When banks give you loans, they check credit ratings. When people buy cars, they check its condition and mileage. When employers hire people, they check the applicant's criminal record history and his resume. The past matters, especially when dating; TRP is incontrovertibly correct on this issue...

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ashurdashur 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's a matter of behaviour patters.

A woman with a high n count has demonstrated a past with several of the following attributes.

A low "entry barrier" for males wishing to have sex with her
A high propensity for following "lizard brain" feelings
A low propensity for overruling feelings with rational decision making
A high propensity to seek Dopamine hits from sexual relationships
A low propensity to seek Oxytocin hits from sexual relationships
A high propensity to be an alpha widow for some other guy with much more alpha than you
A low propensity (usually) to keep promises of fidelity to men

A high n count is a good proxy for all those measures. As such, on an evolutionary level men's lizard brains dislike these women (I.e. They are still turned on by them as sexual partners, but turned off of them as LTR material) and, if you are also RP, you also acquire a dislike for these women on a rational level (again as LTR material).

Once your gut (ol lizard) and your brain (ol rational brain) agree on something... Why would you overrule BOTH to snag that LTR ? You wouldn't. You don't want an LTR with that kind of gal anymore. So you don't have one.

Then a load of bloopers and non-RP people come along and call you an asshole, or a hypocrite, or an idiot for doing nothing other than following what your brain and gut BOTH have good reasons for telling you.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

A low "entry barrier" for males wishing to have sex with her

At the same time she may have a high entry barrier for relationships. Many people don't view relationships as only about sex. Most understand that you must give up sexually diversity in order to gain the intimacy from a relationship.

A low propensity for overruling feelings with rational decision making

In an age of condoms and birth control to protect oneself from pregnancy and STDs there are no rational explanations to stay chaste. There maybe social or emotional consequences but that varies between social groups and individuals.

A low propensity to seek Oxytocin hits from sexual relationships

Oxytocin hits can last for only a couple of months. This gives enough time for a woman to bed another man for a high N count. Oxytocin should not be the basis of a serious relationship because it always wears down over time for both sexes.

A high propensity to seek Dopamine hits from sexual relationships

Sex is about dopamine. In or out of relationships.

A high propensity to be an alpha widow for some other guy with much more alpha than you

I agree but I think the sensitivity is more of a innate personality trait than something that is gained from experience. Many women come out of one encounter with very high expectations or heartbroken. I seen it with men too. I think it's a risk that can't be avoided whether the N is 0 or 50 with certain people.

A low propensity (usually) to keep promises of fidelity to men

I agree. Usually there is a correlation, but not all the time to accuse disloyalty on all high N women.

IDK much about "lizard brain" to comment. I tried googling it up but can't seem to find a concrete definition.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

At the same time she may have a high entry barrier for relationships. Many people don't view relationships as only about sex. Most understand that you must give up sexually diversity in order to gain the intimacy from a relationship.

Absolutely. But a low barrier to having casual sex is not a good quality in an LTR partner. She is likely to feel mor tempted to cheat than those with high entry barriers for casual sex.

In an age of condoms and birth control to protect oneself from pregnancy and STDs there are no rational explanations to stay chaste. There maybe social or emotional consequences but that varies between social groups and individuals.

I agree. There is no rational expectation to stay chaste. That's why it is such a good marker for an LTR prospect. Anyone who has done so despite the encouragement of society to engage in casual sex is very likely to be the kind of girl it is easy to have a monogamous relationship with.

Sex is about dopamine. In or out of relationships.

Yes and no. The rush from sex per se is dopamine. However, the feeling of ling term love and comfort is oxytocin. This is released after repeated and continual sex acts with the same person.

I women showing a major preference for dopamine over Oxytocin is going to be tempted to cheat, as cheating adds all the "breaking the rules" and "getting the strange" dopamine to the standard sex dopamine. A woman with a clear preference for Oxycotin is likely to stay more faithful.

Girls with a low number of long term partners are revealing their preference as against a girl with a high number of short term partners.

I agree but I think the sensitivity is more of a innate personality trait than something that is gained from experience. Many women come out of one encounter with very high expectations or heartbroken. I seen it with men too. I think it's a risk that can't be avoided whether the N is 0 or 50 with certain people.

