~ archived since 2018 ~

I've explored the links between promiscuity and infidelity, and it's generally accepted amongst experts that there IS a genetic and empirical correlation between the two. Still, may not be cause+effect, but rather a third factor. Thoughts?

STPTATNTKTY

April 10, 2018

11 upvotes

I've been poring over the big papers (most cited journal articles) regarding modern sexual behavior and attitudes towards sex. While promiscuity is generally correlated with infidelity, so are particular big five personality traits and styles of attachment. Women who generally cheat are typically high in neuroticism, low in agreeableness and in conscientiousness. Promiscuous behavior tends to be correlated with extroversion, but I don't think it was highly correlated with anything else, which was odd because promiscuity is moderately correlated with infidelity. I don't have the study on hand. Promiscuity is also correlated with particular attachment styles. I'll update this when I have my notes, but these things might be better explanatory factors for infidelity than promiscuity, though we shouldn't ignore the relationship between an unrestricted SOI (closest scientific proxy to promiscuity/ high n-count) and infidelity.

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	I've explored the links between promiscuity and infidelity, and it's generally accepted amongst experts that there IS a genetic and empirical correlation between the two. Still, may not be cause+effect, but rather a third factor. Thoughts?
Author	STPTATNTKTY
Upvotes	11
Comments	160
Date	April 10, 2018 11:47 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/8bcn8y/ive_explored_the_links_between_promiscuity_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/ive-explored-the-links-between-promiscuity-and.262923 https://theredarchive.com/post/262923

Comments

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

BECAUSE OF THE PREVALENCE and consequences of infidelity (e.g., Vangelisti & Gerstenberger, 2004; Weiderman, 1997), being able to predict extradyadic behavior is important. One known predictor is sociosexual orientation (SO). SO is an individual difference that reflects one’s beliefs and behaviors toward sex and is measured on a continuum ranging from restricted to unrestricted (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Those with a restricted SO prefer to engage in sexual behaviors within the context of a close and committed romantic relationship, whereas those with an unrestricted SO do not need a committed relationship in order to have sex. Not surprisingly, an unrestricted SO has been associated with a greater willingness to engage in infidelity when using either self-report (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Ostovich & Sabini, 2004) or behavioral measures (Seal, Agostinelli, & Hannett, 1994). Previous studies have shown that those with an unrestricted SO are generally less committed to their romantic partners (Jones 1998; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), and low commitment is often a predictor of infidelity (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). Similarly, those with an unrestricted SO are often looking for new, attractive partners (Simpson, Wilson, & Winterheld, 2004).

Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: a mediation analysis. Brent A. Mattingly, Eddie M. Clark, Daniel J. Weidler, Melinda Bullock, Jana Hackathorn, Katheryn Blankmeyer J Soc Psychol. 2011 May-Jun; 151(3): 222–226.

From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21675178/citedby/?tool=pubmed

And other relevant excerpts.

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (120 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (109 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmoryUpton 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oihaoerhg7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vornash21 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whitebunny87 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]oihaoerhg2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalka3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalka2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalka1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalka1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ssonepick -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You could say the exact same thing about simultaneously dating multiple people while not having sex with them.

You could also say: A date is just a date. Sex is just sex, etc.

Mixing and matching from both though is inconsistent and makes you look like someone whose ethics are based solely on the principle of 'whatever is in my best interest is morally acceptable, and whatever goes against my best interest is morally unacceptable'.

For example, a man and woman are dating, but haven't had sex yet. He finds out she's been dating other men simultaneously - essentially keeping her options open - even though he's been dating her exclusively. He sees it as a problem (since it goes against what's best for him), she doesn't. To her it's only a date, she's not fucking them, so what's the problem.

From the man's perspective though, does he not feel like he's been led on?

Example 2: A man and a woman are dating and having sex. The woman finds out that the man is also dating/fucking other women at the same time, while the woman is only dating and having sex with him. She sees this as a problem, he doesn't. To him it's only sex and dating, he's not married to any of them, so what's the problem.

