecting one man (or one woman) is not natural. It is artificial construction. There is simply no such thing as a "whore" in the natural world, even within the nonhuman premates who have sex for pleasure.

 

[Deluge]

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.

I didn't see you linking the study, just the article about the study. And the link to the study provided by the article is not accessible for free. So if you do have the study, I'd appreciate the link.

The selection is particularly important. As I have said, just getting the random pool of people into this kind of study will give you the spherical cow.

I can't find a free link for the study to see how they selected the study group. All I know is that it was 6,400 women who had been married for 10 years.

Also your response to kosko is dead on. "Monogamy" only cropped up 10,000 years ago when after eons of hunter gathering when we experienced the Agricultural Revolution, settled down and invented property and from there marriage.

 

[xsplat]

Those who value lifetime bonds also have a very difficult time with the fact that people have innate predispositions. Girls with lower libido are less likely to have many partners. Girls born and built with higher libido are more likely to have more partners.

I’d much rather look back at a lifetime of 10 passionate and supercharged romances over a period of 20 years than one long easy low maintainance very secure tepid bland relationship of 20 years.

Women with higher libidos have a higher fidelity risk. That suits me fine.

Rollo wrote an article about such statistics http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/pseudo-virginity and I have to agree with his main point; how strongly a man registers to a woman changes how much she bonds with him.

It does happen that a girl can have fucked hundreds of guys and never even had an orgasm. Then she’ll meet some guy who she has incredible chemistry with, and becomes a never ending Niagra Falls of cum. To her that will be the first lover she ever had. She’ll say I love you 50 times a day and talk of how if you die she’ll never fuck another person.

That happened to me a few years ago, but the girl died on me. But I’ve had other experiences that were in the same category, with a girl being with other guys after me but still routinely letting me know that for her there is no other man in the world except for me. Years after breaking up, and years after her being with many guys.

As Rollo says, all numbers are not equal. Girls don’t just hop from this penis to that penis. They hop from one level of intensity to the other. The greatest intensity and connection is not equal to the others. Men are not equal.

Women are not equal, and men are not equal. We are not all just another digit. Some men count more.

And here is what I believe is natures evil little twist.

The men who are most likely to want secure lifetime commitment are the same men least likely to be that guy who eclipses all other experiences before or after.

This is why the security men place such a high value on fidelity. Because they do not want to compete in the sexual marketplace.

They want to compete in a marketplace of fidelity.

 

[Basil Ransom]

xsplat, what is it that's arousing such a strong attachment from the women you mentioned?

 

[Cincinnatus]

The men who are most likely to want secure lifetime commitment are the same men least likely to be that guy who eclipses all other experiences before or after.

This is why the security men place such a high value on fidelity. Because they do not want to compete in the sexual marketplace.

They want to compete in a marketplace of fidelity.

I don't think a lot of fidelity fears are so much marketplace insecurity, as they are not wanting to be stuck as provider for another man's spawn.

See: Mailman, 1950's

 

[xsplat]

The men who are most likely to want secure lifetime commitment are the same men least likely to be that guy who eclipses all other experiences before or after.

This is why the security men place such a high value on fidelity. Because they do not want to compete in the sexual marketplace.

They want to compete in a marketplace of fidelity.

I don't think a lot of fidelity fears are so much marketplace insecurity, as they are not wanting to be stuck as provider for another man's spawn.

See: Mailman, 1950's

There are many practical issues. Divorce rape, cuckolding, the emotional pain of being cheated on, the emotional comfort that comes from the idea of a secure shared future, the easing of anxiety about not having to worry about sexual competitors.

There are many great reasons to prefer a non-adventurous, risk averse, novelty averse, low libido woman for a mate.

However for some men these great reasons are outweighed by the benefits that come with the girl being fun (novelty seeking and risk taking) and with a very powerful libido.

It will always be a trade off. You can’t have an amphibious high speed supertanker airplane-boat. You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

 

[xsplat]

xsplat, what is it that's arousing such a strong attachment from the women you mentioned?

I don't know, but I think it comes down to two main factors. Dominance, and intensity of affect. If you ramp up a girls experience to extreme levels habitually, she'll get a cliff-diving thrill that will never be repeated. I think a lot of that is sexual, but with one girl I never even made her come, while guys after me did. Still years later she tells me she's never had anything close to the same feelings for any other man, and that she still loves me, and still thinks of me that way. Still, I think it's down to a combination of dominance and brief spurts of high intensity emotion. Deep romance, intense fun, long lasting and frequent high intensity sex, and a constant environment of her being my slave. Oh - and one last very important detail; I treat them like a daughter and they all call me Dad.

Never underestimate the power of the daddy/daughter dynamic. Call her daughter and fuck her in public.

 

[oldnemesis]

It will always be a trade off. You can’t have an amphibious high speed supertanker airplane-boat. You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

Exactly. This is why the "game" won't help you with the LTR.

 

[Chad Daring]

Just to chime in with my 2 cents on the "slut" definition

I consider a slut a girl who fucks for the sake of fucking, while a whore is a girl who fucks for personal gain. As far as I'm concerned all girls fall into one of these two categories (with a special third exception for nuns and shit) because all girls fuck and they all fuck for a reason.

 

[Basil Ransom]

You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

That's not true. I've banged at least two, probably several, girls who lost their virginity at 20-23 who had very high sex drives - at least one of those two was multiorgasmic. I wouldn't say that losing their virginity late caused them to have a high sex drive per se, but there definitely are virgins around with latent high sex drives. The two chicks I'm thinking of both went to normal popular colleges too, where they'd had ample opportunity to lose it earlier.

