Yeah f*ck that. Go ahead, lock down the bitter, used up single mom after she's got all the trauma and baggage from being ran through in her younger years. I'm exaggerating of course to illustrate my point but there are definite advantages of dating virgins. Women produce more oxytocin (the love/bonding chemical) than men, which means they are more likely to pair-bond. This is why casual sex/one night stands can be traumatic for women, and why they are more likely to push for committed relationships. That trauma adds up and can lead to depression and pathologic views on men and relationships.
In other words, it's not a coincidence why every traditional society frowned upon female promiscuity.
Women having agency over their sexual preferences was “frowned upon” in archaic systems because women didn’t belong to themselves, but rather to the community as a whole, because of infant mortality rates and the need for labor, if women got to choose to have few children or none at all, where would all the future workers come from?
But that’s no longer the case. We’ve got machines, specialized labor and great medicine so that women can be free to have as few children as they like and pursue whatever interests they enjoy.
I would add that I think you should see professional psychiatric help. You see women as a commodity and not as human beings with unique values and desires.
I think you should see professional psychiatric help or an eye doctor because never one time did I say or suggest that women are commodities. Not once. Your post is purely just screeching at the wind, because it had nothing to do with what I said.
My argument - which is backed by the research - is that the more sexual partners a female has, the more likely she is to suffer from poor mental health and have issues with relationships later on. My theory is that the reason that this affects women more than men (if you f*cking read my post) is that this is due to a woman's increased ability to pairbond, which leads to increased likelihood that they will experience rejection and heartbreak if the man they bond with chooses not to be with them long-term, which turns into depression. Go figure - heartbreak takes a toll on one's mental health. This also affects men, who have to deal with these mentally ill women after they decide they want to settle down in a relationship. The data also shows that relationships are less likely to be successful as a woman's body count goes up.
A multiethnic sample of single, heterosexual, emerging-adult college students (N = 3,907) ages 18 to 25, from 30 institutions across the United States, participated in a study about identity, culture, psychological well-being...
I'm sure there were more practical reasons for women not to be overly promiscuous before the advent of modern medicine and DNA tests, but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons not to be promiscuous today. I'm sorry if this goes against your feminist ideology, but I care more about the truth than your feelings.
Work from social and biological sciences has shown that adult sex ratios are associated with relationship behaviours. When partners are abundant, opportunities for mate switching may increase and relationship stability decrea...
Yeah f*ck that. Go ahead, lock down the bitter, used up single mom after she's got all the trauma and baggage from being ran through in her younger years. I'm exaggerating of course to illustrate my point but there are definite advantages of dating virgins. Women produce more oxytocin (the love/bonding chemical) than men, which means they are more likely to pair-bond. This is why casual sex/one night stands can be traumatic for women, and why they are more likely to push for committed relationships. That trauma adds up and can lead to depression and pathologic views on men and relationships.
In other words, it's not a coincidence why every traditional society frowned upon female promiscuity.
What you are describing is wanting a pet to control. Not an adult human being to enter a relationship with.
You're psychotic. Where in my post did I describe wanting to control my partner? I suggested having a partner with sound mental health is better than not, how is that me wanting to control? Not going to apologize for having standards.
Women having agency over their sexual preferences was “frowned upon” in archaic systems because women didn’t belong to themselves, but rather to the community as a whole, because of infant mortality rates and the need for labor, if women got to choose to have few children or none at all, where would all the future workers come from?
But that’s no longer the case. We’ve got machines, specialized labor and great medicine so that women can be free to have as few children as they like and pursue whatever interests they enjoy.
I would add that I think you should see professional psychiatric help. You see women as a commodity and not as human beings with unique values and desires.
I think you should see professional psychiatric help or an eye doctor because never one time did I say or suggest that women are commodities. Not once. Your post is purely just screeching at the wind, because it had nothing to do with what I said.
My argument - which is backed by the research - is that the more sexual partners a female has, the more likely she is to suffer from poor mental health and have issues with relationships later on. My theory is that the reason that this affects women more than men (if you f*cking read my post) is that this is due to a woman's increased ability to pairbond, which leads to increased likelihood that they will experience rejection and heartbreak if the man they bond with chooses not to be with them long-term, which turns into depression. Go figure - heartbreak takes a toll on one's mental health. This also affects men, who have to deal with these mentally ill women after they decide they want to settle down in a relationship. The data also shows that relationships are less likely to be successful as a woman's body count goes up.
