2010 September 20 Monday

The Social Pathologist has some posts worth reading, especially for guys with ambitions to marry: Defining Slut, Defining Slut 2, Defining Slut: More Data, and Defining Slut: Erratum. For additional commentary on these results see Chateau's Why Sluts Make Bad Wives. Some commenters there make some good observations as well.

The results in a nutshell: sluts are whole lot more likely to end up in divorce court. What I want to know: What is the direction of causation with slutty women? Does their promiscuity reduce their ability to form attachments to one guy? Does promiscuity change them? Do women who do not stay with their first true love have a diminished capacity to bind to the next guy? Or does the lack of desire to stay in long-term relationships predate the one night stands and short term relationships? Probably some combination of the preceding.

Does anyone know of good social science data that addresses this question? A twins study suggests a genetic component to promiscuity.

One possible mechanism: easy girls are more likely to end up in bed with the most desired alpha men. Once they've lived the high life they end up finding guys who are more equal to them in attractiveness just not good enough. Less spoiled virginal girls are more likely to find the guy they end up with as special since they have less to compare him with.

My guess is that both innate differences help cause promiscuity and promiscuity changes women in ways that make them less stable as marriage partners. Cruise thru the discussions in those posts and see for yourself.

Update: Also see the follow-up posts from The Social Pathologist: Sexual Partner Divorce Risk, 2002 Male and Female Statistical Data, and The Virgin Bride.

My take: If you really want to get married and already have a suitable woman who hasn't had sex with anyone else then she's the one. Female virginity ought to be highly prized by guys who want to get married to stay married. Hook-up culture is your enemy.

The risks of marriage to a woman who has had even one previous partner are substantially higher and beyond one previous partner the risks go up to ridiculous levels. Better to have kids out of wedlock than get legally hitched to a promiscuous woman. Divorce law makes marrying a slut very high risk. Better consult a lawyer on the power of pre-nuptial agreements in your state if you are seriously considering marriage to a woman who has a big history of lovers and one-night stands.

Another thing: These results argue for marrying a younger woman. The older they get the greater the number of previous sexual dalliances and therefore the higher the divorce risk. Get yourself to an upper class church and look for smart girls in their late teens who have conservative reserved dispositions.

Update II: Audacious Epigone uses General Social Survey data to discover that Women who get around while unmarried get around once married. The results are pretty dramatic. You are forewarned.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 September 20 08:32 PM  Human Nature Mating

sabril said at September 21, 2010 12:05 AM:

It seems to me that to get anything useful out of this, you would need to filter out religious types who tend to eschew both promiscuity and divorce.

Another variable which would need to be controlled for is age at marriage. A person who has had 20 sexual partners is probably getting married at a much older age, on average, than a person who has had 5 sexual partners. A person who has had 10 sexual partners by age 21 is very different in terms of sluttiness than a person who has had 10 sexual partners by age 29.

Finally, people tend to lie about the number of sex partners they have had.

mattbg said at September 21, 2010 9:00 AM:

I think it's quite simple: people who behave that way have deficient characters and should simply be avoided. No questions or exceptions.

I don't know why anyone would stand around trying to justify it unless they were already embedded in a committed relationship with someone like this and wanted to make themselves feel better.

I am very traditionally-minded and rather socially conservative and I have high expectations of people, but Chateau's stuff is just so appealing to read in terms of restoring the balance of social power in society. I would never behave that way myself but I can thoroughly appreciate why some people approach male-female relationships in the way advocated on that site.

Mike said at September 21, 2010 6:27 PM:

One of the more surprising findings about post 60s society is that a lot of intelligent women have turned out to be relatively slutty, whereas intelligent men continue to be a lot less promiscious than less intelligent men.

I don't know if it beens tested or not, but my theory is that sluttiness in women, tends to be most common in women of low or high intelligence, while women of average intelligence are the least slutty. Sluttiness in high IQ women could be partly due to high testoterone levels.

Another factor of course is extroversion. Extroverted men and women are considerably more slutty than introverted men and women. So if you want a women with smart genes who isn't a slut you're best beat would be avoiding a woman with a business or arts degree and picking a woman with a science degree. Maybe this is why as a right wing arts graduate I tend to find woman with science degrees more appealing.

Seneca said at September 22, 2010 10:09 PM:

As it turns out, promiscuity is a symptom of sexual abuse, sometimes acting out a behavioral flashback. 1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before adult hood, and probably more. Never mind the sexual harassment that occurs in schools and the boys that are condoned for their displays of manhood. If left untreated, which much of it often is because of the sense of shame that goes along with it, it can lead to the inability to have stable relationships, depression, anxiety, PTSD symptoms. Hard to be intimate (not a euphemism for sex) when the people that are supposed to protect you fail. Maybe it isn't sluttiness that contributes to marital dissolution, but child abuse . . .. I mean, if you guys are going to try science, maybe you should figure out all variables and isolate them, child abuse, IQ, extroversion.

Anyway, at the end of the day, people will keep doing what they want.

miles said at September 23, 2010 9:28 AM:

"My take: If you really want to get married and already have a suitable woman who hasn't had sex with anyone else then she's the one. Female virginity ought to be highly prized by guys who want to get married to stay married. Hook-up culture is your enemy."

Ive been excoriated in a few places for suggesting that conservative thinking men who are not religious go to churches to look for brides and fake belief for the sake of finding a decent, faithful wife who isn't interested in asset-rape, but only finding a loving husband. Singing a few hymns and noding at things they really dont believe once-a-week might save them a million dollars in alimony/child support over the decades. It would give them some peace of mind, and that alone is worth a lot of money.

beavis and butthead said at September 24, 2010 5:42 AM:
"who isn't interested in asset-rape"

Huh huh huh huh, he says "asset rape". Huh huh huh huh!

mattbg said at September 24, 2010 7:33 AM:

@miles: the church-going approach sounds very appealing but it's also very dishonest. Believing/not believing in God are things that religious people take very seriously and are fundamental to their identity. If you are ever found out it will be taken very poorly.

Also, my worst experience was with someone who went to church. These new Christian churches that appeal to selfish instincts (large, non-denominational ones that focus on what God can do for you) attract some very bad people.

Bill Wilson said at October 15, 2010 11:24 PM:


While I can't condone the basic dishonesty being proposed, there is a sort of quiet honor in a person associating with the church, not because he is a Christian, but because he simply finds the people in the church truer, more decent, than others. I've known several people who approach church-life from exactly that angle.

But I think that the more interesting question, which must occur to you is this: why do you think that these fundamental and basic virtues are so strongly correlated with an honest belief in such things as the Christian Gospel? While any number of explanations can and have been offered for this correlation, I think that the simplest and best explanation is this: Christianity is true, and this truth is both transformative and redemptive.

"Good girls" may indeed be good simply as a consequence of the way they've been brought up, but as a rule they will only remain "good" (in the way we're talking about) so long as they also remain true to the faith. And of course this makes sense. If Jesus is indeed God, is indeed alive, is present in this very room, and if all that he said is true, then surely life must be seen differently as a result.

What I guess I am getting at is this: I think that a person's desire for a "good" wife, is an acknowledgement of the basic differnece between good and bad, and an expression of longing for the fulness and depth of we-can-know-not-what. At least, at the outset, it seems to be we-can-know-not-what, but over time, if you are seeking truth, and virtue, and a genuine balance of competing virtues, that truth can only be known in the person of Jesus. He is not an idea, nor a dogma, but rather a person, and in some sense, every idea of good must indeed boil down to an essentially personal essense.

So, to summarize, if you're drawn to church by the quality of the people there, then go, but go honestly and do not deceive anyone, especially a young woman who, more than likely, is looking for a husband who is genuinely in one accord with her spiritually. And be open to the idea that much of the truth which characterizes the people you meet is due to the deeper, transformative truth of what they believe and have dedicated themselves to.

Doris Day said at October 17, 2010 2:04 PM:

My (ex) husband did to me more or less what has been suggested here -- he pretended to be a Christian in order to marry me (a young, Christian virgin) and then dropped the pretense within a month of the wedding. I asked him why on earth he did it, and he said that he knew that admitting that he was an atheist would mean that I wouldn't date him/marry him. Knowing that I would do nearly anything to avoid the sin and social stigma of divorce, he manipulated me in matters large, medium, and small for over a decade. We had two children, and he did everything possible to make it difficult for me to raise them as Christians. He finally decided to move on to greener pastures, and although a bitter custody fight ensued, his decision to divorce me came as a relief in many ways, as I could finally stop feeling responsible for preventing a divorce that was inevitable from the day of the wedding.

I can understand the idea that marrying a devout Christian, while reserving your own right to live as you please, gives a man the best of both worlds, but the type of person who would actually go through with this has a cruel streak a mile wide. If you think that Biblical standards of behavior are a crock of manure, why should it bother you if your wife agrees with you? Birds of a feather should flock together.

JMD said at October 18, 2010 6:00 PM:

Boyfriend and are about equal in "number" and as well as scale of s*ness. We're both mid 40s, compatible in all ways measurable and in all things that truly matter. Secure enough in ourselves not to care or judge what we did before.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright