What EXACTLY and WITH SPECIFICITY does "has trouble bonding mean" and...

disposable_pants · 2016-12-05T06:23:27+00:00

If a woman is promiscuous (in her 20s, 5-10 partners is reasonable and 20+ is clearly promiscuous) she must also be at least one of the following:

Uninterested in a serious relationship (per her actions), or
Interested in a serious relationship but unable to behave in a way that allows for one (e.g. keeps getting restless even when with a quality partner), or
Interested in a serious relationship and willing to behave in one, but not a quality partner herself (e.g. "always getting dumped" girl).

All of these qualify as "trouble with bonding", so if she's promiscuous she must also have trouble bonding.

AutoModerator · 2016-12-05T03:17:35+00:00

Attention!

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

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

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

BPremium · 2016-12-05T12:07:53+00:00

I also think bonding, in this sense, can mean visceral attraction. High N women have done A LOT and with multiple men, so they've seen everything under the sun. Unless she married one of the hot douchebags, she won't want her husband as much.

If she hasn't experienced much sex, with only with an average guy or 2, than she has a much better chance wanting her husband that way. Thats how I think of it

PoopInMyBottom · 2016-12-05T13:18:16+00:00

I'm not sure that there is a reason to distinguish between love and having a stable relationship. They go together.

I think one thing TRP has right is that if a woman has had a large number of boyfriends then it's a red flag. It's an indication that she has some kind of emotional disorder which means her bonds aren't stable. It means her emotional reaction to you is likely to change on a whim.

Certain women form relationships with men and when those men go through periods of being less attractive (losing their job, losing their parents, starting a business - basically when they are under high stress), their opinion of the man takes a while to change. They look at his prior behaviour and his prior behaviour has a big influence on whether they are attracted to him.

Certain other women's attraction to their boyfriend depends on his current level of attractiveness, today. If she enters a social situation where her boyfriend is low status, she loses attraction for him. If her boyfriend goes through a period of high stress, his prior record is much less important. He is unattractive now, therefore she loses attraction for him.

Most men have experience with the second type of woman. A lot of the women I sleep with are like that. One day they can be shaking with pleasure and the next they can be totally bored by me. There's no way I'd date someone like that seriously though.

It's ironic, because TRP behaviour tends to attract that kind of woman. They have all these filters that they put up to compensate but the raw behaviour of short-term manipulation of status only works on the type of woman who evaluates status in the short term. They try and filter but they are drawing from a tainted pool. Anyway, in my opinion that's what "has trouble bonding" means, at least in that context. It's not the same as someone who struggles to fall in love in the first place. It's just someone who is less likely to stay there.

LewisCross · 2016-12-05T16:50:11+00:00

First, let's get some preliminaries out of the way.

I doubt very much that ANY amount of specificity anyone gives you will EVER satisfy you. I doubt very much that there is anything anyone can say to persuade you or even explain this in a way you'll find satisfactory. You've made it clear in your post and your comments on this issue that your mind is absolutely made up and no amount of evidence, logic or direct answers will ever suffice.

Now that that's out of the way....

There's evidence that early exposure to oxytocin in animals can disrupt the ability to pair bond later.

Prairie voles, for example, treated with vasopressin post-natally were more aggressive later in life, whereas those exposed to a vasopressin antagonist showed less aggression in adulthood. Conversely, the exposure of infants to slightly increased levels of oxytocin during development increased the tendency to show a pair bond in voles. However, these studies also showed that a single exposure to a higher level of oxytocin in early life could disrupt the later capacity to pair bond [8]. There is little doubt that either early social experiences or the effects of developmental exposure to these neuropeptides can potentially have long-lasting effects on behaviour. Link and Link

Translation: Oxytocin is the "pair bonding" hormone. If you load someone up with too much oxytocin early on in life, you can cause that person to have a diminished ability to pair bond later.

Hypothesis: Women have sex. Have sex with a very attractive man they love/loved. Or a very sexy man they were really really REALLY attracted to. There's at least some evidence that suggests that if that woman starts catching feels for that man, or thinks she is, or really really gets into the sex with him, that she'll start pair bonding. And if that happens early enough, or often enough, there's at least some chance that she might be less able to pair bond to another man later after the really really hawt sexual experience ends.

Now, repeat that same thing, She has sex with several very attractive very sexy men. Some of whom she "bonds" with, some not. Theoretically, each exposure to the "bonding" makes it less likely she'll be able to bond later to men she meets later.

Inbefore "animal study", "not with humans"; "not replicated with humans", and "extrapolation to humans". So what? We use studies with animals all the time for biochemical research.

No, I don't think a woman bonds to every man she has sex with. I think she bonds to the ones she's really attracted to; the ones she hopes for a relationship with, the ones where the sex is really good. Or at least it is more likely she'll bond. But no, I don't hold that that oxytocin reaction happens EVERY time with EVERY man she has sex with. A woman does not have to "bond" to a man to have sex with him. A woman doesn't have to love the man or even like him. All that's necessary is she's sexually attracted and she wants to have sex. And she doesn't bond every time.

