One Night Stands in Youth = Infidelity in Marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Keep making shit up. It's highly entertaining yet no one will ever take you seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Keep making shit up. It's highly entertaining yet no one will ever take you seriously.

There is in fact research showing that promiscuous people have lower relationship Satisfaction rates in marriage


https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=psychology-students#:~:text=Adults%20who%20are%20more%20promiscuous%20are%20more,trust%20in%20their%20partner%2C%20and%20shorter%20marriages.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231913405_Promiscuity_in_an_evolved_pair-bonding_system_Mating_within_and_outside_the_Pleistocene_box

And several evolutionary studies that correlate fidelity particular female to pair bonding and departure from promiscuity

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382477/


What’s not proven however is the causation: is pair bonding affected by promiscuity or the individuals are incapable of pair bonding due to some personality traits .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Good lord, grandma, having a few one night stands doesn’t mean you’re bipolar or a sex addict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Keep making shit up. It's highly entertaining yet no one will ever take you seriously.

There is in fact research showing that promiscuous people have lower relationship Satisfaction rates in marriage


https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=psychology-students#:~:text=Adults%20who%20are%20more%20promiscuous%20are%20more,trust%20in%20their%20partner%2C%20and%20shorter%20marriages.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231913405_Promiscuity_in_an_evolved_pair-bonding_system_Mating_within_and_outside_the_Pleistocene_box

And several evolutionary studies that correlate fidelity particular female to pair bonding and departure from promiscuity

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382477/


What’s not proven however is the causation: is pair bonding affected by promiscuity or the individuals are incapable of pair bonding due to some personality traits .

I'm not going to bother reading any of this horseshit. Also, it has nothing to do with being pipolar or PTSD or any of the other nonsense you originally claimed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Keep making shit up. It's highly entertaining yet no one will ever take you seriously.

There is in fact research showing that promiscuous people have lower relationship Satisfaction rates in marriage


https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=psychology-students#:~:text=Adults%20who%20are%20more%20promiscuous%20are%20more,trust%20in%20their%20partner%2C%20and%20shorter%20marriages.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231913405_Promiscuity_in_an_evolved_pair-bonding_system_Mating_within_and_outside_the_Pleistocene_box

And several evolutionary studies that correlate fidelity particular female to pair bonding and departure from promiscuity

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382477/


What’s not proven however is the causation: is pair bonding affected by promiscuity or the individuals are incapable of pair bonding due to some personality traits .

I'm not going to bother reading any of this horseshit. Also, it has nothing to do with being pipolar or PTSD or any of the other nonsense you originally claimed.

Okay NP. The personality traits show you may be not into pair bonding, indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Keep making shit up. It's highly entertaining yet no one will ever take you seriously.

There is in fact research showing that promiscuous people have lower relationship Satisfaction rates in marriage


https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=psychology-students#:~:text=Adults%20who%20are%20more%20promiscuous%20are%20more,trust%20in%20their%20partner%2C%20and%20shorter%20marriages.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231913405_Promiscuity_in_an_evolved_pair-bonding_system_Mating_within_and_outside_the_Pleistocene_box

And several evolutionary studies that correlate fidelity particular female to pair bonding and departure from promiscuity

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382477/


What’s not proven however is the causation: is pair bonding affected by promiscuity or the individuals are incapable of pair bonding due to some personality traits .

I'm not going to bother reading any of this horseshit. Also, it has nothing to do with being pipolar or PTSD or any of the other nonsense you originally claimed.

I'm a different poster just googled out of curiosity on this. Indeed, we all met people (men and women) who just do monkey branch jumping from one partner to the next. Some of us married these people and later in life dealt with lack of emotional connection or infidelity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If an individual had double digit one night stands while young and single, do you think that increases the likelihood of infidelity during marriage?

99%

[Anonymous]

I say this every time this idiotic topic comes up. I will never discuss my numbers with anyone and if a man insists on knowing my number, he can just move to the next woman who will lie to him instead of refusing to answer.

[Anonymous]

In men, yes.

In women, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Keep making shit up. It's highly entertaining yet no one will ever take you seriously.