Well it can be avoided at 0. You can't be an AW unless you slept with an alpha. From there, the more partners she has... The more likely it will be that one of them "out alphas" you.

Women with 50 partners ? Good chance she's a widow, maybe many times over. Partner count of 5 ? Much lower chance.

Not predictive, but is a good heuristic.

I agree. Usually there is a correlation, but not all the time to accuse disloyalty on all high N women.

Not saying they are all disloyal. Just that you are better off playing the odds.

IDK much about "lizard brain" to comment. I tried googling it up but can't seem to find a concrete definition.

Well this is a whole post on its own.

Mammals inherited a brain from their reptile ancestors. This brain runs with emotion... Fear, Lust, love, hate, anger etc etc.... That's how it works. All animals have this brain.

In mammals we developed a second brain overlaid on the top of this reptile brain of emotion. A rational "figure stuff out" brain. Humans have the most massively overdeveloped version of this.

So.... When someone throws a ball... And you catch it "automatically", putting your hand in the right spot without thinking about it, that's lizard brain.

If someone throws a ball... And you get out a pen, calculator and paper... Do your calculus, predict the parabolic arc, predict the timing... Then put your hand where the math says to. Close your fingers when the maths says to. Then catch it. That's mammal brain.

Lizard brain runs evolutionary deterministic strategy. He doesnt think much. He's just a dumb old lizard. "Oooooh... Sexy male... Here are the panty wetting feels evolution wants you to have"... Mammal brain either accepts this "ooooh.. The feels... He must be my soulmate, it's finally my time to be happy" ... Or he rejects it "the feels are strong, but I've got a good hubby. Ignore the feels".

RP ignores mammal brain. Works directly with lizard brain. So many women have such trouble controlling their feels that we've found working with the "organ grinder" to be more useful than working with the "monkey" that dances to lizard brains tune.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't a man with a similarly high N count have proved the exact same thing?

Four argument against it being the same:

polygamous behavior is kinda the default; and even if an increased N count correlates with infidelity, men don't tank their marriages over this - they rather cheat on the side but keep their spouse. Women on the other hand are more likely to end the relationship for good.
men don't sleep around above their league
we don't try to date men, so we don't care - it's up to women to decide what they want to do with that information
every girl can pull off being a slut, being a stud is hard - i.e. men who sleep around tend to have more attractive traits. Women care less than men about promiscuity and are more willing to let it slide if the guy is sufficiently attractive.

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

polygamous behavior is kinda the default; and even if an increased N count correlates with infidelity, men don't tank their marriages over this - they rather cheat on the side but keep their spouse. Women on the other hand are more likely to end the relationship for good.

As a woman, I don't think I would be down for cheating, even if it were on the side and he wasn't planning on ending the marriage over it. I think that cheating would really upset me.

men don't sleep around above their league

I don't actually see the relevance here, even if this is true, what does it say about a high male N count proving/not proving that he's not cut out for long term relationships? I'm not trying to be snide, just trying to understand.

we don't try to date men, so we don't care - it's up to women to decide what they want to do with that information

Haha, fair enough, I can take that.

every girl can pull off being a slut, being a stud is hard - i.e. men who sleep around tend to have more attractive traits. Women care less than men about promiscuity and are more willing to let it slide if the guy is sufficiently attractive.

Stats? I think you could make an argument that people care less about cheating if it's with a more attractive partner, but I don't think I've ever come across any evidence that women care less about cheating than men. Even if I'm with a stud that has all da alpha, if he's in a relationship with me, then he's in a relationship with me. But that's just me, maybe studies show that women in general care less. Blow me away!

[–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!) 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WS6GrumblesPill Browser 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WS6GrumblesPill Browser 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WS6GrumblesPill Browser 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]waylandertheslayer 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Leaving aside the arguments that most BP would disagree with anyway (oxytocin etc.) there is one main point.

For a woman, there will always be one person who is the most alpha she's ever had. The highest value man she's ever been with. Unless that man is you, she's going to be what TRP calls an 'alpha widow', where she's always, in the back of her mind, got the thought that "I can get someone better than this guy, because I have had one in the past" - even if it's no longer true, because she's older now, or because she could only get a ONS with that alpha.

Furthermore, she will constantly compare you currently with his best. Having to be better than every other guy she's slept with 24/7 is really hard anyway, and it gets even harder when you factor this in.

Now, the more people a slut has slept with the more likely that one of them is higher value than you.

For studs, this is not as much of a problem, because men are not hypergamous in the same way as women. I would not necessarily want to enter an LTR with the hottest woman I can get, I would want someone who I enjoy spending time with and care about. I would be happy to take a tradeoff between hotness and lack of bitchiness. In the long run, this doesn't work that well for women because of hypergamy.

There's other points, but this is the one I think is the most convincing.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you can get women to admit to their hyper-gamy. My Red Pill response would've been:

The average woman has a much, much easier time getting laid than the average man. Even in one night stands, the average male must be the right kind of charming (both physique-wise and fashion-wise, i.e. be attractive, don't be unattractive) and have the right kind of personality. The average female, on the other hand, can get laid almost instantly.

Therefore, if a man can get laid consistently it shows that he must have desirable traits. He might be rich or fit or charming or born to lead/dominate. Any and all of these traits are desirable in a mate from an objective perspective.

On the other hand, if a woman has a high partner count, it's not the same accomplishment because it did not require the same amount of skill and effort. In fact, it can be seen as undesirable because of the simple supply-and-demand... why would you want the same basic bitch plain yogurt that everyone else has had a lick of, when you could instead have a tasty and excellent-textured vanilla ice cream sundae?

TLDR: A key that opens any lock is a master-key, whereas a lock that opens to any key is a shit-lock.

Ignore this paragraph unless you disagree about women getting sex more easily than men: Is it a coincidence that male pick-up theory is exponentially more prominent and ubiquitous than female pick-up theory? Why is it that females don't need game or silly PUA-esque shit? ~~Even though there are approximately 33% more females than males on Earth?~~ The second question should be enough to convince you, but I can keep going. The average male must do much more to be seen as attractive, compared to the average female. The male must put on muscle (which is a difficult thing to do), and burn fat without burning muscle (which is not so easy). In contrast, the female must simply be reasonably skinny (unless she is voluptuous with dem curves) and put on make-up (if you think make-up is a hassle, consider that ugly men can't mask their ugliness for fear of ostracizing, whereas ugly woman can; make-up is an advantage); she doesn't have to worry about the muscle burned along with the fat, and she doesn't have to spend hours in the gym torturing herself. Also, if a girl has small breasts (which is something she is born with) she can get breast implants to be attractive and increase her amount of sex; in contrast, if a man is short (which is something he is born with), he is absolutely fucked and things are much much harder for him in this world. Women have it easier in the sex/dating realm, and women can have a booming love life with much less effort.

[–]waylandertheslayer 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anonymous1113Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WS6GrumblesPill Browser 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WS6GrumblesPill Browser 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chazzALB37yo Purple Perma-Virgin 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The thing that people are going to most commonly answer with is a sort of pop-evolutionary psychology cynical statement like "Women are meant to produce the children and men are to spread their seed." Forgetting, of course, that this argument in itself is a philosophical one that emerges out of the 17th and 18th centuries. But also the reason I say cynical is because it is taking conscious recognition of a process that would be an unconscious one. You say these forces are acting on you, but, you still know what you are doing and yet you continue to do it anyway.

The truth is these guys care about partner counts because they fear that they fear the fact that they might be replaceable. It is the fear of rejection that drives most male dating advice out there, be in from the outset or in the long term.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

But humans early on fucked like bonobos, and in hunter gatherer societies men rarely knew whose child was whose.

You don't know that.

I realize that it's the narrative behind "Sex at Dawn" (author: Christopher Ryan), but I'm highly suspicious of the accuracy of the book. (Someone wrote a rebuttal of the book called "Sex at Dusk" by the way, where they accuse Christopher Ryan of cherry-picking and generally not knowing much about anthropology. Heck, his education wasn't even in anthropology; it was in psychology.) It's also absurd to think that humans are like Bonobos (as Christopher Ryan likes to claim). Genetically, humans are almost equally related to three different great apes: Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Bonobos. All three have very different mating structures, so it's very much cherry-picking for him to claim that humans and Bonobos were socially similar, as he does.

Christopher Ryan, by the way, decided in his early 20s that he didn't like practicing monogamy. I'm highly suspicious that "Sex at Dawn" is pseudo-science written to justify his own chosen lifestyle.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nerdgamergirl420mlg 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nerdgamergirl420mlg 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber303 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

"men and women are different" is still their default response.

Sometimes if you argue them hard on the issue or you find a newish terper, you'll also get a whine about how they've got no alternative but to attempt to be manwhores because something something something cock carousel something something something no decent woman with a low count wants them and that means decent women with low counts don't exist something something something all the low count women who say they are skeeved by PUAs and the like couldn't possibly be telling the truth mumble mumble mumble

shrug From my perspective it looks like they are headed towards eventually settling with exactly the sort of woman who isn't skeeved out by high male counts but lies about her own count... and I think from their persective deep down they know they are too otherwise why would they be so obsessed with the possibility. But they will continue to claim they've got a special guy exemption on the ewww but where has it been factor.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber303 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WS6GrumblesPill Browser 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber303 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It is really up to you. One thing I can tell you... it isn't the men who were precious about their options that left offspring in the past. Most of our existence as a species we've lived in very small communities compared to modern cities, and if the only options were the fat possibly infertile 35 year old widow of the miller who came with a free flour mill, the retarded daughter of the village beggar, that 18 year old girl who had shamefully let a team of wandering mistrels take turns on her, and the 25 year old widow with four kids already, then you chose from amongst them or waited for a miracle. Highly eligible young ladies would have been more or less spoken for, their family would have had a fair idea who they were headed to from childhood. You'll be weeded out if you're too fussy and humanity will go on as it ever has.

Right now we're weeding out the people who don't really want kids so much they'll be willing to be realistic that they may never get one of the elite 1% of best possible partners, find a compromise and go with it. We're also weeding out men who get too distracted by porn. Its a temporary situation as we adjust to changing technology and larger social circles. An adjustment.

[–]WS6GrumblesPill Browser 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So you are "weeding" out unacceptable male spouses out of one side of your mouth and have a problem with men doing the same out of the other.

too distracted by porn reads too sucked in to an easy, pleasing, no-muss-no-fuss option when the alternative is such an uphill and often pointless struggle. I can definitely attest that porn lowers my mate-seeking drive, and I couldn't be more appreciative. I'm only on step 1 of being better looking and more successful. Without porn I'd have to settle for the miller's widow or the retard because here in reality women could give two shits about ethics or personality. That stuff only seems to start mattering when we're all too old to be considered attractive anymore. I'm sure I'll get a "well your personality clearly sucks" comment or two. No, I'm just not looking to impress you, so I'm being honest instead of bootlicking like most men you usually talk to. There was a point in time when as a young, delusional man I bought into love and romance. Only took a handful of women to figure out it's nonsense.

[–]rulenumber303 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

and have a problem with men doing the same out of the other.

I don't have a problem with people choosing mates to their preferences from those available. No problem at all.

The approach much of TRP is using to the issues involved, however, is likely to give them problems passing on their genes since there aren't enough of the mates they'd truly prefer and are unlikely to ever be enough of them. There weren't enough of them, ever.

We live in a situation we haven't evolved to deal with yet, where pretty much all of us must watch hundreds of people we'd very much have chosen... go off and get with someone else. Over and over again. A thousand times as much rejection as the average villager would have suffered 500 years ago, and without the saving grace of being forced to settle by the logistics of surviving in a small town or a tribe. Unless one recognises that one must make settling decisions and then find ways to implement those logical decisions happily, ones genes aren't going to survive this slight bottlenecking we are experiencing.

But other people's problems are... their problems. Worthy of note by me, interesting to think and talk about, but not really worth of me attempting to intervene in any way. If you're bowing out of the race, well seeya... or rather it is unlikely my great great great grandaughters will be seeing so many men like you.

[–]Phokus1983 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber303 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And yet the assortive mating statistics show that in general, low count women are marrying low count men. This is reality.

I think a lot of it is pure revulsion of the you aren't putting that thing in me I don't know where it has been but I can hazard a guess and ewwwwwwwww sort. Entirely sensible, if you don't want to be suddenly gifted with every possible strain of crotch bacteria, yeast and virus.

Which means that high count women are the ones who will tend to be willing to marry guys who have been players. So eventually they'll probably find a high count women who is willing to lie about her count. shrug Like an oncoming train.

If you want low count women then keeping your count in the bounds of normality is probably a good idea. I mean seriously, you're capable of having preferences and so are women.