Whether she can control her bonding is another issue; I'm not sure she can. I'll speculate that there are some times when she bonds to a guy she's so hot for and so attracted to and catches feelings so hard that she can't stop it; and she bonds whether she wants to or not. But that does not happen EVERY time she fucks a guy, or even every time she fucks a guy she's attracted to.

I think there are a number of things going on here and after talking with a lot of people, I am convinced that the "she fucked lots of guys and slutted it up and now she can't bond to the boring beta she married" trope is not true all the time, or even most of the time. It IS true some of the time though.

I think that what a lot of TRP says is "inability to bond" is not that; it's "inability to be attracted" or "lack of attraction". There are tons of women out there who fuck hot guys for years and can't get them to commit. Then they settle for a less attractive man who's not as attractive. The problem there isn't pair bonding. You never get to that biochemical pair bonding point because the sexual attraction isn't there. IN that situation it is not "failure to pair bond"; it's lack of sexual attraction. She just doesn't feel the tingles for him; she just doesn't feel it. That doesn't mean she can't fuck him or won't fuck him. Women force themselves to fuck unattractive men they're married to all the time. It just means that she doesn't really want to fuck him and won't feel those "feelings" she would expect to feel with a man she ostensibly loves. It means she won't feel those feelings that she's felt before, with men she was sexually attracted to and DID "pair bond" to.

do you believe women are sleeping around and having STRs because they "can't" bond with their partners?

I think that happens sometimes but that's not what's usually happening.

There's a lot of chicken and egg thinking here -- does the promiscuity caused the woman's fuckedupness; or does preexisting fuckedupness cause her to become promiscuous (as opposed to other things like substance abuse, etc.) I think more often, most promiscuous women who have problems later in life in their relationships have the latter and not the former. I think the former does happen; I think there are some women out there who get promiscuous and it starts fucking them up and ruining them for relationships. But I think after considering it and actually dealing with some of these women and talking here and elsewhere, that most of the women TRP men are talking about were fucked up long before they first touched a dick.

And it isn't even that much fucked up -- it's not like these girls are being beaten or abused or molested or raped or whatever else. It's the "daddy didn't give me enough attention" or "I had small tits and the boys didn't like me" or "I developed PTSD because of my parents' shitty marriage" or "I got bullied" or "I developed anorexia/bulimia/a substance abuse problem" or any number of other things. It's the usual stuff that girls (and boys ) are just getting less able to handle.

People just cannot handle their shit anymore . That's everyone, boys and girls, men and women. Some usual trauma happens, someone didn't like them, someone teased them, and it's safe spaces and hugboxes and therapy and sensitivity training and everything else. But I digress.

Do you believe normal, "non promiscuous women" bond instantaneously with any man they have sex with and that any time a woman has sex and doesnt "bond" it means her bonding mechanism is broken?

No. I think women bond to the men they really love; the ones they are super sexually attracted to; the ones they really "click" with, etc. I don't think women bond to every guy they fuck. I don't think they bond to ONSs most of the time though I think it can happen if the guy is hot enough and she's sexually attracted enough. I think the more she fucks the guy the more likely it is she'll bond to him. And those bonds are really tough to break.

Anecdote time: I know two women who fell hard for guys early in life. They both went on to marry other men. They eventually divorced those men (in one case after 20 years and 6 kids) and returned to their earlier lovers and married them. Reason? They just never got over those earlier guys. Facebook and contact, and they were back together. Anecdotes, I know. But I knew these girls and these men they were with, and these girls were in love. LOVE. LOOOOVE. Fell HARD. Very, very hard.

So I think that a lot of what people talk about with "has trouble bonding" is really "she's not sexually attracted" and/or "cannot find men she's sexually attracted to" or "cannot attract men she's sexually attracted to". What we are seeing most of the time is women who have had sex with hot guys and attractive guys, and now she's ready to commit, and she cannot find an attractive man to commit to. The men who are willing to offer commitment are not sexually attractive to her. The guys at MRP and TRP and askMRP -- most of the time, that's lack of sexual attraction; not "failure to bond".

And of course, it doesn't help that there are so many unattractive men out there.

KrispyMcSockington · 2016-12-05T04:00:45+00:00

Firstly, a woman who is promiscuous and is into serial monogamy is not exactly going to have the best LTR experience.

When she gets bored or excited at the prospect of a new partner, she moves on. Would this be the ideal person for an LTR? She'd probably chest when she got bored or leave when she feels she could be happier with someone else because her tingles said so.

Do you believe normal, "non promiscuous women" bond instantaneously with any man they have sex with and that any time a woman has sex and doesnt "bond" it means her bonding mechanism is broken?

