you are making me vomit. I am grossed out by having dick inside me until I love that guy
i am now convinced you are just a troll.
I bet in 1920 therewere less STDs
I don't believe in can't gt sex theory. Anyone can get. There are so many guys that will fuck even ugly girls
There was still STD's back then. If people weren't so dumb as to not use protection when having casual sex then there wouldn't be as many. Ah well. Can't live life afraid all the time and not have sex because of that. And no. Lots of people don't have the courage or the social skills to engage in sex or casual sex.
I would feel grossed out by having sex with strangers
To each their own darlin.
i wonder why some women are grossed out by one night stands and some like it.
Not really plus it not meaning anything is actually a really bad thing. Its a social bonding tool it ensures that some one stays with their mate (oxytocin gets released in the brain causing an emotional bond to form or deepen if it already exists) which inturn ensures the strength of the family unit which then in turn ensures the well being of the resultant offspring. It does mean something from a biological stand point and a social one irregardless of your opinoin on it. As for whats wrong with it, multiple studies have shown that their are many negative ramifications for promiscuity like significantly higher divorce rates, lower levels of relationship satisifaction (thus ensuring that long term relationships become incredibly difficult to maintain and end up causing harm to any resulting offspring as divorce has a sever impact on children) etc. Just because sex feels good doesn't mean its healthy.
@hellionthesage nah I disagree. People shouldn't live their life over so called "studies". World would be a boring and miserable place if that happened. Shit happens in this world and it all doesn't stem from sex lol. As for divorce , trust me it doesn't scar a kid. I'm from a divorced family and me and my siblings turned out just fine and so did my kids.
Well studies do show otherwise and those who have grown up in that enviroment would not notice the difference. Studies are very good indicators and should not be dismissed. Their is a reason every single society has had a taboo on promiscuity for most of history (except for those few times they deviated and then very quickly whent back to a conservative stance). Thats not something you should dismiss with out thought. 80% of all inmates are from single mother homes. Divorce increases the risk of suicide depression various criminal behavior, substance abuse, promiscuity etc. This is empirical data not opinion, not ancedotal evidenc but broad sweeping studies taking into account many people and many factors.
Well @hellionthesage you can live in a bubble with your "studies " and I'll continue to live as freely as I want and as many others do 😊. No studies would ever make me change my point of view on anything. Same goes for the anti vax movement. Studies are all a bunch of BS.
Not really, no legitamet study has ever supported not vaccinating. As for the so called "bubble" I don't live in one, sex with many people isn't something I need to be happy and complete and I think that its an indicator of its negative affect that you seem to. If I am faced with the truth I must except that even if its something that is pleasurable, I can't simply ignore the consequences of my actions and how they will impact others so in this respect your right you are more free then I.
@hellionthesage women with low self esteem need to be fucked by many men because fuckers are the only people who pay attention to them.
@Asker nah some people just enjoy sex more than others. Men are the same way. They enjoy going out and getting fucked by girls. Seems you are taking it a little personally. It's really none of your business or has anything to do with your life on how other women act. Are you jealous because they get attention? Or jealous because they can freely engage in casual sex with no repercussions because it doesn't gross them out like it apparently does to you. ? Something is off here. Makes me wonder when people take things too personally.
Well their are repurcussions so that is unavoidable. Refusal to acknowledge them doesn't make them go away.
you think girls who fuck everyone enjoy it more?
how can one be jealous of sluts? Any girl can be a slut
calm down. clearly by your question you are one of those sluts. lol. I don't hate sluts I am just grossed out by them because they are cheap and dirty
and sluts sleep around. Moral women have sex with their spouses. Both sluts and moral women have sex. But did you see the difference?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
no slut slutshames others
Sluts feel sorry for me because I am grossed out by them? I want one thing from sluts. It is they MUST never talk to me.
you know when I judge? when they want to talk to me this is when I tell them I don't want to have any contact with them.
I imagine someday you'll grow up, look back on your younger self and say "wow, I was really a bitch", but that may be a while. In the meantime, I'll go back to my loving, long time boyfriend and enjoying all the wild sex you dream of one day having. Take care.
I don't understand. I mean, I get the sarcasm but it only takes sex once to get an std or pregnant. OR practicing safe sex could prevent both.
Quietly do as you like and don't listen to anyone's opinion.
Lol and there will be guys who will think saints are better
I think it's the jealous person more that's the asshole
@Onemoretime00 how can one be jealous of sluts? Any girl can be a slut
Keep on chasing me
Keep on trolling slut shamer. #karmaTrollers gonna troll
soceity does not know right from wrong.
Can people who dislike sluts avoid them?
Actually their is. It has many many negative health effects both physical (stds unwanted parenting) and mental (reduction in the ability to have long term relationships, depression anxiety and self esteem issues) as well as relationship (studies show the more promiscuis the more likely to divorce with a 1% chance with one person and a 16% chance with two, as well as people who score in the upper 50 percentile of the sociosexually unrestricted scale (those who view sex as more casual/promiscuis) are 50% more likely to divorce and 50% more likely to cheat) and social (those who are promiscuis are significantly more likely to divorce (theirs also been some links to substance abuse in sever cases) which in turn creates unstable enviroments for children which inceases their risk of suicide, substance abuse, depression, criminal behavior, and divorce themselves (thus perpetuating the issue)). Just because no one talks about the negatives doesn't mean they are not their.
@hellionthesage that is why guys avoid marrying sluts
Lol. I know tons of guys that marry sluts. They Rw confident enough to not dwell and worry about those sorts of trivial things. Same could be said for women not wanting to marry a man that's a slut. The only complaining I ever see about this type of stuff is on GaG. I seriously wonder what rocks you all crawled out of. Welcome to the modern world! Embrace it because it ain't gonna change.
Yes that is why guys avoid marrying women who are promiscuis its a bad investment on their part, the relationship is very expensive for the man so he is very picky when he chooses prospective life partners. Sex on the other hand is very cheap for him and costly for the woman so that is why women had for most of history been the ones to really clamp down on promiscuity, but once womens opinoins where shifted during the sexual revolution that all changed. Thats why men will (unfortunatley very hypocriticly) like a girl who is a slut when he is looking for sex but that same woman will be off the potential relationship list.
It's not that hard. You bring up all these statistics yet you site no sources. Of course there are negatives, did you know there's also negatives to drinking too much water? To doing too much exercise? Are you aware that these things called condoms, birthcontrol and day after pills exist? That people actually use those? The fact you bring up these "statistics" is silly, you are talking about cheating on people at this point, as in promiscuity within a relationship, that's a different situation. We are talking about someone who has had multiple partners at different times. Grow up guys, what are we 12? Acting like little kids who can't handle people doing something that we don't like to do, throw a little tantrum? It's not your life so build a bridge and get the bloody hell over it (asker needs to get over herself as well). You don't need to interact with them if you don't wish to, just realize what an asshat you are making of yourselves if that's the reason you avoid them.
The fact that men refuse to marry sluts is comical considering that a lot men are sluts themselves, or what, are they magically not affected by your "statistics"? You're hilarious.
@hellionthesage married 30 years to a partner that had over 100 partners. She had a low self esteem. I had only 1 other partner. We are very happy. Period. So it can work, we're proof. Oh and neither has cheated. So no study is 100%.
@Satisfyd Never said it was 100% I said its statisticly significant. What your saying is ancedotal, one exception is not the rule neither is two or three. Not every one who smokes gets cancer, does that mean that smoking is healthy? No it means those people are the exceptions. And technicly you cannot say no one cheated since if you didn't catch them you wouldn't know (not that I am saying she did mind you only that technicly thats not a good argument as you cannot verify it).
@hellionthesage so my real life is not justified but the accurate studies are. OK. Well should we all stop trying to enjoy life how we want to live it because a "study" is telling us it's wrong. How will we ever learn. Point is studies can and are wrong at times. Back in the late 60's women were today it was bad to breastfeed. So everyone should live their life how they want. Not how a study or someone with an agenda wants.
Sorry told not to breastfeed.
@Satisfyd? No your experiences are not something to ignore what I am saying is they should not be broadly applied if everything else is saying otherwise. Their could be conditiones that are not accounted for (like when did she do it, how long between that point and marriage, did she suffer frome depression during the early phases of her marriage and still stick with it (as is frequently the case most get a drop off within the first couple of years since sex and relationships have a drug like affect and most break up when that feeling fades, if however they stick with it the brain rewires itself ie it stops craving the "drug" of sex/new relationships). Their could be a lot of things that make it work (or it couldn't be working at all, it could be a dysfunctional relationship or it could be that she is secretly miserable and your unaware of it (I am NOT saying this is the case only that you have to consider everything).
@Satisfyd It also matters who is doing the study, in those studies you mentioned it was companies who pushed for the so called "studies" to sell a product (it was quite literally nothing more then cherry picked data or lies ie they bribed doctors into saying what they wanted them to say). So yes thats something to consider however the studies I have mentioned seem to be not only diverse in who has done them but also from reputable sources. Then you have to consider the breastfeeding issue benefited some one, who benefits from men and women not having sex? Their is no money, no gain for any one (that I can see) in discouraging sexual activity. As I said one person is an exception, divorce increases with the number of partners you have, 80% of prison inmates are from single parent homes, all studies show women are more affected by promisicuity then men, 80% of all divorces are initiated by women mostly citing no fault. Their are plenty of connections.
@hellionthesage one last comment. No sex can be religious people pushing their beliefs on others which is taken to the point of ridiculous in some areas. These religious people have a lot of power in places and they should but out of people's lives.
@hellionthesage where are your statistics. All you talk about is statistics, where are the then. Give me links, titles, all from credible sources please. Go on, you keep preaching about their importance and spewing "facts" let me see them please.