[–]Phokus1983 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')> 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯ 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')> 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are naturally pre-disposed to only give sex towards men they deserve as worthy, and this is determined by a thousand little things that let them now their worth, as well as having an idea of the absolute value of all men.

If a woman is sleeping with a lot of men, it means that she does not have a proper evaluation of her self worth. She either has very low self-worth and will sleep with a lot of men to try to prop it up, or she has an incorrect view of her worth to men, and confuses the fact that they will sleep with her, with the belief that she is as good as that man, because she only wants to sleep with the best men she can get.

How is a man supposed to trust this sort of woman? Men want women who understand their worth to the other sex through commitment, not sex, because the woman a man commits to will always be able to get sex from a higher value man, and if she has that thought tied to her self-worth, she's probably going to go for it when the situation is right.

Conversely, a woman who only sleeps with men that she has serious relationships with (maybe one or two exceptions) has a solid grasp of her value to men, and thus she will seek the male of the highest SMV that she can get to commit, and she will value that commitment and the relationship.

Women who sleep around a lot are unlikely to properly value commitment, or have their hypergamy in check. They are unable to accept what their SMV is

[–]haircombsnightmare 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WS6GrumblesPill Browser 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber303 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Well go do your background checks then. No-one is going to stop you asking questions. However if you're kind of on the auty side of things and ask those questions at the wrong time and in the wrong situation you're going to set off girls' creep alarms. Getting to ask those questions without being told to fuck off costs you, you need to have spent enough time with the person and be attractive enough to them that they want to tell you. There is no right to know, that information is personal and if someone doesn't want to tell you they don't have to. Simple as that.

As a woman with a low count I'm amazed at the number of TRPs here who seem to see it as their right to just be told that sort of information straight up. If I was single again, what would be in it for me in telling a guy my count so early on? Absolutely nothing. I don't want a guy to include that information in whether he's attracted enough to me in the first place to bother spending a bit of time getting to know me, that's a recipe for ending up with weirdo purity fetishists amongst your suitors.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

In this case... There are several reasons to believe this...

Scientific studies bear out that women lie about their n count, even if it's just for a study and no real world consequences would be incurred.
In the real world there is a high incentive to lie, and none to tell the truth, given the average males instinctual response.
anecdotal evidence also strongly suggests lying about n count is common. I've experinced this in my life with past GFs
you would expect humans to maximise their attractiveness to oppositte sex partners they wish to land. Lying here helps do so.

Basically, men add a few to their number... And women take a few away... RP recognises this as extremely common behaviour and therefore advises finding some independent way of assessing. Usually chatting to friends and family, and working out rough numbers from there.

EDIT: Just wanted to say I'd also assume a man was lying too in the gender reversed version. Incentives aren't quite so high the other way round.... But I'd assume a man giving me an n count was lying too. Just the other way. Men's incentives are to "not appear a clueless near-Virgin" so male counts of 0-1-2-3 are likely to be reported as 4-5-6-7..... Similarly female counts of 20-30-40 are likely to be reports as 7-8-9-10. It's just people responding to incentives, that's how humans work.

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Why? Is it to make themselves look more attractive? Really?

No. Consider the situation... She appears to have landed a guy "she really digs" and they are having the kind of conversations the presage an LTR, her desired goal state.

The brass ring is within reach... Then he asks about n count.

There is a big upside, and little downside to "knocking a few off" her number.... There is a potentially big downside, and no real upside to being truthful.

So, because she wants to grab the brass ring... And because a "little white lie" will help... She tells a "Little white lie."

Just as he would if his n count was 2. He's facing a similar incentive to bump that to 4 or 5.

Yeah, it's not instinctual. I couldn't care any less about what count my partner has, and neither could healthy adult people either.

It is instinctual. I know your rational brain don't care. Old mammal brain is fine with this... But male lizard brains care.

I know you can't find a rational reason to prefer a count of 5 over 155.... But you don't need one... Lizard brain knows... When you're going out with a girl who you think is 5, and you discover is 55, whatever your rational brain says lizard brain changes the feels.

Eventually, you won't dig her as much as you used to. You'll probably have no idea why, and will rationalise it as something else.

I've experienced the opposite. So this theory is now in real danger as 50% of the evidence suggest the opposite.

