Body count discourse is on par with race as one of the most toxic topics to discuss on social media. This is because the discussion of the issue is linked to some sacred cows (e.g. women’s liberation, religion), and discussing sacred things tends to lead to emotional discussions instead of rational ones. As far as I can tell, body count discourse involves the two main questions:
Even if the negative effects of sexual promiscuity are entirely due to genetics, it is individually "evolutionarily adaptive" for each man to choose a partner who is both genetically and culturally better suited for long-term family relationships.
You can make an analogy with crime: we know that criminal tendencies are inherent in human genetics, but this does not change the fact that no one wants to live next door to a gangster.
In addition, I think that men who seriously value "female honor" are looking for more than just one virginity in women. If such a man was offered a feminist who is a virgin, because she is ugly, very neurotic, hates men and spends a lot of time on Twitter - I think such a man refused with surprise in the spirit of "what kind of shit?". Obviously, along with the "feminine honor" of virginity, such a conservative man would like other qualities, both useful for serious marital relations and pleasant to him personally.(a woman's complaisance, her pro-family orientation, and so on)
By the way, I have heard that the genetic inheritance of the age of first sexual intercourse has grown greatly since the 1960s. What do you think about it?
Figure 1 is weird. A body count of 2.5 has a higher chance of divorce than a 9. This may be a binary situation. One is either chaste (0-1 partners) or not (2.5 and higher)
The bottom line is that if you find out a girl has a high n-count its going to lower your evaluation of her long term prospects all other things held equal.
High n-count girls don't want to hear this. Rationalizations and attempts to obscure this socially follow.
Trying to infer pair-bonding ability from divorce rates is pretty questionable. You're probably really measuring 'do they make good decisions about when to get married'. I'd have thought a better indicator of impaired pair-bonding was the inability to convert sexual relationships into marriages in the first place.
Good post, thanks.
Even if the negative effects of sexual promiscuity are entirely due to genetics, it is individually "evolutionarily adaptive" for each man to choose a partner who is both genetically and culturally better suited for long-term family relationships.
You can make an analogy with crime: we know that criminal tendencies are inherent in human genetics, but this does not change the fact that no one wants to live next door to a gangster.
In addition, I think that men who seriously value "female honor" are looking for more than just one virginity in women. If such a man was offered a feminist who is a virgin, because she is ugly, very neurotic, hates men and spends a lot of time on Twitter - I think such a man refused with surprise in the spirit of "what kind of shit?". Obviously, along with the "feminine honor" of virginity, such a conservative man would like other qualities, both useful for serious marital relations and pleasant to him personally.(a woman's complaisance, her pro-family orientation, and so on)
By the way, I have heard that the genetic inheritance of the age of first sexual intercourse has grown greatly since the 1960s. What do you think about it?
Interesting.
Figure 1 is weird. A body count of 2.5 has a higher chance of divorce than a 9. This may be a binary situation. One is either chaste (0-1 partners) or not (2.5 and higher)
Nice work again !
But what about Teachman study ?
The bottom line is that if you find out a girl has a high n-count its going to lower your evaluation of her long term prospects all other things held equal.
High n-count girls don't want to hear this. Rationalizations and attempts to obscure this socially follow.
Trying to infer pair-bonding ability from divorce rates is pretty questionable. You're probably really measuring 'do they make good decisions about when to get married'. I'd have thought a better indicator of impaired pair-bonding was the inability to convert sexual relationships into marriages in the first place.