I didn't site the sources because its time consuming and after discussing this topic hundreds of times not one person read them, not one person conceded that they where wrong irregardless of the statistics present or whom those statistics where from. So here they are: cdn.freedomainradio.com/...iage_Partners_Study.pdfaspeneducation.crchealth.com/.../www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../nihms499028.pdfsocialpathology.blogspot.com/.../...orce-risk.htmlsocialpathology.blogspot.com/.../...uity-data.htmlThe ones that are secondary sources provide links to the primary sources. As I stated, ample evidence shows the negative consequences of the behavior. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with them, you don't have to actually listen to them, but irregardless of your response to them they will still be true.
I understand that you don't want to let go of your belief but that belief is not reality its not the truth and its detrimental to you and others (and before you make the accusation, I am not religious (I'm agnostic) and I originally held the view that their was no harm in it, until evidence and my understanding of the brain and psycology proved that it was). I personally don't care what you do I just don't want people to pretend its healthy when it clearly isn't (Its no different then junk food, you may derive pleasure from it but over indulgence will be severly damaging yet we do not pretend that this is healthy so why is sex the exception?)@Satisfyd That is just a lazy excuse. First it at no point addresses WHY a religious institution would care about some one having sex. If it has no ill health effects and does not damage the society then why bother trying to control it? Secondly it ignores the fact that its found in multiple civilizations and multiple religions,
@Satisfyd irregardless of whether or not those groups had any interactions with each other. Even the aztec goddess Tlazolteotl (goddess of disease filth and sex having the epithets; Tlaelquani ('she who eats filth [sin]') and Tlazolmiquiztli ('the death caused by lust')) was an example of a society that acknowledge the harm that rampant sex can cause. It was acknoweldged that it was vital for existence pleasurable and it was responsible for creating or deepening emotional bonds (through the chemical oxytocin) yet even they realized when unchecked would lead to many many issues with in the individual and within society. (especially when a womans relationship with her father is a predictor of promiscuity (good relationship less promiscuis bad relationship more promiscuis) it should be rather apparent of its negative affects when allowed to run unchecked.
@hellionthesage "No one, of course, has yet been able to explain the rock solid association between premarital virginity and decreased risk of divorce". Quote your sources. Don't give me that so don't give me that "you're wrong and not living in reality" bull crap. A woman is considered a slut if she sleeps with more than 3 or 4 men, how is that "over indulgence". Hell a woman is a "slut" for having making out with a few guys too. The authors of many of your sources even clarify that their findings are not universal truths about promiscuity being evil, you on the other hand insist that you are correct one hundred percent of the way. It's also funny how almost all the the studies are on women, are men immune to any complications? Promiscuity is not unhealthy most of the time. ANYTHING in excess is unhealthy but having sex with different partners here and there is barely even close to excessive.
If a person has sex with a different person every 4 months for 2 years, that's 6 people in that time span. One would look at that and say, wow, that's a lot of people but you really need to think of that in perspective, that's not excessive.
for me a moral girl has sex only with one man
I do not understand what the quote was suppose to prove?(other then we do not understand the human mind as well as other things?) But their was statisticly significant evidence which you completely ignored. I never said it was absolute, in fact I stated (more then once) that it was statistical/probable/etc and even mentioned to others that their is always exceptions so no I did not say it was absolute ever at any point in time I stated their is statisticly significant evidence to show that it is highly probable to be harmful. Now what ever they say about the data doesn't really matter to me, what matters is the data it doesn't care who is offended or what social taboos exist it simply is and the data shows a strong connection between promiscuity and bad things. This of course is something you ignored, you refused to acknowledge the data only trying to grasp at the excuses made in order to hold onto your belief. You also only mentioned the divorce statistics not all the rest.
Sure honey, I ignored the data. You know the data that talks about excessive promiscuity and only in women because men are immune to any issues related to it. There's no bias in that is there, especially not in how you are talking about extreme cases and are acting like every woman who is promiscuous automatically has those problems. You said that your statistics were completely true and that they were "reality". What about that suggests that you don't think they are 100% accurate? Again, a woman is a slut for sleeping with like 3 guys, some people would consider a woman a slut simply for having sex out of marriage. You keep addressing extremes which is really annoying. It's like someone asking, "should I go on a diet" and me saying "no, diets can be very bad for you if they are extreme". Only addressing the extreme is really pointless.Asker, nobody cares what you think about morality. Your sense of morality is not universal, not even close, so you need to get over yourself.
Sorry my internet whent down so I was unable to finish my remark.According to the studies men are less affected then women (I believe they mentioned this in several of those links). That isn't to say they should do it only that it is less harmful then when women do so (it makes sense biologicly since casual sex is far more dangerous for a woman then a man since she is more suseptable to STDs then he is and of course pregnancy which could very frequently be leathel not only in actual giving birth but the fact that it consumed so much energy while reducing the ability to acquire resources and food, plus the years of dependency the child has which is also is resources intensive). It would only make sense that women would have interanl mechanisms that would cause her to suffer negatively for this behavior as historicly for all but the past 100 years or so it would have most likely resutled in her dying if she was promiscuis.
As for your example, that actually is a lot. Thats once every four months (all of it causing your brain to strengthen the reward circuits that encourage the behavior ie you have sex your brain feels pleasure when you stop it starts to encourage you to look for it again (this is why porn is actually starting to have negative effects on men because it starts to be a requirement for their pleasure making it hard to get the same response with anything else)) of casual sex for two years (and we know thats not how it works, its never like clock work) it shows a causalness towards sex or an inability to maintain a relationship either way thats not very good. That tells a man a lot about the woman if she cannot maintain a relationship for more then four months.
As for the casual sex aspect of it, there are several issues. One is that it devalues him, if she wants a relationship with him he has to work for it, to pay for it however she had no issues giving it away for free to some one else, some one she was not interested in or in all probability really knew. That devalues him, clearly she doesn't value him if she is going to make him pay for it while giving it away for free to some one else. The other is that she thinks that sex isn't a big deal and if its not a big deal then maybe she won't think its a big deal to cheat since its “just sex”(statistics show this is actually not uncommon).
Then you have the issue that she is using him, if she gave it away for free to any guy she thought looked attractive and now suddenly (almost always when she is older and less attractive then she use to be) she “changed” and wants a relationship, what is their that can be done to prove she has changed intsead of simply no longer having proimiscuity as a vaible option?(ie she is using him now that the “party” is over) These are why women have always been the ones to slut shame, to try and control sex because in the end they lose when its freely available.
As for your comment, you are completely misrepresenting everything I stated. First and foremost I never said it was an absolute I said the reality is that its harmful as statistics show just as statistics show that smoking is harmful. You ignored this fact until you wanted to twist it to your benefit when you stated I didn't believe the statistics where 100% true which is not the case I do believe these statistics its just that their are always exceptions just like how a smoker can smoke their entire life and never get cancer, it does happen, but it doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes healthy or that this is the norm. Again, the data shows women however it does mention that men are less affected (as I explained why that may be in my other comment). Even if it didn't affect them at all, or entirely it wouldn't matter because the fact is it affects women (some things affect men more others women more, this is one of those things).
Besides which I made it perfectly clear I do not condone male promiscuity, I quite literally stated that so again claiming bias is simply inaccurate and an attempt to dismiss the data. Then you shifted to try to alter the definition of promiscuity (misrepresentation seems to be a trend for you) the definition of promiscuity is indiscriminate sex usually frequently. yes some people havea different idea of what that is which is why I used the data that showed that with each addition of a partner an increase in negative affects occured. The fact is every time you have sex with a different person it will increase the risk of negative consequences. If its casual it seems to be even more so, whether thats because those who partake in casual sex do so more frequently or the nature of casual sex itself I don't know but again their was ample data showing this to be true. So no it is not saying an extreme example its pointing out in general, promiscuity is bad.
We have even linked promiscuity in women with poor relationships with fathers which again, does kind of suggest a disfunction, that this is not something that is healthy: www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...havior-young-girls.htmlwww.huffingtonpost.com/.../...ation_n_3600946.html
So the question is really more about why this bothers you so much rather then whether or not its true. As I said I am not saying that you have to listen all I said was this is what the negative consequences are of it. You can do what ever you wish this is just stating that its unhealthy.
@hellionthesage never feeling love or being loved i guarantee has worse consequences. There are things the data doesn't take into account. There are many social pressures we all have to deal with and each individual handles them differently. Different cultures also handle things differently but that was not mentioned. If you lived in a very religious area that put a lot of pressure on you then it would be much more stressful and harmful. If you lived in an area where it was common there would be much less stress. So I will stick to what I feel. You can't paint everything with a broad brush because everyone is different in every situation and you'll never be able to tell with certainty how it will work out for anyone. "To each his own"
@Satisfyd Thats part of my point. You say their are problems these people have and are essentially self medicating (as you explained was the case of your wife) and it was not affective it did not help the situation (and statisitcly makes it significantly worse) so why would you encourage the behavior? If some one is depressed you don't tell them to do extacy to feel better because its unhealthy and doesn't resolve the problem. As for cultures, as I mentioned most have been against promiscuity (I even gave an example). As for the rest, you can smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and never get sick. So what are you going to do? Same goes for unhealthy food. Yet despite this most people will shy away from these things because while they maybe one of those who doesn't get affected by it chances are they will be in the very large percentage that is and its simply something they don't want to risk. So why would mental health be any different?
@Satisfyd Further more your saying that we have to except a person irregardless of their actions (which I strongly disagree with since our actions are who we are like it or not) which is not how the real world works. So she wants to have fun and sleep around and sees no harm in it (despite evidence suggesting otherwise) and maybe she is even in that small catagory of people who do not suffer the negative ramifications of it. Thats still going to affect her later in life because many men do not want a woman who is like that so even if it didn't affect her she is now going to lose out on a potential life partner simply because no one bothered to tell her her actions have consequences that a guy will be more then happy to have sex with her but their is a point where they will not want her if she has had a promiscuis past. This is information that they find out usually far to late to do anything about and its thanks to people who don't want to admit to this fact.
