TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

The drastic correlation between female sexual behavior before marriage and successful marriages.

trias_e

July 3, 2013
42 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

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

/r/TheRedPill 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

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title The drastic correlation between female sexual behavior before marriage and successful marriages.
Author

trias_e

Upvotes 42
Comments 20
Date July 3, 2013 4:24 PM UTC
(13 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1hkp76/the_drastic_correlation_between_female_sexual/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/the-drastic-correlation-between-female-sexual.234036
https://theredarchive.com/post/234036
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by trias_e

The Fundamental Theorem of Modern Sexual Dynamics

9 upvotes
September 7, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

How to help my beta, recently divorced late 20's, forever blue pill friend?

4 upvotes
June 17, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]random_reddit_accoun 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

WOW. The marriage success rate for women who have had 16-20 partners is 17.8% and the rate for women with 21+ partners is 20.4%.

I would have never guessed the numbers were THAT low. I am astonished.

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah depends on what you mean by "success rate." If you eject a marriage and get kids/cash/prizes, I would consider that a successful "starter marriage."

[–]iamme20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have to factor in the possibility of a number of those successful marriages has one party as a doormat so the number drops even lower IMO.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll take two sluts for now.

Don't call me in the morning, I'll be busy.

[–]realniggasstandup 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Delaying sex led to happier, longer, lasting relationships:

http://blog.smarterrelationships.com/2012/01/23/delayed-gratification-hold-off-on-the-sex-for-now/

Females with history of casual sex report most depression problems:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/abstinence-and-chastity/females-with-history-of-casual-sex-report-most-depressive-symptoms/

Multiple sex partners leads to depression, anxiety:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23400516

Another study linking emotional problems with casual sex:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201303/sexual-hookups-and-psychological-health

Behavior genetic analysis shows that 49% of sociosexual orientation is heritable; if you have kids with a slut, the chances of your daughters being sluts increases:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201303/sexual-hookups-and-psychological-health

Promiscuity is hardwired in some women:

http://home.ku.edu.tr/eorhon/public_html/research%20paper's%20article/Johnston_2006_Trends-in-Cognitive-Sciences.pdf

Scarbrough and Johnston examined the mate choices of heterosexual females as a function of their ‘2D:4D’ digit ratio (index finger length divided by ring finger length), a sexually dimorphic trait (it is lower in males than females) that is a putative index of androgen exposure in the uterus [41]. They found that compared with high 2D:4D females, low 2D:4D females were psychologically de-feminized (measured by the Bem Sex Role Inventory [42]), physiologically de-feminized (measured by menstrual regularity), bonded poorly to their fathers (measured using a parental bonding instrument [43]), reported shorter intimate relationships with males, and preferred a more masculine male face around ovulation. Although all women had a preference for a masculinized STM who was not significantly different from their attractive male choice, only low 2D:4D women desired similar masculine attributes in their LTMs.

Furthermore, women with low 2D:4D digit ratios also score high on the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory [46], a measure of their willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual activity [47]

Taken together, these findings indicate that low 2D:4D women are more attracted to a male’s secondary sexual characteristics (facial androgen markers and male pheromones), prefer such ‘good genes’ males as mates (STM, LTM, and at ovulation), but don’t bond well (low paternal bonding, short relationships, and promiscuity), perhaps as a consequence of their emotional structure (de-feminized).

BY CONTRAST:

high 2D:4D females are stereotypically female, bond well to males, are sexually reserved, and seek less masculinized males for LTMs, or when there is a high probability of conception.

[–]synnndstalker -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think a few of your conclusions are incorrect. Multiple partners and casual sex doesn't lead to depression - it's the other way around.

[–]ThorLives 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Another article on the same website: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html This one suggests that divorce rate is highest for women who have had two sexual partners before marriage. Virgin brides have the lowest divorce rates. But, women having more than two sexual partners seems to lower the chances of divorce. See chart 3.