Are the actions of the man in the second example objectively worse than the actions of the woman in the first example? If so, why?

[–]lemonfloss 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lemonfloss1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]prophet_of_love 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]prophet_of_love 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

“one night stands when youre single are NOT "past behavior" that predict anythign about how you behave IN relationships”

I respect your opinion, but a very large and consistent body of research shows that having a high n-count does make one more likely to cheat and less likely to be able to maintain a LTR. Of course, this does not mean that any individual person will cheat. It also applies to both men and women

“theft convictions are a false analogy”

You missed the main point, which was that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I did not mean to suggest that having sex is a crime. Change the analogy to applying for an apartment. You apply for an apartment and get turned down because your credit is not good enough. You try to explain to the landlord that you had problems paying your bills on time when you were single, but it’s irrelevant because you are married now. How successful would you be in convincing the landlord that how you managed your finances when you were single has nothing to do with how you handle your married finances?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rolando_Mierka1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]concacanca3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]planejaneThree Trench Coats in a Trench Coat.2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't paint it so black and white, but perhaps that's just my slutty self talking.

What I've observed is that there are four different classes of people-

Those with a conservative attitude towards sex and relationships
Those with a conservative attitude towards sex but a liberal attitude towards relationships
Those with a liberal attitude towards sex and a conservative attitude towards relationships
Those with a liberal attitude towards sex and relationships.

The second group is the sort of woman who cultivates orbiters. She sees sex as something serious but relationships as something cheap and to be used. She's also IME the type most likely to be alpha-widowed since Chad is the only type of man who has ever treated her as cheaply as she treats men.

The fourth group is the free-love, open relationship, etc etc etc. They are often (but not always) commitment phobic, and although I'd venture to say that their intentions are not to cause harm, they often do not grasp that relationships come with occasional moments of compromise and discomfort.

The third group (the "ethical sluts," if you will) tends to get a lot of flack for the crimes of the second and fourth, IMO. I tend to think there's not enough focus on distinguishing the contexts of sex as opposed to just a raw n- count. I can tell you, mine is probably considered modestly high. I did what I wanted when I was single because I owed loyalty to no person. When I even begin to get serious with someone, though, I'm extremely loyal and have never strayed. Sex can be fun and easy and pleasurable and light, but relationships are a more serious matter. A good ethical slut understands that with the seriousness of a relationship (yours or somebody else's) certain restrictions on sexual behavior is to be expected and it is the responsible thing to honor that.

I'm not saying men who dislike high-n are wrong, but I believe that most of the ones here only look at the issue from a single perspective, and the research has not been done to indicate otherwise-yet.

[–]concacanca2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I generally agree with your categorisation, though think your definition of liberal sex doesn't necessitate sleeping around.

However I think this talk of ethical sluts is proving what I said originally. It's a hamster to differentiate a group of people from 'those bad people over there!'. Reframing settling down once you've gotten bored of the lack of emotional validation from being a slut doesn't mean that a person is different from a slut at all. I'm pretty sure almost all sluts get bored eventually.

I'm not saying men who dislike high-n are wrong, but I believe that most of the ones here only look at the issue from a single perspective, and the research has not been done to indicate otherwise-yet.

Not really. There are a myriad of issues brought up including increased rates of divorce, increased chance of personality disorders, increased chance of STDs, increased chance of omitting things that might be considered red flags and, as this thread mentioned, increased chance of differing attitudes to relationships and sex.

In the end though, it doesn't matter. You don't need to try to justify being a good person to anyone who might consider being a slut to be a bad thing. As I said, these opinions are largely immutable through debate, it is only time and a lowering of expectations/standards that will move the men who prefer low n women to be more accepting of sluts.