@Satisfyd If they choose this with full knowledge of the consequences and ramifications then thats up to them but pretending like their isn't any that its perfectly healthy that their never is or never will be any consequences for casual promiscuis sex then thats a lie and they are going to find out the hard way and that is a disservice to them to play into this thinking. All actions have consequences as long as they are aware of them and take responsibility for them (most don't. Most try to argue that their past doesn't matter once they realize that its going to cost them and then try to paint these men who don't like promiscius women as the villain despite the fact that they are simply making choices no different then those women did) then their isn't an issue. But thats not what is happening which is why I am pointing this out, to women of various ages who don't realize that their are going to be long term affects to this because no one thought it important enough to tell them.
@hellionthesage there are consequences to everything we do in life. Do we stop living. Sometimes risks need to be taken. Who are we to judge anybodys' actions. Do you tell people not to walk down stairs cause you could fall. We all make choices in life and there are 3 types of consequences. First are minor, no pain but lesson learned. Second are more severe, there is pain with possibly long term effects. Last, is permanent harm. The last one is the ones that need to be thought out before you act. Pregnancy fits into that or an STD, but protection can be used to avoid that issue. So you can avoid things by preparing for consequences. But not all can be avoided like taking a job that ruins your life or marrying someone that changes after marriage and becomes abusive. I'm not the type to act like God and make people's choices for them. Go out and experience life and make the best of everything. With the right attitude and acceptance of everyone's differences we can all choose to be happy.
@Satisfyd Your right people do make mistakes, I in no way said otherwise nor did I say they should be punished for their actions or made to suffer. What I said was it has consequences and that we should never pretend that they don't which is what you and every one else here seems to be advocating. As for telling people, we as a society tell people not to do drugs, not to drop acid do meth etc because their is a high statistically significant probability that their will be lasting harm and society seems perfectly content with that. Same goes with cutting, its damaging no real threat of permeanent harm yet we still all seem perfectly content with trying to prevent it. So why is this different? The evidence is there, we know scientificly that it does lasting harm, that the rampant promiscuity is devastating to the individual, their children, to the partner and to society yet we all just want to pretend that their is no harm in it because why again? Its mean to tell them its unhealthy?
@hellionthesage drugs, alcohol cutting are all doing harm to your body which is completely different. The reason that casual sex can be a problem is society not accepting someone's behavior. The reason it works for me is I do not judge my wife based on her past. If society would stop putting pressure on people that enjoy having sex it probably wouldn't be a problem. The reason it's not a problem for men is because society expects men to go out a bang as many women as possible. So the real problem is people trying to warn people about doing things they feel like doing.
@Satisfyd And yet as I stated before, we know that a poor relationship with or the absence of a father actuall increases probability of promiscuity. If it was nothing more then social pressure then this would not be the case. It also doesn't acknowledge the issue of women siting lower levels of marital satisfaction within a marriage if she has had numerous partners, again this would not be the case if it was merely social pressure. When a person has sex their brain releases oxytocin, this causes an emotional bond to form or if their is a preexisting one, for it to strengthen. Now when you do this repeatedly the brain attempts to form bonds with nearly complete strangers, many times over it will inevitably result in issues. As I stated we have ample scientific data that shows its harmful, just because society frowns on it doesn't mean their isn't a basis for it. The notion that society has rules for absolutely arbitrary reasons in general isn't a very sound argument to begin with.
@hellionthesage I disagree why do men's brains not have this problem our brains are not that different. The only difference is how society treats us for the same act. You said it was OK at first, what trauma happened in your life that changed your mind, I doubt you just randomly started looking into this.
@Satisfyd Actually our brains are very different from size (men have an 8-10% larger brain) to composition (men have more grey matter women have significantly more white matter) to areas of activites, even our genetics are different with the genetic similarity between any male to any male or any female to any female and its 99% similar, but compared to any male to any female its only 97% similar, the difference between humans and chimpanzees. www.webmd.com/.../how-male-female-brains-differwww.google.com/url
@Satisfyd Now as for specifics who knows but it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (I mentioned it in an earlier comment) for women sex is dangerous, pregnancy itself was potentially life ending plus women are far more susceptable to STDs then men are (since the only place a man has open is the urethra or the microabrasians on the skin) Then the fact that pregnancy reduces her ability to gather food and resources since its hard to hunt when pregnant (and even afterwards watching a completely helpless baby). Then of course the fact that she is in a pricarious state since she is limited in her abilities while pregnant as well as having to consider the dangers to her unborn offspring so it makes strenous work difficult (like building shelter or defending herself). Then the many years of dependency the child has on its mother thus continues to hamper her survival. Meanwhile for a man, he did a little work for lets say an hour gets an offspring and loses nothing
@Satisfyd except for easily replaced calories and a little time. So it makes sense that their would be internal mechanisms that would encourage her not to do this behavior (like the increased rates of depression) and no internal mechanism that affects men (though again men do get affected it just seems less severe). That is the prevailing theory on this.
@hellionthesage it may be possible that some women are wired different such as being gay, so those effects you speak of could be lessened or reversed. I still feel if you could remove all societal pressures and judgements those studies would be different. Peer pressure and bullying has caused many suicides.
@Satisfyd Yet as I pointed out we do know that they function independent of society and their is a good biological reason for it. I never said it couldn't be reversed, just because your an alcoholic now doesn't mean you have to be one later but that doesn't mean you encourage doing it now and just assume it won't have lasting harm (it will). Even if its reversible (which again I think it might thanks to neural placticity) that is still something you would have to actively initiate you would have to actively force your self to do. Its kind of like saying your going to do some herion but you'll just stop cold turkey when your in your late twenties and there will be no negative side affects what so ever. Its not going to work that way and the fact that you would make the choice says a lot about what kind of person you are and what you prioritize.
@hellionthesage discussion was good and we may have to agree to disagree to a point. To me studies are crap, they can't account for everything and so are always open to being incorrect. Science can watch how a drug affects chemicals in you brain and body, but there are to many factors that can affect chemicals as well thoughts when it comes to behavior. Therefore you cannot say who will be affected and to what level. Many people have addictive personalities and cannot even drink, smoke or gamble. Others can do all that and never be affected. My wife did not have to make the adjustments, I had to accept that the past is the past. She was a different person then. There is way to much pressure put on women. Most men want them to be easy, but as soon as they are they're treated horribly. A lot of people have a hard time with sex in general. You need to be realistic in expectations that are put on people. Hell most adults drink to much, do we tell adults to stop alcohol use.
Men inflate their number of partners and women deflate them. The reason is women are afraid of the fallout society will judge them on. Again I accepted my wife as is but I believe most men and their egos will have a hard time thinking about their SO being railed by another guy.
@Satisfyd If something is likely to occure then it is likely to occur, that does not mean its wrong, that doesn't mean their is no exceptions which I already pointed out. But statisticly heroin is bad for you, are you going to start shooting up because after all statistics don't matter and it could affect you differently? How about smoking? Your diet? I'm going to guess in these cases you very much adhere to what the statistics say because the negative consequences are visible and noticible fairly quickly (not to mention pretty well exposed and easily accessible). This is only different in that the affects are not as obvious to causal observers and that ruined relationships are not visibly damaging (but the long term affects are extreme). As for numbers, yes women push their numbers down (men actually don't alter theirs for the most part) Again I never said osticise any one for this, I said don't pretend its healthy when it isn't let them know what they are getting themselves into
@Satisfyd instead of pretending like their are no consequences when their clearly are. Smoking is bad for you, but if thats something you want to do and you know the risks I will not stop you, if however your going to say its healthy then we will have a problem. that isn't true and I will not pretend it is to ease the mind of the smoker. Same goes with promiscuity, its unhealthy we know its unhealthy. As long as we don't pretend it isn't they should be allowed to do what they will but I will not enable some one to be a yes man to them simply so they can feel good about being promiscuis/smoking/gorging on junk food. As for men, if they are not comfortable with it then who cares? Isn't it their right to choose that not hers? Just as she can choose to pass on a guy because he is short or a smoker so to does he have the right to not persue a relationship with her because of her sexual past. It goes both ways. She can do as she wishes but so can he.
@hellionthesage you keep bringing up bodily harm such as drugs or smoking. Those have harmful effects that you can physically see and measure. Psychological effects cannot be measured with certainty everyone is affected differently and the affects can come from many different sources which are impossible to track as there can be many years of life and many situations. Again you can't be certain. As far as the man choosing, no one has the right to choose the past of the person they love. And loving someone is to love them as they are not who or what you want or wanted them to be. I feel sorry for the people that can't accept others as they are and want to mold them into what they want.
@Satisfyd I keep bringing them up because the assumptiong that since you cannot see it it must not be harmful is ludicris. You can measure (to an extent) emotional trauma, as the statistics show. Besides which you would not simply disregard a persons physical well being so why would you their mental well being? The fact is the only difference is what is visible but that should be painfully obvious that this is not an indicator of how damaging something is. I can't see a tumor but that doesn't make it anyless damageing, so to with mental trauma just because I cannot see it doesn't mean its not happening, and statististicly we have shown that this is very much the case. So ignoring that is to ignore some one performing a self destructive behavior and thus condoning it. You are saying that they should persist in a behavior that is harmful simply because you don't notice the damage because it only affects them years down the line (like smoking).
@Satisfyd I cannot measure emotional trauma directly that is true. But if some one is doing something that is harmful to them, that is a high risk behavior that seems to be compulsory that they need to seek out dispite the risks despite the damage caused then one can say with some accuracy that they clearly are not healthy, that their is a high probability of emotional trauma (again as all research has shown). As for choosing some ones past, no they cannot but they have every single right to decline a relationship with some one because of their past, every right. By your reasoning then a woman cannot choose anything about the man she is with whether he is well off kind, loving, whether or not he has a criminal record etc. I find it odd that every one seems to think that only women should have the right to choose but men should not. If he does not wish to be with a promiscious women then he has that right. If this bothers women they have the right to stop being promiscuis.