 

[xsplat]

You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

That's not true. I've banged at least two, probably several, girls who lost their virginity at 20-23 who had very high sex drives - at least one of those two was multiorgasmic. I wouldn't say that losing their virginity late caused them to have a high sex drive per se, but there definitely are virgins around with latent high sex drives. The two chicks I'm thinking of both went to normal popular colleges too, where they'd had ample opportunity to lose it earlier.

Yes, some girls latent sexuality can be woken up at a later age. But overall the tendency is that things happen for a reason. There tend to be causes and correlations associated with not being sexual at the sexual age. The obvious ones relate to innate levels of sexuality and drives for risk and novelty.

Wouldn't you agree that a forty year old attractive female virgin is likely to be a repressed and anhedonic hypolibidinous freak?

My larger point is that when considering risks in marriage, consider the risk of no longer having sex after the first baby.

If that doesn't matter to you, marry a virgin.

 

[xsplat]

It will always be a trade off. You can’t have an amphibious high speed supertanker airplane-boat. You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

Exactly. This is why the "game" won't help you with the LTR.

Women stay married out of either attraction or lack of opportunity.

Game helps maintain attraction.

 

[Cookie]

I'd think the rates for girls would be way higher and a lot more than the rates for guys.

I've banged some decent looking girls and I highly doubt all of them were single (I know for sure that one was not). Girls have way easier chances to cheat (since dudes always approach them). While guys (in my opinion) have a much harder time, most average dudes don't have girls actively seeking them out for a bang so their rates should be lower.

I don't know I just think all these studies are way to lenient towards women (I a ton of girls that have higher notch counts than guys), so I think the actual rates for females should be way more.

 

[oldnemesis]

Game helps maintain attraction.

Only for a very limited time (i.e. below 2 years).

 

[soup]

Saw this link in the comments on Heartiste's giant dick post: http://www.penissizedebate.com

It's an interesting take on the meaning of penis size and might have some implications for fidelity and cheating. I don't agree with everything he says (eg. men like girls with bigger labia), and tend to think that game has more influence in these matters.

 

[xsplat]

An interesting counter statistic to consider is that women who marry at a later age are less likely to divorce than women who marry young.

Overlay that chart onto the chart of low partner count women divorcing less, and only then do you start to get any real picture of what is going on.

Women of marrying age are so rarely virgins nowadays, that all of them together still don't even balance out the stabilizing effect of marrying when older and presumably after more men.

I conclude that low partner count women are usually either hung up, timid, hyposexual freaks, or too ugly for anyone to want to fuck them.

People stay married for two reasons - attraction, or lack of opportunity. Older women stay married at a greater rate out of a lack of opportunity. Young women who stay married are therefore less likely to be attractive.

Those low partner count women are ugly. Or frigid.

Now I know that some men think with their morals and will carefully explain that women are supposed to stay married for the children.

Nowadays relationships and even marriage are not about the kids. They are about attraction.

Some say that the culture has fallen to shit. Women used to marry with the kids in mind, instead of just using kids as a bargaining chip for divorce.

The reasons that marriage is no longer about the kids is not cultural. In fact the cause of culture is not cultural. People follow their options, and options change due to technology. Technology allows for the options people take that are what we describe as culture.

Are people more motivated by opportunity, or by culture? It seems to me that young men and women are more likely to follow opportunity than to do even what their parents and peer group tells them they should. Technology has altered what are the opportunities in the sexual marketplace.

It used to be that sex was coupled with pregnancy. Women did not have the opportunity for casual sex without consequence. It used to be that having a baby came with a need for a lifetime provider. Technology has allowed for an economy in which the woman can earn her own money. Or she can just get an abortion. Or the state (which grew out of industrial organization) can provide.

Back when farming was invented, culture quickly adapted to the new opportunities that this provided. The same thing happened during the industrial revolution. Culture is not just a gossipy group agreement; it is an adaptation to what people are ALREADY doing. People are going to do what they do regardless of culture. Culture is just an explanation after the fact to describe what people are already doing.

The reasons that people do what they do are not because of the after the fact explanations. The reasons are technological.

Heartiste did a post where he attributes the fact of younger women divorcing at higher rates than women who enter marriage at an older age to the fact they they have greater opportunities to find a new partner at a young age. Women who are closer to the wall realize they’d just better shut their mouths and keep the offer they already have. Again – culture is not about right and wrong. It’s simply about opportunity.

As evidence that it isn’t culture that causes culture, but is technology, look at how very different cultures all across the globe have reacted to the introductions of the birth control pill and the service economy. You’ll see the same progressions of changes that the west has gone through.

Even strict Muslim teenage girls in coconut grove villages in Indonesia are now on the pill and playing with more than their boyfriends fingers. And using the internet to hunt for a rich boyfriend.

Women are amoral creatures who decide for themselves what opportunity is in their best interest. Women with options are in fact not choosing to marry for the children. They marry for attraction, and stay married either for attraction or for lack of opportunity.

 

[xsplat]

Game helps maintain attraction.

Only for a very limited time (i.e. below 2 years).

I think you are referring to the in love phase that is natural to relationships.

Are you suggesting that in couples who stay together past that in love phase, there can no longer remain attraction?

I've been living with my girl past the in love phase. Too far past it. She's now irritating a lot of the time. But as I was cruising the beach yesterday I spied a hottie and approached. It was her. I took her home and fucked her little brains out. She was still extremely attractive.

 

[oldnemesis]

I think you are referring to the in love phase that is natural to relationships.

Are you suggesting that in couples who stay together past that in love phase, there can no longer remain attraction?

No, I'm saying that if the attraction you had was caused solely/mostly by the game, it will wear off within the first two years of relationship anyway. After that the attraction is much more based on logic with emotions having very little, if any, effect. And the game has zero effect on the logic.