According to that chart the lowest divorce rates to the highest divorce rates are:

  • Virgin bride (lowest divorce rate)

  • Women who have had 5-9 sexual partners

  • Women who have had 3-4 or 10-20 sexual partners

  • Women who have had 1 sexual partner

  • Women who have had 21+ sexual partners

  • Women who have had 2 sexual partners (highest divorce rate)

I could imagine that religiosity is correlated with teachings about being a virgin until marriage and correlated with teachings against divorce. (For example, my family is very religious. They always taught "no sex before marriage". Regarding divorce: my religious grandmother never approved of my aunt's divorce even though my uncle was abusive. One can clearly see how religion influenced the "no sex before marriage" and "no divorce" opinions in my family.)

Also, in attempting to evaluate the connection between divorce rates and promiscuity, I looked up some data on the most promiscuous nations in the world. New Zealand claimed to have the most promiscuous women (based on a Durex condom poll, for what it's worth). It was claimed that women in New Zealand have an average of 20 sexual partners. I then looked up the divorce rates and was surprised to see that divorce rates in New Zealand are lower than in the US. This, again, made me question the link.

Why am I posting this? Because I think part of the "Red Pill's" views on female sexuality is informed (and biased) by religious and conservative views, so there is a tendency to try to prove connections between sexual promiscuity and divorce which are really about supporting preexisting beliefs about what women are "supposed to do" (based on those religious and conservative viewpoints). I strongly favor the use of good data and have a lot of concern about biased socially-conservative data.

[–]trias_e 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting and certainly challenges the other data, as premarital sex partners is a better metric than non-martial sex partners. I thought the initial data WAS looking at premarital partners. My bad.

However, as the poster of that article says, much of what we see in that data may be driven by age (that is, older women being more likely to stick around in their first marriage, which seems quite plausible, and older women have more partners than younger women). Again though, good find and worth being pointed out.

I also would like to note that I'm atheist, although I am mildly socially conservative (to be honest, more wary about liberalism than I am conservative in practice)

[–]trias_e[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It should be noted that, from a practical perspective, it doesn't really matter whether it is having many sexual partners that leads to women not being marriage material, or whether there's something that causes both. Either way, avoid women who have had many sexual partners if you're interested in a LTR.

Also, it is likely that the very high success rate of women with 0 previous partners is possibly also influenced by religious and conservative factors. Still, I would recommend any man who wants a LTR to look for this mythical creature. Even women who have had a few previous LTRs are nowhere near as likely to have a successful marriage.

This makes it pretty clear what an awful sign it is that a women is a slut in her younger years. That is, if you're interested in a successful marriage. The hilariously low marriage success rates for women with 16+ partners in the past is almost surprising to me...almost.

[–]itsmehobnob 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is an important point. Detractors of these studies will cry "correlation doesn't prove causation!" Although this is true, it is totally irrelevant. I don't care if one causes the other or if a third factor is responsible for both, the stats are showing that promiscuity and failed relationships are linked. Promiscuity may be the cause, or it may simply be a warning sign. Either way don't marry an easy woman. (Should be obvious)

[–]_DiscoNinja_ 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, if marriage is your thing, I'd say game until your mid 30's and then settle down with a 19 yr old mail order bride or "bush bitch".

[–]TRP VanguardVZPurp 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't look like there will be such a thing as a successful marriage at this rate.

[–]footballtrav89-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

It annoys me that the article blatantly mistakes correlation with causation.

[–]HarleyWalker 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I swear you people who always point that out don't know what either correlation or causation are or what they mean.

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]HarleyWalker 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I mean that people will say correlation doesn't equal causation as if correlation guarantees that it is not causation. It may or may not be causal but people are too quick to dismiss it due to their own ideology.

The other side is that even if it is not a causal relationship, the strong correlation means you should still look at it as a warning sign. Maybe promiscuity isn't the cause of poor long term partnerships/divorce rates, but they may well share the same causal factor and you would be wise to take that on board.

[–]footballtrav891 points 13 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I do know the difference and what they mean. I took it into account, it was just a criticism of the article. They could have addressed the topic some...

also sorry for the late reply i was out of town....

[–]HarleyWalker 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair enough. I just hear it a lot from leftists that use it as an argument to promote blank slate theories and as a disingenuous means to stifle debate about touchy topics.

[–]footballtrav891 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

don't worry...i am pro debate about touchy topics. I am a big stats and bio guy so this has just somehow become one of my pet peeves. I am a hardcore lurker of the science subreddit.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter