Research Pro-life people partly motivated to prevent casual sex (data study)

[Magical Realist]

Wow, you really think simple criticism is some attempt to "control and dominate." Man, you try to control and dominate me all the time, hypocrite. So you're all for whatever sexual proclivities people may have, but god forbid anyone have any principles you disagree with. Yeah, that seems to track with being gay.

We've already been over this. Morally condemning people for their sexual lifestyle isn't just simple criticism. It's pushing an agenda of elevating only one lifestyle as right and good over all others. In your case having one sex partner. It is about demoralizing others for their own freely made choices. And when you can't morally justify your condemnations for this lifestyle, you resort to fabricated lies about it being bad somehow for people's mental health and the cause of divorce later in life. Any way you can to make this lifestyle seem bad and evil and wrong.

Again, are you really so unaware that people can have frequent and rewarding sex lives IN committed relationships? Did your parents' relationship really screw you up that bad?

Throwing ad hom punches at my sexual orientation and now my parents only exposes your inability to rationally support your argument. Nobody who can make their points persuasively and based on evidence has to resort to that shit. So quit doing it.

Being gay means you do not interact in the evolutionary psychology of pair-bonding. And being a lazy moron means you can't be bothered to learn how men and women differ in sexual experience and long term relationships. Look up hypergamy.

LOL More ad hom punches. So how is it that my merely being gay means I do not know about the "evolutionary psychology of pair-bonding" (whatever that means)? I've been pair-bonding since I was born. I've observed pair-bonding firsthand between straight couples thru my parents and brother and sisters. I have learned all about it thru my psychology studies and in watching thousands of movies depicting it explicitly and in dramatic detail. How does merely finding men sexually attractive disqualify me from knowing about that subject? Do you think gay men have no need to pair-bond? And what gives you the expertise to think you know any more about it than me? More specifically, how's your own personal history with pair-bonding holding up?

Again, women are not men. They don't pine after the "mailman."

Uh newsflash..Straight women are sexually attracted to men. They are attracted to them physically as well as emotionally. This patriarchal myth that women don't have normal and robust sexual desires was debunked back in the 70's. You should binge watch the HBO series Sex In The City. It is now acceptable for women to desire men physically and openly and to talk about it. I know that may not set well with you in your cloistered life, but its a fact you just have to accept.

They imprint on the highest evolutionary value man they sleep with and that keeps them from finding lasting happiness with a man that will commit to them long term... unless they don't have much sexual experience to compare him to, and can thus imprint on the man they marry. It's called sexual selection. Look it up.

Sounds very much like a pet theory an incel misogynist would make up to justify himself being ignored by women. The Stacys and the Chads? I personally don't think women are that biologically "programmed" or dumb. That they intelligently and intuitively look for men who are compatible with them and do so by simply dating around or flirting or simply socializing with groups of friends. It's a relatively uncontroversial claim to make. But then reality is seldom that controversial.

Young women are being duped by hookup culture, but older women are increasingly full of regret for the choices they've made and the lives they've ended up with. And women of all ages are much more depressed and taking antidepressants than ever before.

Sounds like more ass-extracted data to me. Where did you get this information? And how could you possibly know it is caused by women dating around too much in their single years?

Most women don't find most men attractive by sight alone. There's a large mental/emotional factor for women

Yes..the emotional factor is what is played out by dating the person and being around them. And so the sex, the beautiful act of making love, is more tender and romantic and feeling-based for them. But it's still sex and a needful experience for them in order to learn what kind of man appeals to them the most.

[Syne]

Condemning a sexual lifestyle is far less pushing an agenda than grooming children with LGBT ideology, condemning people for "dead naming," "misgendering," etc.. All those have the result of confusing children and attempting to ruin people's lives. Guess what, moron, some choices are objectively worse than others. You can ignore all the evidence, but it is obviously clear that more sxual partners does harm marriage longevity and women's mental health. And again, you do so only because it selfishly affirms your own choices. Just because your parents screwed you up (which you've already implied) and you have a paranoid persecution complex (demonstrated for years on this forum) doesn't mean anyone is trying to control you or anyone else. They are only trying to influence the culture for the better.
If you're so concerned about ad homs, ahem: "all moralizing prigs who never get laid," "someone who has very little experience with women," "your cloistered life," "an incel misogynist,"...
Yes, you've observed pair-bonding... of obviously dysfunctional people or without the comprehension of personal experience. But if you could only read, you'd see that I said "you do not interact in the evolutionary psychology of pair-bonding." You may very well "bond" with other gay men. But since men and women are inherently different in their evolutionary psychology, you do not have personal experience of the evolutionary pair-bonding that exists to ensure the future survival of the species. Again, you only continue to prove that you don't even know what pair-bonding means, and are conflating it with sexual attraction, emotional bonds, etc..