Really ? Women have artificially inflated their count when talking to you ? A 20 count woman lied and said 50 ?

What was your reaction when she did ?

I haven't lied about my partner count since I was 16. At that time I thought I would seem cooler if I kind of laid back mentioned that my partner count was high. Little did I know, I did it because I was sixteen and thought that mattered.

I agree, I've never lied about it. I have met many women that did, that very often were happy to openly admit they did to fellow women and to males off their market.

In fact, so much so, that I'd consider this standard female advice to other females.. That if this subject come up on a GNO, most of the girls after a few drinks would say "Jeez Girl, lower your count a bit. It won't hurt, might help. Just say 6 instead of 16. What are you ? Dumb or something ? If you think he cares, best err on the side of a low count".

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

What is the upside to lie? What is it my lizard brain says to me? Why do you like her less because she has been with more men?

I couldn't think of anything at all, so please tell me. "Leftovers" won't do, left overs are food, not sex. Someone elses yoghurt is also food, and not sex. LTR is long term relationship right? Tell me what my lizard brain says to me about a girl I'm in a LTR with who has been with more men than I've been with women, please. I used to think that was bad, back when I though I was a bad lay, I used to think they better be with less men or they'll know... They'll know I am bad in bed. Is it only because of that? I don't know, all I know is that now that I'm aware that I'm actually a great lay, I don't care anymore.

"Women have artificially inflated their count when talking to you ?"

That's not the point, the point is you "evidence" isn't evidence. You may say that everyone yu'll ever meet is A and not B and it'll still be under a thousand. And also, I've been with women who had a high count even if she was lying. I didn't react at all.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the point. I am my mammal brain. I don't like lizard all that much and he ain't me.

It wouldn't affect my rational assessment of her, just my feels towards her. Just as a disfiguring accident would do the same. I can rationally decide to continue, I just won't have the same automatic "she's a hot LTR prospect" feels I once had.

I regard this as an extremely common "lizard brain" reaction. Women should take note. YMMV, of course... But if you are a chick... If give you pretty good odds of it affecting the guys assessment of you, if only subconsciously.

I call them as I see them. In this case it is pure serendipity that scientific studies back this up... Scientific studies have shown women understate the n count by up to 50% in a study where no one would judge. I suspect it's even higher when talking to that "cool guy you dig, who you're trying to get to dig you back".

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

But there is no comparison between a train victim and one who had more sex than you, surely? What about high partner count would change your feeling toward her?

Well there are, I would argue, rational reasons as well (she's more likely to be an alpha widow for example, she's more likely to be viewing you as a BB etc). But for this argument these are immaterial.

The disfiguring train accident changed nothing either. She is arguably a better "LTR match" after the accident, rationally, as she is less likely to cheat (less opportunity).

Lizard brain doesn't give a fuck. Facial disfigurment ? She less hot. Cockmonster ? She's a less good LTR prospect, a better plate.

Lizard brains don't give a shit. The "give a shit" part of you is up in mammal brain, and he only controls the thoughts NOT the feels.

You can't control your feelings. Only td exude whether to act on them. Few realise there is a choice to be made.

Read my AWALT post. If you want to argue with me about AWALT do an OP based on my views there. I will comment.

[–]TheNoobyOneHehe 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePantsThiefRed Pill Attack-Helicopter 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. There are many young men who avoid relationships like the plague. I met tons of them in college who were very vocal about it. Most men propose and want to get married when they are financially stable. Not because the girl in front of them is young and hot. Sleep with? Sure. Marry? No.

Most men who get to the point of becoming stable usually meet their future wife through their social group who are most likely their age or a couple of years younger. Hence why the average marriage age for men is 29 and women are 27.

This is why I think very young women are not getting married. They are being told by their male peers that it is not the time to get married. Young women can date a man 10 years older than her if she really want to get married but most would rather wait for someone closer in age.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bunnylumps 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are some guys who go to college with the intent to find a long-term girlfriend, sure, and there are just as many if not more who go to college with the intention to party, drink, and fuck as many girls as possible and have unattached, noncommittal fun. Such is the allure of college and of youth, it's been going on since time immemorial. Now some of the relationship-seeking men are going to become jaded by this lifestyle and get angry at women. Maybe it's that the girls they are most attracted to tend to be more promiscuous, or maybe they got burned by a girlfriend they thought they trusted.

