Notchcount and fidelity stats

[xsplat]

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.

Well, I don't have any experience with that. My relationships rarely pass the 2 year mark, and never 3, as I leave. But I know many men disagree with you. You're likely familiar with Athol Kay and his marriedmansexlife website. Another long time married man who turned his marriage around with game and is a strong advocate for married man game is hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com . Rollo Tomasi at rationalmale is long married and also strongly advocates game for married men.

 

[Deluge]

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.

Yup, that's because the younger a woman is when she divorces, the more attractive she'll be which means her chances of securing a new, better man (trading up being a central element of hypergamy) easier and more likely because of the realities of the "SMP". This has been covered before by a lot of guys.

And I agree with your very last post as well.

Edit: Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide shared this link recently: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

 

[Samseau]

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.

This is completely false. Birth-control has always relied on two things:

1. Coitus-interruptus

2. Infanticide


Infanticide has been widely practiced throughout every era of history, in all cultures. Go look up the history of orphanages. Today, we've made infanticide easier than ever through abortion, which allows women to get rid of a child without going through the pains of birth. That's not that significant of a change.


The far bigger changes has been allowing women to go to work. Now that women have their own cash flow, there's no need for them to have a husband.

 

[xsplat]

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.

This is completely false. Birth-control has always relied on two things:

1. Coitus-interruptus

2. Infanticide


Infanticide has been widely practiced throughout every era of history, in all cultures. Go look up the history of orphanages. Today, we've made infanticide easier than ever through abortion, which allows women to get rid of a child without going through the pains of birth. That's not that significant of a change.


The far bigger changes has been allowing women to go to work. Now that women have their own cash flow, there's no need for them to have a husband.

In SE Asia herbal abortifactants are well known and very effective. Similar abortifactants used to be available to the ancient Europeans as well. My girls in Thalland, the Philippines, and Indonesia have used them to good effect. But when they fail the modern abortifactants can still work. And when those fail the modern abortion makes it possible to safely avoid bringing the baby to term or to even get to the point of looking obviously pregnant.

And some forms of contraception have also been possible for a long time. However surely you will concede that current contraception technology has lowered the risk of unplanned pregnancy dramatically - especially the pill. It's not a subtle difference.

Infanticide may have been more common in the past, however women and men quickly get attached to babies. It's an unstoppable physical reaction, and it's very powerful. Even having an abortion can be emotionally difficult for some women. Infanticide is never going to be as painless an option as reliable prevention.

We agree that women not needing support lowers the need for a husband. One of the main reasons a woman needed support used to be the extra support needed by the child. The child that would come due to sex. Men used to also quite worry about having to marry some girl just because he knocked her up.

 

[oldnemesis]

Well, I don't have any experience with that. My relationships rarely pass the 2 year mark, and never 3, as I leave. But I know many men disagree with you.

I know that, we even had a few of them here. But what I typical find out is that they do not have the relevant experience themselves, and their disagreement is based on pure theories. At the same time I've been to a few LTRs and have been married for the last ten years or so,

You're likely familiar with Athol Kay and his marriedmansexlife website.

Someone sent me a link recently, and I had a quick check. Seem to be a site advertising his book, but I don't even see the summary what the book is about. This also makes is much less trustworthy as the author obviously had some commercial interest there.

Another long time married man who turned his marriage around with game and is a strong advocate for married man game is hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com . Rollo Tomasi at rationalmale is long married and also strongly advocates game for married men.

What you point out seem to be dudes who got into their LTR without using/having game, and only then (after it got bored or so) learned game to spice it up. None of them seem to say "I learned game, I got a HB10 ten years younger than me, we've been living together for ten years and had three kids and she's still in love with me - and all of that is just because I'm gaming her every day"

Which is very different from what I said above.

And I'm very skeptical of blogs who list dalrock as "favorite" - which is basically the jezebel for men.