I'm sure there were more practical reasons for women not to be overly promiscuous before the advent of modern medicine and DNA tests, but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons not to be promiscuous today. I'm sorry if this goes against your feminist ideology, but I care more about the truth than your feelings.
There are always opportunities for those who are willing to rise to the standards of their prospective partner. If a woman doesn't like you as you are, and you aren't interested in changing, why should she freakin date you???
I think you should see professional psychiatric help or an eye doctor because never one time did I say or suggest that women are commodities. Not once. Your post is purely just screeching at the wind, because it had nothing to do with what I said.
My argument - which is backed by the research - is that the more sexual partners a female has, the more likely she is to suffer from poor mental health and have issues with relationships later on. My theory is that the reason that this affects women more than men (if you f*cking read my post) is that this is due to a woman's increased ability to pairbond, which leads to increased likelihood that they will experience rejection and heartbreak if the man they bond with chooses not to be with them long-term, which turns into depression. Go figure - heartbreak takes a toll on one's mental health. This also affects men, who have to deal with these mentally ill women after they decide they want to settle down in a relationship. The data also shows that relationships are less likely to be successful as a woman's body count goes up.
I'm sure there were more practical reasons for women not to be overly promiscuous before the advent of modern medicine and DNA tests, but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons not to be promiscuous today. I'm sorry if this goes against your feminist ideology, but I care more about the truth than your feelings.
You are describing a correlation and attributing a causation. Everything after “My theory…” is just your brain filling in what it wants to be there.
Everything I'm saying is common sense and supported by the research.
.
"The same neurochemical turbulence that makes us play fast and loose at the bar can also affect our social media habits. We all know *someone* who has stalked their ex's social media, riding every update like an emotional rodeo. This is the oxytocin-starved brain inhaling the vapours of lost love. It's bad news because it prolongs the connection that we have to let die.... The trickiest of the heartbreak neurotransmitters is oxytocin. Dow told me that "oxytocin is the bonding chemical… and the brain needs time to undo that bond." This is why he recommends going "love sober" for 30 days. This means avoiding contact with your ex: don't call them, don't look at their social media, and especially don't have sex with them. Doing so will just make it harder to dissolve the neurological bond your brain has formed, which will stand in the way of getting back to your normal self."
Women produce more oxytocin. Connect the dots, it's not that hard. So there you go, my theory is supported by research. Nothing I'm saying is controversial, you just don't want to accept it because it goes against your beliefs.
Women having agency over their sexual preferences was “frowned upon” in archaic systems because women didn’t belong to themselves, but rather to the community as a whole, because of infant mortality rates and the need for labor, if women got to choose to have few children or none at all, where would all the future workers come from?
But that’s no longer the case. We’ve got machines, specialized labor and great medicine so that women can be free to have as few children as they like and pursue whatever interests they enjoy.
I would add that I think you should see professional psychiatric help. You see women as a commodity and not as human beings with unique values and desires.
I think you should see professional psychiatric help or an eye doctor because never one time did I say or suggest that women are commodities. Not once. Your post is purely just screeching at the wind, because it had nothing to do with what I said.
My argument - which is backed by the research - is that the more sexual partners a female has, the more likely she is to suffer from poor mental health and have issues with relationships later on. My theory is that the reason that this affects women more than men (if you f*cking read my post) is that this is due to a woman's increased ability to pairbond, which leads to increased likelihood that they will experience rejection and heartbreak if the man they bond with chooses not to be with them long-term, which turns into depression. Go figure - heartbreak takes a toll on one's mental health. This also affects men, who have to deal with these mentally ill women after they decide they want to settle down in a relationship. The data also shows that relationships are less likely to be successful as a woman's body count goes up.
I'm sure there were more practical reasons for women not to be overly promiscuous before the advent of modern medicine and DNA tests, but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons not to be promiscuous today. I'm sorry if this goes against your feminist ideology, but I care more about the truth than your feelings.
Did you spend the money and read the details of the study? Did it account for participants with established mental health issues, like bipolar disorder, with which hypersexuality is already associated? How was the data taken? What were the actual numbers of persons that engaged in more casual sex who reported a state of mental health issues versus those who did not and what causality was inferred? What were the standards for assigning a participant as have a mental health issue versus not? Because if it’s “people who had more casual sex were more likely to see a mental health therapist regularly” that’s a big leap to saying that casual sex is causing a mental health problem, considering that virtually all persons could benefit from regular therapy.
These are all important questions. And the link you provided didn’t include any answers to those.
You did write about women as if they were a commodity. You wrote about a hypothetical single mom as essentially being beyond her sell-by date and with baggage that makes her unsuitable as a mate. That’s incredibly condescending. A single mom is a person, a human being, with a whole story and personality and her own thoughts and desires. And to say that all single moms are automatically unideal mates for a single man is beyond rude and completely disregards them out of hand as some monolith you’ve labeled them and not as the individual people they really are.
I think the title should be changed from straight men to straight white men.
I was at Denver airport last night waiting for my bag and I saw a black guy approaching a very attractive blond girl. At first it seemed like she’d brush him off but then I heard her ask if he had Instagram and she took his details. I think we all know where this interaction is going.
I always notice when I’m in America that white American women seem to really like black American guys.
I think it’s mostly white straight men who are struggling in America in terms of getting interest from women.
You are describing a correlation and attributing a causation. Everything after “My theory…” is just your brain filling in what it wants to be there.
Everything I'm saying is common sense and supported by the research.
.
"The same neurochemical turbulence that makes us play fast and loose at the bar can also affect our social media habits. We all know *someone* who has stalked their ex's social media, riding every update like an emotional rodeo. This is the oxytocin-starved brain inhaling the vapours of lost love. It's bad news because it prolongs the connection that we have to let die.... The trickiest of the heartbreak neurotransmitters is oxytocin. Dow told me that "oxytocin is the bonding chemical… and the brain needs time to undo that bond." This is why he recommends going "love sober" for 30 days. This means avoiding contact with your ex: don't call them, don't look at their social media, and especially don't have sex with them. Doing so will just make it harder to dissolve the neurological bond your brain has formed, which will stand in the way of getting back to your normal self."
Women produce more oxytocin. Connect the dots, it's not that hard. So there you go, my theory is supported by research. Nothing I'm saying is controversial, you just don't want to accept it because it goes against your beliefs.
The research does not support your claims. You are making very large leaps in logic and attributing them to “common sense.” It is true that I think your leaps in logic are misogynistic which I guess “goes against [my] beliefs”, but all you’ve done is point out a correlation and then hypothesize the causation. You have not proven the causation.
I think it’s just as likely that the cause is flipped. Women and men who struggle to form pair bonds may end up sleeping around more because they aren’t in relationships. It’s only common sense, right?
I think it’s mostly white straight men who are struggling in America in terms of getting interest from women.
lmao at the undesirable white dude thinking the only thing holding him back from dating white women is that he isn't a minority. Go find a minority male, ask him what he thinks.
I think it’s mostly white straight men who are struggling in America in terms of getting interest from women.
lmao at the undesirable white dude thinking the only thing holding him back from dating white women is that he isn't a minority. Go find a minority male, ask him what he thinks.
Re-read you completely missed the point.
I don’t feel held back at all, nor am I a white American dude. Better luck next time, I note you’re triggered by my obsession though 😏
I think it’s mostly white straight men who are struggling in America in terms of getting interest from women.
Also the way you wrote this, you seem to think you'd have better luck getting interest from women if you were gay? You're so eager to describe yourself as a victim that you're pulling out all your victimhood demographics without even checking if they make sense. Woe is me, women don't want to date straight men anymore! boo hoo!
I think it’s mostly white straight men who are struggling in America in terms of getting interest from women.
Also the way you wrote this, you seem to think you'd have better luck getting interest from women if you were gay? You're so eager to describe yourself as a victim that you're pulling out all your victimhood demographics without even checking if they make sense. Woe is me, women don't want to date straight men anymore! boo hoo!
Is it not enough for you to completely misinterpret my post once, you’re so triggered that you need another shot at it?
Slow down and read it again, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Also the way you wrote this, you seem to think you'd have better luck getting interest from women if you were gay? You're so eager to describe yourself as a victim that you're pulling out all your victimhood demographics without even checking if they make sense. Woe is me, women don't want to date straight men anymore! boo hoo!
Is it not enough for you to completely misinterpret my post once, you’re so triggered that you need another shot at it?
Slow down and read it again, you’re embarrassing yourself.
It’s clear he missed some words, maybe even entire sentences when he replied.
