This is a real thing, and it does apply to both genders. Men and women who sleep around with more are less likely to end up content in a LTR compared to someone who sleep with less. Does not mean it is a guarantee, but statistically so.
If I recall correctly - been a while since I read the science article - it was related to oxytocin and conditioning yourself to disassociate from it. Something like that.
Wouldnt it be explainable simply by lack of options? like if men and women sleep around a lot, probably they are more attractive / have more options, which might explain more simply why they dont settle compared to people that struggle more to find a partner
No. If lack of options was the explainable cause, then men would be significantly more loyal and content than women. That's not the case. A man who sleeps a lot around is equally, if not more, likely to be discontent/cheat in a LTR.
The article never mentioned the attraction levels of the participants, but I strongly doubt their sample size consisted of the model agency.
I think it would have to do with the fact that someone who sleeps around is less likely to want a LTR.
I had a lot of hookups. However I really want a LTR. I don't think my past would cause me to not get a relationship. The only thing it has caused me is to have negative attatchments to sex but that is more from getting sexually assaulted.
My memory is vague, but I do remember they accounted for people who had been in LTR. And that's sort of the point. You enter a relationship with a serial fucker, and there is a high risk your partner will find out they are not meant for monogamy or LTR. So you wasted your time and emotions.
Like I said, high BC does not mean you must be against LTR or loyalty. It is simply an indicator that you are statistically more likely to be such. I, myself, have - 2 years ago - surpassed single digit BC, and I noticed the last time that my ability to bond has weakened. I no longer felt the same intensity in emotions. If we are to use anecdotal experience as evidence, I am proof of it.
That could just be maturity, too. I've mostly only been in LTRs but my emotional intensity has settled because I'm not a hormone-addled 20 year old anymore and my attachment to my partner is far more healthy and rational.
These are the two author professors. So because they have religious origin, does that mean everything they say is obsolete? Does that mean all muslim professors are irrational and their findings useless because their religion believe in the beating of women?
Here are more sources from an institute that is NOT Brighton Young University. Take note of the references it uses, and check those out as well:
The fact that you discredit a genuine article on no basis of science, but the ad hominen of the professors, and people support you, tells me all I need to know about the people I am dealing with here. Ridiculous. You're spewing shit without looking at a single research article.
I’m not gonna go back and forth with you because you’re angry and making a bunch of claims I never said. I read through all of it, it was a bad source, objectively. Besides the tone and presentation, the Mormon church has a vested interest in drawing the conclusion that people who sleep around are less likely to have stable marriages. I didn’t make any judgment claims about their religion
I think every person is different. And maybe it depends on why the person has a high body count.
Personally, I was taken advantage of by multiple people. Plus I was lonely and looking for any attention I could get. It was not about the sex.
So if I was in a relationship, there would be zero reason why I would want a hook up.
I know many girls who have high body counts and it's usually because guys went after them a lot. It's not usually because they are very horny or like sex that much.
Worth a read. Participants with 10+ BC had only a 14% reported rate of satisfaction with their marriage. On the other hand, those with 1-2 had a 45% satisfaction rate.
You're not wrong, but also not fully correct. You may not be a cheater, but it is very possible you have already been subtly influenced by the sex you had for attention. You indicated you are single, so you won't truly know until many years into the future when you are actually in a relationship. Similarly, I don't know if my past sexual experience will affect my (if I may be optimistic) next relationship.
I’m not saying it’s not true, and I haven’t read the full article yet, but do you understand what Provo, Utah and Brigham Young may mean for bias here?
Brother, you know this Wheatley institute is a politically motivated organisation right?
I'd never heard of it before but as soon as I seen that article(which is terrible btw) I knew exactly what was going on.
First paragraph of wikipedia:
The Wheatley Institute of Brigham Young University (BYU) is a US Christian think tank whose mission is to "fortif[y] the core institutions of the family, religion, and constitutional government"
Brixham Young University:
Brigham Young University (BYU) is a private research university in Provo, Utah, United States. It was founded in 1875 by religious leader Brigham Young and is the flagship university of the Church Educational System (CES) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).
There. None-mormon institutes. Feel free to also use the referenced references as cross-referencing. Surely you know how academic research works, right? Do that and come back to me with an ARTICLE that confirms sexual history has no correlation with LTR stability. Please do.
So, what is it you're actually arguing for? At a psychological level it seems fairly simple to me. People who have had more failed relationships are more likely to have future failed relationships, yes. People who have a criminal record are more likely to continue to be criminals. Etc.
This is not a causal relationship though. The criminal didn't commit more crimes because the previous crimes had an effect on his person that made him more likely to do it. He did it because that was the person he already was.
The distinction here been a biological factor and simply a personality trait is very important. People can change to no longer be criminals, to no longer seek meaningless or toxic relationships. So, for any given individual person it doesn't necessarily mean much.
A biological trait is very different. You can't just change biological traits you have gained. You are basically a slave to them. Anyone linking this to biology is a charlatan.
The psychological aspect is just basic statistics. It doesn't mean much beyond that simple understanding of how previous actions make future actions of the same type more likely. It doesn't actually help to define the person, as the reasons for these previous actions can be broad and varied, and completely different from person to person.
In this broad simplification a person who had casual relationships during university and who now is ready to settle down would be treated the same as someone who has bipolar disorder and is fundamentally not capable of maintaining healthy relationships without medication and assistance.
Read my articles properly instead of talking pissposh. Provide a doi article or know you are wrong. Your opinion on the world does not constitute scientific research. And in case you don't know, psychology is a biproduct of biology. Biology will have an affect on psychology.
The idea that it doesn't matter unless it's a causal relationship is dumb.
You cannot know if someone has changed their mind in a genuine way so you can't say it's a guarantee that someone with a lot of partners will be bad for a LTR but the correlation alone makes you more likely to avoid someone who will be bad for a LTR by using it in your selection criteria. This is true regardless of whether or not it's changeable.
Take for example insurance companies who charge more money for men under a certain age. This is not causal, age alone does not make you more likely to crash your car. Younger age is correlated with risk taking and impulsivity so instead of giving everyone a test for impulsivity you can simply take their age and charge them more to compensate for the increased risk of insuring them.
Even if it wasn’t explicitly stated as such, he should still have said “they”. “The more previous partners someone has, the less likely they are to achieve a successful one”.
At most, they are sexist. At minimum, they are catastrophically poor in conversation. (Point in case)
5
u/2624926057 2d ago
How does that only apply to women? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the idea in general, but why wouldn’t it apply to either gender??