Can someone point me to the study/studies done that claim a high number of past sexual partners increases the chance of infidelity?

Ok-Vegetable4652 · 2023-08-05T02:10:19+00:00

Can't find the exact link right now, but my thoughts were essentially

1) It was not peer reviewed

2) It shows correlation, which as we all know does not equal causation

3) High body count is just one of many factors that correlate with infidelity

4) It was so laser-precise in its finding that drawing any concrete conclusions always seemed like a bad idea instinctively. Like, it drew conclusions about the difference between 4 past partners, 5 past partners, 6 past partners, etc.

Examining the difference in behavior between someone with 1 past partner vs, say, 20 partners seems like an interesting thing to examine. But the behavior difference between each individual number in the single digits? That's just stupid.

bluemagex2517 · 2023-08-05T15:04:44+00:00

My first thought is that you'd have to control for age.

Like, obviously an 18 year old who has only had one sexual partner is less likely to have cheated than a 30 year old who has had five sexual partners. The 18 year old literally hasn't had as much time to cheat yet if they are going to. Since most 18-20 year olds are either virgins or have only had one partner, that's going to really skew the numbers if you don't correct for it.

There's also the simple fact that cheaters are more likely to have more partners as they age. A person who cheats is more likely to get dumped, so they are more likely to be bounce from partner to partner. Whereas a person who doesn't cheat is more likely to end up in a long term relationship for a good chunk of their life and thus they just happen to have less partners. Not all of each group is going to follow this pattern, but enough of them will to skew the results.

Idk even how you'd have to set this study up. Maybe compare people who cheated for the first time and see how many partners they had beforehand? But that's just the first time. Seems skewed then too. Maybe ask people who are 65+ if they've cheated and how many sexual partners they had before they cheated, in order to not miss out on anyone who might have started cheating later in life? But then generational change may play a factor, of early death. If you ask younger people the question, they may have just not cheated yet.

My suspicion, not from data but purely from reasoning, is that people who get married as virgins are the most likely to cheat. People in that group or more likely to be sexually incompatible, because they literally rolled the dice on that, and sexual incompatibility can cause an unhappy marriage. That group is also more likely to think divorce isn't a option. So if they are even slightly more likely to be unhappy, and they are less likely to think divorce is an option, they are more likely to use infidelity to deal with that.

But, that's just my suspicion. I honestly don't really think this is a question that can be answered satisfactorily.

Also, is it really actually all that useful to know this? Say promiscuous people were more likely to cheat statistically. What actual use is that information? We know that people who have only had one or two partners also cheat. We know that there are promiscuous people who never cheat. Wouldn't it be better to judge the person you're interested in on their individual character rather than relying on raw statistical likelihoods?

With so much of red pill and incel logic, I keep wondering the similar questions over and over again. Why are they always so quick to use impersonal methods of finding partners? That seems to be the common theme. Why do they think they should play the statistics and appeal to the highest number of women that they can, instead of trying to appeal to specifically the women they are interested in? Why do they think they should become an asshole or an "alpha" to attract women, rather than building social skills and becoming more personable? Why do would they rather seek wealth to attract groupies and gold diggers, rather than seeking either long term stable relationships or a series of short but mutually fun flings?

I think the answer I'm starting to settle on is that they are very insecure and are terrified of rejection. And so they'd rather do anything that doesn't involve being vulnerable, and that means everything has to be guarded and impersonal.

sensibl3chuckle · 2023-08-05T18:48:01+00:00

Teachman, Heritage Foundation, something like that. There used to be a blog that had it easy to find but it appears to not show up anymore on search. This was one of the figures I recall: https://ifunny.co/picture/stable-marriage-rate-as-per-teachman-superimposed-on-heritage-study-qhvDpFCB8

PutsWomenOnPedestal · 2023-08-05T17:22:54+00:00

This is like worrying about locking the stable door after the horse has bolted

000_TheSilencedNuke · 2023-08-05T18:44:34+00:00

Check out macken murphy’s tiktok. He cites plenty of studies regarding this topic

Outrageous_Touch231 · 2023-08-09T02:55:17+00:00

if they changed plus you two genuinely have something safe and they have a secure attachment style as well as you maybe it wont happen.

plus people change for someone they really do like

Comments