Or to ignore these men and find some one who doesn't care. Its her life but its also HIS life. This is something your argument does not acknowledge that he has the right to self determination, the right to judge whats in his best self interest just as much as she does. Life is not about being able to do what you wish when you wish it without consequence. Its about making decisions and accepting that the consequences where as much your choice as the initital action. This is the other issue I have with promisicuity amongst women so many of them (and the men that defend the behavior) demand that their actions be completely ignored that they should not have to be held accountable for what they have done. If a man was a horrible human being his entire life why should any one be forced to accept him? If a woman was willing doing something a man considers immoral or unhealthy why should he have to simply accept her.
@Satisfyd Why can't she simply accept that this was a consequence of those actions she freely chose? Just as women can simply choose not to be with a promiscuis man or a virgin so to does a man hold that right. He is not so far less then her that he should simply be forced into accepting her despite her actions being contradictory to his personal beliefs. If a woman chooses to be promiscuis while fully understanding the consequences thats fine its her life her choice BUT that also means she accepts that people are not going to simply pretend that she wasn't promiscuis this is the trade off of free will you choose your actions but you also are choosing the consequences as well no matter how unaware of them you are, no matter how much you may dislike those consequences. Her life her choice, His life his choice. Plain and simple.
@hellionthesage simply put you have the right to like or dislike someone's actions, but you have no right to judge them. Therefore if you treat someone negatively because of actions you disagree with then should you be judged by everyone, what if you are judged and treated because you eat meat. A case could be made that is unhealthy. Nobody has the right to judge anyone's actions unless it is directly harmful to them. Again with so many variables those studies are not accurate it's impossible to say they are cause all things were not taken into account. I also feel it's very shallow to judge any person on their behavior. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes you cannot be so critical to expect perfection. If you don't like someone's past then walk away don't treat them like your better.
@hellionthesageThe Heritage Foundation is not a legitimate research foundation or think tank, where studies are peer reviewed. It is a right-wing propaganda organization with a political agenda. How foolish people are to talk about a "study" which clearly has a bias from the outset, and the biased "researchers" twist whatever results to fuel that agenda, in this case some idiotic idea women--never men--need to save themselves for marriage or else they make poor wives. Shame on you for peddling this drivel.
@Satisfyd Judgment and mistreatment are two very different things. Their is not a single sapient being on this planet who does not judge it is literally impossible. In order to act on information you must form a judgment. What you are talking about is shaming which is actually a social function designed to get people to function a certain way ie that which is percieved to be best for the society and the individual. I said they get to havea choice and no one should attempt to take that from them. If a man hurts a womans feelings because he rejects her based upon her sexual past that is perfectly legitament, he has that right that is not being judgmental or mean or rude that is deciding that they are not compatible a decision he has the right to make. Their is no case about it being harmful, as I pointed out it is their is no question about it. That is why we as a society frown upon it, its harmful to them and others they choose to interact with (in the form of divorce as it harms
@Satisfyd both the spouse and any offspring they may have). We know the relationship of a father impacts it, at which point they had sex (the younger the more promiscuis they are), economics (poorer the more promisciuos) etc, all of which clearly show we do know the harmful affects of it. So that isn't really a question. And again every one has the right to choose so why take away that right from men? Why do only women get to choose their actions and not have to live with the consequences of it? As for this, "I also feel it's very shallow to judge any person on their behavior." that is to be perfectly frank, absurd. How do you not judge a person on their behavior? IF they are cruel and mean or friendly you don't make any judgment call or treat them any different no matter what they do? No matter if their trying to rob you or help you? That is, to be perfectly honest, highly questionable and quite disfunctional if true. A person is their actions. Yes intent matters but their actions
@Satisfyd dictate what kind of person they are and who they are. How you treat people and interact with people is not just a reasonable way to understand some one, its the only way. If some one is always violent I would not pretend they where not just because I was afraid of hurting their feelings. Sure their could be a good reason for it but I wouldn't enable the behavior, encourage them to be the worst person they could be by not calling them out on it. Thats how children grow up into disfunctional people, and how disfunctional people continue to be disfunctional. Its harmful to them and society to do nothing. And that has nothing to do with perfection. It has to do with trying to be the best person we can be. You would not except the standards you are preposing for your own children or your business or anything else so why propose it at all? Our legal system imprisons innocent people but nothing is perfect so we might as well do nothing at all? That is a terrible mentality to have.
@Satisfyd Also I would point out that I provided multiple links to multiple studies done by multiple groups, one of which was the national institute for health which you completely ignored (most likely because it did not fit your agenda). I find it ironic that for all of your comments about not judging you have done the most of it by ignoring my statements misrepresenting my arguments and by suggesting that I am promoting mistreatment instead of addressing the misinformation being presented. As for "right wing" that itself is a judgment, where is your no judgment mentality now? I do not abide hypocricy nor the obfuscating of the truth both of which you are now doing. You have cast judgment so I am going to cast mine, you don't like whats being said I don't know why but maybe you have experienced some issue regarding this and are desperatly trying to justify it I don't know but the fact remains empirical evidence will always, ALWAYS trump ancedotes and feelings. I have presented
@Satisfyd the evidence by more sources then you wish to acknowledge you don't have to like it but irregardless of your feelings on the subject it will always remain the true so it really doesn't matter what you feel. Not once did I say women had to save themselves for marriage, not once. Not once did I say this did not apply to men, I do not believe men should partake in this behavior either (I don't approve of promisciuty) yet here you are casting judgment. You have done everything that you said others should not do, you have dismissed facts because they are inconvient, you have insulted me because you don't like what I am saying all because for what ever reason you cannot handle the truth, preffering instead to live in some fairy tale where actions have no consequences. If that is what you want thats fine but do not try and pawn it off as truth. That is unacceptable to me and is something I will always fight against. Give respect and recieve respect, insult me and get called out.
@hellionthesage promiscuity for the two of us is simply an opinion. To cite studies that do not account for enough variables is what I disagree with. There are to many other things that come into play such as social or religious pressures. That my friend is all there is to it.
@Satisfyd well their are to many variables so how can you possible site social and religious pressure? You said it yourself their are so many variables that their is no possible way to determine if promiscuity is harmful or if multiple studies by multiple groups are in fact telling the truth that it is so by that thinking you cannot claim social and religious pressure. You especailly cannot claim religious pressure since its actually completely independent of it since it is found in multiple religions and you can't really claim societal pressure because its found in multiple societies ie their is a consistent theme with it that is found in otherwise incredibly diverse groups thus leading to the conclusion that these ideas came about because it was probably harmful rather then every single one of these incredibly diverse groups in incredibly diverse times came to create the same idea completely independent of each other and completely arbitrarily. that would be absurd.
@hellionthesage what I mean is things are not taken into account with these studies. Men by nature like to own women psychologically. Men want to mark their territory so to speak. Many men want virgins, because they will always be remembered. There is also competition men want to be the best she's ever had. Even our semen seeks out and destroys other men's sperm. Men get very jealous even treating women as property. Women hate it and after so many years it can take a toll on a relationship. The studies do not interview the men as to the reasons for the divorce. It's possible there's something to these studies but much more data and a much more comprehensive study Neeson to be done to validate the claims.
@Satisfyd First and foremost everything you are saying is basicly an attack on men, I just want that to be clear. Second it was women who controled reproductiong not men so she by holding on to sex (as she did through out all of history) was able to maximize the resource gain from it ie he had to commit to her in order to get sex, he had to prove his worth so he was the one who would go without sex for years and only get it usually after marriage. This wasn't his choice it was hers. Secondly lets say you are correct (despite the fact that men who are into casual sex are loving this era because they don't have to put in any work to get laid like they would have had to do historicly and in turn these women are getting, as they call it "pumped and dumped" which is not to their benefit) about men, why would they be that way? either its social in nature and women do like it and this is what society has told men to act or its biological in which case their is a survival mechanism at work.
@Satisfyd Its either women want this and men are simply acting on it, or women have wanted men to be this way for years because it meant that he was devoted to her and thus was far more likely to provide for her and to fight and die for her thus improving her survival and his chances of not only reproducing but also increasing the well being and survival of his offspring. Those studeis are not flawed, their is always more information their are always more things to learn and exceptions but that doesn't bother you in any other part of your life why now? We have no idea how quantum mechanics functions despite the fact that it informs all of the known universe. That doesn't mean that scientist must be wrong about gravity though does it? We can see a trend we can see that promiscuity leads to bad things and comes from bad things consistently in the vast majority of scenarios, we know its affects on the mind because behavior is documentable and we have found this data consistently.
@Satisfyd Their is quite literally no rational argument against it as it is consistently provable, that we can point out the damage every time. Even in your own initial argument about your wife you said she did it because she had low self esteem, so wouldn't that mean that sex was being used for its pleasure inducing abilities no differently then any other drug that a person uses to forget their problems? By that reasoning her behavior would fall under the self destructive catagory no different then an addict. So even in that initial argument you where proving my point. I don't recall any of the studies saying they didn't interview the man and even if thats the case it wouldn't matter because 80% of all divorces are initiated by women due to "no fault" ie they simply dont want to be with them any more, 60% of all male initiated divorce (12% of all divorces) are due to the wifes infidelity.
@Satisfyd You are doing everything in your power to make it appear as if women are always victims and its the "mean old men" that are the problem. I find it strange that you haven't noticed that. If men and women are equals why are you treating women like they are infallible that their actions are the fault of men and not their own decisions? You didn't do that for men, you where more then happy to claim that women are pressured into this or that but men act with complete autonomy and no influence from society, no influence from the women that raise them, no influence from the women that choose to have sex/a relationship with them etc., why? The fact is you are biologicly conditioned to see women as fragile and needing protection and society has hijacked this mechanism and amped it up to the extreme so that you are inable to actually see women as fully functional adults that are capable of making poor decisions simply because they are people not because they are victims.
