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?
I think that these data do not really change the discourse itself and only provide justification for some "exceptions".
For example, in a situation where a decent and conservative girl was somehow forced into prostitution, after returning to normal life, such a girl will be a completely normal wife.
A little crazy, but it reminded me of the plot of this hentai (I hope I won't be banned for linking to it):
Shoufu ga Moto Kishi no Karyuudo ni Hirowareru Hanashi
>By the way, I have heard that the genetic inheritance of the age of first sexual intercourse has grown greatly since the 1960s.
Sounds plausible. Greater "freedom" across the board means that people make their own choices, which are influenced by their psyche, which is partially heritable.
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)
My theory is that people with body counts of 8+ were not trying hard to build a lifelong romantic relaitonship when they had those partners, but could have the psychological traits to have a lifelong relationship. On the other hand, people with low but nonzero bodycounts are consistently trying harder to build a lifelong romantic relationship, but are less likely to have the psychological traits that cause stable relationship.
What about religiosity for body counts and divorce? I think that would explain the steep rise followed by the pacing out. The most religious had no sex before marriage. The next maybe had sex during engagement. Then everyone else. In the Christian tradition, divorce is generally forbidden. So it figures. And controlling for religious identity doesn't solve the problem as it doesn't work out how devout someone is.
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.
>I'd have thought a better indicator of impaired pair-bonding was the inability to convert sexual relationships into marriages in the first place.
recent, but not historic sexual promiscuity predicts lower marriage rates, which to me suggests that the relationship is largely due to promiscuous people not wanting to be married instead of pair bonding inhibition
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?
I think that these data do not really change the discourse itself and only provide justification for some "exceptions".
For example, in a situation where a decent and conservative girl was somehow forced into prostitution, after returning to normal life, such a girl will be a completely normal wife.
A little crazy, but it reminded me of the plot of this hentai (I hope I won't be banned for linking to it):
Shoufu ga Moto Kishi no Karyuudo ni Hirowareru Hanashi
https://hitomi.la/doujinshi/maiden-~shoufu-ga-moto-kishi-no-karyuudo-ni-hirowareru-hanashi~-%7C-maiden-~the-tale-of-a-prostitute-taken-in-by-a-former-knight~-english-2708449.html
>I think that these data do not really change the discourse itself and only provide justification for some "exceptions".
I would agree. Good body count literature is surprisingly sparse and mostly comes from Wolfinger/the IFS guys.
>By the way, I have heard that the genetic inheritance of the age of first sexual intercourse has grown greatly since the 1960s.
Sounds plausible. Greater "freedom" across the board means that people make their own choices, which are influenced by their psyche, which is partially heritable.
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)
My theory is that people with body counts of 8+ were not trying hard to build a lifelong romantic relaitonship when they had those partners, but could have the psychological traits to have a lifelong relationship. On the other hand, people with low but nonzero bodycounts are consistently trying harder to build a lifelong romantic relationship, but are less likely to have the psychological traits that cause stable relationship.
What about religiosity for body counts and divorce? I think that would explain the steep rise followed by the pacing out. The most religious had no sex before marriage. The next maybe had sex during engagement. Then everyone else. In the Christian tradition, divorce is generally forbidden. So it figures. And controlling for religious identity doesn't solve the problem as it doesn't work out how devout someone is.
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.
https://datepsychology.com/the-meme-of-promiscuity-and-pair-bonding/
>I'd have thought a better indicator of impaired pair-bonding was the inability to convert sexual relationships into marriages in the first place.
recent, but not historic sexual promiscuity predicts lower marriage rates, which to me suggests that the relationship is largely due to promiscuous people not wanting to be married instead of pair bonding inhibition