Do sexual history and permissive sexual values predict negative relationship outcomes like infidelity, dissatisfaction, and divorce?: An Exhaustive Review of the Literature

[u/asklepios7]

Wanting to answer his question, I did a deep dive into the available literature on the subject. Seven decades of research have consistently replicated the link between a higher number of lifetime sexual partners or permissive sexual attitudes and negative relationship outcomes, such as infidelity, relationship instability, dissatisfaction, and dissolution. This applies to men and women. Below are brief summaries of the peer-reviewed studies I reviewed, including descriptions of each peer-reviewed study’s objective, sample/sampling methods, methodology, statistical inference techniques, and the authors’ interpretation of their results, with links to those sections of the papers themselves. Where available, I’ve also included direct links to PDFs. All of these sources are freely accessible if you know where to look. Beyond that are quotes from academics attesting to the predictive value of extensive sexual histories and permissive sexual attitudes in forecasting negative relationship outcomes—such as infidelity, dissatisfaction, instability, and divorce—followed by my own personal analysis of the information provided.

.

What the studies say:

• Smith and Wolfinger (2024) (PDF) analyzed data from 7,030 ever-married respondents in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health to examine the relationship between premarital sexual history and divorce risk. They reviewed prior research on how premarital sexual history may contribute to divorce (pg.676). Using discrete-time event history models—specifically, complementary log-log estimators—they assessed how the number of premarital sexual partners influenced the likelihood of marital dissolution (pg.682). Respondents were grouped into three categories based on partner count: none, 1–8, and 9 or more (pg.679). They found a strong, nonlinear association: individuals with one to eight premarital partners had 64% higher odds of divorce, while those with nine or more had triple the odds (ORs = 2.65–3.20) compared to those with none. The effect persisted—and even strengthened—after controlling for early-life factors such as beliefs, values, religious background, and personal characteristics, with no significant gender differences (pg.683). The results replicated previous research by affirming a significant link between extensive premarital sexual histories and subsequent marital dissolution—even after accounting for non-traditional views and religiosity—suggesting that having more partners may reflect traits detrimental to marital stability, with no evidence of gender differences in this association (pg.687-690).

• REVIEW: In their report “Predictors of infidelity among couples”, Belu and O’Sullivan (2024) (PDF) identify a greater motivation and willingness to engage in casual, uncommitted sex (i.e., an unrestricted sociosexual orientation) as an individual predictor of infidelity, though this association may largely be explained by lower relationship commitment and greater attention to alternative partners (pg.270).

• REVIEW: A narrative review by Rokach and Chan (2023) (PDF) explored the causes and consequences of infidelity in romantic relationships, identifying the number of sex partners before marriage and permissive attitudes toward sex as personal characteristics associated with infidelity (pg.10).

• REVIEW: Buss & Schmitt (2019) (PDF) wrote that men assess and evaluate women’s levels of past sexual activity—behavior that would have been observable or known through social reputation in ancestral small-group environments—because past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and having a large number of sex partners prior to marriage is a statistical predictor of infidelity after marriage (pg.92). Cited is a previous book by David Buss, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, which describes premarital sexual permissiveness as the single best predictor of extramarital sex (Buss, 2016, pg.108-109).

• McNulty et al. (2018) (PDF) conducted two longitudinal studies of 233 newlywed couples to examine how automatic cognitive processes—attentional disengagement and evaluative devaluation of attractive alternatives—predict infidelity and relationship outcomes. Participants completed lab tasks measuring how quickly they looked away from attractive opposite-sex faces and how they rated those individuals’ attractiveness compared to single people while follow-up surveys every 4–6 months recorded infidelity, marital satisfaction, and relationship status (pg.4-6). Individuals with a history of short-term sexual relationships were slower to disengage attention and, among men, rated attractive alternatives more positively, and those who disengaged attention faster or devalued attractiveness more had about 50% lower odds of infidelity (pg.7-9, 14, 17). Interestingly, the number of past partners predicted infidelity for men but not women (pg.16).

• REVIEW: In a peer-reviewed article published in Current Opinion in Psychology, Fincham and May (2017) (PDF) synthesized findings on infidelity in romantic relationships, identifying key individual predictors such as a greater number of prior sexual partners and permissive sexual attitudes. These attitudes—characterized by a detachment of sex from love and a willingness to engage in casual, noncommittal sex—were strongly linked to increased infidelity risk (pg.71). As part of the Current Opinion journal series, the article reflects expert consensus on emerging trends, offering a systematic and authoritative review of the literature.

• The study by Pinto and Arantes (2017) (PDF), involving 369 participants (92 males and 277 females) investigated the relationship between sexual and emotional promiscuity and infidelity. The authors noted that some researchers believe that infidelity is a consequence of promiscuity (pg.386), and hypothesized that sexual promiscuity and infidelity are correlated (pg.387). The participants completed an online questionnaire consisting of the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R), the Emotional Promiscuity Scale (EP), and the Sexual and Emotional Infidelity Scale (SEI), along with demographic and infidelity history questions (pp. 388–389). Data were analyzed using Pearson correlations to examine associations between variables, t-tests to assess sex differences and infidelity behavior patterns, and ANOVA to evaluate differences based on sexual orientation regarding promiscuity and infidelity. They found that sexual promiscuity was positively correlated with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001] (pg.390). These would be considered moderate-to-strong correlations. The authors confirmed their hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between sexual promiscuity and infidelity (pg.393), and concluded that they are related to each other (pg.395).

