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.
Forum Index
»
Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
