Advice for daughters: Don't sleep around = Happier life

[Rikurzhen]

This is likely to drive feminists nuts and I can just hear the "That's a double standard" bleating:

Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages - but men do no harm by playing the field,a study has found.

According to new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.

But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners.

But, for men, the number of partners a man they appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage. . . .

The report, by Galena K Rhoades and Scott M Stanley, said the first conclusion of the study was that 'What happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas'.

It means our past experiences, especially when it comes to love, are linked to our future marital quality, they said.

The researchers said those who had more partners perhaps find it difficult to commit to their spouse because they were aware of the alternatives.

They added that more experiences of breaking up can give people a 'more jaundiced view of love' which could affect future relationships.

The report said: 'Many in Generation YOLO (you only live once) believe that what happens while you’re young won’t affect your future. But our research paints a different picture.

'This doesn’t mean that sex before marriage will doom a marriage, but sex with many different partners may be risky if you’re looking for a high-quality marriage.'
​

 

[LiberalMedia]

More double standard bullshit from syxyst, misogynistic "researchers," AKA drunken frat boys who disrespect womyn and look at us as pieces of meat rather than as humyn beings.

 

[CherryPanda]

I bet those women who are listed as 'happier' just have no data to compare. If we follow the logic of this research, we can make a conclusion that women in the 19th century were the happiest women ever. Which we know wasn't true.
Does this research even consider other factors, like the parental family experience, the type of relations with the partners before marriage, lots of other things that influence one's idea and practical realization of a happy marriage? I doubt that... I even think that the authers of this research had a pre-determined result and just chose the data to prove this result.
In real life, it's all in your head: your reality, your complexes, your expectations; and this all influences your marriage. And not the number of sexual partners.

 

[R.D.]

More double standard bullshit from syxyst, misogynistic "researchers," AKA drunken frat boys who disrespect womyn and look at us as pieces of meat rather than as humyn beings.

Galena K Rhoades is a woman Libral Media is an idiot

 

[Rikurzhen]

I bet those women who are listed as 'happier' just have no data to compare. If we follow the logic of this research, we can make a conclusion that women in the 19th century were the happiest women ever. Which we know wasn't true.
Does this research even consider other factors, like the parental family experience, the type of relations with the partners before marriage, lots of other things that influence one's idea and practical realization of a happy marriage? I doubt that... I even think that the authers of this research had a pre-determined result and just chose the data to prove this result.
In real life, it's all in your head: your reality, your complexes, your expectations; and this all influences your marriage. And not the number of sexual partners.

Of course it's because they have fewer men to compare their husbands to. Doesn't matter, they're still happier.

-They note the issues in play. Women with many partners get used to breaking up, so getting a divorce is easier to initiate.

-Women who've had many partners become used to the variety and so have a harder time finding happiness with one man.

What you seem to be implying is that You Only Live Once so experience all the men you desire and then settle down, as though this is the optimum path. That's just propaganda. You're actually rolling the dice for an unhappier life in the long term

 

[Katzndogz]

Among all the people I have known in all my long years the happiest couples and the happiest women were from cultures that practiced arranged marriage and were in an arranged marriage. Yes there are stories of terrible abuse which might be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Pennywise]

Before women became scumified "male-light" types of recent generations, we actually counted on the wiser sex to keep her blouse on and her legs closed to keep us dogs at bay. The act of sexual intercourse is not merely a physical rutting, especially for women. There is a deep emotional connection that is made with that kind of intimacy, and we kid ourselves when we claim otherwise. This is more so for women than men, because of how differently each sex has evolved.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

More double standard bullshit from syxyst, misogynistic "researchers," AKA drunken frat boys who disrespect womyn and look at us as pieces of meat rather than as humyn beings.

Your safe...we look at you with disgust.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Before women became scumified "male-light" types of recent generations, we actually counted on the wiser sex to keep her blouse on and her legs closed to keep us dogs at bay. The act of sexual intercourse is not merely a physical rutting, especially for women. There is a deep emotional connection that is made with that kind of intimacy, and we kid ourselves when we claim otherwise. This is more so for women than men, because of how differently each sex has evolved.