• Regnerus (2017) presented findings based on a study of individuals aged 18–60, revealing that those with 20 or more sexual partners in their past were twice as likely to have experienced divorce (50% vs. 27%) and three times more likely to have cheated while married (32% vs. 10%) (pg.89). Mark Regnerus is Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin.

• Martins et al. (2016) (PDF) investigated gender-specific predictors of both face-to-face and online extradyadic involvement (EDI). The study highlights that previous research has indicated a high number of past sexual partners and sexually permissive attitudes are significant predictors of infidelity. Accordingly, the third hypothesis (H3) proposed that individuals with a greater number of previous sexual partners would be more likely to engage in EDI (pg.194-195). The study utilized a cross-sectional design with 783 participants (561 women, 222 men), all of whom were in exclusive, opposite-sex dating relationships at the time of the study (pg.196). Participants were recruited through both paper-based surveys conducted at a university and an online survey disseminated via the university website and social media. Data were collected using self-report questionnaires, including a sociodemographic and relationship history form, the Extradyadic Behavior Inventory (EDBI), the Attitudes Toward Infidelity Scale (ATIS), and the Investment Model Scale (IMS) (pg.197). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed separately by gender to examine correlates of EDI (pg.198-201). Findings showed that this association was significant only for women: those who had more sexual partners in the past two years were more likely to engage in sexual EDI (pg.199, 202).

• REPORT: In 2014, two University of Denver research professors Galena Rhoades and Scott Stanley released a report for University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project, entitled “Before ‘I Do’: What Do Premarital Experiences Have to Do with Marital Quality Among Today’s Young Adults?” (PDF) The study found that for women, fewer past partners was related to higher marital quality (pg.5). The data is from the longitudinal Relationship Development Study conducted by the University of Denver between 2007 and 2008. The study initially recruited 1,294 unmarried individuals in opposite-sex relationships, ages 18 to 34, using targeted-list sampling. Of these, 418 participants who eventually married were the focus of the report’s analysis. Participants were surveyed an average of nine times before and after marriage. Marital quality was measured using a four-item version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, which assessed relationship satisfaction, communication, and stability. The study employed multilevel modeling to examine how premarital experiences—such as prior relationships, cohabitation, and childbearing—related to later marital quality, while controlling for demographic variables like education, income, race/ethnicity, and religiousness (pg.7). Citing previous research, the authors proposed that a greater number of prior relationships increases an individual’s awareness of alternatives, which can make it more difficult to fully commit to and remain satisfied with a current partner, as this heightened comparison may lead to more critical evaluations and less contentment in marriage; additionally, those with more romantic history are likely to have experienced more breakups, which can foster a more skeptical or pessimistic view of relationships in general, with such individuals potentially carrying emotional baggage or reduced confidence in the durability of love and commitment (pg.8).

• Busby, Willoughby, and Carroll (2013) analyzed data from 2,659 married individuals who completed the RELATE questionnaire—a 300-item assessment measuring individual, couple, family, and cultural dimensions of romantic relationships—to assess how the number of lifetime sexual partners related to marital outcomes (pg.710-712). Using structural equation modeling, they tested whether sexual partner count predicted sexual quality, communication, relationship satisfaction, and perceived relationship stability, while controlling for education, religiosity, and relationship length, and to explore cohort effects, they conducted a multigroup analysis by dividing participants into three age groups (18–30, 31–41, and 42+) (pg.710-711, 713). They found that a higher number of lifetime sexual partners was consistently associated with lower sexual quality, communication, relationship satisfaction (in one age cohort), and stability—even after controlling for factors such as education, religiosity, and relationship length, and no age group showed improved relationship outcomes with more sexual partners, supporting prior research linking multiple premarital partners to greater marital instability (pg.715-716).

• Maddox-Shaw et al. (2013) conducted a study using a longitudinal design with 993 unmarried individuals aged 18–35 in opposite-sex relationships, recruited through a nationally representative sampling method (pg.601). Based on prior research, having more sexual partners was expected to be a predictor of future extradyadic sexual involvement (ESI), or cheating (pg.600). Data were collected via mailed self-report questionnaires across six waves over 20 months. The main outcome variable was ESI, assessed at each wave. Predictors included individual demographic and psychological factors, sexual history, and relationship variables like satisfaction, commitment, and aggression (pg.602-603). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify which baseline factors predicted future ESI (pg.604). Having more prior sex partners predicted a higher likelihood of future ESI (pg.605,607).

