Study about female pair bonding?

thedeadpill · 2022-08-02T17:25:44+00:00

Here are two articles from different ends of the political spectrum that reference the study.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

Edit to add: the actual studies (rather than the journalism around it) are paywalled:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x

https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1987-15348-001

Fun_Push7168 · 2022-08-02T20:19:46+00:00

There are waaaay more factors then this but here's a simple rundown of my understanding strictly as it relates to hormones.

As I understand it how it is all actually related to basic hormones ( extremely simplified and more minor stuff left out) is thusly;

Women: sex=massive amounts of oxytocin relative to men plus dopamine, especially with orgasm. As with anything else frequent dopamine exposure lessens sensitivity. Any "pair bonding" is simply due to addictive effects. New partners can of course bring the high up again through novelty.

Men: sex= oxytocin, dopamine and vasopressin. Men are not as sensitive to oxytocin and produce less, however are much more sensitive to vasopressin as it has major interplay with testosterone. Vasopressin is responsible for mate guarding and protective behaviors. It spikes during erection and drops sharply after orgasm. ( Post nut clarity here)

For both sexes oxytocin is produced at higher and higher levels when repeating sex with the same partner. We get more trusting and more warm and fuzzies. The increase has many benefits for women and lots of reproductive effects and child bonding effects etc.

For men vasopressin production increase along those same lines. After enough repeats you don't want to kick her out bc the levels are still high enough after the drop.

IMO Dopamine seeking would make the most sense when relating to promiscuity, particularly for those desensitized.

Also on the most basic levels tells us why men wanna bang a bunch of women (for the dopamine , since the oxytocin is less impacting) and why they can do it and not give a shit about her afterward and still be dedicated since his vasopressin only tells him to stick to the partner.

And women who run around are probably just seeking a dopamine high but tend to be more conflicted because of the oxytocin sensitivity.

From an evolutionary standpoint this all makes sense when applied to reproductive and survival strategies.

GlowingAsItDazzles · 2022-08-02T17:58:15+00:00

theres no study about "pair bonding", there are studies and statistics about n count and divorce that TRPs interpret as "pair bonding", as if divorce occurs becaus elack of sufficient "pair bond"

poppy_blu · 2022-08-02T18:14:32+00:00

A few years back some incel found a study of flies showing the offspring can resemble a previous sexual partner, and began making posts and memes about how “research” shows that unless you marry a virgin your kids will be the offspring of previous men she had sex with. And of course the shit went viral in the manosphere, because stemlords never paid attention in biology class to know that flies aren’t humans and didn’t bother to actually read it to know the study involved manipulation of the dna by researchers.

InkwellWorldPeas · 2022-08-02T17:28:50+00:00

Red pillers seem to live in a fantasy world that think women are parrots and “pair bond” with someone, despite the fact that all evidence proves they don’t.

It doesn’t happen. Sure, if you really match something they’re attracted to, looks, money, humor, whatever, they may not want to give it up easily, but humans don’t pair bond in the first place. And women especially don’t.

To RPers, they confuse pair bonding with the male’s OMG she left me and I’ll never get a GF again feeling due to scarcity and their lives crash because they heavily emotionally invested in a woman way beyond rationality into “worshipping the pedestal” land.

Women, who have an abundance mentality, and can date a wide variety and plethora of men if they choose, don’t pair bond with men.

And why would they? If a relationship ends, go find another one. Dick is cheap, much like RP delusions.

thedeadpill · 2022-08-02T19:18:54+00:00

If you can't find it on Google scholar, red pill used another unrelated survey to draw their own conclusions. That's what they do

Like the okcupid study was just data. They didn't prove anything about human nature. They showed how people act on dating websites like okcupid. But red pill will fucking die before they admit that, because all they have is cherry picked data

todo_pasa_ · 2022-08-02T18:27:22+00:00

The thing is, a woman with high ncount is less likely to take BS because she knows she has options.

Hoopy223 · 2022-08-02T17:55:57+00:00

I’d think its common sense that (statistically speaking) someone who is very promiscuous/thrice divorced etc won’t be a very reliable partner.

werewolfbabe238 · 2022-08-02T18:38:29+00:00

I think to effectively measure this you'd have to define a reliable indicator of "pair-bonding" ability, like serotonin levels or something. Looking at divorce rates isn't going to get you very far imo - I would imagine promiscuous individuals are naturally going having higher divorce rates based on their nature.

2022-08-02T19:46:00+00:00

Hypothetically, if that WAS true - why would it be a bad thing?

As a woman you need to think of a myriad things before committing to a man for life and having children. Do you not think it's incumbent to be able to look at your relationship and situation with an objective lens - rather than your visceral lizard brain?