Exactly. Women are very prone to attaching emotional significance to love making. The woman who is so-so about a guy and then decides to sleep with him finds that she's more attached to him afterwards than she was before. Many love affairs have started this way. The first (or so) date somehow transforms into a long term relationship and then after it's all over and done with, the woman is wondering what she saw in him in the first place. Her judgment got clouded by oxytocin floods when they first had sex.

As the research shows, men's brains aren't affected this way.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. So we have many opinions on women and what they want. First, why do you suppose that women are not just as individual in their wants as men? Some want stability, some want adventure. And why do you want to label those that want adventure any differant than men that want the same? Second, why should you hold women to a differant standard than men? Why is a women that likes sex a slut, and man that likes sex a stud?

After 70 years of life, I find that the double standard I see expressed here by both women and men is real hypocritical shit.

 

[Alex.]

Before women became scumified "male-light" types of recent generations, we actually counted on the wiser sex to keep her blouse on and her legs closed to keep us dogs at bay. The act of sexual intercourse is not merely a physical rutting, especially for women. There is a deep emotional connection that is made with that kind of intimacy, and we kid ourselves when we claim otherwise. This is more so for women than men, because of how differently each sex has evolved.

Exactly. Women are very prone to attaching emotional significance to love making. The woman who is so-so about a guy and then decides to sleep with him finds that she's more attached to him afterwards than she was before. Many love affairs have started this way. The first (or so) date somehow transforms into a long term relationship and then after it's all over and done with, the woman is wondering what she saw in him in the first place. Her judgment got clouded by oxytocin floods when they first had sex.

As the research shows, men's brains aren't affected this way.

Sounds like your judgement is clouded with an inflated ego and unfounded self importance.

Not all women want to have a relationship after they have had sex.

 

[Bush92]

Democrats want more single moms on welfare. More dependency on federal government pushes us closer to their Marxist dream state.

 

[Rikurzhen]

First, why do you suppose that women are not just as individual in their wants as men? Some want stability, some want adventure. And why do you want to label those that want adventure any differant than men that want the same? Second, why should you hold women to a differant standard than men? Why is a women that likes sex a slut, and man that likes sex a stud

Because men and women are different and so they behave differently and have different standards applied to them. You can see this play out very clearly with how infidelity plays out.

A man really takes a punch to the gut when his wife has sex with another man. It doesn't matter whether it was a one-night stand or a long term affair, meaning that the emotional content of the affair has lower importance to the man than the fact that another man has HAD his women.

The female reaction skews a bit differently. The sex that took place bothers them but they go crazy with rage if the husband actually loved the other woman.

The husband's forgiveness of a wife having a one night stand is harder to give than the wife forgiving her husband if the husband had a meaningless sex fling one night. The flipside for emotional love affairs - this is a deep betrayal to many women and the intensity of the betrayal isn't matched by men, though of course they're upset by their wife having a long term affair.

Even if you remove sex from the equation, we see wives being really focused on the "office wife" phenomenon where the husband has a deep, significant non-sexual relationship with a woman he works with.

Men and women are not the same especially when it comes to sex. They're complementary. There is a lot of wisdom in that old saying "Men give love to get sex and women give sex to get love."

You ask why there is a different judgment applied to men and women who like sex. Simple. Women actually like men who've had sex with other women, so this isn't a stigma. Women don't put male virgins high on their desirability list. A man's reputation is enhanced by sleeping with women. A key part of female psyche is that they put a lot of attention on male status and the surest way of determining a man's status is to see how desired he is by other women. You see this focus on consensus all through women's lives. If other woman desire a man, then he's desirable. If a man sleeps with a lot of women, then other women want to sleep with him and catch him for their own. Step back and think about how that process unfolds. Women are the gatekeepers to sex. They're the ones who are being chased and saying no. This guy who ends up sleeping with a lot of women has to convince a lot of women that they should sleep with him. Most women know that many desirable guys are racking up high numbers and it doesn't bother them, they want to be the one who gets him to forsake the single life and dedicate himself to her. That DOES NOT happen in the reverse.

Well that world doesn't apply to men. Chastity and sexual restraint in a woman are qualities that men prefer in women. Seeing how virgins are hard to find these days this may not be obvious, but a woman being a virgin is not really a turn off to guys but women don't really dig male virgins. A woman's sexual history predicts her future. A man's much less so. A man must trust that the child born to his wife is his. A woman ALWAYS knows that the child she gives birth to is hers. Males have evolved to put emphasis on a woman's sexual history. For women, a man's sexual history doesn't really have much of a negative connotation and can actually have a positive connotation.