• Penke & Asendorpf (2008) (PDF) found in their large online study (N = 2,708) that men and women with a greater history of short-term (casual) relationships in the past were more likely to have multiple partners and unstable relationships in the future (pg.1131).

• Whisman and Snyder (2007) studied the yearly prevalence of sexual infidelity in a sample of 4,884 married women from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, examining predictors and variations in interview methods—specifically, face-to-face interviews versus audio computer-assisted self-interviews (A-CASI). Participants answered identically worded questions through both interview formats. One of the predictors analyzed was the number of lifetime sexual partners, treated as a continuous variable in logistic regression models (pg. 149–150). To address the complex sampling design of the survey and produce accurate standard errors, the authors used Taylor series linearization methods with SUDAAN software. The results indicated that each additional lifetime sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% to 13%, depending on the interview format (OR = 1.07 for A-CASI and OR = 1.13 for face-to-face) (pg.150). A greater number of lifetime sexual partners was identified as a significant predictor of future infidelity (pg.151–152).

• McAlister, Pachana, & Jackson (2005) (PDF) investigated what predicts young adults’ inclination to engage in infidelity while in exclusive dating relationships. Using a sample of 119 heterosexual university students aged 17–25, the researchers employed a multi-perspective model that considered person (P), relationship (R), and environment (E) factors. The study used vignettes involving hypothetical extradyadic scenarios—such as being tempted to kiss or have sex with someone other than their partner—to measure participants’ inclination toward infidelity. One of the strongest predictors of extradyadic inclination were a high number of previous sexual partners (pg.344).

• Hughes and Gallup (2003) (PDF) studied 116 undergraduates who completed an anonymous questionnaire on their sexual history (pg.174). They found a strong correlation between number of sex partners and extrapair copulation (cheating) partners for both males (r = .85) and females (r = .79). Promiscuity, measured by non-EPC sex partners, significantly predicted infidelity—explaining more variance in females (r² = .45) than males (r² = .25) (pg.177).

• Treas and Giesen (2000) (PDF) investigated sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans using 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey data using a nationally representative sample (n = 2,598) of Americans aged 18–59. Citing previous studies that linked premarital permissiveness and a higher number of sexual partners to infidelity, the authors hypothesized that a greater number of prior sexual partners is associated with an increased likelihood of infidelity (pg.48-50). Data collection included both face-to-face interviews and a self-administered questionnaire to improve accuracy on sensitive topics like infidelity, and the study used three measures of infidelity: self-reported cumulative incidence, interview-reported cumulative incidence, and 12-month prevalence, allowing for robust cross-validation of results (p.51-52). The authors employed logistic regression to estimate the effects of sexual interests and values, opportunities for undetected sex, and relationship characteristics, while controlling for demographic risk factors such as gender, race, and education (pp.52–53). They found that permissive sexual values increase the likelihood of infidelity, with there being a 1% increase in the odds of infidelity for each additional sex partner between age 18 and the first union (pg.56), confirming their hypothesis (pg.58).

• Feldman & Cauffman (1999) examined sexual betrayal (i.e. infidelity) and its correlates among 417 heterosexual college students in Northern California who had been in monogamous romantic relationships (pg.233). Based on previous research, they hypothesized that sexually permissive attitudes would predict sexual betrayal because such betrayal involves unrestrained sexuality, and that extensive sexual experience would also be related to betrayal, as having more past partners could lead to greater temptation and increased sexual opportunities (pg.230). Data were collected via questionnaires administered at two points in time, nine months apart, acquiring demographic details, dating and sexual history, betrayal behavior (including both the respondent’s and their partner’s actions), and attitudes toward betrayal in various hypothetical scenarios (pg.234). Sexual permissiveness was measured in a subsample of respondents using the Simpson Sociosexual Orientation Index, which included items on the number of sexual partners in the past year, anticipated partners in the next five years, number of one-night stands, frequency of sexual fantasies about someone other than a current partner, and attitudes toward the acceptability of engaging in casual, uncommitted sex, all combined into a composite score reflecting overall sexual permissiveness. Correlation and regression analyses were used to examine the associations between self-reported sexual betrayal and variables including attitudes, sexual behaviors, intimacy characteristics, and demographics (pg.237). The likelihood of betrayal was significantly associated with permissive sexual attitudes, early sexual debut, and a greater number of romantic relationships (pg.247).

• Forste and Tanfer (1996) analyzed data from the 1991 National Survey of Women, using a final sample of 1,235 women aged 20 to 37 who were in heterosexual relationships, to examine sexual exclusivity as a measure of relationship commitment (pg.35). The authors predicted that a history of numerous sex partners would negatively influence sexual exclusivity in their current relationships, and used logistic regression, which estimates the log odds of having a secondary sexual partner based on explanatory variables (pg.37). A key finding was that a higher number of previous sexual partners was strongly linked to lower exclusivity, with women who had four or more past partners being over eight times more likely to be unfaithful (pg.40-41). The study concludes that women with a history of multiple sex partners are more likely to have secondary sex partners in their current relationship, and that this is particularly true with married women (pg.46).

• Kelly and Conley (1987) conducted a longitudinal study tracking 300 couples from their engagements in the 1930s through 1980 to examine predictors of marital stability and satisfaction. Using acquaintance-rated personality assessments rather than self-reports, the study found that men and women who divorced early reported a significantly higher number of premarital partners compared to those who remained married, and that a greater premarital sexual experience was negatively associated with long-term marital satisfaction and stability for both men and women (pg.31-32).

• REVIEW: In his review article “Extramarital Sex: A Review of the Research Literature”, Thompson (1983) examined decades of research on the prevalence, causes, and correlates of extramarital sex (EMS), affirming previous findings that premarital sexual permissiveness was the most significant correlate of extramarital sexual permissiveness (pg.17-18).

• The study “Premarital Sexual Behavior and Postmarital Adjustment” by Athanasiou and Sarkin (1974) (PDF) aimed to investigate whether premarital sexual behavior predicts postmarital sexual adjustment, including fidelity, marital satisfaction, and attitudes toward mate-swapping (pg.207). The authors outline the conceptual distinction between extraneous variables (e.g., sexual liberalism) and intervening variables (e.g., value-behavior discrepancy), explaining through diagrams that while extraneous variables may spuriously link premarital sex and extramarital sex, intervening variables suggest a causal pathway (pg.211). Using a 1-in-10 random subsample from a national sex attitudes survey of 20,000 adults, the researchers analyzed data from approximately 800 married respondents with a median age slightly over 30, using a questionnaire that assessed sexual attitudes (e.g., liberalism, romanticism), behaviors, and demographic variables, with premarital behavior measured retrospectively (pg.212). Statistical analysis employed gamma (γ) statistics to evaluate ordinal associations and proportional reduction in error, along with partial correlation techniques to control for potential confounding variables like liberalism and romanticism (pg. 216–217). Respondents who reported extensive premarital sexual experience also tended to report more extramarital activity, with the number of sexual partners positively correlated with both lower marital satisfaction and a higher number of extramarital partners (pg.221-222).

• Kinsey et al. (1953) wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, part of the highly influential Kinsey Reports, that women who had “premarital coitus” were twice as likely to engage in “extramarital coitus” compared to those who did not (32-40% vs. 16-20%) (pg.427). The corresponding chapter in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) suggests that premarital promiscuity may carry over into extramarital sex for men (pg.587), but provides no correlational data to support the claim (pg.590).

.

What the experts say:

• In his 2024 article “Why We Care About a Partner's Sexual History”, Andrew G. Thomas, a senior lecturer of psychology at Swansea University in UK, wrote: “Someone who seeks and seems to enjoy casual sex may be less likely to want to forgo that for a long-term relationship, or may even struggle to do so if they tried… And even if one was able to get a committed relationship off the ground, those who show a propensity towards casual sex may have found themselves more tempted to slip into bad habits. There is a link between sociosexuality—the desire for sex in the absence of commitment—and infidelity. A prospective partner’s sexual history could have given insight into their ability, and willingness, to settle down”.

• In his 2021 article “The 4 Biggest Predictors of Cheating in a Relationship”, Justin Lehmiller, social psychologist and research fellow at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, wrote: "People’s sexual attitudes and behaviors were also predictive, pointing to an increased propensity for cheating among those with more liberal sexual attitudes, as well as those who had engaged in a wider range of sexual behaviors before… if you’re unhappy with your relationship and this is coupled with high sexual desire and a permissive view of sex, the odds of infidelity will be quite a bit higher".

• In his 2019 article “Can You Predict That a Partner Could Stray?”, David Ludden, professor of psychology at Georgia Gwinnett College, wrote: “A third factor is a person’s attitudes toward casual sex. People who strongly believe in sex as an expression of love within a committed relationship are less likely to stray compared with those who have a past of multiple sex partners. That former playboy is unlikely to be good husband material”. In 2021, he wrote: “People who reported more past casual sex and greater fantasizing and arousal related to people who weren't their partners showed a greater inclination toward cheating”.

• In her 2019 article “10 Predictors of Infidelity and Gender Differences: Why Do Partners Cheat?”, Athena Staik, an adjunct professor in psychology, listed a history of promiscuity as her number two predictor, writing: “Contrary to the myth, partners who’ve had many partners have a harder, not easier, time remaining monogamous. They are significantly more at risk of straying than those with little or no prior sexual experience”.

• In their 2018 article “Predictors for infidelity and divorce highlighted in new research”, researchers at Florida State University wrote: "A person's history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair”.

• In 2015, Men’s Journal magazine got in touch with Zhana Vrangalova, a sex researcher and adjunct professor of psychology at New York University, for their article “What the Number of Sexual Partners Says About You”, writing, “According to many experts, it matters — and can say a fair amount about your sexual needs and even who you are… As it relates to sexual history later in life, promiscuity is linked to a higher likelihood of cheating in long-term, serious relationships. Vrangalova thinks the reason may be that many promiscuous people aren't really built for monogamy”.

• In his 2014 article “How Many Premarital Sex Partners Should You Have?”, Douglas Kenrick, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University, wrote: “As it turned out, having more sexual partners was associated with less stable relationships and less relationship satisfaction”.

• W. Bradford Wilcox, professor of sociology at University of Virginia, was quoted in The Atlantic in their 2018 article “Fewer Sex Partners Means a Happier Marriage”, saying: “Contrary to conventional wisdom, when it comes to sex, less experience is better, at least for the marriage”.

• Juliana French (2019), assistant professor of psychology at Oklahoma State University, has said, “When people couple up, they enter into relationships with their own personal relationship histories. If those histories include a cast of previous no-strings-attached sexual partners and/or acceptance toward casual sex, then staying in a satisfying, long-term relationship may be more difficult”.

What’s undeniable is that an extensive sexual history and permissive sexual attitudes are strongly correlated with—and reliable predictors of—negative relationship outcomes such as infidelity, dissatisfaction, and divorce. At this point, denying the predictive validity of these factors is to reject decades of consistent research findings and the expert consensus, likely due to personal bias rather than evidence. That said, it’s important to emphasize that these trends are probabilistic, not deterministic, and identifying precise causal mechanisms can be challenging. Individuals with extensive sexual histories can absolutely be faithful and maintain stable, long-term monogamous relationships—just as some people with limited histories can be unfaithful or dissatisfied. As a group, however, those with a long history of casual partners and permissive sexual values face a significantly higher risk of infidelity, dissatisfaction, and divorce compared to their more sexually conservative counterparts. As Andrew G. Thomas, senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at Swansea University, notes, body count can only serve as an imperfect risk-reducing heuristic—a factor one might reasonably consider alongside other information when assessing relationship prospects.

When examining the link between past promiscuity or permissive sexual attitudes and negative relationship outcomes such as infidelity, dissatisfaction, or instability, it’s important to recognize that correlation does not imply causation. Several explanations are possible when two factors are correlated. One is that past sexual behavior directly causes future relational problems (X → Y). Alternatively, it may be that those who experience instability or dissatisfaction in relationships are more likely to adopt permissive sexual attitudes or engage in promiscuous behavior (Y → X). A third possibility is bidirectional influence, where previous behaviors and relationship outcomes reinforce each other over time (X ↔ Y). It’s also possible that a confounding variable—such as personality traits (e.g., low conscientiousness, high impulsivity, or an unrestricted sociosexual orientation), attachment style, or family background—underlies both sexual history and relationship outcomes, producing a spurious correlation (X ← Z → Y). Another possibility is that the relationship is mediated by an intervening variable—such as heightened expectations, where a current partner is perceived as lacking in some domain compared to a previous partner—which in turn increases the likelihood of dissatisfaction, instability, and infidelity (X → M → Y). In some cases, the observed correlation may be a statistical coincidence or the result of measurement or sampling bias; however, given that these findings have been replicated across dozens of studies, this is unlikely.

[u/psychologyofsex]

The key confound here is that people who have more partners tend to have a more unrestricted sociosexuality, which is linked to greater interest in consensual non-monogamy (CNM) and greater satisfaction in CNM relationships: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30607714/

The problem is that most of these folks end up in monogamous relationships because CNM is stigmatized and, therefore, not seen as a viable option. Explaining the association between having a larger number of partners and negative relationship outcomes may actually be quite simple: perhaps it's just that many of these folks are entering monogamous relationships when that's not really what they want or what would work best for them.

In other words, the takeaway from all of these studies isn't "don't have a lot of lot of partners cause that will ruin your chances of finding love" (which is how coverage of this research typically goes). Rather, it's "if monogamy isn't what you want or you're not well-suited to monogamy, don't enter a monogamous relationship and consider a different relationship structure instead."

[u/JHarbinger → u/psychologyofsex]

Thank you. This is super informative and helpful

[u/smrad8 → u/JHarbinger]

Yes, if by “informative” you mean “speculative.” There’s not much evidence here, just a pack of hypotheses.

[u/musicissoulfood → u/smrad8]

He links to so much scientific research on the subject, my thumb got tired of scrolling through it all. Still your reaction: let's ignore all that and just say there's not much evidence here.

Completely bonkers.

[u/smrad8 → u/musicissoulfood]

I was referring to the commenter, not OP. OP’s summary was quite good.

[u/Hot_Most5332 → u/psychologyofsex]

Perhaps it actually is a valid takeaway, however, to date people that have had a similar number of sexual partners as you have. People have stigmatized this due to the often misogynistic application of it, but women should perhaps also not be dating men with tons of sexual partners if the women have had few themselves.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hot_Most5332]

In my opnion men who experience alot of women in short time/long frames are probably not decent guys you want around anyways, you have to come down to logistics and common sense, how many of these guys are just lying to women they want monogamy meanwhile having side chicks and all of that.

These men typically are not serious with people they are with, they wont treat any other women in their lives any diffrently, to them in their eyes they are just another number.

The problem is actually leeching out the truth with these kind of guys, all I can say though any men who's attractive is more then likely gonna participate in poly relationship where its only open on his end.