Relationship-minded young women, too, encounter promiscuous guys who have no intention of settling down until they are older. Some of these relationship-seekers become jaded and get angry at men. Maybe its that the guys they are attracted to tend to be more promiscuous, or maybe they got burned by a guy they thought they trusted. It's the human condition, you have just projected your own insecurities onto it.

Your experiences are not universal.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I guess we will agree to disagree on which one is causing what. It's quite possible that both genders are telling each other it's not the right time because people usually date within their educational level.

Look at history, the cliché used to be, go to university for your Mrs Degree, now feminism teaches women they can get their own(a good thing) and that they can just act like dudes in the mean time and things will sort themselves out.

I read somewhere that men get married later the more education they pursue. High school degree only men get married the youngest and graduates get married the oldest. I'm confident that it's the same for women.

I'd agree partially, lack of education in both sexes does tend to go hand in hand with lack of long term goals/planning.

I doubt it's the same for women now what with all the glut of approaching/in thirties women with degrees/education complaining that the equivalent men are not there, I think most women now that get married are the slightly younger mid twenties range, go later and you not only have men not interested but also less of them as their are now less and less ,men in higher education.

My boyfriend had several women wanting to marry him after he graduated high school. Nothing of this women were going to college. He went straight to work and so did they.

He didn't marry because it wasn't a viable/sensible option, the girls on the other hand recognize it as one of their few options where additional education is not available.

At my college, only devout Christian wanted to get married while they were in.

Eerie shit mang.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. There are many young men who avoid relationships like the plague. I met tons of them in college who were very vocal about it. Most men propose and want to get married when they are financially stable. Not because the girl in front of them is young and hot. Sleep with? Sure. Marry? No.

Most men who get to the point of becoming stable usually meet their future wife through their social group who are most likely their age or a couple of years younger. Hence why the average marriage age for men is 29 and women are 27.

This is why I think very young women are not getting married. They are being told by their male peers that it is not the time to get married. Young women can date a man 10 years older than her if she really want to get married but most would rather wait for someone closer in age.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]17b29a 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]17b29a 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]noodles99 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]noodles99 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BowsNToes21 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foxmulders -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]alexdelargeorange 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]foxmulders -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]foxmulders -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]foxmulders -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]foxmulders 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fratzeI'm not red pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]foxmulders 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]foxmulders 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')> 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]saltinadojust tylenol's fine, thanks 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cherryblue12Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]cherryblue12Purple Pill Woman -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

This is the study that gets pointed to every time TRPers want to justify their "high partner count affects women but not men" view. So I finally bit the bullet and actually read this study. For those of you who are interested, here is my review:

After skimming through the methods and results sections, I have to say, the methodology isn't that bad. In particular, I like the fact that they used a prospective design, meaning they recruited participants who were unmarried (i.e., had not experienced the outcome of interest) but were in relationships (i.e, 'at risk' for experiencing the outcome) and then they followed these people for five years. I also like the fact that they used multi-level modeling in their analysis, although I would have liked to see a little more detail about their statistical strategy. The sample size was also pretty decent - they recruited 1,294 individuals, 418 of whom experienced the outcome and were included in the analyses.

They measured marital quality using 4-items from the 32 item Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The items are as follows: "This measure includes items about relationship happiness, thoughts about dissolution, frequency of confiding in one another, and a general item about how well things are going between the partners." Marital quality was then operationalized as a continuous score ranging from 0 to 21.

They found a statistically significant, negative association between number of previous partners and their continuous measure of marital quality, such that scores on the 4-item dyadic adjustment scale decreased by .04 for every additional pre-marital sexual partner. When they examined this association separately by gender, they found that the association was slightly stronger in women (.06) and weaker in men (.004). They also found that the association ceased to be statistically significant in men, but it is important to note that the sample was 65% women, meaning that statistical power for detecting a significant effect was lower for men than for women. Because of this difference in statistical power, comparisons based on p values are somewhat untrustworthy. I would like to see the beta coefficient and p value for the cross-product interaction term, but I was not able to find this in the report.