[–]Willow-girl2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]concacanca2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Willow-girl1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]concacanca2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Willow-girl1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]concacanca2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Willow-girl1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]concacanca1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Willow-girl3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was teasing a bit, poking fun at the super-paranoid posters whose "slut tells" include such innocuous things as "goes on vacations" or, yes, "is college-educated."

But there is also a caveat here in response to the idea that men who choose sluts are "lowering their standards." While the risks of wifing-up a slut are frequently discussed here, less attention is paid to the risks of partnering with a low-N-count "nice girl." Could be that's a girl who doesn't have much of a libido, who has been religiously repressed and will struggle with that "Sex is dirty" teaching even after marriage, or one who has learned to 'monetize' her favors and will only dole them out when it benefits her to do so. Men are seldom warned about the "dangers" of entering into a LTR with that sort of girl! But they can be the source of just as much misery as an unreformed slut, IMO -- and maybe more, as they are seemingly more common than freewheeling sluts. Which is not surprising -- after all, we live in a society that has traditionally discouraged sluttery, and actually encourages women to "not sell themselves short" or "hold out" (for the highest bidder?). Most conscientious mothers teach their daughters how to be nice little prostitutes ... not sluts.

[–]concacanca1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Willow-girl1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What you described as 2 (4 for me for formatting reasons) doesn't really fit into your categorizations because "relationships" suddenly mean something different.

CS CR: Doesn't sleep around while single, monogamous in a relationship
LS CR: Sleeps around while single, monogamous in a relationship
LS LR: Sleeps around while single, not monogamous in relationships
CS LR: ???

The only thing that would fit into this and makes sense would be someone who is polyamorous but exclusively sleeps with people (s)he's in a relatioship with. And while I don't know poly people, this sounds pretty strange.

What you're describing - a woman collecting orbiters - can be a woman of any sort who just happens to have the tendency to friendzone guys who have a crush on her. She can be conservative in relationships and also abstain from casual sex; or she can sleep around both while single as well as in relationships, but neither behavior prevents her from having sexless orbiters.

[–]prophet_of_love 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]concacanca2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]concacanca0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]concacanca0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

Jesus.

No, there are no "secrets" and I am not talking about morality here at all.

You're being irresponsible to yourself by claiming you want to get married and then you don't get married.

"Own up" to what?

I just said this before:

If you want to have ONS, then own up to it and fess up to it and have your ONS.

Own up to the fact that you are having ONS because THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.

Do you believe women are being "unfaithful " to men they haven't met yet when they have uncommitted sex?

Didn't we have this discussion in the linked thread a few months ago? No, they're not being unfaithful. They're being dumb, irresponsible, and dishonest, but not unfaithful.

Is it irresponsible to date before marriage at all? If not, why not?

It's irresponsible to marry someone you're not sexually attracted to because you've fucked so many hot guys you can't find one to marry you and you can't ratchet up attraction for the guys who actually are willing to marry you. It's irresponsible to rack up so much sexual experience before you get married if what you really want to do is get married and have kids.

If you want to get married and have kids, GET MARRIED AND HAVE KIDS. And own it.

If you want to fuck around and have your ONS, then FUCK AROUND AND HAVE YOUR ONS. And own it.

What's going on here is that lots and lots of women want to fuck around and have their ONS, but don't really want to admit that that's what they want. And they want to have it all - they want to fuck around and have ONS until they can't anymore; and then they want that hot ONS guy to marry them. And they can't have that. They have to choose; and they don't want to, and they don't want to be forced to, and they don't like their choices.

[–]wekacuckstupid buggy bot4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xRaceCarYaYasx2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's irresponsible to marry someone you're not sexually attracted to because you've fucked so many hot guys you can't find one to marry you and you can't ratchet up attraction for the guys who actually are willing to marry you. It's irresponsible to rack up so much sexual experience before you get married if what you really want to do is get married and have kids.