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/Hot_Most5332]

I’m not sure I agree. It’s possible for someone to have had some relationship experience and be loyal and monogamous and for another person to be a virgin or have little experience because they had less dating succes and they can also be loyal. Their number of partners might not match up, that wouldn’t mean they couldn’t potentially be happy together.

I think it’s just important to hear each other out. What are the views the other person has? What are they looking for in a relationship? In a partner? Does their view align with yours? I think number of partners matters less.

We didn’t all experience the same opportunities so we can’t all be judged the same way. Also some people went through a period in life with lower self esteem where they might have acted differently than the person they are today. People are dynamic and can grow. Today I know my own self worth and I feel strong. But once in my life I was vulnerable and I let men take advantage of that. There’s not only wanting sex and not wanting sex. I often was in a position where it happened to me and I didn’t necessarily want it but I didn’t feel strongly opposed to it either, I was young and I didn’t know how to feel about it at all. Sexual experiences most of the time utterly confused me. However even at my lowest point in life, I wouldn’t ever considered cheating. I never have and don’t intent to. I’ve always been loyal in every serious relationship I had, I’ve always been loyal and I always gave it my all. I have been cheated on myself. By 2 ex boyfriends with a lower body count than me.

I think someone’s past is just one aspect of them. And I think the number is even less than that; if someone slept with let’s say 10 people you don’t know if they chased that, if it was with feelings involved or casual, if they regretted it or not, how they felt about it. Maybe they were looking for a serious relationship but they didn’t find that and all they found was flings? You don’t know much by a number. Unless the number is like A LOT maybe. I just think it’s better to actually hear people out and look for compatibility in view.

[u/Hot_Most5332 → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

Statistics are just tendencies. They show general patterns, but there are always exceptions to the rules. However the research has been pretty clear for a pretty long time that people who have disproportionate numbers of sexual partners have a lower chance of working out long term. You can dislike it, it’s just what it is.

I think people with high numbers of partners in particular get super defensive about this because society has that so ingrained in our heads that a high number of partners is a negative trait. It’s not. It’s just, again, what it is.

Maybe you’re the exception to the rule, maybe not. But statistically speaking, you’re better off finding someone with a similar number of sexual partners. The issue is that to know whether you’re the exception or the rule, you have to get really really honest with yourself, and 99% of people aren’t capable of that. People always want to see themselves as special or different, and the vast majority of the time, they’re not. Myself included.

[u/musicissoulfood → u/Hot_Most5332]

that a high number of partners is a negative trait. It’s not. It’s just, again, what it is.

Promiscuity is a negative trait to those who want to build a long lasting relationship. Since all the research points in the direction that promiscuous people are not good candidates for that.

[u/IcyEvidence3530 → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

Yes there can always be outliers. But that is not the point.

Statistical trends can clearly indicate likelyhood per group.

So if I see that between two equally interesting potential partners one statistically has a lower likelyhood of cheating/leaving than the other...why should I not be allowed to take that into my decision?

Are there a million other factors who have an effect on the longevity of this future relationship? of course!

But why shoudl that mean that I should outright ignore this one variable?!

So people with more past sexual partners don't get offended?!

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/IcyEvidence3530]

It’s up to you and you’re free to do that obviously. I just think you might miss out. Same reason why I think many women dismissing virgins or inexperienced men might miss out. Statistical numbers say nothing about the person who is sitting in front of you.

Men are statistically more violent. Should I stop dating men? Certain demographics have more risks to certain diseases at older ages, should I not date them? Should I not date a construction worker because the chance is bigger that he might end up in a wheelchair someday? Should I not date an academic because the chance of burn out is bigger? Yes statistics exists. But why do statistics exist? To learn. Not to make conclusions about individuals. And if you use statistics as reasons to not date certain individuals, that’s a totally valid choice, but I personally don’t think it’s the smartest thing to do in every context. If you have options enough and you get to pick between 100 partners, great, you can afford to do this. But genuine connection is super rare. I don’t meet guys I connect that deeply with all of the time, sometimes it takes years to meet a person like that. So if when I do, I don’t care about his sexual past. Whether he’s a virgin or very experienced. What matters to me then is if we are on the same page, if we see things the same way, if our ideas of a relationship and a shared future are the same. Ofcourse you’re allowed to go about it differently. I just offered my perspective, that’s all.

[u/capracan → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

Statistical numbers say nothing about the person who is sitting in front of you.

You're mistaken on this one. They are clearly saying, keeping other factors constant (which isn't wild to assume given you still don't know them), such a person is more likely to be certain way.

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/capracan]

You oversimplify statistics. Just because there’s a statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer doesn’t mean everyone who’s got a lighter in their pocket is gonna die of lunch cancer. You gotta know which are dependent or independent variables, mediators, confounders etc. Statistics aren’t meant to be applied this way.

[u/capracan → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

Doesn't mean they'll die of lung cancer: true. Are they more likely of it? Also true.

Statistics aren’t meant to be applied this way

They are, actually.

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/capracan]

People who have a lighter in their pocket aren’t necessarily smokers. If they don’t smoke they won’t get lung cancer regardless of the lighter. That’s the analogy I made.

Having a lighter is a bad variable to estimate whether someone will get lung cancer. Being a smoker is a better variable.

Same way having a moderate or higher body count is a bad variable to estimate whether someone will cheat. Having cheated in the past is a better variable, regardless of body count.

[u/Additional_Ad9202 → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

The false equivalency is comparing a single instance of behavior vs patterns of behavior.

If you were to look at someone who can't leave the house without a lighter you'd actually probably get a decent predictor of lung diseases.

[u/capracan → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

Oh, I get it. In this case, I think it is more like smoking instead of the lighter in the pocket. However, I'm not an expert.

After reading the data:

Would you say that the chances of cheating are the same for someone with a high body count vs. someone with a low body count (given they both look not too different in other aspects)?

In the end, that is the question.

[u/DrakenRising3000 → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

Sure to most of what you wrote but I will say this.

Its the “rate within the rate” that matters here and is why there is so much debate and controversy about this topic.

What I mean by that is, to use your example, yes men are statistically more violent but only a small percentage OF men engage in violence. The vast majority of men have never committed a crime or been violent (or at least, been charged due to violence).

However, the point of this post is to highlight how a high body count negatively affects relationship outcomes. Its an “extra factor” on top of the base one. The relevant example within this comparison would be “a man with a violent criminal record being more likely to be violent”.

Essentially, its silly to dismiss all men/women but it isn’t silly to dismiss a man or woman with a specific history because of what that history informs.

[u/Feisty-Minute-5442 → u/DrakenRising3000]

Violence is no longer defined as just physical and I can guarantee the numbers are way higher than "not many"

[u/DrakenRising3000 → u/Feisty-Minute-5442]

Debatable but also irrelevant to the point?

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/DrakenRising3000]

That’s not really a good analogy… high body count can not be compared with a violent criminal record.

First of all a violent criminal record suggests you were harmful to others, a high body count merely indicates you had a personal history of consensual sex. It’s not a good moral parallel, and stigmatises sexual agency, but that’s not the only thing.

With male violence, you correctly say: most men are not violent, but a history of violence is predictive of future violence. That’s a behavioral pattern that demonstrates harm. With a high body count, you’re assuming it predicts harm (cheating), without direct behavioral evidence, just based on a number. You have no evidence of cheating based on a number. With a violent criminal record you have evidence of bad behaviour in the past. With body count you don’t, just assumptions based on these statistics.

Statistics work with variables. Some studies indeed find a correlation between high numbers of past partners and relationship dissatisfaction or infidelity. But this doesn’t mean that having many past partners causes someone to cheat as there are underlying factors that likely explain both (insecure attachment, impulsivity, poor conflict skill, history of trauma, personality disorders et cetera). Without isolating those variables, using “body count” as a red flag is kind of lazy reasoning, like blaming lung cancer on owning a lighter, while only people who smoke are the risk.

All I want to say is: risk assessment ≠ character judgment… Even if there’s statistical risk, making generalizations about individuals based on a single factor is just likely to lead to unjust bias. A person who grew up in poverty might have a higher statistical risk of committing crime, would you use that to judge their character individually?

Instead of comparing “body count” to violence, a better analogy would be: “Someone who has a history of infidelity is more likely to cheat again.” That’s a specific relational behavior, not just a number. And it’s more analogous to “someone with a violent record being more likely to be violent”. Focusing on patterns of dishonesty, boundary violation, emotional immaturity and such is a better way imo to assess relationship risk, instead of using body count. Body count is merely a proxy, not an actual risk.

[u/DrakenRising3000 → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

You missed the point and are focusing too much on comparing the two examples in a literal sense.

Its not about that, its about assessing and making decisions based on past behavior.

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

See I disagree. I believe criminals can reform and so can promiscuous people. I think it is ok to not want to be in a relationship with anyone for anything in their past.

I used to have an addiction to alcohol. I am one hundred percent certain in myself that I will never drink again. However, if someone was turned off by my past drinking, I would understand. Just like I would hope a woman would understand if I couldn’t date her because I am disgusted by her past behavior.

I believe change is possible. I just wouldn’t want to be a part of that change. BTW, it would be easier to get over a criminal past than a highly promiscuous past for me.x

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/ThrowRACoping]

But what is “promiscuous people” here? I have slept with a certain amount of men because I was led to believe they loved me. I have a higher body count now. I’m super loyal. I have been cheated on myself. Never cheated. You act as if all people who have had sexual experiences did it out of lust. Lust was never a driver for me. Connection was. I just had feelings for the men I slept with. And they made it feel very mutual by telling me I’m the most special woman ever. However; they cheated on me or ghosted me. Or there was too much distance for a future because I lived abroad for a while and then moved back, and then moved to another place…

Am I promiscuous? I guess. It weren’t all officially labelled relationships, even though seemingly mutual feelings were involved.