2022-08-03T21:20:04+00:00

Someone I know sent this to me, what are your thoughts guys. I would love to hear your reactions. Let me guess y'all going to be in denial and find ways to defend your cognitive biases

Pair bonding is a very real biological phenomenon that occurs in humans. I would not trust anything written in the Purple Pill Debate sub as most people are steeped in confirmation bias and have an immense lack of understanding of evolutionary sciences. Given that everyone on that post who claimed humans don't pair bond don't provide any studies that prove their point and rely on "trust me bro" kinda statements, I would not trust anything they claim.

With that aside, lemme provide the studies that prove the existence of pair bonds in humans:-

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full

"In sum, we conclude that while there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of mating patterns, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, the residential pair-bond is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships. This, at times, is expressed through polygyny and/or polyandry, but is most commonly observed in the form of monogamous marriage that is serial and characterized by low levels of extra-pair paternity and high levels of paternal care."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201205/marriage-and-pair-bonds

" In humans, and other mammals, pair bonds are developed via social interactions combined with the biological activity of neurotransmitters and hormones such as oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, corticosterone, and others."

http://pauldavidphd.com/wp-content/uploads/Pair-Bonding.pdf

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200717109

werewolfbabe238 · 2022-08-02T17:24:47+00:00

Side note: I can only find information about pair bonding that includes men and women. Apparently, this study demonstrates that females' ability to pair bond decreases with promiscuity, but male promiscuity does not impact their ability to pair bond.

Flightlessbirbz · 2022-08-02T20:48:29+00:00

Humans don’t “pair bond” so you won’t find any legitimate scientific studies on this. We can become attached to a partner, obviously, but we aren’t birds. We’re mammals who tend to be serial monogamous but can adapt to promiscuity and/or monogamy, with some people tending more toward one or the other. As for if low-n women divorce less, I would say yes, but not because of “pair bonding.” Rather, because they tend to be more religious/traditional.

2022-08-02T22:09:11+00:00

Some turbovirgin made this copypasta a long time ago:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-0314-6_1

“When women pursue short-term mates, they appear to increase their selectivity in mate choice and desire men who possess cues to “good genes.”

approximately half of women in the top quintiles of sociosexuality had been sexually unfaithful to a steady partner; this was more than a tenfold increase over the corresponding rate for people in the bottom quintiles.

Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(3), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.537

X

In illustration of this, the odds ratio of 1.13 for lifetime sexual partners obtained with the face-to-face mode of interview indicates that the probability of infidelity increased by 13% for every additional lifetime sexual partner,

X

Regarding the correlates of infidelity, results indicated that on the basis of both methods of assessment, the probability of sexual infidelity increased with higher number of lifetime sexual partners

Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147

X

Our findings demonstrate that infidelity and number of sexual partners are both under moderate genetic influence (41% and 38% heritable, respectively) and the genetic correlation between these two traits is strong (47%). The resulting genetic correlation between the two traits was .47, so nearly half the genes impacting on infidelity also affect number of sexual partners. The correlation of the unique environment between the two variables was .48.

Cherkas, L., Oelsner, E., Mak, Y., Valdes, A., & Spector, T. (2004). Genetic Influences on Female Infidelity and Number of Sexual Partners in Humans: A Linkage and Association Study of the Role of the Vasopressin Receptor Gene (AVPR1A). Twin Research, 7(6), 649-658. doi:10.1375/twin.7.6.649

X

A truism in psychology is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is no less true in the realm of sexual behavior. Indeed, one of the strongest predictors of marital infidelity is one’s number of prior sex partners (Buss, 2000). Deception about past sexual promiscuity would have inflicted greater costs, on average, on men than on women

Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271303

X

Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001], indicating that sexually promiscuous participants also tend to be emotionally promiscuous, and sexual[ly] and emotional[ly] unfaithful. In terms of the sexual domain, results showed that there is also a positive correlation between sexual promiscuity and sexual infidelity, stating that individuals that tend to be more sexually promiscuous also tend to be more sexually unfaithful. These results support our second hypothesis.

Pinto R., Arantes J. (2016). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity in Proceedings of the Athens: ATINER’S Conference Paper Series, No: PSY2016-2087, Athens, 10.30958/ajss.4-4-3

X

Number of pre-marital partners: percent who cheated once married

• ⁠2: 10.4% • ⁠3: 14.9% • ⁠4: 17.7% • ⁠5: 21.6% • ⁠6-10: 26.0% • ⁠11-20: 36.7% • ⁠21+: 46.8%

NORC General Social Survey. (2011, October 02). Female Infidelity Based on Number of Premarital Partners — Statistic Brain. Retrieved July 5, 2015, from http://www.statisticbrain.com/percent-of-female-infidelity-based-on-number-of-premarital-partners/

X

Contrary to the myth, partners who’ve had many partners have a harder, not easier, time remaining monogamous. They are significantly more at risk of straying than those with little or no prior sexual experience.