There is in fact research showing that promiscuous people have lower relationship Satisfaction rates in marriage


https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=psychology-students#:~:text=Adults%20who%20are%20more%20promiscuous%20are%20more,trust%20in%20their%20partner%2C%20and%20shorter%20marriages.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231913405_Promiscuity_in_an_evolved_pair-bonding_system_Mating_within_and_outside_the_Pleistocene_box

And several evolutionary studies that correlate fidelity particular female to pair bonding and departure from promiscuity

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382477/


What’s not proven however is the causation: is pair bonding affected by promiscuity or the individuals are incapable of pair bonding due to some personality traits .

I double majored in evolutionary biology and behavior science, and minored in biological anthropology. Did you actually read your citations?

Your first citation is a student poster project for a Psychology 202 class at a Christian university, not a peer-reviewed journal article. More importantly, it doesn't even measure what it's claiming to measure. The title mentions "marital satisfaction," but what they actually looked at was:

1. Sexual partners vs. trust in partner
2. Cohabitation vs. marriage length
3. Sexual partners vs. marriage length, filtered by religious importance

They never directly measured marital satisfaction as its own thing.

Additionally, the association between number of sexual partners and length of marriage has obvious confounds. If you compare two 40-year-olds - one married at 20, one at 30 - the first person will show both fewer lifetime partners (only had 20 years to date before marriage vs. 30 years) AND a longer current marriage (20 years vs. 10 years). This correlation exists purely because of when they got married, not because having fewer partners caused the marriage to last longer.

Your second citation is a theoretical commentary proposing an evolutionary framework, not an empirical study of relationships or marriage outcomes. It has zero data on sexual partners, zero measures of marital satisfaction, and zero analysis of relationship outcomes. Using it as evidence about marriage or bonding is a total misapplication.

In fact, it argues the opposite of what you're claiming. Look at the diagram on page 4 - it shows dating and sexual exploration as normal parts of how pair bonding works:

1. First comes attraction and sexual motivation
2. Then partner preference develops through romantic/sexual interaction (eg, "pre-marital sex" or "promiscuity")
3. Only after this do attachment and long-term pair-bond form

The model treats multiple partners as part of a bonding-oriented system, NOT as behaviors that damage or bypass bonding mechanisms. If anything, it supports the opposite: that sexual and romantic exploration precede and facilitate attachment rather than prevent it.

Your third citation is also not an empirical study and does not show any real-world correlation between female fidelity, promiscuity, or pair-bonding outcomes. It's a mathematical model about how populations might evolve from promiscuous mating to pair bonding.

The model actually *starts* with a promiscuous population and explains how pair bonding can emerge from that state. So it does not support the idea that promiscuity is incompatible with bonding; it models bonding as something that can emerge out of promiscuity, not in opposition to it.

And even if we accept that female fidelity helped pair bonding evolve at the population level historically, that doesn't tell us whether individuals who have explored sexually can't form pair bonds. That topic is not addressed in this paper at all.

Your error in logic is:

1. The model shows pair bonding could evolve when females stayed faithful within established pair bonds (at a population level, over evolutionary time)
2. Humans did evolve pair bonding
3. Therefore, you're concluding that individual females today shouldn't engage in sexual exploration before establishing a long-term pair bond

You're misreading what fidelity means here. The model is about staying with an established partner (not leaving them for other mates once paired). It's not about avoiding all sexual activity before pair bonding happens in the first place. Those are completely different things.

And I'm not even touching the fact that people are jumping from marital infidelity, to marriage satisfaction, to pair bonding, as if they’re the same. They aren’t. You can cheat and still be bonded. You can be bonded and unhappy. You can be faithful and emotionally detached.

As a general rule, it's a good idea to stay away from any evolutionary claims about how people "should" behave sexually or that men are X, women are Y. As was demonstrated here, most of these people do not know how to read a scientific paper, or even vet for what is a peer-reviewed paper.

Humans evolved flexible mating strategies that adapt based on environment, culture, and individual circumstances. While there may be *average* sex differences, the overlap between men and women is enormous.

There's no single "natural" way humans are supposed to mate. Evolutionary biology explains why certain traits exist and how they might have been useful in our ancestral past. It does NOT tell us whether specific behaviors are healthy, moral, or predictive of relationship success today. And in fact, behavior is meant to be quite flexible so that individuals can adapt quickly.

What's actually useful isn't prescribing behavior based on theoretical models; it's looking at ourselves as individuals and figuring out what brings us relationship satisfaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Good lord, grandma, having a few one night stands doesn’t mean you’re bipolar or a sex addict.

Reading is fundamental. I literally said having one night stands, doesn’t make you bipolar or sec addiction.

But bipolar people and sex addicts do have an insane amount of partners… and they cheat on a regular basis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as a man that travels a ton for business (and did when I was youngish- late 20s) and still single) there were plenty of women I met at the bar that were very clear what they were doing there. I slept with at least a dozen of them within 2 hours of meeting them. They were all young, some married, mostly not. But I can promise you this- I would not have married a single one of them. It's just, I don't know, kinda gross in a woman.

But your own behavior is totally a-ok, huh champ? Tell me what mommy issues led you to hating women.

I fully accept the hypocrisy and I reject the misogyny accusation 100%. I just don't want a woman that has been used by 50 men. It is what it is.

Who’s using who? Sounds like you’re intimidated by a woman who actually goes after what she wants? She’s healthy, you’re not. Think about it.

What seems to be bothering him is that some females may not necessarily looking for pair bonding. Which shows he’s a “lower ranked” male who existences issues securing a female to himself. There are evolutionary studies showing that pair bonding emerged from early promiscuity out of need to provision for children (coming from
Women ) and to secure continued sex by lower ranked males (who couldn’t compete with higher ranked males other than by giving resources through commitment and marriage to women who became selective ).

Well yes.

Evolutionarily without pair bonding what happens is polygamy - multiple women have sexual relationships with high status men. We see this today with OLD. Which means low status men get none, while outcomes for women and children are far worse than when in pair bonded family unit.

Of course some women may tell themselves they want casual sexual relationships (personally I think that they are simply brainwashed by the patriarchy to adopt male patterns of sexuality for the benefit of men). But on average women, children, and society are much better off with pair bonding and marriage as the default.

False. This is what happens under extreme patriarchy. Look at the few matriarchal societies on earth, this is not what it defaults to. Women have a biological stake in having multiple partners because those men are more likely to look after kids that could possibly be theirs. I’m not making this up, I can’t cite anything offhand, but I studied this at university. Women are not naturally any more monogamous than men, it’s just deadly for us to sleep around. People who follow this men=hunters, women=gatherers/nurturers are ignoring basic biology of humans. It’s just like when white people measured facial slope and bumps on your head in an attempt to prove that europeans were superior and saying it was biology.

NIH study cited above shows different evolutionary trajectory. Women were more burdened by childcare so they couldn't go out and hunt like men. Over time, evolutionary society came to realize that pair bonding is what creates this fairly stable for the kids exchange of resources.

Modern matriarchal societies probably have women less dependent on "hunters" eg. women now can be hunters themselves. So yes, as biologically women are not monogamous either, in modern matriarchal model women will maintain several lovers. This even further worsens the position of lower ranked males. They literally have nothing to offer as women are not attracted to them to make their lovers and no longer need their resources for survival of children

I’m not sure what point you think that you are making.

PP said it best.

It’s much more harmful and deadly for us to sleep around.

Same today as it was 100,000 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is and it totally I’m sure there’s people with a high body count that are not unfaithful.

But many people with high body count are bipolar, victims of sexual abuse, have complex PTSD, are sex addicts, etc.

So yes, there’s gonna be a correlation between high body count and infidelity, but it’s because of the underlying condition not because they were a ho.

This is such total and utter horseshit that I am left speechless.

No, it isn’t. If you look at the rate of infidelity for people who are bipolar it’s like 80%.. if you look at infidelity for people who are sex addicts it’s in the 90s.

If you look at infidelity in general, most people have some sort of mental disorder.

Keep making shit up. It's highly entertaining yet no one will ever take you seriously.

There is in fact research showing that promiscuous people have lower relationship Satisfaction rates in marriage


https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=psychology-students#:~:text=Adults%20who%20are%20more%20promiscuous%20are%20more,trust%20in%20their%20partner%2C%20and%20shorter%20marriages.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231913405_Promiscuity_in_an_evolved_pair-bonding_system_Mating_within_and_outside_the_Pleistocene_box

And several evolutionary studies that correlate fidelity particular female to pair bonding and departure from promiscuity

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382477/


What’s not proven however is the causation: is pair bonding affected by promiscuity or the individuals are incapable of pair bonding due to some personality traits .

