Why does the pair bond theory not apply to men?

[Anonymous]

I've heard men claim that if a woman has multiple partners she loses the ability to pair bond or have an emotional connection with one man

So why can't we say the same about promiscuous men?

Another thing is when men say that a woman will never be satisfied with one person after having multiple partners. Could you not say the same thing about men? Men who are used to having multiple women will never be truly satisfied living a picket fence life with one wife and kids.

Just some double standards I wanted to point out

[MrOracle]

It does, but it also doesn't. Let me explain.

Men and women are very different in many ways, and one of the ways we are different is that (most) men have the ability to disconnect sex from love in a way that most women simply cannot do - at least until the woman has run up her body count enough to destroy her pair bonding, OR unless she's suffered trauma at a young age.

For the vast majority of women, if they have sex with a man (and have a lower body count), they bond with him - even if they only intended to have casual sex. It's not her fault or her choice to bond - it's simply how women are made.

A man can have sex with a woman he's in love with, and he will also bond to her in more-or-less the same that women do, BUT a man can have sex with a woman he's NOT in love with, and in most cases, no bond will occur, because most men can separate sex from love. We didn't ask for or choose this ability - it's simply how men are made.

So, here's the difference:

A man and a woman each has sex with 20 people, and in each case, they were only in love with 3 of their partners, and the other 17 were just "casual sex". The woman's broken pair bond number is 20, while the man's is only 3. Each suffered SOME pair bond destruction, but the woman suffered SIGNIFICANTLY more despite the same body count. That's because (the vast majority of) women can't have casual sex without bonding.

Now, by the time a woman reaches 20 partners, her ability to pair bond is basically gone, so NOW she can have casual sex and not get emotionally hurt, BUT she can't pair bond with a guy she really likes and wants to be in a relationship with, which means she'll quickly grow bored with him and start looking around for something better, which is almost always going to come at his expense. This is why men value women with low body counts and don't consider women with high body counts to be "relationship material."

It should also be understood that the majority of women don't care about a man's body count - many actually prefer that he's more experienced than she is - but that's because women are far less likely to experience negative effects of a man's high body count than a man is from a woman's. Women value other characteristics in a man, and in fact, a man that can get lots of women is viewed as more desirable by most women. Men, on the other hand, would largely prefer if their woman had never been with any other man ever.

[Asker]

But there are many women out there who pursue men purely for the intention of having sex with them and never seeing them again after that
They don't love them or have feelings for them. In fact once they're done they part ways in the morning, no number taken down nothing.
There's no emotional attachment there

I know girls like that, they're only in their early twenties and they haven't racked up high body counts yet
They literally do it because its fun and they want to "sow their oats" whilst they're still young and it makes for good stories
They certainly don't do it for the emotional element or to "feel close to someone" that's for long term relationships

[MrOracle]

You are talking about exceptions to the rule, and you'd probably find that many of that group of girls experienced some kind of trauma growing up - not always sexual; it could be physical, emotional, or even abandonment (her dad walked out or was kept away by the mother). And there are a few who are just exceptions. But the vast majority of women just can't have casual sex like that and not get attached - even with just a one-night stand. Many will PRESENT like everything is fine, but you don't see them crying in their bedroom at night all alone. Some can do it a couple of times and then the feelings all come crashing down on them. It's just not something that most women can do without suffering some serious consequences.

[Asker]

What reason would they have to cry though?
If in the moment they treated it like a fleeting moment of fun and it was fun for them

[Asker]

Sorry for the slow questions but it's just as a woman i fail to understand how from an emotional standpoint we can be so affected by something we chose to do.

[MrOracle]

It's because it's extremely difficult for most people to control their deepest feelings, and while some women are fine with casual sex in the moment (and let's be honest, a lot of times they are drunk or high at the time), and may even be fine with it shortly afterwards, it often hits them a week or a month or 6 months down the road. I have had a lot of girls cry on my shoulder over the years for this very reason.

Again, girls from an abusive or abandoned background, or girls with a body count over a dozen, may be just fine, but that's because their pair-bonding ability has been destroyed already - and a very few women just were born without that ability. But the majority of women form a very strong bond with the first man they sleep with, and successively weaker bonds with each man afterwards until she reaches 8 or 10, and then it's practically gone - like worn-out velcro that just doesn't hold anymore.

[NamerOfStars]

Oh, it does- the thing is, that's not what's being compared. Consider two people, a man and a woman, each precisely average in all aspects of attractiveness, physical and otherwise. Let's call them Terry and Terri. If each of them goes out looking for a little action, she's going to get more offers in a night than he is in a month.

Given, then, the respective traditional roles in the human mating dance, if he attains a high level of success, that says that he's well ABOVE average in at least some, and probably most, aspects of human attractiveness, and it's not like confidence, smoothness, assertiveness and charm don't appeal to people even in entirely nonsexual contexts.

If she attains a high level of success- well, it's not like those traits would hurt; but they're entirely optional. What people will see is simply a willingness to say "Yes", and what they'll presume (whether accurately or not) is an inability to delay her own gratification.

[mandyfire98]

You'll notice it's always double standards. Men should be allowed to cheat because it's just about sex it's not personal, women shouldn't. Men don't have to worry about body count, women are sluts, men should be able to be successful and run shit, women are too masculine and bossy and bitchy and not attractive if they're successful. Double standards are a method to keep individuals in their place while others can be free to do as they please.

[LazerBean]

It is all true for men as well. It's why male sluts have less happy marriages and are 64% more likely to go through divorce than good men who have only had sex with the woman they are married to. They just don't like to hear it.

[FilmGuy93]

The pair bond theory absolutely applies to men. The idea that a man can have sex with a lot of women without later struggling to commit to just one is a bit absurd.

[DextroShade]

Men and women are different, and data shows that women who have more sexual partners before they marry are far more likely to divorce their husbands. Some men may cheat on their wives, but they do not leave them as 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Most men would be happy to have one good woman, as 1 in 3 aren't getting any.

[Anonymous]

Well we could tell you. But the fact that you call it a "double standard" leads me to believe that even if we explained it you'd refuse to accept it.

I mean guys are expected to ask women out. And women are expected to be asked out. Is that a double standard? Not really. It's called "gender roles". They may be a changing but largely they're still followed.

[Deviate01]

It's all a load of crap. It's the puritanical Christian conservative bullshit that says women shouldn't sleep around yet for men It's ok. Anyone can sleep with anyone they want. Just be safe, and be up front with people about your intentions. That's all. Don't pay attention to armchair psychology or the "well it's just biology" garbage.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Thats a huge pile of shit, whoever told it just made it up.

[In_Trance]

I think this is complete garbage