This is not a terrible study, but by itself, it in no way proves that high partner count in women is detrimental to marital quality but high partner count in men is not, as TRPers suggest. For starters, the findings need to be replicated in different samples, and with different measures of marital quality. You would also need to explore other potential confounders: the study controlled for race/ethnicity, years of education, personal income, religiousness and frequency of attendance at religious services, however they did not control for other variables that might be associated both with previous partner count and marital quality, such as (off the top of my head) history of mental illness or childhood sexual abuse.

Finally, keep in mind that the coefficients represent average effects. A beta coefficient of -.06 means that if the average marital quality score in women with 4 previous partners is 19, then the average marital quality score in women with 5 previous partners is 18.94. Not only is this a small overall difference, but it in no way precludes the possibility of some, individual women with 5 previous partners having higher marital quality scores than some women with 4 previous partners.

In sum, this study is not the smoking gun TRPers seem to think it is.

edit: fixed maths

[–]Phokus1983 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

It's the best study we have so far. When i first posted this study, i've been countered with garbage studies from BP. A particular mod of this subreddit countered with a study with a sample size of 50 (so 25 couples) from some eastern european country and pretended our studies were equal. The sample size is superior to any other study i've seen so far.

Finally, keep in mind that the coefficients represent average effects. A beta coefficient of -.06 means that if the average marital quality score in women with 4 previous partners is 19, then the average marital quality score in women with 5 previous partners is 18.94. Not only is this a small overall difference, but it in no way precludes the possibility of some, individual women with 5 previous partners having higher marital quality scores than some women with 4 previous partners.

There are two large inflection points, 2+ partners and 10+ partners

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2014/08/Screen-Shot-2014-08-26-at-9.39.40-AM-e1409066252786.png&w=1484

Considering young women are far sluttier and marry way later, the 10+ partner count should be quite common amongst western women (not to mention women tend to lie like hell about their partner count).

[–]cherryblue12Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]cherryblue12Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

oh, ok. Well, in that case, all of my previous points stand: these results need to be replicated in a different sample with a different measure. Alone, they are simply a piece of evidence. One piece of evidence doesn't prove anything.

One thing that is impossible to tease out from this study is whether, if this effect is true, it is due to the actual behavior of sleeping with multiple men, or whether it's due to cultural norms surrounding promiscuity. This study was conducted in virginia, so I'm guessing the individuals in this sample grew up in a culture where promiscuity was considered a bad thing. This could be a very important factor, because in a society that discourages having multiple partners, the people who go ahead and have multiple partners anyway are likely different in some (likely many) ways than the people who abide by cultural norms. It would be interesting to see results of a study like this conducted in a European country where attitudes towards sex are less puritanical.

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

1) Virginia isn't homogenous, NoVa is quite liberal

2) I don't see where it says the participants were all from virginia:

Data for the analyses in this report come from the Relationship Development Study at the University of Denver, which was initially funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. In 2007 and 2008, a calling center used a targeted-list sampling strategy to recruit 1,294 participants who were unmarried at the time, but in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, into the longitudinal Relationship Development Study. The 418 participants who married over the course of the next five years are the focus of the analyses conducted for this report. They were between the ages of 18 and 40 during the study. Comparing the make-up of the larger sample to 2010 Census data indicates that it was reasonably representative of unmarried adults in the United States in terms of race/ethnicity and income, though the sample included more women (65 percent) than men. In the report, before- and after-marriage data from an average of nine waves and multilevel modeling were used to prospectively estimate how premarital characteristics are related to marital quality. Marital quality was measured by the four-item version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, a scale that includes items about marital happiness, confiding in one another, believing things are going well in the relationship, and thoughts of divorce (Sabourin, Valois, & Lussier, 2005; Spanier, 1976). The analyses described in this report control for the following factors: race/ethnicity, years of education, personal income, religiousness (i.e., “All things considered, how religious would you say you are?”), and frequency of attendance at religious services. Findings with and without the control variables are included in Table 2 in the Appendix. The primary findings discussed in this report analyze the outcome, marital quality, as a continuous measure. To facilitate a visual representation of the associations in this report, we illustrate key findings by graphing the percentage of individuals who fall in the top 40 percent of marital quality. This cut point was selected by inspection of the distribution. While it is somewhat arbitrary, we reasoned that these people are not just doing “above average” in their marriages, but are doing quite well. Dichotomizing marital quality in this way provides a means to display groups’ relative likelihood of reporting higher levels of marital quality.

[–]cherryblue12Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cherryblue12Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cherryblue12Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Comments