@Satisfyd Protecting women from the realization that their actions have consequences is not helpful to them to men or to society. Its incredibly sexist to sit and blame men for the actions of women, if she wants sex then its society (ie men because women apparently have no influence in soceity) that has repressed her (despite the fact that at the end of the day she looses because then she wants a relationship and nobody wants her, which of course is all mens fault as well instead of a choice she made) if she has sex and regretts it its mens fault because they used her for sex (despite the fact that it was her choice to begin with and she knew the outcome) and then after years of her deciding to do this she wants a plan b ie relationship because she is no longer as desirable as she use to be and the clock is ticking and then no guy wants her because they, quite understandably don't trust her, and those men are still to blame. You have removed her agency turning her into nothing more
@Satisfyd then a child. This doesn't strike you as odd? That ony women experience social pressure? That only women are taken advantage of? that only women are allowed to act and behave in any fashion they wish and its every one else who must simply sit back and accept them fully knowing that if they acted in a similar manner it would be unacceptable? You should honestly think about that (I'm growing tired of men being blamed for the choices women make.) As for the data that is illogical, claiming that since their are many factores that we cannot prove anything is as I pointed out earlier is simply not true. We cannot prove smoking is unhealthy because their are many many factors that lead to cancer, we also cannot prove that it causes cancer because their are people who do not develop cancer from smoking ergo smoking is perfectly healthy. This is your conclusion and it is illogical. We have more then enough data to point out a trend ie promisciuty leads to many negative consequences.
@hellionthesage smoking is bad for you health wise, that we can prove cause it affects all smokers health to a point so you are incorrect about that. You can physically see the tar in the lungs. As far as being against men you are incorrect. Women suck. They use what assets they have to control the male species , but you can't totally blame them cause we give them that power. If we controlled our urges and refused sex with them, they would not hold all the cards. My wife's low self esteem caused her to be unable to say no cause if she said no, she wouldn't be accepted. She was controlled by the men cause they only wanted sex. Once they got it they were gone. Rinse and repeat. Me only having 1 partner was not entirely my fault as I was turned down by women over 200 times just trying to start a conversation. So I don't really care for them and I'm not trying to defend them necessarily, I'm saying they can do what they want to, but to inform them that it's bad to have sex based on studies
That are not completely accurate is the wrong way to go about it. You could simply say that you don't go after women that are promiscuous even to the point saying it's possible there's could be negative consequences is all you need to say. If you are not interested in promiscuous women then why do you care so much. Ignore them and move on. Information and beating them over the head with it are two different things.
@Satisfyd Not really their are plenty of people who smoke and do not have their health affected which is why I pointed it out, you are arguing that its either 100% or 0% and thats illogical. That was my point with smoking we know that their are people who smoke and do not develop ill health from it and others very much do. The majority do that is why the consensus is that its unhealthy, so to with promiscuity their are exceptions like with smoking but the majority have ill affects from it so why is it that you would treat it differently? Its the same thing except instead of physical damage its mental yet because you cannot see it you have no problem with it and I don't understand why. As I pointed out numerous times we have numerous studies (I gave you multiple studies done by multiple groups) all of which show the ill affects of promiscuity. How can you then turn around and say that it "doesn't count" because its not absolute? Thats the argument and point I was making.
@Satisfyd Further more you keep saying they are inaccurate yet provide absolutely no reason for why they are inaccurate. They have been done by mulitple groups (illiminating personal bias) they have been done across the board (removing economic and education factors) they have been done for women and men (removing gender bias) they have been done with currently promiscuis and currently not promiscius (removing reporting bias) they have analyzed the statistics of divorce rates reported levels of happiness etc (removing personal bias) they have done it across age spectrums (removing age bias) they have done the studies over the course of years (removing the limitations of time ie gathering long term data) they have analyzed personal relationships which is how they know that a womans relationship with her father impacts it as well as what age they started to have sex (factoring in external influences)
@Satisfyd ie if this is not ample enough evidence then you have no reason to believe anything because their will never be enough evidence for anything. Do we have all the facts? No. Do we have enough facts to make a sound judgment on this? Absolutely and then some. You have not presented any data, any argument to suggest the data is flawed or inadequate you have only stated (repeatedly) that it was. That is not an argument let alone a logical one. Either present something that could prove that the data is inadequate or except the fact that this is very well established because the only thing you can use to argue this is facts and so far you have not done that. Now clearly you don't want to hear this and thats fine but that doesn't make it any less true. We know with a high degree of certanty that this is the case. Yes it would be nice to act in any way we wanted without consequences but that is not going to happen. As for women, yes you have done nothing but try and protect them
@Satisfyd If you look back at all of your statements that is the case, even when arguing about your wife not being able to say no (ie she chose not to say no, she was not mind controled she was not forced into it she chose to agree to sex and those men had no obligation to stick around. It was her choice and hers alone she cannot blame those men for it without stating that she was and is nothing more then a child wiht absolutely no agency what so ever (which for the record I do not believe for one moment)). The fact is I don't go after promiscuis women as many men don't. The reason why I care is because these women are being encouraged to do self destructive behavior by people like you, by men who just want sex, by women who think having random sex is some how empowering (how self indulgence at the expense of your overall well being is empowering is beyond me). You are telling them to hurt themselves, to hurt their families etc because we should just let them.
@Satisfyd Thats like a parent letting their child act in any way they wish, it never ever yields positive results for the child nor the people said child interacts with. And again, as I have stated multiple times you not likeing what is being said is a far cry different then what is being said being inaccurate. You have no argument to support that statement, at least thus far. You have simply stated they are inaccurate then gave no real reason for why except not enough data (not really going into detail how you know their isn't enough data nor how much data would be necessary to prove it, since again multiple groups over decades have researched this and come to this conclusion). The fact is unless you can prove that their isn't enough data then you cannot claim their isn't. We know the consequences and why you would rather people remain ignorant and hurt themselves and others is beyond me. I thought it was painfully obvious why I would speak out against the obfuscating of the truth.
@hellionthesage again you fail to see things are different so the data is skewed. Women used to have sex with their husbands cause it was a duty, which I don't have a problem with should a spouse go sexless cause the other doesn't want sex. You say men don't want these women but they marry them, why, yet your numbers say women initiate divorce. Clearly if the men had such a problem wouldn't they not marry them and then certainly divorce. I guess they marry a slutty thinking their gonna get laid all the time and when she stops putting out then it's her fault. You have to break down the reasons for the divorce. You can't just say promiscuous women have a higher divorce rate and that's the reason. Again if you read the whole study you would've read that men were not part of it. What was their reason or does that not matter. I'm sure there are many reasons people divorce, not just because there wife used to be a slut.
Women have decided they are allowed to have sex and enjoy it which was frowned upon years ago. In many cultures a marriage is fixed. Has that been accounted for. I have listed many things that the studies did not account for and that's the reason they are not accurate. if a man tells her wife daily that she used to be a whole and one day she tires of this and divorces him is she to blame. Again there is no 1 reason people divorce. So it's difficult to do a study trying to get to the real reason why.
If tell studies are correct is it possible it may not be the correct course of action to not have sex. Would you have women repressed and unhappy cause they are not allowed to partake in their urges. Do we say well everyone needs a vice so take up smoking instead. Sex is the physical act of love which a beautiful and wonderful thing. Yes it can be both ways, sex or making love. How can you know what it is or will be for each encounter. Should a person not be able to enjoy the physical part of love. Now that would be ludicrous. Do you think it's possible to love more than 1 person in your lifetime. Before you meet a second person how do you know you will. Do you tell them you won't have sex cause you're waiting for the next lover. Marriage is just a legality. Do you feel a strong relationship must have marriage to be successful. People are all different and can have many good loving relationships.
@Satisfyd The studies show that women are more likely to be affected then men ergo the fact that divorce rate sky rocketed almost entirely initiated by women or caused by women (if we take into account infidelity which brings the total up to 92% of all divorce being initiated by women or due to female infidelity) and this started happening almost immediatley after the sexual "revolution". So I don't know what you mena by men divorcing women? Women initiate divorce 80% of the time the most sited reason being irreconcilable differences ie no fault. Men are not divorcing thier wives because they use to be a slut women are divorcing their husbands. Now the data shows that women are more likely to divorce based upon how many partners they have had this burst in divorce jumped after the sexual revolution (prior to which it was less then 10% divorce rate comparitive to its peak of 50% divorce rate)
no fault divorce became legal in the 80s and that should be taken into account, however the fact is without no fault divorce the divorce rate was negligible and it wasn't until the 90s when the ideas of the sexual revolution really hit home that the rate of divorce sky rocketed. We currently have fewer men marring now then ever before so as you pointed out men are not marrying women, men are also far more likely to turn down a woman with a promiscius past for a relationship then a woman without one. I don't understand your claim that I am not accepting that things are different and therefore the data must be skewed, This is the only world I have known, promiscuity was encouraged for as long as I can remember the data is relatively recent ie within twenty-thirty years so all of these changes where post sexual revolution where women where encouraged to be more promiscuis. It was women who controled sex not men, women chose to not be promiscuis in order to have a better bargaining chip
for relationships. Marriage in the US and the western world (where the studies took place) do not have arranged marriages, the number of people who partake are small to the point of being negligible so that is not a valid reason to dismiss the studies. You have not given any reasons other then that one, which was inaccurate and your misunderstanding that it is women who are initiating divorce not men. In fact when they first made no fault divorce legal they where convinced it was going to be men who where going to rip apart families so they could get sex. They where, clearly, wrong it was women who where ripping apart their families and they noted that the more sexual partners she had the more likely she was to divorce. This is very much proven. Other then that you have not given any reason for why these numerous studies are wrong only stating they are. As for the course of action, no one has ever said don't have sex no one.
What the data says is instead of acting on impulse and self indulgence, which is what your suggesting ie if it feels good just do it and who cares about the consequences (a terribly juvenile notion, that pleasure should come above all else), that we should be careful who we choose to have sex with because their are consequences. It doesn't say your not allowed to have sex, it doesn't say that you can't enjoy sex it states that if you have multiple partners, with every additional partners you risks for divorce/cheating/depression etc. will increase. Basicly be choosier or except the fact that your going to ruin your future relationships. It doesn't have to be one extreme or another you don't have to either allow for extreme self indulgence to the point of it being self destructive or no indulgence or joy to the point of it being self destructive, thats a ridicuolous claim. Moderation, and acknowledgement of the facts is what I am advocating.
@Satisfyd As for marriage (of which most men are now opting out of because of the laws favoring women who are again, the ones most likely to initiate divorce (doesn't sound like love and pleasure to me as you are trying to chalk it up as)) its the foundational block of civilization. Prior to marriage 80% of women reproduced as opposed to 40% of men. This means that most men are not going to have sex, to have relationships etc which will cause them to withdraw (which we are actually starting to see) productivity decreases because with out a reason to work hard people won't. Whats the point if I am living comfortably on less? Women will then have a lot of fun for about ten years while they are young and youthful and then they will be kicked to the curb while those same guys who wanted to have sex with them earlier move on to younger more attractive women. Those women will then lement about how they where "used"(ie they indulged themselves and suffered the consequences)
@Satisfyd and that no one wants so now these women are alone, usually with a kid that is growing up fatherless (something that is happening right now I would add. Did you know that 80% of all inmates are from single mother homes? That women who are fatherless are more likely to be promiscuis and thus more likely to have children who are also fatherless? Did you know that children without fathers are more likely to be poor, commit suicide, subtance abuse, suffer from depression, commit criminal acts, and to divorce (thus creating more fatherless children)?) ie its not about what feels good for her/him, its about what is best for her offspring and a commited relationship is the best means of survival for a human child. We are investment parents something we cannot do if we are off having promiscuis sex. Those children suffer, our future generations suffer (as again, we are seeing right now).
@hellionthesage that's to much of a stretch for me promiscuous sex leads to all that violence. In the black culture around 80 % of children do not have a father in the house. That is acceptable in their culture, men make the babies and the mother/grandmother raise them. As the black population rises and the white race is shrinking this would be more of the cause for those things happening. Again you said women initiate divorce the said they are kicked to the curb, again I don't think a woman being a slut is going to be the only thing that causes a divorce. There are just to many things that go on in a relationship, I know I've been in the same one over 30 years.
@Satisfyd Where is the most violence, that is which community has the absolute most violence conatined with in it? Black communities. Which community has the most fatherlessness out of any community? The black community. Further more what I pointed out was statistical fact, we know its true we know this is how it works, their is no question about it. As for women, I said they initiate divorce the most because they do, again this is fact not opinion. As for getting kicked to the curb I was reffering to promiscuity, after a certain point promisciuty is not a vialbe option for women as their looks fade so they then enter a stable relationship but as I pointed out they are the ones initiating divorce they are the ones reporting the highest levels of disatisfaction with in marriages (women who are promiscuis) they are the ones divorcing these men who are the stable providor (taking everything he has while they are at it thanks to unfair divorce laws), and destroying the lives of those men
@Satisfyd and their children by taking their father away from them. All of this is happening, we know its happening we can see it with our own eyes and statistics are showing us this as well. Their is no question about it. Her being promisicuis has an affect on her, her brain wires itself to want and crave attention and sex from multiple partners, its been conditioned to want this by her repeated behavior (this is neural plasticity at work, the same affect occures in men who watch porn, after awhile they need the variety porn brings and it starts affecting their life from problems initiating relationships to erectile dysfunction) this means that one man is not fullfilling that urge so she becomes disatisfied. She herself may not even know why because no one bothered to explain it to her. But she does become disatisfied and then divorces to try and find some one who makes her feel that euphoria she use to get with promiscuity.
@Satisfyd This isn't about your relationship, this is about society as a whole. Claiming that since your relationship isn't like this so it must not be true is like me claiming that since I was abused as a child every one else must have as well. It doesn't work that way, ancedotal evidence is a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter if your the exception or not what matters is what is happening as a whole. Now you seem to think I have something against sex, I don't. I like every other person have sexual urges, I would like very much to indulge in them (its been a long time) but I don't because I know their are negative consequences and I will not take advantage of some one elses ignorance/self indulgent behavior to get what I want. the reason is because I give a damn. I don't want people to suffer I want them to be the best they can be, to have the healthiest life they can have and what you are advocating, the complete renouncing of self control is unhealthy and self destructive.
@hellionthesage this study and yes all links refer to the same study is about the same as taking 10000 people that died counting the number that smoked say 6000 and saying smoking caused 6000 deaths. Horrible study, therefore invalid.
@Satisfyd No their are three different studies and the last two are compilation data from multiple studies. So that is incorrect. One was done by the national institute of health, the other was aspen college, the third was done by Dr. Kirk A. Johnson for the heritage foundation. The fourth soure sited its data from a study done by John teachman (which is unrelated to the other sources, and also corroborates the findings of Dr. Kirk Johnson), the fifth source Siters Johnson, Teachman, another researcher Anthony Paik. So yes their where mutliple studies done by multiple people all finding the exact same thing, the ill affects of promisciuity and its connection to higher rates of divorce. So yes we know with certainty that this is the case, these are accurate studies no matter how much you try to misrepresent them this will not change the data nor their accuracy.
@hellionthesage with the current populations and married peoples numbers, if the study was correct the divorce rate would be almost 100% given that 1 partner probably had more than 1 partner. Divorce rates have been climbing for years for many reasons, you can blame it on promiscuity. There are many benefits to a sex life both physical and mental. If you had very religious upbringing but had sex with someone you cared for but then the family found out the pressure could be unbearable which could have negative affects. Is that taken into account among other similarities. I don't believe so.
@Satisfyd Four studies done by doctors and researchers of various back grounds, we have a 50% divorce rate (or there's about) and its probability not certainty which is something you are ignoring. It doesn't matter what you believe what mattesr are facts. These are facts you don't have to like them, you don't even have to accept them, but they never the less are true and to pretend otherwise to make excuses to try and defend poor life choices that have long term consequences is enabling behavior which is never good. They looked at the statistics they looked at the facts and four independent research groups came to the exact, the EXACT same conclusion. Thats not something a rational person could ignore. Stop blaming religion, I already mentioned that this is found through out all religions and all cultures ego religion has nothing to do with it. We can see how it would affect people biologicly, socially and phycologicaly. Their is ample evidence that this is true.
@hellionthesage again every time I bring up information that the study did not take into account you dismiss it. That's like saying money has no effect on people getting a divorce. Look at reasons for divorce or relationship problems and past relationships don't even come up, so how do these studies somehow make that leap. Simple, by not looking at all relevant information.
@Satisfyd No, you bring up things that where accoutned for in the study. You bring up non applicabel circumstances, ones that are rare to the point of negligible (brining up arranged marriages in a country that has no arranged marriages by its native population and the vast majority of its immigrant population ie its negligible. Your claims "but religion" have nothing to do with what is reported, these people are of various different faiths and backgrounds yet the end result is exactly the same, in fact one can say that if they are heavily promiscius they where probably not all that devote or in a strong faith based community and even if they where that would also discourage their divorce rates which is not the case. At no point did any of your claims of innacuracy actually reflect on the study, and in several cases where completely unrelated, in fact they where meant as pity play, an appeal to emotions that we should accept the situations because the person might feel bad.
@Satisfyd The studies, all four of them, all of them done by different groups, and ideologies (one was a liberal who very much did not like what he found) all took into account all reasonable variables as I showed as the methodology shows. All your disimsals of the evidence where founded not upon logic but the fact that you did not like what you heard. Your dismissals where irrelevant to the topic designed to get sympathy ie guilt trip into shutting down the argument, not in questioning the methodology. The sample size of one study was four thousand couples. Not christian, not athiest, not hindue, just couples ie their was mixed religions/nonreligious couples involved. Their was no arranged marraiges as these where done in the western world, specificly the US where arranged marraiges are negligible to the point of non existence. So again, no I did not dismiss your statements, I pointed out how they where not applicable. You want the studies to be wrong so your trying to find any
@Satisfyd excuse you can to justify your opposition to it ie your grasping a straws in a desperate attempt to deny what you have learned. Partner count is connected to divorce rates irregardless of economic status, political affiliation, religious affiliation etc. That has been reasonablly shown in four separate studies. This is fact. No matter how much you want to state the sky is red, it is blue and your wishing otherwise is not going to change that. So you can accept the facts and deal with it or keep living in denial because you can't handle the truth. If you want, you can give me a list of your supposed "unaccounted for" variables and I will go through them one by one showing them to either be false (as they are almost certaintly are (I have already proved it with most of the ones you pointed out) or truthful. But claiming its wrong because "reasons"(ie you don't like it) isn't good enough.
Is it possible that all the studies on why relationships fail are incorrect. Maybe they asked the wrong questions. Maybe they should've asked did past promiscuity cause your relationship to fail. I'll bet you won't get that answer.
@Satisfyd Who cares what the person thinks is the reason? Thats like asking an alcoholic if they have a problem, the answer is almost always going to be no despite the blatently obvious fact that they do have a problem. They looked at the data, they asked the questiones their methodology is available for you to look at, you most likely won't because for what ever reason you so badly need them to be wrong so your going to go out of your way to deny all of it, like with your vain attempts at claiming they are wrong for "reasons". You haven't even pointed out why they are wrong, your asking which means you don't really have a reasonable arugment you just really need them to be wrong. Perhaps this is to personal a topic for you and you cannot step back and look at it objectively, but irregardless you have not presented any kind of counter argument. If you think their is a problems with the data, look at the methodology and point it out, if its wrong it will be their.
@hellionthesage psychologists that have studied relationships for years don't even list past sex lives as a reason for failed relationships. This is easy to see. Google reason for failed relationships and you get to many to mention. I'll go with their information instead of someone without the training and an agenda anytime. Reasons: even though you disagree. Culture, sex is more or less accepted; religion, again more or less accepted. Age is also a factor along with maturity. These can all cause undue pressures. There can also be a problem with how someone is treated. Does a SO feel that person is dirty and years later decide they can no longer live with that person's past. Then who is at fault, thetc person doing the deed or the person that can't accept them. To a certain point you have to accept that nobody is perfect, if you love them you overlook some things or die alone unhappy.
Search sex positives vs negatives. Stds and pregnancy are the negatives for people without health issues. The positive list is huge. Again nothing about past sex lives. How much more do you need.
@Satisfyd And that means what exactly? According to the links I provided these where the only any one bothered to see the affects of promisciuty on relationships. One was even originally meant to vindicate promiscuity until the results came in. Psychologist are a one on one type research, sociologist is mass group research. If their is no known trend, then they will not acknwoledge it obviously. Are you trying to say their is no such thing as quantum mechanics? Because people didn't know about it before so clearly it must not exist. Ignorance is not a very good reason for why something doesn't exist. Four studies, all of them with in the past twenty years all of which have been almost completely ignored because no one likes the way it sounds. Again, that doesn't prove anything its illogical to state that since they never said so it must not be true. As for their training, you again ignore the fact that these people had Phd.'s so again, your attempts at dismissing this has failed.
@Satisfyd They have PHD, s in their fields, their was minimal bias as I pointed out before one of them was trying to vindicate promiscuity and found out from the research that he was wrong. As for culture, you are from a culture that encourages promiscuity so how would that factor in here? Abortion is legal, condoms and birth control readily available, you can even get vibrators at wallgreens women divorce in droves and remarry etc etc etc, we live in a culture that is insanely accepting of promiscuity so clearly its not culture that is the cause, nor suppressioni of sex. We know what the stats say we know what the divorce rate was when we encouraged promiscuity and what it was when we discouraged it, we know how its linked to depression and divorce and cheating, we know how its linked to absent fathers and low self esteem. Their really is no question about it and again, your grasping at straws in a desperate bid to deny whats in front of you. This has nothing to do with accepting
@Satisfyd some one as not being perfect, again this is not a personal issue (for me at least, clearly you have personal investment in this) And no, technicly you don't have to accept anything otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against the hard facts, not that I would not be willing to look past some ones history if their was evidence of change. You yet again refuse to actually read what is written, it is not the husbands of promiscuis women that are divorcing them, its the women. They divorce the men and the rate at which they divorce their husbands is directly linked to their partner count. This is not about the individual this is not about your personal experiences issues etc. This is about facts and our societies (and your) refusal to acknowledg them. As for your sex positive remark, yes sex has many positives, but we are not arguing about sex we are arguing about promiscuity which is two very different things, making that a strawman argument not worth debating.
@hellionthesage the point is they're not hard facts. Researching reasons for relationship problems don't mention promiscuity as a reason over and over. Hundreds of studies prove this. If you look hard enough you can find the other side of every opinion. Just because a study says there is global warming doesn't mean it's there.
@Satisfyd No, that is incorrect. These studies link divorce rates with promiscuity period. Multiple studies done by multiple people from multiple back grounds, independently of one another. This is irrefutable. Because other people never discovered the connection doesn't make it not true. That is incredible illogical and I think you know that. Not every one claimed that their was more to evolution then natural selection, in fact most decided that was the only cause, that doesn't mean it was, in fact it isn't we now know epigenetics plays a huge part in it. What I am trying to say is, again, ignorance of a thing does not make it not exist. Accept the facts. Again you are desperatley trying to grasp at anything you can in order to prove to yourself why you don't have to listen and every time its something illogical. That makes no sense just as your previous claims. If you think they are wrong then go through the methodology of their research because thats the only way to disprove it.
@hellionthesage promiscuity is not the only thing causing divorce or bad relationships it's ludicrous to think so. Way to many other factors come into play. If you to believe that fine go ahead. You can't simply ask how many partners a person had and connect that to a divorce rate. Again if you look at the number of people with more than one partner than there would be very few relationships that would last, think for a second, how many couples do you know that both were only with that person. It's an incredibly small number. So your studies would have to have nobody in a relationship. Yet look at the number of people in great relationships, I'll bet in a large majority of those cases one or both has has more than one partner, which again completely disproves those studies.
@Satisfyd If you look and see reliablly that some one with a high partner count consistently is more prone to divorce and those with low partner counts do not then you can make a connection. Again you put up a straw man argument, No one ever said that one partener is the only way to do things, promiscuity isn't about having one partner, it is about having multiple partners indiscriminatly chosen. That is very different and by extention proves nothing. It literaly proves nothing because its not the argument being made, its not the evidence that is being shown by the studies. You keep trying to side step the actual argument by applying to other things like sex, or having only one partner, or emotional appeals or blaming religion etc all of which have nothign to do with the statement that evidence shows that the greater the partner count the greater the probability of divorce, divorce almost always initiated by the woman. This is fact.
@hellionthesage you cannot simply use partner count. There are to many other factors where did these people come from, what type of upbringing did they have was multiple partners looked down upon or accepted, that speaks to their mental stability. Only one control factor in a study makes it unreliable. We're these women pulled from all over the world or one area, that also makes a difference. If these women were deeply religious, the mental strain could've been to much, so the guilt could be part of the reason. Also what's the reason for divorce, another partner or money order whatever. You need to look at their reasons. The sample size is not that big.
@Satisfyd Did you even read anything I wrote? Did you even look at any of the studies? They showed our of thousands of women that this held true with incredible accuracy. This whent across all lines, Their was multiple studies done in multiple locations with several thousand people each, so yes their was a great amount of variety and the results stayed consistent, you would know that if you bothered reading the reports. But you didn't. You argue against them even though you didn't bother to read them. This will always make you wrong. You can't argue against something if you do not understand it or know what was written/said. The first one that I gave had a sample size of 10,000 women across the nation between ages 15-44(funded by the CDC), the second was between ages 14 and 32 in new zealend (different culture entirely) was done with 1037 women of all economic status, the third had 6500 women, the fourth 3,793 women coming to a total of about 15000, across all economic and culture
@Satisfyd as well as age groups (so you can't claim era differences) ie they are all adequate sample sizes and they all come to the same conlcusion. Again, you grasp at straws. As for your link, where is the hard data? Its opinions, women initiate, something they very much point out across the board then they guess its because women are more willing to leave. Why would they be more willing to leave? Funny how it only adresses it as women leaving bad relationships not as women potentially having issues and leaving a relationship that is not bad. This relates to my previous point that you as do so many others pretend that women can do no wrong that they are always victims and never the one to make mistakes. This article has no scientific data it has opinions, half ass ones at that.
@Satisfyd All of it actually being much more reasonablly explained by the data I have provided. So ask your self why you don't want this to be true. Because thats the only real question here, you needing this to be wrong, desperatly it seems, why?
@hellionthesage not straws. Again if studies were correct there wouldn't be any good relationships out there or very few. Everywhere you would have so many unhappy people, cause most people have had more than 1 partner in fact it's about 3 for women and 5 for men. Virtually every person out there would be running around unhappy cause they were promiscuous, which is ridiculous
@Satisfyd Divorce rate was at fifty percent. Its still that high in many cases but the problem is the rates started dropping conviently after more men stopped getting married ie rates really haven't dropped. 80% of divorce is filed by women, the probability as per the studies increases with partner count, divorce rates are high, and as you have pointed out, if this was an issue we wouldn't be seeing any of this, but we are. How does one get more partners? By either one night stands or relationships, if relationships are frequent then we can say that relaionships are not happy. In fact the opinion piece you presented stated as much. sex creates a sense of euphoria which becomes addictive, its used to self medicate and recreate mental balance ie make them happy when their crashing. Again we can see that with the data.
@Satisfyd As I said the facts are clear, backed by multiple studies, multiple statistics from mulitiple groups so that isn' the question. The question is why are you invested? Why do you need it to be wrong when it clearlly shows otherwise? What is going on in your life that makes you want it not to be true? What is it? Because everything you said is quite honestly simply you ignoring the data. This isn't about you not believing the evidence, its about you NEEDING to ignore the evidence. So what is it?
@hellionthesage it's got to do with not accepting the studies. It makes no sense. Women are unhappy with their marriage because they were promiscuous, so they leave their husbands. Also they asked these women what level was their happiness, very subjective especially with women who are never truly happy. Also society has changed women in the past were content being housewives, it was their job. Now everybody only thinks of themselves and are in competition with their neighbors and friends to have more. The world isn't as happy as they used to be so naturally divorce will continue to rise.
@Satisfyd Yet you are ignoring the fact that what your describing should also hold true for the women who are not promiscuis and are not divorced yet it doesn't. If all else is equal, influence wise but the one who is promiscuis is the one who is unhappy and divorces their significant other then one can presume with some accuracy (especially when dealing with thousands and thousands of people) that promiscuity plays a part in this. Its not an irrational argument, in fact its the only rational argument that can be made.
@hellionthesage the research does not ask the reasons for the problems they just assume by asking number of partners and relationship status. That's not valid, period. They don't list any other reasons. Again if it was accurate 90% of relationships would fail.
@Satisfyd 50% divorce rate (or there's abouts) would suggest that and again, for a man who didn't read any of the sources you claim to know a lot about them. As stated they did their methodology is right there I gave you the links try harder. If your going to make an argument you need to use evidence and right now you are using the equivalent of "nah uh" ie you continue to claim its wrong and then ignore all evidence showing otherwise. Their methodology was rigourus, it spanned multiple cultures, mutliple generations, multiple economic spectrums, mutliple social spectrums, multiple questiones. They then where able to show that partner count does in fact impact the probability of divorce.
