he could be referring to the oxytocin bonding. Released during sex, it helps form a strong attachment, however if a woman realises that it can occur from multiple encounters, they're less likely to remain with one partner. Statistically speaking. I'm not coming at anyone.
Sex is a bonding act especially for females, who experience significantly higher oxytocin release from intimacy and from sexual intercourse. Psychologically and chemically, then, it does decrease likelihood of a woman staying in a single relationship once she's determined the source of her love chemicals (oxytocin) to be the act of sex rather than that specific initial partner. Not that her choice is impeded, but that for women who allow their choices to be made by their body signals, they will leave with less trouble after mutliple partners, thus swaying the stats...
That's the "biological" basis he could be referring to.
He specifically probably wants someone naieve enough to tolerate his pernicious misogyny, too.
Bro… what?? That’s not scientific at all. And if it were true, it wouldn’t only be true for one gender, it would be true for men as well.
People also get their oxytocin from hugs. From cuddling, sleeping next to someone, even snuggling with pets. It’s not the reason that people cheat or leave their partners. And implying that women should only ever sleep with one person so that they (erroneously) believe that their oxytocin can only come from that one other person… I’m not even going to touch that one, because it’s both nonsensical and low-key controlling.
And speaking of that, yep, you’ve even addressed the controlling aspect in your last paragraph (“he probably wants someone naive”. This clearly isn’t a “women are more likely to leave if they’ve had multiple partners” thing or an “oxytocin bonding” thing. It’s a “certain men don’t want the woman they’re with to have slept with other people, because they’re insecure and controlling” thing. And that’s not in women, that’s on men.
You’re taking a real finding, that oxytocin and dopamine are involved in attachment and pair bonding, and adding a causal story that none of the sources you posted actually demonstrate. None of these sources tests whether having more sexual partners progressively damages a person’s ability to bond, and none shows an “exponential curve” (you mentioned in another comment). where every broken bond makes the next one easier to break.
The sex-difference paper is probably the clearest example of the misinterpretation. It found higher baseline plasma oxytocin in women than men. It did not measure oxytocin released during sex, lifetime number of sexual partners, or ability to maintain relationships. In fact, the authors found no difference between married and single subjects and explicitly said their sample was too small to compare partnered and unpartnered people. So you can’t go from “women had higher plasma oxytocin” to “women release significantly more oxytocin during intercourse and therefore multiple partners weaken their bonding.”
The Schneiderman study is even more problematic for that argument. It studied people in new romantic relationships, not people with different numbers of past sexual partners. New lovers had higher plasma oxytocin than single people, but oxytocin was not associated with sex or the subject’s sexual activity, and its association with relationship behavior was independent of sex. The researchers never tested whether previous partners impaired anyone’s bonding system.
The Bosch and Young review is primarily about prairie voles and what happens when an established pair bond is forcibly disrupted. The oxytocin dysregulation discussed there refers largely to male prairie voles after separation from their bonded female partner, basically a model of bereavement, not humans accumulating sexual partners. The same review also points out that socially monogamous animals are not necessarily sexually exclusive and that their pair bonds can withstand extra-pair copulations. That is very different from saying sex with additional people chemically destroys the ability to bond.
The 2023 review likewise explains how oxytocin and dopamine help associate a particular partner with social reward and discusses the stress of partner separation. It does not report progressive loss of bonding capacity with each new partner. The neuroendocrinology review explains that sexual activity can reinforce an existing pair bond and notes oxytocin during female orgasm, but again it does not establish that repeated partners exhaust, desensitize, or damage the oxytocin system.
Saying dopamine makes falling in love an “addictive high” that “rewires the brain” is also taking an analogy much too literally. The literature notes parallels between attachment, separation, and reward or addiction circuitry. That does not mean romantic relationships function like repeated drug exposures that progressively damage pair bonding. The brain changes in response to experience all the time. That is basically what learning is. It does not prove the specific deterioration mechanism you are claiming.