What's going on here is that lots and lots of women want to fuck around and have their ONS, but don't really want to admit that that's what they want. And they want to have it all - they want to fuck around and have ONS until they can't anymore; and then they want that hot ONS guy to marry them. And they can't have that. They have to choose; and they don't want to, and they don't want to be forced to, and they don't like their choices.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xRaceCarYaYasx6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darla101 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Reply to ninja edit:

Women want both, and SOME OF THEM get it. Women who live on the coasts and in major metros get it. Sometimes.

No, there's no law that says women can have only ONS or look for marriage, or both at the same time. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. I'm saying if you're looking for both and want both, BE HONEST ABOUT IT and DONT LIE ABOUT IT and ADMIT THAT YOU'RE A ONS SLUT WHO WANTS TO HAVE HER CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.

I wish WAATGM was a ghost town. I wish it didn't exist. I don't wish ill on sluts. I want women to be happy. But many, many of you ARE NOT happy AT ALL, because you wail and bitch and complain CONSTANTLY about men, why you can't get one, why you don' t have one, why the hot guys dump fucks in you and won't marry you, ad infinitum ad nauseam.

I disagree the only fodder for WAATGM is single moms. It's also fat chicks, ugly chicks, MILFs, women who think they're MILFs, "pansexuals", "polyamorous", "demisexuals", women with mental illnesses, and generally fucked up entitled women.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I like to think of it this way.

Suppose a man had a habit of lavish spending on his women. Then he changes, and says he's not going to do that anymore.

Most women feel "cheated" by that, and it really raises their hackles. Most women feel "well, you spent on them but you won't on me. That's not fair. That's not right. You're treating me differently. I'm ENTITLED to access to your resources. Whatever they got, I should get. I'll have whatever you gave them."

A man is "obligated" to disclose his past hooker use TO HIS WIFE, IMO. Just as a woman is "obligated" to disclose her past promiscuity TO HER HUSBAND.

Spouses get to know that shit about each other. If you're demanding commitment and my resources, and that I forsake all others, and spend the rest of my natural life paying for it all, I get to know whatever the fuck I want to know, and you're obligated to disclose it.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vornash20 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Try getting a job at a bank with a half-dozen convictions on your record for theft. Then try explaining to the bank manager that all of those crimes were committed before you worked for the bank and in no way indicate a higher risk that you will steal once the bank hires you…

Here's a better allegory:

You have a gap of one year on your resume. The reason for your gap would influence how a potential employer would view it. If you went travelling for a year, this would be very different from if you sat at home playing video games for a year.

It's the same thing with a high partner count. If you have a high partner count because you are extraverted and sensation-seeking, you haven't really demonstrated any sort of behavior that would imply cheating behavior. If anything, it would imply a high frequency of sex with your partner would be required.

If you have a high partner count because you you're impulsive and emotionally driven (Neuroticism) as well as unable to think about the consequences of your actions (Low Conscientiousness), then your behavior would imply that you're also likely to cheat.

[–]prophet_of_love 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I get what you are saying but it seems obvious that you are coming from an emotional place and you really want a certain answer for your own personal reasons. You really emotionally need the answer to be that “promiscuity is not meaningfully associated with anything and there should therefore never be any consequences for promiscuity”. Unfortunately, this is not true. Scientific research has very consistently demonstrated that people with n-count numbers are actually more likely to cheat (among other things). That is the hard reality. It turns out that getting in a relationship doesn’t throw some magic switch that makes you a totally different person.

I myself have a high n-count, and have been involved in many nontraditional relationships/experiences, and I am always honest about it with potential relationship prospects. Many potential partners choose to opt out when they find out about my relentless libido and consistent need for stimulation and variety in the bedroom. And they are not wrong. Even when I get into a relationship, I can’t help but bring in the same high sex drive and need for sexual novelty that has characterized my romantic life for decades. Most people correctly identify that as a risk factor. This doesn’t mean I will definitely cheat (I didn’t cheat when I was married), but it does legitimately increase the odds and smart people realize this.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I get what you are saying but it seems obvious that you are coming from an emotional place and you really want a certain answer for your own personal reasons. You really emotionally need the answer to be that “promiscuity is not meaningfully associated with anything and there should therefore never be any consequences for promiscuity”. Unfortunately, this is not true. Scientific research has very consistently demonstrated that people with n-count numbers are actually more likely to cheat (among other things). That is the hard reality. It turns out that getting in a relationship doesn’t throw some magic switch that makes you a totally different person.