@hellionthesage umm I have read it and they don't look at many things. The divorce rate has been increasing for years, why, don't think it's promiscuity cause that's been going on for years. People are more self centered than ever. Could that have anything to do with it. You say the men shouldn't have to live with a promiscuous partner but they must be willing or they would be initiating the divorce. They ask questions but not why they divorced, they just assume given the number of partners and the divorce then the promiscuity caused it. Again I also showed studies from licensed psychologists that show many reasons for divorce yet, promiscuity is not listed. These are from patients that bear their soul to their therapists, I would have to say that's pretty accurate. These people were studied by professionals, not just asked questions by a surveyor.
@Satisfyd You clearly did not because I have had to correct you many times with your accusations that it wasn't diverse enough (spanning multiple generations and continents) that it was biased (again pointing out that one of the studies was done by some one who was initially trying to prove their was nothing wrong with promiscuity) etc. So if you did read it you ignored most of it because it was inconvient. Also most of those studies focused on multiple aspects not just divorce. Further more you stated that men should except women who are promiscious I stated they should no have to do so. Again your ignoring everything but I do find it interesting that you call people with phd's as non proffesionals vs. therapist who don't actually require phds.
@hellionthesage the guys with phds made up the questions and interviewers ask the questions and are no judge of a person's character. The psychologists meet with people for years over many sessions and get to know every aspect of their lives. Option b is probably more accurate. I don't have a PhD but I could develop a list of questions, I could even enter the data into a spreadsheet. I could make sure a broad spectrum of people are interviewed. But if I don't meet with the people and learn about them, I don't get a accurate picture of their lives. People's mood that particular day can affect how a question is answered.
@Satisfyd Stop. Seriously just stop trying to justify it, multiple doctors, multiple studies multiple age groups multiple back grounds mutliple cultures their is NO arguing it. Period. NO matter how badly you want to believe otherwise there is no arguing it. Claiming phycologist don't talk about it as reason for why it doesn't exist is literally the most idiotic thing I have heard. For most of history they never talked about germs, in fact doctors scoffed at the notion that it was them killing patience simply because they didn't wash their hands, they believed it was the smell that poisened people ie miasma theory. So it must be true right? Because as we all know what the majority says, what some therapist with a masters degree in a soft science says must be absolute law. That is stupid beyond compare. So why are you terrified to acknowledge this? As I said there is literally no argument I give you facts you say "nah uh" so this ceased being an argument almost a month ago.
@Satisfyd You know the methodology (unless you have, as I suspect, not read any of my links nor my statements) so you know everything you said is utter crap. So as I have stated and alluded to many times, this is a personal matter to you and I and the studies I have presented have created a cognitive dissonance which is why you keep coming back and trying to deny what all of the evidence is proving. So why? It seems to me that you have issues at home, I don't know if thats the case but it sure seems that way. It seems like your in denial because again, all evidence is there every time you try to discredit the study you state things that are clearly accounted for ( oh there bias "one of the studies was done by a man trying to prove promiscuity wasn't bad" oh they had a small sample size "actualy their sample size was tens of thousands" oh their not proffesionals, "actually there all doctors" oh there wasn't enough diversity in age "they did it with people from age of 14-40" etc etc.)
@hellionthesage what's crap is that anything I have to say against your studies , you dismiss. The studies did not study all those people's lives to find out all the reasons for breakups. They asked simple questions and put them on a graph and came to a conclusion based on that alone. You can't simply ask were you promiscuous and has your relationship failed then conclude it must be because of the sex. Relationships fail for more than 1 reason, period. This has nothing to do with me, the data is simply not correct, you can believe anything you want. The only way to gather the correct information is to study each person to get all the reasons the relationships failed, which they did not do.
@Satisfyd No what they found was that more sexual partners = higher probability of divorce mulitple times in multiple studies ie it was replecatable ie that is one of the basic rules in order to state that something is not only statisticly significant but also highly likely because it was relplicable. Whats crap is your desperation. I am starting to wonder if your a troll on here because everythign you have said about the studies has been wrong, I even whent through and listed how everythign you stated was addressed within the studies, every god damn one of them. So don't argue about it because thus far you have had no valid arguments what so ever, not one of them. They didn't ask those questiones, questionares have many many questiones having similar questiones phrased in different ways to ensure the removal of bias etc etc. This is clearly personal for you because if this data is incorrect so is literally every thing you or any one else believes because it uses the same methodology
@hellionthesage first off I don't even know what a troll is. Next, it's not personal, I don't really care. Lastly, you can believe anything you want and you can even believe it so much that you'll never entertain anything to the contrary, that's where you are in believe, so that's fine with me.
@Satisfyd No, thats what your doing and thats why I am begining to wonder if your a troll ie some one who is here to stir up trouble/create discord etc because all the evidence is right there I provided links to it I pointed out that every single issue you brought up was accounted for (which you would have known if you bothered to read the studies) and yet your response remains the same, essentially "nah uh" which is inferiating because its so illogical that I cannot comprehend how some one can have the truth shoved down their throat and still have the audacity to deny its existence even as they have no evidence or argument to do so. Its baffling. It does seem as if its a personal issue because other wise instead of claiming that people with phds are unqualified to do there jobs, that tens of thousands of people is not a big enough sample size etc etc you would have just whent and accepted the blatently obvious facts. Ergo it is personal.
@hellionthesage look as soon as you dismiss pressures society puts on people and how that can affect their behavior and decisions then there was no point discussing it further. I just figured you would be able to understand this but I was wrong, sorry.
@Satisfyd No one dismissed it. Thats why this is so frustrating you keep repeating it but I keep pointing out that is accouted for, from it being different cultures to different generations (all of which having different standards) to different approaches (ie a man attempting to prove promiscuity has no negative impacts) all of which account for social pressures which of course even then wouldn't factor into divorce rates because the social pressure to stay married is clearly not particularly influential plus it only seems to affect men if it is so no, no one dismissed anything except for you. You dismissed facts, you dismissed empirical evidence, you dismissed every thing because you do not personally like what it says. This is a personal matter for you. This is not cerebral because their is no logical argument against what has been stated, at least not one that you have presented. I don't know how many times you need to be proven wrong before you accept it but there it is again.
@hellionthesage who asked the questions, an interviewer with no degree. The question was asked how happy were they, now do you really think you'll get accurate data from that. Seriously, people's happiness varies from minute to minute. People can go from happy to suicidal in one day. Again inaccurate data was gathered, if you can't see that, then you don't want to, the pressure I talk about affects each person differently again they were asked questions, not given psychological evaluations. In a relationship some days are great other days your ready to end it. There is no consistency, you could ask the same person the same questions a week later and get different answers. Hell, it's proven most people will not even give an accurate answer for number of partners, but I suppose you believe they accounted for that also.
@Satisfyd Why do you oversimplify things? They where not asked that question and you know that. It is standard procedure to give multiple question surveys this is common knowledge and I feel like you are grasping at straws for trying to suggest otherwise. The question was not where they happy, the results showed they where less happy and more likely to divorce. That is a very big distinction one which you are perfectly aware of so I don't know why you would bring it up, again, since you already know this (both because its common practice and because I have already explained it). I think this conversation is over as you seem to be repeating your statements, the ones I disproved more times then I can count, so unless you have something other then delusions and denial to present I think its safe to say that the multiple studies done by multiple people with phds, in multiple cultures, across multiple age distributions are more accurate then your excuses and need to be right.
@hellionthesage I'm sorry but it clearly said they asked level of happiness, you can follow as a sheep as you must, maybe it's personal for you instead.
@hellionthesage try your own study. If I look at all the people I know we'll enough to know their past sex lives. Then out of around 60 couples, which has about 8 couples divorced, the men initiated divorce in all cases. Also all of them had multiple premarital partners, both the men and women. Yet not 1 case was the split because of anything to do with the promiscuous behavior.
@Satisfyd Yes it was asked but again many questiones where asked (their where multiple studies as well also asking multiple questiones). They do not ask questiones directly because of false readings that is why when you take psychological tests their is usually hundreds of questiones all phrased sleightly differently then the others. This is what they did. If I am the one going against the grain ie stating that since evidence shows promiscuity is unhealthy while the rest of society tries to pretend they can indulge themselves to their hearts content without consequences that would not make me a sheep but rather you and them (technicly speaking). 60 couples is not a significant sample size, tens of thousands is however (which the study has). Again, this is a personal matter for you because the facts are blatently clear. Why you are so desperate to disbelieve scientific studies (multiple replicable scientific studies) is beyond me and quite honestly I don't care.
@hellionthesage simple, scientific studies are frequently incorrect. If these studies were correct there would be almost no prolonged relationships. Which is not the case. Look around you, there are good relationships everywhere. If the studies were correct, most relationships would fail based on promiscuity. Is it possible that these studies are wrong. People gather the info. Data can be changed or adjusted to fit agendas, it happens all the time, just look at politicians. Just because multiple studies were done doesn't mean they can't be comprised to someone's whim. If I had access to the info, I could make it look the opposite. A sheep just follows what he's told and does not look around and think for himself.
@Satisfyd Listen, your wrong deal with it. Scientific studies are wrong, sure, scientific studies that have replicated the exact same results four different times in different areas, no they are not wrong. Again deal with it.
@hellionthesage if I ever in my life see it happen, then I may accept it, until then, I will not. You have probably never seen it either, so maybe you should take that into consideration. Thanks for the conversation, but I'm signing off.
@Satisfyd Actually I have, and it wouldn't matter any way have you seen abuse? If you haven't does that mean its never happened? Its an illogical argument to make.
no it is not. Slutshaming still exists
Calling a slut a slutand a stud a stud is sexist?
@aliceinwonderland69 so should we call a slut a princess?
I think we should think of a word with less negative connotations.