Women who don't sleep around before their wedding have happier marriages...

…but men can play the field without worry.

I couldn’t find the thread where we were discussing the number of sexual partners. Found this recent study:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html

In a nutshell:

  • 53% of women who had slept only with husband felt satisfied in marriage
  • D** ropped to 42% if woman had more than 2 partners and 22% if more than 10**
  • Sex with many different partners ‘may be risky’ if wanting a happy marriage
  • Those with more partners struggled because they are aware of alternatives

Guess common sense is news now…

53% is the high number!!! Its much higher for men. Women are not happy with their beta husbands.

Interesting, I thought this forum loudly screamed that you shouldn’t judge a woman’s “number”, and yet I suspect the same people will handily agree with this article.

^ It was a few people, I don’t think any more than that. Either women themselves or men that were apologists.

I love on okcupid there is a question that asks, if you are in a relationship you expect will last the rest of your life, do you expect it is the most fulfilling sex you’ve had? In my experience, most if not all women say yes. But let’s be honest here. Most men will probably not deliver the best. Because how can every man be the best? There would be no worst. It’s like 80% thinking they are above average. It doesn’t work that way…

Yeah, this is pretty obvious. People with higher sex drives likely have more sexual partners. If you have a higher sex drive you’re more likely to feel unsatisfied.

^ That would make sense if it applied to both genders. The study clearly indicates that men can play the field without worry.

I remember seeing a similar study a few years ago.

What were the percentages of males satisfaction?

Men can play the field because they are going to continue to play the field post marriage - and hence they are perfectly sated!

“We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be. This association was not statistically significant for men.”

I think the real problem that comes with having many past gf /bf is that you have built a lot of past comparables. people tend to compare the current partner against the best attributes of all the collective experiences you have had. and then you end up with always finding flaw or where you’ve experienced better. I’ve been guilty of this myself, admittidly.

IMO correlation is being mistaken for causality.

Many women out there are looking to settle down as of their early 20’s ; these women usually don’t have many partners and “finding the best partner” is less relevant to them (given of course that they don’t divorce before 30 like it is common in the USA). These women tend to divorce less and be happy with say, a simple life.

Many women out there are on a quest to find the best man and date a lot into their 30’s ; these are the women with high standards that are likely to have had many partners and to never be satisfied, hence to divorce.

So I think that women who have had many partners are more likely to fall in the category of the never satisfied ones.

One last thing, which is very ironic : these never satisfied women usually tend to believe their own hype a tittle too long, read past their prime. The alphas that they seek slowly get out of their reach, and they end up settling down with betas, which in turn will frustrate them and induce them to cheat, etc.

Unfortunately, this comment is out of place. The article is not common sense as both conjectures exist. One conjecture is the one of the study where women who have had less partners are happier because they dont have the alternative to compare to. The other conjecture is women who have had less partners are less happy because they might feel like they have missed out and so might cheat later in life…one would think that a woman with more partners does not have this problem and would settle down after knowing what she likes and not feel the temptation to “explore”…since she already did.

Bottom line…women, have sex with 1 maybe 2 guys…know youre not missing out but dont be a sl*t with your greater than 10 partners non-sense.

And yes I do believe in the double standard…let’s discuss.

Agreed. Just make sure one of the two guys is me.

Evolution wants men to sleep with all the women they can, it serves a purpose (so we don’t go extinct, and because any guy that can pull this off is worthy of seed spreading).

Women sleeping with a million guys serves no evolutionary purpose, she only requires one to get preggo. Negative emotional incentives are placed there to make women not do pointless things like sleep with a million guys.

That’s my analysis!

My guess is that there is a reasonable correlation between a woman’s sluttiness and how well she was raised. A woman who sleeps around before marriage was probably raised with less respect for the institution of marriage than a woman who “saves herself” (or these days…part of herself) for marriage. So once she’s married, she’s probably going to be less satisfied and more likely to sleep around.

This is a valid argument, but it is also a double-edged sword.

A woman can theoretically produce 1 offspring every 9 months, while theoretically a fertile man with an adequate libido can produce 365 ones per year. Therefore it makes sense for men to f!ck around and not for women.

Furthermore, while a man’s instinct is to spread his seed, the woman’s instinct is to look out for her offsprings. This is why women not only want a healthy-looking man with a big dong. The female instinct induces them to look for a progenitor who will also look out and provide for the offsprings.

Where this argument is limited is that a woman does have an evolutionary incentive to bang many males, in order to become pregnant in the first place. There are males that are not fertile, and there is the aspect of biological compatibility. It’s even proven that species with a big dong are the most promiscuous ones. So it’s all good to play Darwin to justify your pathetic machism, but get your facts straight first.

Everything made sense, until the last paragraph. Which seemed to become illogical and emotional.

Oh, I am not emotional at all.

And as far as the logic is concerned, “competition for fertilisation” amongst mammals is not even subject to debate. Except maybe in backwards places where they teach Creation in schools.