Staik, A., PhD. (2019, March 28). 10 Predictors of Infidelity and Gender Differences: Why Do Partners Cheat? Retrieved July 15, 2020, from https://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2014/08/a-look-at-infidelity-why-do-partners-cheat/

X

For people in this survey who reported four or fewer lifetime sexual partners, the rate of infidelity in the current marriage dropped to 11%, while for those who had five or more sexual partners the number was nearly double (21%). The break between the 54% of people who had five or more lifetime sexual partners vs. the 46% who had four or fewer total partners illustrates the lessons from the study. This breakpoint is validated by the fact that when asked straight out, 68% of those with more sexual partners in their pasts agreed that, “I am always faithful to my sexual partner” (whether currently married or single), compared to 82% of those with fewer sexual partners who said the same.

[I]nfidelity is also often the fruit of a lifelong approach to mating that involves seeking and practicing short-term mating encounters that encourage sexual variety at all stages and into marriage.

McQuivey, J. L., PhD. (2019, October 14). The Road to Infidelity Passes Through Multiple Sexual Partners. Retrieved July 16, 2020, from https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-road-to-infidelity-passes-through-multiple-sexual-partners-

Extra:

[T]here was a correlation between female pre-marital promiscuity and higher rates of divorce. The research, conducted by Jay Teachman, found that women with 16 or more sexual partners prior to marriage had an 80% rate of subsequent divorce.

Wikipedia contributors. (2020, June 20). Female promiscuity. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:06, July 27, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_promiscuity&oldid=963578370 Teachman, J. (2003), Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65: 444-455. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x

Gracie_777 · 2022-08-02T20:53:11+00:00

There maybe studies but it's definitely bullshit, more likely that the same issues thar drive the woman to promiscuity in the first place also affect her ability to maintain a long term relationship rather that promiscuity itself directly causing that lack of ability.

Remember some men within the red pill community actually believe a womans vagina molds itself to its preferred alpha penis and can never Be satisfied by another man. I have literally seen that claimed. These men are batshit crazy.

Lift_and_Lurk · 2022-08-02T18:23:42+00:00

I thought pair bonding was a bird thing. Are we birds? Featherless flightless birds? Is my love of chicken almost like cannibalism?

Gigamon2014 · 2022-08-02T19:22:59+00:00

I think pair bonding is one of the dumbest terms I've heard in a while.

But if you think wifing a hoe doesn't significantly increase your chances or divorce then I have no legitimate respect for you. And I legit think you're too stupid to reproduce. 2022 may be the year dumbass redpill culture goes mainstream but im seeing a ridiculous dichotomy where some men try to negate that misogyny by being absolute fucking apineless retards with no sense of self preservation. If you think the added risk is worth it for the woman you love, have at it.

Gari_305 · 2022-08-02T18:30:22+00:00

Here's a 2004 study

Here's also a 2016 study

Thus in short the science is out there

TeddyMGTOW · 2022-08-02T19:15:49+00:00

Trauma bond or bust..lol

SmilesRHere · 2022-08-02T23:09:37+00:00

As mentioned to another comment to your post, when divorce filings for physical abuse are removed, divorce filing ratio between men and women is the same, about 50-50.

Since all physical abuse divorces are filed by women, and the opposite (man getting beaten by his wife) is so unlikely and rare, divorces for physical abuse should be removed from the numbers in a non-biased research.

Summary: red pill pair bonding bull shit is bull shit.

goatismycopilot · 2022-08-02T18:46:46+00:00

Men have fewer issues pair bonding when they are promiscuous because they don't pair bond. They get married to a woman for reproduction and still have women on the side. They percieve that they have no issues pair bonding because they can stay married and still have side action.

deznue · 2022-08-02T18:42:21+00:00

It’s just general rules of the “game” … like if you been with many guys then don’t expect to become dream girl of a guy because guys don’t see promiscuous women as wifey material. None promiscuous women will always be higher value for men when it comes to marriage and that’s just how it is.

Coolio_Street_Racer · 2022-08-02T18:04:41+00:00

https://osf.io/ke5fj/download/?format=pdf

Results: The relationship between premarital sex and divorce is highly significant and robust. Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with six or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk, followed by those with one to two partners. There is no evidence of gender differences.

It increases infidelity risk equally in both genders. It makes you view people as more replaceable imo and you will have less patience to overcome adversities together and more eager to just replace them.

But I just think cheating is different if your man. Which is why it's worse if your a women. But that's a completely different topic.

RRBeachFG2 · 2022-08-03T01:43:59+00:00

Hamsters running free everywhere aaagghh!

AutoModerator · 2022-08-02T17:21:17+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Fun_Push7168 · 2022-08-02T20:19:53+00:00

There are waaaay more factors then this but here's a simple rundown of my understanding strictly as it relates to hormones.

As I understand it how it is all actually relates to basic hormones ( extremely simplified and more minor stuff left out) is thusly;