In biology, a pair bond is the strong affinity that develops in some species between a mating pair, often leading to the production and rearing of young and potentially a lifelong bond. Pair-bonding is a term coined in the 1940s[1] that is frequently used in sociobiology and evolutionary biology circles. The term often implies either a lifelong socially monogamous relationship or a stage of mating interaction in socially monogamous species.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond

Note where it says "a mating pair" and "a lifelong socially monogamous relationship." Do you really think either apply to you? @_@
Again, learn to read, moron. No one said women don't have sexual desires. But due to evolutionary hypergamy, they don't "pine after" low status men (like mailmen), no matter how good looking. Again, women don't behave like men. Men will pine after pretty baristas, fast food workers, etc. with no education or status. Because evolutionary psychology has prioritized youth, beauty, and health for men and protection (which can include physical fitness) and provision (which can includes status) for women.
If you want to ignore millions of years of evolution, that's your problem. Again, the evidence is clear about a woman's number of sexual partners and her satisfaction in marriage. Maybe if you weren't gay, you'd understand that men usually have to take 100% of the initiative with women. If guys think they are "ignored by women" it's their own fault, because women will not generally initiate anything with a man unless he's rich or famous. Why? Do you feel ignored by other gay men? Is that why you think it works that way?
If you dealt with women, you'd know that they very often don't know what they want. They're usually looking for a "vibe" that they can't describe, and will list things they want from a man they are already attracted to... unaware of what that attraction or "vibe" actual entails. They just know what it "feels like" emotionally.
Again, you're the intellectually dishonest one who ignored my other link so you could take a low hanging genetic fallacy. There's plenty of information out there, if you weren't so lazy.

[Magical Realist]

Condemning a sexual lifestyle is far less pushing an agenda than grooming children with LGBT ideology, condemning people for "dead naming," "misgendering," etc.. All those have the result of confusing children and attempting to ruin people's lives.

There's nothing grooming or confusing about simply learning the facts about a topic. That kids can learn about LGBTs now in our society is simply part of getting educated, just as they would learn about anything else. There is no harm in any knowledge. And simply learning and understanding about LGBTs no more risks turning children LGBT than learning about serial killers would turn them into serial killers. The agenda, the real ideology, is in censoring and suppressing factual information in order to enforce the belief that it is wrong or perverted somehow. And in this day and age, such a belief, rather paranoid and conspiratorial in itself, is simply no longer tenable..

Guess what, moron, some choices are objectively worse than others. You can ignore all the evidence, but it is obviously clear that more sxual partners does harm marriage longevity and women's mental health.

Well it's certainly clear YOU believe that, for whatever reason. But I have yet to see anything convincing that women dating around when they are single has any detrimental causal effect on their marriage later in life or upon their mental health. It doesn't even make rational sense. How would a woman having had more experience with dating men make her less able to choose and settle down with the right one later in life? It simply makes no sense.

You may very well "bond" with other gay men. But since men and women are inherently different in their evolutionary psychology, you do not have personal experience of the evolutionary pair-bonding that exists to ensure the future survival of the species. Again, you only continue to prove that you don't even know what pair-bonding means, and are conflating it with sexual attraction, emotional bonds, etc..
In biology, a pair bond is the strong affinity that develops in some species between a mating pair, often leading to the production and rearing of young and potentially a lifelong bond. Pair-bonding is a term coined in the 1940s[1] that is frequently used in sociobiology and evolutionary biology circles. The term often implies either a lifelong socially monogamous relationship or a stage of mating interaction in socially monogamous species.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond

Note where it says "a mating pair" and "a lifelong socially monogamous relationship." Do you really think either apply to you? @_@

I don't agree that pair-bonding only occurs in life-long heterosexual relationships. Gays pair-bond all the time and mate (have sex) just as straights to. And just because a pair-bond ends at some point doesn't mean it wasn't a pair-bond. Divorces and second and even third marriages occur all the time (see your boy Trump). I'm pretty sure that is all pair-bonding.

Furthermore, how is personal experience required to understand pair-bonding or any other aspect of human nature? Does one have to be an addict to understand addiction? Does one have to be mentally ill to understand mental illness? There is simply no requirement for one to have gone thru pair-bonding to understand it and how it works. The very fact that you yourself haven't experienced it yet profusely pontificate all about it proves that to a tee.

Again, learn to read, moron. No one said women don't have sexual desires. But due to evolutionary hypergamy, they don't "pine after" low status men (like mailmen), no matter how good looking.

Of course they do. That's what sexual desire is, the instantaneous longing and excitement of seeing a physical body without regard for any social status or knowledge about them personally. Women have this capacity as much as men do, but due to our patriarchal society are forced to suppress it. Nowadays though it has become widely accepted and acknowledged and expressed in endless romantic films and TV comedies and dimestore trash novels.

Men will pine after pretty baristas, fast food workers, etc. with no education or status. Because evolutionary psychology has prioritized youth, beauty, and health for men and protection (which can include physical fitness) and provision (which can includes status) for women.

Pretty sure a group of secretaries walking down the sidewalk and gasping and giggling at a muscular construction worker with his shirt off aren't concerned at all with his social status or income or his ability to provide for them. But then what would you know about it without experiencing the inherent sexiness of the male body? lol

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1816567612534023

Again, the evidence is clear about a woman's number of sexual partners and her satisfaction in marriage.

I've yet to even see a correlation in that regard, much less a causation. But hell, even if it were true, why is divorce such a bad thing? It simply means couples can change over time, and past experience can refine one's sense of who one's soulmate can be. Moving on when you have lost the flame is a very good thing imo..

Maybe if you weren't gay, you'd understand that men usually have to take 100% of the initiative with women. If guys think they are "ignored by women" it's their own fault, because women will not generally initiate anything with a man unless he's rich or famous. Why? Do you feel ignored by other gay men? Is that why you think it works that way?

Well, unless you're just butt ugly, or a closet case, or have a micropenis, that would explain your rather bewildering intolerance for all women, wouldn't it? Seems an awfully convenient and self-serving generalization to make about women, particularly when you have so little experience with them to confirm or debunk it with. You DO know this isn't the Victorian era anymore and that women and men are often shacking up based on personality compatibilities instead of social status?

If you dealt with women, you'd know that they very often don't know what they want. They're usually looking for a "vibe" that they can't describe, and will list things they want from a man they are already attracted to... unaware of what that attraction or "vibe" actual entails. They just know what it "feels like" emotionally.

That can be true for men as well as women, for gays as well as straights. Nobody is born with a perfect blueprint for their ideal soulmate, and dating around and having an active social life is the most effective way of finding out who that may be and who it definitely cannot be. We are all humans sharing in a common sexual/love experience, and it is only by participating and observing that we become sure about who suits us best, if anyone at all.

[Syne]

It absolutely is grooming when you indoctrinate children into questioning their sexually/gender long before they would naturally even consider such things. Not only are you taking advantage of children, you're intentionally trying to get to them when they're so young they can't possibly have any defense against your agenda. But you bring up a very good point. We don't go out of our way to teach very young children about serial killers. Because it is also age-inappropriate. You also have to gloss over the abuse, drug use, HIV, depression, etc. highly correlated to an LGBT lifestyle. Cherry-picking the "facts about a topic" is propaganda, not knowledge.
Again: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/
And have you never heard of hypergamy? That is desire in women to date, marry, and mate with men who are higher status, make more money, and yes, that includes being more experienced that themselves. The more experience a woman has (and women have vastly more opportunities to gain sexual experience) the less likely she is to find a man with more sexual experience. And the vast majority of women what a man to lead, in the bedroom and otherwise. So having more sexual experience is a recipe for married women being sexually unfulfilled.
You not agreeing with the actual definition of pair-bonding is just stupid. Apparently, you also don't know the definition of "mating," which specifically refers to sexual reproduction. Gay men have sex; they do not mate, illiterate moron. Pair-bonding is a biological term which relates to mating (sexual reproduction). Gays do not sexually reproduce with each other, dipshit. Hence gays do not pair-bond. Like I said, you can certainly have emotional or sexual bonds, but those are not pair-bonding.
You conflating pair-bonding with gays demonstrates that you don't understand it. I have experienced it, because evolutionary psychology is geared toward the survival of the species, through sexual reproduction.
Sexual desire is the instant attraction to what you see... for men. Women are different, moron. Go ask one. Women only have that for men who have status or display higher status behaviors ("bad boys"). It's telling that you think "romantic films and TV comedies and dimestore trash novels" reflect reality. 9_9
Most construction workers actually make pretty good money, moron, especially compared to secretaries. But even ignoring that, there's a difference between what a woman will show interest in and who she is actually willing to sleep with. Again, go ask one. And a tall black man walking down an Asian street, catching the attention of men and women equally, proves nothing, moron. Again, we know you're gay and YOU experience "the inherent sexiness of the male body."
Divorce leads to single mothers, which are the biggest contributor to children growing up to be criminals, abuse drugs, suffer mental illness. etc..
A gay guy talking about an "intolerance for all women" is just obvious projection. It's laughable for a gay guy to claim some experience with women in dating. It's just a fact that women generally do not take the initiate. And there's nothing self-serving or convenient about knowing that it is a straight man's own responsibility of he wants to meet, date, have sex with, or marry a women. It can actually be a hard pill for many men to swallow, after being taught that someone should love you for "just being you."
Women "shack up" based on high status traits or behaviors. This is why women like "bad boys" who are otherwise losers. Evolutionary psychology doesn't account for modern circumstances. Over the vast majority of our evolution, you couldn't get away with acting high status without actually having status.
Nonsense. All men know what they are attracted to. Hence why you just said "the instantaneous longing and excitement of seeing a physical body without regard for any social status or knowledge about them personally." Why you're suddenly talking about "soulmates" is anyone's guess.