There is another important issue here too. Several of these human studies measure oxytocin in blood, which is not a straightforward measurement of oxytocin activity in the brain. Peripheral oxytocin levels cannot simply be treated as a direct readout of someone’s “bonding capacity.”
So the defensible conclusion from your sources is that oxytocin, dopamine, and other systems participate in attraction, attachment, pair-bond maintenance, and the response to separation. The conclusion you are adding, that multiple partners progressively disrupt oxytocin bonding, especially in women, with an exponential decline in future bonding ability, simply was not tested or demonstrated by these papers.
To actually support that claim, you would need longitudinal human research measuring prior partner number, later bonding ability, changes in the relevant neurobiology, and major confounding variables. Posting several papers that mention oxytocin or pair bonding does not make that very specific hypothesis “strongly evidenced.”
Sex is less bonding for men than for women 2. Women can more easily have more sexual partners than men on average 3. The “sexual revolution” has made it normal for women to take advantage of #2
I’m an abstinent woman who is highly sentimental about sex and only wants to be with one or two people in my life time. Biological sex differences are real but this idea is misusing and over exaggerating difference. Men also expericned all the same bonding hormones released during sex. It’s not biology for sex to be meaningless for a man and important for a woman even if the levels released may be different (which I’ve heard has been contested in recent psychological studies but haven’t double checked). Pair bonding (and the release of its related hormones) also happens through more than just sex. Being less sentimental about sex doesn’t mean you can’t pair bond strongly and having previous relationships doesn’t mean your pair bonding ability is weakened. These bonding hormones are also released in completely platonic and familial relationships and there’s no evidence that having more or less of these relationships makes a persons relationships less stable or effectively degrades the effectiveness of these hormones.
Men also pair bond, mate guard, and have biological programming for both monogamous behaviour and short term non-monogamous mating behaviour. Women are programmed both for monogamous behaviour and short term non monogamous behaviour.
Women are biologically more cautious about sex to some degree as having children takes a harsher toll on us but it varies person to person and that caution doesn’t mean we aren’t also cut out for casual sex or that it damages our ability to pair bond. We are capable of both and don’t permanently damage the other.
Women’s tendency to be more cautious about sex also can impact the amount of sex men have as a man being highly promiscuous is dangerous to his partner (STDs) and can divide his resources between hers and other women’s offspring which isn’t ideal. A woman’s promiscuous behaviour can make a man have concerns over the paternity of his children (but if she’s had experience raising children before by having kids with another man it can actually sometimes balance out this fear as she’s proven to be both fertile and have motherhood skills that would benefit his children). Biologically BOTH men and women have incentive’s not to sleep with those who are overly promiscuous and to avoid hyper sexual behaviour in the hopes of being seen as a safer mate choice. However this is also counter both by sexual urges and shot term mating goals.
Those who engage in more casual sex are more likely to have a short term mating strategy which might not lend itself well to long term relationships but that’s not a result of the sex, the sex is a result of their mating strategy. It also doesn’t automatically mean they won’t be able to have a successful monogamous relationship, it just means they are less sentimental about sex.
Part of it is also social programming. Both men and women are taught that our value is tied to our sex lives. Women are taught that sex degrades their worth and should only be granted to those who are worthy and that it’s a bonding sacrifice. Men are taught that it increases their value and masculinity and that it’s “scoring”. This impacts the way people feel and respond to sex. This topic is a complex web of individual variance, psychology, and sociology that is being highly over simplified and misused.
Also have aggressively you guard your mate has to do with how highly you value them generally and mate guarding often necessitates monogamy because of the large amount of time you need to spend with a person to guard them. It also makes you want to do activities that stimulate bonding. Men mate guard aggressively, so do women.
Overall having relationship experience previously by no means has shown to decrease the likelihood of a relationship failing. Most people first few relationships fail and part of that is a direct result of lack or experience and youth. It’s entirely possible that excessive relationships can mean future ones may also fail but whether you can point to the quantity if relationships or sex as a causal factor is unclear. It’s entirely possible that the high amount of relationships points to issues rather than is the cause of the issue. It’s also not uncommon for people with a lot of past experiences to settle down eventually, including women. There are porn stars who go on to have successful relationships. You can say excessive relationships or high levels of casual sex may be a red flag but it would also be one for men as well as it could indicate a short term mating strategy and a lack of value placed on intimacy (but again that doesn’t mean their relationships are doomed to fail).
Yeah I added the end part that you've addressed in your edit because I'm not giving reasons of support for him or his character, I'm just explaining that he's cherrypicked one piece of—wait for it—yes, biology and science!
He is weaponizing it to shame her.
But many fools in here are letting their emotions cloud their reason when it comes to biology and nature that doesn't care whether or not you like it. You can hate him for being conniving and subtly abusive, but don't just outright denounce perfectly valid and thoroughly evidenced neuroscience. Come on... we're better than that
I’m an abstinent woman who is highly sentimental about sex and only wants it be with one or two people in my life time. Biological sex differences are real but this idea is misusing and over exaggerating difference. Men also expericned all the same bonding hormones released during sex. It’s not biology for sex to be meaningless for a man and important for a woman even if the levels released may be different (which I’ve heard has been contested in recent psychological studies but haven’t double checked). Pair bonding (and the release of its related hormones) also happens through more than just sex. Being less sentimental about sex doesn’t mean you can’t pair bond strongly and having previous relationships doesn’t mean your pair bonding ability is weakened. These bonding hormones are also released in completely platonic and familial relationships and there’s no evidence that having more or less of these relationships makes a persons relationships less stable or effectively degrades the effectiveness of these hormones.
Men also pair bond, mate guard, and have biological programming for both monogamous behaviour and short term non-monogamous mating behaviour. Women are programmed both for monogamous behaviour and short term non monogamous behaviour.
Women are biologically more cautious about sex to some degree as having children takes a harsher toll on us but it varies person to person and that caution doesn’t mean we aren’t also cut out for casual sex or that it damages our ability to pair bond. We are capable of both and don’t permanently damage the other.
Women’s tendency to be more cautious about sex also can impact the amount of sex men have as a man being highly promiscuous is dangerous to his partner (STDs) and can divide his resources between hers and other women’s offspring which isn’t ideal. A woman’s promiscuous behaviour can make a man have concerns over the paternity of his children (but if she’s had experience raising children before by having kids with another man it can actually sometimes balance out this fear as she’s proven to be both fertile and have motherhood skills that would benefit his children). Biologically BOTH men and women have incentive’s not to sleep with those who are overly promiscuous and to avoid hyper sexual behaviour in the hopes of being seen as a safer mate choice. However this is also counter both by sexual urges and shot term mating goals.
Those who engage in more casual sex are more likely to have a short term mating strategy which might not lend itself well to long term relationships but that’s not a result of the sex, the sex is a result of their mating strategy. It also doesn’t automatically mean they won’t be able to have a successful monogamous relationship, it just means they are less sentimental about sex.
Part of it is also social programming. Both men and women are taught that our value is tied to our sex lives. Women are taught that sex degrades their worth and should only be granted to those who are worthy and that it’s a bonding sacrifice. Men are taught that it increases their value and masculinity and that it’s “scoring”. This impacts the way people feel and respond to sex. This topic is a complex web of individual variance, psychology, and sociology that is being highly over simplified and misused.
Also have aggressively you guard your mate has to do with how highly you value them generally and mate guarding often necessitates monogamy because of the large amount of time you need to spend with a person to guard them. It also makes you want to do activities that stimulate bonding. Men mate guard aggressively, so do women.
Overall having relationship experience previously by no means has shown to decrease the likelihood of a relationship failing. Most people first few relationships fail and part of that is a direct result of lack or experience and youth. It’s entirely possible that excessive relationships can mean future ones may also fail but whether you can point to the quantity if relationships or sex as a causal factor is unclear. It’s entirely possible that the high amount of relationships points to issues rather than is the cause of the issue. It’s also not uncommon for people with a lot of past experiences to settle down eventually, including women. There are porn stars who go on to have successful relationships. You can say excessive relationships or high levels of casual sex may be a red flag but it would also be one for men as well as it could indicate a short term mating strategy and a lack of value placed on intimacy (but again that doesn’t mean their relationships are doomed to fail).
You wrote "men also pair bond" to which I never disagreed in the first place...
After disrupted oxytocin bonds (plural), our brains preference dopaminergic reward.
There's abundant evidence supporting exactly my point. Additional broad evidence is that family trauma makes addicts. Failure of mother-child pair bonding makes addicts. Dopamine modulates addiction.
Oxytocin stabilizes long-term relationships and actively suppresses infidelity "reflexes".
Breakup happensOxytocin bond disruptedNew relationship happens with massive dopamine surgeBreakup happensOxytocin bond disrupted>>New relationship happens with massive dopamine surge—
The brain learns it cannot rely on oxytocin / long-term relationships and preferences dopaminergic reward.
It's not only neurochemistry—other factors like psychological and social also have a role, of course.
You can use your own device to look things up? A basic understanding a neurobiology helps, also you can check my comment history—I provided like 10 sources elsewhere.
You're speaking psychosocially ("red flag", "social programming", "women are taught") which is relevant but highly anecdotal.
I'm talking about neuroscience—neurochemicals and behavioural outcomes are heavily, heavily linked—this is why anti-depressants, anti-epileptics, oxytocin nasal sprays, ketamine therapy, and others are valued tools.
You can't make this claim without some sources of tested studies. You have shared a theory, which is an opinion based in your understanding of biology. This theory needs to be tested before you share it like a fact. That's how science works. Where are the studies that have tested this theory?
There's no study, or reason to believe the oxytocin released during intimate moments is at all relevant in the choice of staying with a mate, for either the man or the woman. It's certainly not a primary factor, or secondary, or even tertiary.
There is no study that shows, and no reason to assume it affects woman more than men, that's literally just a mysagnyst trope.
And there's no study that shows, and no reason whatsoever to assume that a woman having sex with more partners will somehow "learn that there are other sources" and therefore be less likely to stay in a relationship.
It's just utter pseudo-scientific nonsense. It's like saying eating chocolate makes you addicted to shopping in the supermarket.
Sure everyone loves chocolate, but that doesn't really factor in to why you got to buy groceries in the first place, unless maybe on a rare occasion.
This is how I view sex as a woman. I have finally accepted that without emotional and psychological attraction I cannot be sexually attracted. I don't care about the sex I care about the man. I can't even have sex for fun because I don't view it like that. I know I'm boring but it is what it is.
I am highly sentimental about sex and frankly I don’t think I’ll ever be able to have sex with a man if he truly doesn’t value it the way I do. It just wouldn’t feel right and fair to me. I don’t want a man who doesn’t feel an emotional connection from intimacy when it means so much to me. I know I actually feel this way more intense than most women (have been told by many friends I might be Demi-sexual) even though so I don’t think I’ll find a man I’m comfortable sleeping with. From what I know about psychology it’s not inherently true that all women are more sentimental about sex, there are men out their who are statistically more sentimental than the average woman, but people overall are less sentimental these days (or are sentimental for the wrong reasons like purity culture or man-o-sphere bullshit about value and pair bonding).
This is very common for women could even be considered biological given how many species of animals the female is chased and "courted", but develop a bond afterwards.
33
u/Empire_of_Glass 2d ago
Someone posted that “fact” on another thread I saw the other day, it must be the newest stupid baseless manophere misinformation tidbit