Darwin at work. Passing on your physical deformities and mental illness to the next generation is not a right. The world will be a better place when these defective genes meet a dead end.
You are describing a correlation and attributing a causation. Everything after “My theory…” is just your brain filling in what it wants to be there.
Everything I'm saying is common sense and supported by the research.
.
"The same neurochemical turbulence that makes us play fast and loose at the bar can also affect our social media habits. We all know *someone* who has stalked their ex's social media, riding every update like an emotional rodeo. This is the oxytocin-starved brain inhaling the vapours of lost love. It's bad news because it prolongs the connection that we have to let die.... The trickiest of the heartbreak neurotransmitters is oxytocin. Dow told me that "oxytocin is the bonding chemical… and the brain needs time to undo that bond." This is why he recommends going "love sober" for 30 days. This means avoiding contact with your ex: don't call them, don't look at their social media, and especially don't have sex with them. Doing so will just make it harder to dissolve the neurological bond your brain has formed, which will stand in the way of getting back to your normal self."
Women produce more oxytocin. Connect the dots, it's not that hard. So there you go, my theory is supported by research. Nothing I'm saying is controversial, you just don't want to accept it because it goes against your beliefs.
I read your link. For the 3900 participant study, they defined “casual sex” as “having sex with someone you’ve known for less than a week.” That is a fairly narrow definition, much more narrow than I think most of us would define it. If you have one a or a few non-romantic partners that you have sex with “casually” I’d call that “casual sex” but that wouldn’t meet the definition of that for the study. Additionally, you could meet someone, exchange information, and then go on a date with them the next week, have sex, and then never see them again, and that wouldn’t qualify as casual sex for the purposes of this study.
Furthermore, one of the authors of that study states:
Of course, this was a correlational study. We don’t know whether poor mental health caused individuals to be more likely to engage in casual sex or whether, as was shown in studies reviewed by Garcia, poor health resulted from casual sex.
I think you should see professional psychiatric help or an eye doctor because never one time did I say or suggest that women are commodities. Not once. Your post is purely just screeching at the wind, because it had nothing to do with what I said.
My argument - which is backed by the research - is that the more sexual partners a female has, the more likely she is to suffer from poor mental health and have issues with relationships later on. My theory is that the reason that this affects women more than men (if you f*cking read my post) is that this is due to a woman's increased ability to pairbond, which leads to increased likelihood that they will experience rejection and heartbreak if the man they bond with chooses not to be with them long-term, which turns into depression. Go figure - heartbreak takes a toll on one's mental health. This also affects men, who have to deal with these mentally ill women after they decide they want to settle down in a relationship. The data also shows that relationships are less likely to be successful as a woman's body count goes up.
I'm sure there were more practical reasons for women not to be overly promiscuous before the advent of modern medicine and DNA tests, but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons not to be promiscuous today. I'm sorry if this goes against your feminist ideology, but I care more about the truth than your feelings.
Did you spend the money and read the details of the study? Did it account for participants with established mental health issues, like bipolar disorder, with which hypersexuality is already associated? How was the data taken? What were the actual numbers of persons that engaged in more casual sex who reported a state of mental health issues versus those who did not and what causality was inferred? What were the standards for assigning a participant as have a mental health issue versus not? Because if it’s “people who had more casual sex were more likely to see a mental health therapist regularly” that’s a big leap to saying that casual sex is causing a mental health problem, considering that virtually all persons could benefit from regular therapy.
These are all important questions. And the link you provided didn’t include any answers to those.
You did write about women as if they were a commodity. You wrote about a hypothetical single mom as essentially being beyond her sell-by date and with baggage that makes her unsuitable as a mate. That’s incredibly condescending. A single mom is a person, a human being, with a whole story and personality and her own thoughts and desires. And to say that all single moms are automatically unideal mates for a single man is beyond rude and completely disregards them out of hand as some monolith you’ve labeled them and not as the individual people they really are.
You're missing the point - whether or not promiscuity leads to mental illness, or mentally ill people are more likely to have more sexual partners, the relationship is still there. It's probably a combination of both, but I would still propose that oxytocin is a moderating variable.
But, since you're too lazy to read the studies and are more interested in digging your heels in, with no evidence to support your claims I'll just quote walls of text.
"An individual history of hookup behavior has been associated with a variety of mental health factors. In a recent study of 394 young adults followed across a university semester, those participants with more depressive symptoms and greater feelings of loneliness who engaged in penetrative sex hookups subsequently reported a reduction in both depressive symptoms and feelings of loneliness (Owen et al., 2011). At the same time, those participants who reported less depressive symptoms and fewer feelings of loneliness who engaged in penetrative sex hookups subsequently reported an increase in both depressive symptoms and feelings of loneliness (Owen et al., 2011). In another study, among 291sexually experienced individuals, those who had the most regret after uncommitted sex also had more symptoms of depression than those who had no regret (Welsh et al., 2006). However, in the same sample, women’s but not men’s degree of depressive symptoms increased with number of previous sex partners within the last year (Welsh et al., 2006). In the first study to investigate the issue of self-esteem and hookups, both men and women who had ever engaged in an uncommitted sexual encounter had lower overall self-esteem scores compared to those without uncommitted sexual experiences (Paul et al., 2000). The potential causal direction of the relationship between self-esteem and uncommitted sex is yet unclear (Paul et al., 2000; Fielder & Carey, 2010b).
A few paragraphs down -
"Qualitative descriptions of hookups reveal relative gender differences in terms of feelings afterward, with women displaying more negative reactions than men (Paul & Hayes, 2002). This is also consistent with earlier work demonstrating a gender difference, with women generally identifying more emotional involvement in seemingly “low investment” (i.e., uncommitted) sexual encounters than men (Townsend, 1995). Moreover, in a study of 140 (109 female, 31 male) first-semester undergraduates, women, but not men, who had engaged in penetrative intercourse during a hookup showed higher rates of mental distress (Fielder & Carey, 2010b). Possibly contributing to findings on gender differences in thoughts of worry, in a sample of 507 undergraduate students, more women than men leaned toward a relationship outcome following a hookup. Only 4.4% of men and 8.2% of women (6.45% of participants) expected a traditional romantic relationship as an outcome, while 29% of men and 42.9% of women (36.57% of participants) ideally wanted such an outcome (Garcia & Reiber, 2008). It is possible that regret and negative consequences result from individuals attempting to negotiate multiple desires. It is likely that a substantial portion of emerging adults today are compelled to publicly engage in hookups while desiring both immediate sexual gratification and more stable romantic attachments."
Look, all I am saying is that there can be consequences to one's mental health the more promiscuous you are, and that the data shows women might experience these consequences more (again, for the biologic factors I propose). If you're smart, mental health should be a factor that one considers when choosing a mate. If promiscuity can be a good proxy for mental health, then it should be considered if you want a healthy, long-lasting relationship.
I'm not saying that women with high body counts aren't humans, but that doesn't mean people are misogynists for not wanting to date them. I don't hear anybody pouring onto women, calling them sexists for not wanting to date a guy because he's too short or doesn't make enough money (except poor, short guys), therefor it's perfectly acceptable to have standards for choosing female mates. Again, not apologizing no matter how many times you label me a "misogynist" that word has completely lost its meaning anyways.
Everything I'm saying is common sense and supported by the research.
.
"The same neurochemical turbulence that makes us play fast and loose at the bar can also affect our social media habits. We all know *someone* who has stalked their ex's social media, riding every update like an emotional rodeo. This is the oxytocin-starved brain inhaling the vapours of lost love. It's bad news because it prolongs the connection that we have to let die.... The trickiest of the heartbreak neurotransmitters is oxytocin. Dow told me that "oxytocin is the bonding chemical… and the brain needs time to undo that bond." This is why he recommends going "love sober" for 30 days. This means avoiding contact with your ex: don't call them, don't look at their social media, and especially don't have sex with them. Doing so will just make it harder to dissolve the neurological bond your brain has formed, which will stand in the way of getting back to your normal self."
Women produce more oxytocin. Connect the dots, it's not that hard. So there you go, my theory is supported by research. Nothing I'm saying is controversial, you just don't want to accept it because it goes against your beliefs.
The research does not support your claims. You are making very large leaps in logic and attributing them to “common sense.” It is true that I think your leaps in logic are misogynistic which I guess “goes against [my] beliefs”, but all you’ve done is point out a correlation and then hypothesize the causation. You have not proven the causation.
I think it’s just as likely that the cause is flipped. Women and men who struggle to form pair bonds may end up sleeping around more because they aren’t in relationships. It’s only common sense, right?
"The research does not support your claims" - guy who cited no research.