[Secular Sanity]

It's not accurate or fair to generalize that all women are "naturally" hypergamic. Each person approaches relationships differently, and many women prioritize love, physical attractiveness, compatibility, shared values, and emotional connection over wealth or status.

[Syne]

"Not all" means it is fair that most, generally, are. But you're telling me there are some women who are in no way hypergamous? They will date, sleep with, and marry men who are poorer, shorter, dumber, and weaker than themselves? Or are there still some traits that they are hypergamous about? In evolutionary psychology, many of these traits are an indicator for potential provision (richer, smarter) or protection (taller, stronger).
Like I said, most women will be attracted to the loser "bad boy" because he displays traits that are higher status, whether he is or not. Often this is no more than the "bad boy" indicating that he has a lot of sexual opportunities with women, which is social proof that he has higher status than she does. That's how evolutionary psychology is subverted in the modern world, because we evolved when these indicators were always factual.

But in the vast majority of cases, wouldn't you agree that there is some amount of hypergamy in either provision or protection? If the man cannot provide better than the women, he usually can protect better, or vice versa. So the woman's priorities between the two primary evolutionary desires do vary. But hypergamy still exists either way.

[Secular Sanity]

While evolutionary psychology suggests women may be inclined to look for mates who can provide resources or protection (because of the historical need for survival and the care of offspring), modern relationships are far more nuanced. Not all women want children and many are independent, financially successful, and prioritize a range of qualities beyond provision and protection.

The traditional motivations for hypergamy, based on the need for provision and protection, are lessened in a world where women have greater access to education, career opportunities, and reproductive control.

[confused2]

On the subject of 'bad boys' .. anyone interested can see (or not) that exes are alive and well .. not chained up and/or buried in a forest somewhere. I don't know if that counts for anything.

[Magical Realist]

Like I said, most women will be attracted to the loser "bad boy" because he displays traits that are higher status, whether he is or not.

How does the loser "bad boy" display higher status if he is a loser? I don't see those traits overlapping much at all. The construction worker/motorcycle rider vs the rich lawyer/Mercedes Benz driver? The rock band member vs the wall street trader? How are you defining "higher status"? A bad boy would be by definition one who defies convention and the system, not one who has conformed to it by having a lucrative career and prestigious possessions.

[Syne]

While evolutionary psychology suggests women may be inclined to look for mates who can provide resources or protection (because of the historical need for survival and the care of offspring), modern relationships are far more nuanced. Not all women want children and many are independent, financially successful, and prioritize a range of qualities beyond provision and protection.

The traditional motivations for hypergamy, based on the need for provision and protection, are lessened in a world where women have greater access to education, career opportunities, and reproductive control.

Surveys show that most women earning more still want men who make even more. Even if a woman doesn't want children, she usually still wants a man she can respect because he is better than her in some way. That is also hypergamy. Many of the women who prioritize careers early in life end up regretting when they've wasted their peak dating value and ended up settling for less than they want... very often ending in divorce, loneliness, childlessness, etc..

Evolutionary psychology doesn't go away just because the modern world has changed. Women generally still want men who are taller, stronger, make more money, etc.. Exceptions are just that, anecdotal exceptions to the general rule.

---

How does the loser "bad boy" display higher status is he is a loser? I don't see those traits overlapping much at all. The construction worker/motorcycle rider vs the rich lawyer/Mercedes Benz driver? The rock band member vs the wall street trader? How are you defining "higher status"? A bad boy would be by definition one who defies convention and the system, not one who has conformed to it by having a lucrative career and prestigious possessions.

There's several different kinds of status. A person can have a high social status, within their local social circle for example, but have no wealth, fame, prestige, etc..
Evolutionary psychology does not differentiate between different kinds of status, because we evolved when they were one in the same.


I see you've ignored the link to the evidence you've been whining about a second time now.