Did you mean to write this to Atlas? Because I have a hard time seeing how I appear to be coming from an emotional place here.

And you seem to have completely ignored my main argument: The research that OP is talking about suggests that promiscuity and cheating are related to different personality traits. So whether or not N-count actually means you're more likely to cheat on an individual level would depend on the reason for your n-count. Many things correlate without any of them being a reliable predictor of the other.

I myself have a high n-count, and have been involved in many nontraditional relationships/experiences, and I am always honest about it with potential relationship prospects. Many potential partners choose to opt out when they find out about my relentless libido and consistent need for stimulation and variety in the bedroom. And they are not wrong. Even when I get into a relationship, I can’t help but bring in the same high sex drive and need for sexual novelty that has characterized my romantic life for decades. Most people correctly identify that as a risk factor. This doesn’t mean I will definitely cheat (I didn’t cheat when I was married), but it does legitimately increase the odds and smart people realize this.

And let's analyze this with you as the subject: You say you have a high sex drive and need for novelty which has driven you to seek out many sexual partners.

Now, this would be different from saying: You're impulsive and insecure, you have trouble trusting people, you're usually not very direct or honest with my intentions, and you have a hard time thinking about which consequences your actions will have in the future - especially how someone else can be emotionally affected by your actions. Those traits have led you to a large number of sexual partners.

Now, which of the two explanations would be most likely to come from someone who will cheat?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, being sensation-seeking sounds like a trait that would correlate with cheating.

And on an aggregated level, it probably does. But Sensation-seeking is one of 36 facets of personality, and they all interact.

Sensation seeking + impulsivity(facet of neuroticism) or sensation seeking + a low level of conscientiousness (ability to plan, think ahead, sense of duty and obligation etc) probably correlates with cheating.

Sensation seeking + a high level of agreeableness probably or sensation seeking + a high level of coscientousness probably does not.

Sensation seeking + a high level of openness to experience + a high level of agreeableness for instance may constitute a person who has a high sex drive, is very experimental with sex, yet deeply cares for his/her partner and wouldn't have the conscience to cheat. Yet of course other traits such as impulsivity etc come into play.

So anyhow - I hope I've communicated that there are many types of personality trait combinations that can make someone sexually promiscuous without increasing the likelihood of cheating. There are also many traits that may increase the likelihood of cheating without increasing likelihood of promiscuous behavior.

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prophet_of_love 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It seems like you are not understanding the scientific principles here and what they mean. There is no problematic issue from a research perspective. I’m guessing what you are referring to is the fact that the research that demonstrates correlation between promiscuity and infidelity does not identify the ultimate cause of either behavior. This is correct but totally irrelevant, unless you are a social scientist or are writing your masters thesis in social psychology. Research consistently demonstrated that men and women with high n-counts are more likely to cheat, less likely to be able to sustain a long-term relationship, are more likely to have STDs, are more likely to have low-self-esteem, and women are more likely to be depressed. What this tells us is that, if your goal is to have the best chance at a successful monogamous LTR, you would improve your chances by avoiding promiscuous people. From a practical perspective, it doesn’t matter at all what the ultimate cause may be. Maybe the promiscuity causes the infidelity, maybe the infidelity causes the promiscuity, or maybe both behaviors are caused by exposure to mutated tse-tse fly maggots. It just doesn’t matter to the person who only wants to have the best odds on achieving a healthy LTR. It is certainly of academic interest to determine what the ultimate causal factors might be, but it is completely irrelevant from a practical relationship-seeking perspective.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ssonepick 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]concacanca0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ivegotsomequestions0Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From a practical perspective, it doesn’t matter at all what the ultimate cause may be.