This complaint about double standards is a complaint built on a foundation which emphasizes fairness over reality, and so it's very liberal in character. Little kids are always having screaming fits about unfairness in their interactions with friends and siblings. Most of us outgrow that immaturity. Real life precludes there being a fair, uniform standard of sexual behavior which applies to both sexes.

And tellingly the research found that men's happiness in marriage was not correlated to the number of partners they had before marriage while women's happiness was. Men, it seems, are able to have cheap meaningless sex and not carry that forward with them into married life. Women, not so much. It's almost like a piece of women's souls is sucked out of them with each new man. Regardless of what is actually going on, something clearly is.

 

[September]

Before women became scumified "male-light" types of recent generations, we actually counted on the wiser sex to keep her blouse on and her legs closed to keep us dogs at bay. The act of sexual intercourse is not merely a physical rutting, especially for women. There is a deep emotional connection that is made with that kind of intimacy, and we kid ourselves when we claim otherwise. This is more so for women than men, because of how differently each sex has evolved.

Keep telling yourself that.

I just love that raw, carnal sexual energy. That euphoria that overcomes you when you're getting fucked good and deep. Flesh against flesh.

The power of Babalon.

Absolutely no emotional connection whatsoever. Just desire. Lust. Pleasure.

Man, woman, doesn't matter. Sometimes both.

Or that feeling when you are between two men in bed, and both are penetrating you deep while biting your neck and sucking on your nipples... that feeling of their muscular bodies on either side of you, the scent of their cologne, their strong grip... your legs start going numb with pleasure...

Or when you're in bed with two other females and you're all just exploring each others perfect bodies... the smooth, clean feeling of their youthful skin, the taste of their lips, the taste of their abdomen when you bite it, and then you go lower and dance with your tongue while someone else does the same to you...

Or sex rituals with your coven. Celebrating one of the Sabbats with an orgy... Wine and music and the women taking turns on the few men of the group, just riding the night away next to the bonfire, maybe ingesting some hallucinagins and adding a surreal, psychodelic demonic mind fuck to the already mind blowing sex.. for hours on end, until nobody can move and we all wake up in the desert under the sun...

​

 

[Noomi]

That's because women have a conscience.

 

[CherryPanda]

Of course it's because they have fewer men to compare their husbands to. Doesn't matter, they're still happier.

-They note the issues in play. Women with many partners get used to breaking up, so getting a divorce is easier to initiate.

-Women who've had many partners become used to the variety and so have a harder time finding happiness with one man.

What you seem to be implying is that You Only Live Once so experience all the men you desire and then settle down, as though this is the optimum path. That's just propaganda. You're actually rolling the dice for an unhappier life in the long term

Sorry, but all the things you said just don't seem logical to me. I don't see a direct connection between the number of partners and happiness in marriage.
It doesn't seem logical that woman gets used to break-ups... Why should she? Being used to break-ups or disappointment in personal life - it's one's personal reality picture, attitude, complexes, etc.
And getting used to variety? Seriously? Why women get used to it and men don't?
I

OK. So we have many opinions on women and what they want. First, why do you suppose that women are not just as individual in their wants as men? Some want stability, some want adventure. And why do you want to label those that want adventure any differant than men that want the same? Second, why should you hold women to a differant standard than men? Why is a women that likes sex a slut, and man that likes sex a stud?

After 70 years of life, I find that the double standard I see expressed here by both women and men is real hypocritical shit.

Thank you so much for your opinion!
I'm really surprised that in the 21st century you need to be 70 to be free of chauvinistic views...

 

[Disir]

This is likely to drive feminists nuts and I can just hear the "That's a double standard" bleating:

Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages - but men do no harm by playing the field,a study has found.

According to new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.

But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners.

But, for men, the number of partners a man they appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage. . . .

The report, by Galena K Rhoades and Scott M Stanley, said the first conclusion of the study was that 'What happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas'.

It means our past experiences, especially when it comes to love, are linked to our future marital quality, they said.

The researchers said those who had more partners perhaps find it difficult to commit to their spouse because they were aware of the alternatives.

They added that more experiences of breaking up can give people a 'more jaundiced view of love' which could affect future relationships.

The report said: 'Many in Generation YOLO (you only live once) believe that what happens while you’re young won’t affect your future. But our research paints a different picture.

'This doesn’t mean that sex before marriage will doom a marriage, but sex with many different partners may be risky if you’re looking for a high-quality marriage.'
​

The study funded by the Marriage Institute said that ignorance is bliss and you'll be more willing to accept inadequacy if you don't have anything to compare it to.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Sorry, but all the things you said just don't seem logical to me. I don't see a direct connection between the number of partners and happiness in marriage.

Female behavior doesn't have to be logical, it just has to exist. That's not a dig at women, the general rule applies to everything. Why do men like big breasts? It doesn't matter, they just do.

Pretend you're a virgin. You fall in love with George Costanza and get married. He treats you well and you're happy.

Now pretend that you're a virgin and you become a rock groupie - you've been screwed by rock millionaires and then you meet famous cockster George Clooney and he takes you on as his mistress for one month and screws you silly and then dumps you. By this time you're hitting the wall, there are plenty of younger, hotter and tighter girls on the groupie scene and the only people who want to have sex with you are the roadies. Now George Costanza enters the picture and will take you as you are. You get married. You're likely to be unhappy with George because you remember the glorious screwing the other George gave you on his yacht and you're pining away for something that you're never going to get again. This pining away eats at your happiness with the schlep Constanza.

The bottom line is the results speak for themselves. This finding isn't revolutionary, it replicates past work which found the same thing and more.

It doesn't seem logical that woman gets used to break-ups... Why should she? Being used to break-ups or disappointment in personal life - it's one's personal reality picture, attitude, complexes, etc.

Again, behavior and desire doesn't have to make sense, but in this case it does make sense. Look at those devastating teen break-ups, the ones where the dumpee commits suicide from the grief. Plenty of older people counsel the teen that the grief will pass, that life will go on, that someone new will come along. That puppy love is pure, the break-up happens to an UNSCARRED heart. As people go through multiple break-ups the scars on their hearts get scabbed over, people learn to put up walls. You really see this with divorcees - they rarely jump into a 2nd or 3rd marriage as innocently and as deeply as with their first marriage. They have baggage. They have scars. The first love is pure and entered into without hesitation and every subsequent romance is entered into with a tad more caution and reticence because everyone has already been through a romantic shitkicking.

And getting used to variety? Seriously? Why women get used to it and men don't?

You're crying about men and women being different and how this unfair. Again, the results show the story. Male happiness in marriage is unaffected by the number of past sexual partners they've had. Men apparently have a very easy time separating a good shagging from screwing up their emotions. Women can't seem to do that. They lose something, whatever that something is, by screwing many guys and thus increase the risk of unhappiness in marriage.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This is likely to drive feminists nuts and I can just hear the "That's a double standard" bleating:

Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages - but men do no harm by playing the field,a study has found.

According to new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.

But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners.

But, for men, the number of partners a man they appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage. . . .

The report, by Galena K Rhoades and Scott M Stanley, said the first conclusion of the study was that 'What happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas'.

It means our past experiences, especially when it comes to love, are linked to our future marital quality, they said.

The researchers said those who had more partners perhaps find it difficult to commit to their spouse because they were aware of the alternatives.

They added that more experiences of breaking up can give people a 'more jaundiced view of love' which could affect future relationships.

The report said: 'Many in Generation YOLO (you only live once) believe that what happens while you’re young won’t affect your future. But our research paints a different picture.

'This doesn’t mean that sex before marriage will doom a marriage, but sex with many different partners may be risky if you’re looking for a high-quality marriage.'
​

The study funded by the Marriage Institute said that ignorance is bliss and you'll be more willing to accept inadequacy if you don't have anything to compare it to.

Do you have a problem with that?

The choice here is a simple one - choose to have multiple sexual partners, keep those memories and savor them, and run a higher risk of lifetime unhappiness, or

Forgo many sexual partners, marry one that you're happy with, and increase the odds of lifetime happiness.

With the former choice you're unhappy but you have great memories of fleeting love affairs. With the latter choice you can read Harlequin romance novels and dream about many lovers and be happy with your life.

 

[Moonglow]

More double standard bullshit from syxyst, misogynistic "researchers," AKA drunken frat boys who disrespect womyn and look at us as pieces of meat rather than as humyn beings.

that's sweet meat....