This is complex. Non promiscuous women would probably bond quicker with their sex partners because sex would be more important I.e. it is the stuff people in committed relationships do. When you say that "when a woman doesn't bond" are you implying a non promiscuous woman slept with a guy and just wasn't that into him or a promiscuous woman isn't bonding with men she sleeps with?

In the non promiscuous woman's case, she would have bonded somewhat before sleeping with him, or at least established they were in a committed relationship. Therefore the bonding "mechanism" is not broken. In the promiscuous woman's case, she doesn't care so whether it is broken or not doesn't matter. Dating her is risky. I would love to know where the switch is that she hits when she finds someone she wants to commit to after sleeping with multiple men.

do you believe women are sleeping around and having STRs because they "can't" bond with their partners?

No. They are doing it because hedonism and they get addicted to the endorphin rush of new relationships. And they have the opportunities to do so. Imagine you are a famous driver and motor vehicle journalist. Car companies throw their vehicles at you and it is okay if you wreck them in the process. They are happy to oblige. But, back home you have your own special car or collection of cars you really love and take care if. You have fun with other cars knowing that there is always another car coming. That is a form of abundance mentality.

Most people have to book test drives or pay for cars. They cannot wreck them without paying a lot in maintenance. So they are careful. It doesn't stop someone from wrecking your vehicle, and you make them pay, but that one car you have is important to you. A theft would crush you inside - people love their cars.

As the famous person, you don't have to stick to one car. You can have and afford a collection. Even when there is a stable, decent car you have, you can change and commit to another one when you get bored of the one you are using. Some you only take out on the weekend for a special ride.

Women live in a world where people offer them rides, cars and lots of freebies. Men have to earn the rides and buy their own cars. Many women prefer to commit to a vehicle but if a woman scores a car because she did a fantastic review but after a short while commits to another vehicle, the company that gave her that first car will feel slighted. She barely got the seat warm and she is on to another car.

If a man offered a woman a ride or a car that symbolises their connection and commitment to each other, knowing how much it costs, he would be pretty bummed in a few years when she changes how she feels about it and wants a new one but makes her husband pay, or she leaves for a new car offered by someone else.

It is not her promiscuity alone that is an issue. How does he know she won't get bored down the line and leave? Remember, she isn't going to be honest about how many guys she slept with. Until we get some technology that displays someone's N count and relationship experience, it is easy to deceive the other person in the hopes of scoring a relationship.

DarkLord0chinChin · 2016-12-05T09:58:11+00:00

The more of something you have, the lower value it is.

This is a general truth, a very basic economic law. It applies to everything and has roots deep inside the human psychology. We value things that are rare much much more than things that are common and abundant.

If you are used to changing men like you change socks it's pretty obvious why you're not going to care all that much about any of the particular men.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2016-12-05T04:08:43+00:00

When I say "has trouble bonding", I mean just that. She can not keep her man.

As far as promiscuity goes, I think that between 5 and 10 sexual partners is normal and healthy for the modern first world 20 something year old woman. Less than that tells me to watch out for anti-social issues and more than that tells me that maybe, she "has trouble bonding".

Any excuse you may give me about incompatibility and external circumstances are the excuses I've already allowed for when I said 5-10 partners. My numbers could be off, could be region-specific, could be skewed by any number of factors, but I still adamantly believe that too much promiscuity is a thing no matter how much you shame me for it.

OncleJulian · 2016-12-05T15:11:29+00:00

Why would a woman be attracted to the man she settled down with when most women party hard with chads? They aren't going to marry chad. They can't be sexually happy with their husbands. This reminds me of one chick that wanted to date me, and wouldn't put out before she was my ''girlfriend.''

I figured out eventually all of the guys she slept with casually were chads. There you go. She wasn't attracted to me. She just figured I had the potential to make good money.

Well, jokes on you, Susan. 8 years have gone by and I'm still working minimum wage :)

Apexk9 · 2016-12-05T12:59:54+00:00

I think pair bonding is very complex and I have theories on how it functions but It's based on lots of variables humans will never truly understand.

LewisCross · 2016-12-05T16:15:40+00:00

I still disagree because of course they're totally wrong, but at least I understand what I disagree with now

why are they totally wrong? ARe you basing that on your own personal experience which you posted about in a prior comment, which in turn was the genesis of this post?

Dillon2652 · 2016-12-05T05:50:02+00:00

Trust gone. Innocence lost.

Love becomes a transaction.

Title	What EXACTLY and WITH SPECIFICITY does "has trouble bonding mean" and...
Author	Atlas_B_Shruggin
Upvotes	18
Comments	205
Date	December 5, 2016 3:17 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5gjm8f/what_exactly_and_with_specificity_does_has/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-exactly-and-with-specificity-does-has-trouble.271491 https://theredarchive.com/post/271491

Comments