If there was an large supply of great partners, that would be true. You could afford to only choose ones without any traits that are even correlated with infidelity.

But almost everyone is going to have to settle for someone who has some traits that make them more likely to cheat and divorce. There are dozens of such traits. They include race, age at marriage (late 20s/early 30s is best), education, IQ, income, profession, parents' marriage status, and even red state/blue state origin. Why ignore some and not others? Then you have to find someone who you're actually compatible with, and love, and who loves you back, and is pretty enough, and all the rest.

RP men aren't super into n count because of the correlation, or else they'd be super into the other traits too. The real issue for them is kind of an innate disgust at the idea of ending up with a high-n woman. Which is completely fine and doesn't need to be justified via statistics and explanations.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women who generally cheat are typically high in neuroticism, low in agreeableness and in conscientiousness.

This is logical. High N implies impulsive and emotionally driven behavior. So you get horny and you act on it. Low A implies a lack of trust in people in general (everyone cheats, probably my partner too), an indirect/manipulative view of communication (as long as he doesn't hear about it - no harm done) and a lack of care for his feelings. Low C means you don't really consider the long term effects of your actions.

Promiscuous behavior tends to be correlated with extroversion, but I don't think it was highly correlated with anything else, which was odd because promiscuity is moderately correlated with infidelity.

Extraversion would predict promiscuity via the sensation-seeking aspect of it, and probably assertiveness as well. You want sex and excitement - and you go out there and get it.

However - High N and low C should also predict promiscuity based on the lame logic for why they predict cheating. Do you have the study you're talking about somewhere?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A primary objective of this research was to examine the "Infidelity-Promiscuity Personality Difference" hypothesis-to determine whether Relationship Infidelity and Sexual Promiscuity are related to personality traits in different ways, and if this difference remains the same across all cultures. It was expected that Relationship Infidelity would be related to low agreeableness and low conscientiousness, but would be unrelated to extraversion. In contrast, Sexual Promiscuity was expected to relate to extraversion, but be largely unrelated to agreeableness and conscientiousness. As seen in Table 2, in most North America cultures Relationship Infidelity was significantly related as predicted to low levels of agreeableness and low levels of conscientiousness. The only notable exception to this trend was that in Mexico people who were unfaithful did not tend to report lower levels of conscientiousness. In addition, Relationship Infidelity was unrelated to extraversion across all North American cultures. This finding would be true across almost all cultures of the ISDP. These findings on Relationship Infidelity strongly supported the "Infidelity-Promiscuity Personality Difference" hypothesis. Contrary to expectations, however, Sexual Promiscuity was also related to agreeableness and conscientiousness across most North American cultures, though these results were generally smaller in magnitude and less consistent than the results with Relationship Infidelity. In support of the "Infidelity-Promiscuity Personality Difference" hypothesis, Sexual Promiscuity was significantly related to high levels of extraversion in the USA-West sample, r(772) = .11, p < .01, and in USA-Hawaii, r(310) = .12, p < .05. Still, the results from North America were not as strong as expected.

Schmitt, D. P. (2002). Are Sexual Promiscuity and Relationship Infidelity Linked to Different Personality Traits Across Cultures? Findings from the International Sexuality Description Project. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1041

Nvm. Apparently there is a slight association.

[–]vornash21 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vornash20 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]aNationofTwo 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1UPZ__0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yaseedog will hunt1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foghorn_willie 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]squidracer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ordinate1Brown pill - Eat shit and die, motherfucker!0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ordinate1Brown pill - Eat shit and die, motherfucker!0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]aNationofTwo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newName543456went volcel0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]newName543456went volcel0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1UPZ__0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link