I double majored in evolutionary biology and behavior science, and minored in biological anthropology. Did you actually read your citations?

Your first citation is a student poster project for a Psychology 202 class at a Christian university, not a peer-reviewed journal article. More importantly, it doesn't even measure what it's claiming to measure. The title mentions "marital satisfaction," but what they actually looked at was:

1. Sexual partners vs. trust in partner
2. Cohabitation vs. marriage length
3. Sexual partners vs. marriage length, filtered by religious importance

They never directly measured marital satisfaction as its own thing.

Additionally, the association between number of sexual partners and length of marriage has obvious confounds. If you compare two 40-year-olds - one married at 20, one at 30 - the first person will show both fewer lifetime partners (only had 20 years to date before marriage vs. 30 years) AND a longer current marriage (20 years vs. 10 years). This correlation exists purely because of when they got married, not because having fewer partners caused the marriage to last longer.

Your second citation is a theoretical commentary proposing an evolutionary framework, not an empirical study of relationships or marriage outcomes. It has zero data on sexual partners, zero measures of marital satisfaction, and zero analysis of relationship outcomes. Using it as evidence about marriage or bonding is a total misapplication.

In fact, it argues the opposite of what you're claiming. Look at the diagram on page 4 - it shows dating and sexual exploration as normal parts of how pair bonding works:

1. First comes attraction and sexual motivation
2. Then partner preference develops through romantic/sexual interaction (eg, "pre-marital sex" or "promiscuity")
3. Only after this do attachment and long-term pair-bond form

The model treats multiple partners as part of a bonding-oriented system, NOT as behaviors that damage or bypass bonding mechanisms. If anything, it supports the opposite: that sexual and romantic exploration precede and facilitate attachment rather than prevent it.

Your third citation is also not an empirical study and does not show any real-world correlation between female fidelity, promiscuity, or pair-bonding outcomes. It's a mathematical model about how populations might evolve from promiscuous mating to pair bonding.

The model actually *starts* with a promiscuous population and explains how pair bonding can emerge from that state. So it does not support the idea that promiscuity is incompatible with bonding; it models bonding as something that can emerge out of promiscuity, not in opposition to it.

And even if we accept that female fidelity helped pair bonding evolve at the population level historically, that doesn't tell us whether individuals who have explored sexually can't form pair bonds. That topic is not addressed in this paper at all.

Your error in logic is:

1. The model shows pair bonding could evolve when females stayed faithful within established pair bonds (at a population level, over evolutionary time)
2. Humans did evolve pair bonding
3. Therefore, you're concluding that individual females today shouldn't engage in sexual exploration before establishing a long-term pair bond

You're misreading what fidelity means here. The model is about staying with an established partner (not leaving them for other mates once paired). It's not about avoiding all sexual activity before pair bonding happens in the first place. Those are completely different things.

And I'm not even touching the fact that people are jumping from marital infidelity, to marriage satisfaction, to pair bonding, as if they’re the same. They aren’t. You can cheat and still be bonded. You can be bonded and unhappy. You can be faithful and emotionally detached.

As a general rule, it's a good idea to stay away from any evolutionary claims about how people "should" behave sexually or that men are X, women are Y. As was demonstrated here, most of these people do not know how to read a scientific paper, or even vet for what is a peer-reviewed paper.

Humans evolved flexible mating strategies that adapt based on environment, culture, and individual circumstances. While there may be *average* sex differences, the overlap between men and women is enormous.

There's no single "natural" way humans are supposed to mate. Evolutionary biology explains why certain traits exist and how they might have been useful in our ancestral past. It does NOT tell us whether specific behaviors are healthy, moral, or predictive of relationship success today. And in fact, behavior is meant to be quite flexible so that individuals can adapt quickly.

What's actually useful isn't prescribing behavior based on theoretical models; it's looking at ourselves as individuals and figuring out what brings us relationship satisfaction.

Funny, the research regarding what brings people satisfaction in life and relationships reaches the same conclusions as the initially posted research.

You want things to be a certain way, but they aren’t.

There's no single "natural" way humans are supposed to mate.

Correct! Guess what, rape is “natural”, as is slavery. But I bet you won’t post pages of pseudoscience screeds defending these behaviors. Why not?