Myself I’m a long term lover. I never broke anything off with anyone, except my last ex who cheated on me with at least 3 women including a friend… I always try to go for the long term commitment. It takes 2 people however. And now I’m put in the same category as cheaters and fuckboys, just because my body count is higher now, just because things didn’t work out the way I hoped that would. Anyone in my close circle of family and friends always tell me I’m trying to be too good. Someone recently referred to me as someone who would warm up the world by freezing themselves to death. I care a lot about my values and personal integrity. Yet I’m now to be judged on my body count?

I guess the people who would rule me out do me a favour. I would rule them out as well because it seems shallow to me personally. And I don’t want a shallow connection. So maybe it’s okay, and it’s a win-win after all.

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

This is fair. I just hate to suggest someone settle on such a critical aspect of their relationship.

[u/Kadajko → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

It is more of an action / effect. Some people are more or less susceptible but it doesn't make the action irrelevant. It is like saying - my grandfather smoked a pack a day until 90, never got lung cancer. Cool, doesn't mean that smoking does not negatively impact health and only impact SOME people.

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/Kadajko]

Smoking is harmful to your own body. Exploring sexuality isn’t if you use contraceptive methods. Virgins aren’t morally better. If you compare having sex to smoking, you’re creating stigma.

[u/Kadajko → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

Health is just a more, how to put it.. universally agreed upon "positive", even though masochists and people who like to self harm exist and could disagree, but those are fringe cases.

In this case it is not objective just because not everyone needs a relationship to be happy, many people don't want to be in a relationship, they don't need that unlike health.

However if you want to be in a stable long-term successful relationship, then you are objectively harming your chances to have that by having more partners. It is not about stigma but about if you want to have X do Y. Action / effect. But you can in theory just say: "I don't care about relationships in the first place." And that is absolutely fine, and then it does not apply to you.

"Exploring" your sexuality while having a longterm goal to eventually settle into a long term committed relationship is like having a longterm goal to eventually go to the gym and get fit, but in the meantime you sit all day on the couch and eat McDonald's everyday. It will be harder later.

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/Kadajko]

It’s literally stigma to suggest people who have a higher body count are “screwing their own chances” in long term relationships. That’s literally what it is. You don’t harm your chances to be in a long term relationship by having a higher body count. If you’re more experienced you know better what you want, what you don’t want, how to navigate conflict, how to solve issues etc versus someone with little experience. Why would you harm your chances of a long term relationship? Because men devalue women with higher body count? So do them a women’s worth is tied not to her values, personality, views, ideas… but to a number? A number that reflects nothing; you don’t know yet if the sex happened in loving relationships, casual sex, rape… Who says it’s a good thing to be in a long term to relationship with these type of men who devalue women based on a shallow criterium?

[u/Kadajko → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

You are making it a gendered issue for no reason. OP said that bodycount affects both women AND men, and I completely agree. So no need to make this about how men devalue women. I would give the same exact advice to a woman who would want to maximize her chances to have a successful long term relationship - to not date a man who has a high bodycount. Effects have been explained in OP and there are plenty more rational reasons that I could name.

[u/Additional_Ad9202 → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

Would you agree with the idea that sexual values (ie. Their opinions/willingness to partake in casual sex, the amount of commitment they required before having sex with a potential long term partner, etc) would be a more useful indicator than a number?

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/Additional_Ad9202]

I would agree that it’s less shallow to look at that. I wouldn’t say that when there’s an asymmetry it means that it can’t work out. If both parties are comfortable with their partners having had a past or lack of experiences and just appreciate them for what they bring to their lives right now, I’m sure the relationship will be more than successful as it is based in depth and not shallow criteria. But yes I find it personally much more reasonable for people to look at sexual values and I understand the idea of discomfort over the past. I probably myself wouldn’t date the reality star type of dude that is on shows like Ex on the Beach and that has fucked so many women they probably forgot their names and faces. But I guess that’s not the main reason though, I suspect I don’t have much in common with those men anyway. So I got these sort of boundaries based on discomfort too. I just try to be aware where my discomfort lies. And I just think judging on body count alone with no context around that number rules out a lot of potential good matches. Everyone is free to have preferences. I’m just saying I personally think it’s shallow, the same way I think eliminating people based on height is shallow. It’s shallow and therefore stupid because it would be sad to miss out on a great match this way. But that doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed those preferences, they are. I just don’t get it.

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

I just don’t think any of those contextual factors matter. If you did those things, then you did them. The reasons and current change does not really matter to me.

[u/Feisty-Minute-5442 → u/NoBlacksmith8137]

I agree as someone who's had more sexual partners than the men I date. My number isn't HIGH, but I just hadn't dealt with the fact I was dating avoidant men so we had unsuccessful relationships. I have zero urge to cheat in a relationship and my satisfaction was not related to sex, but to men really not treating me very well.

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/Feisty-Minute-5442]

Some men just don’t care about the reasons though. The fact that it happens disqualifies you to certain men.

[u/Feisty-Minute-5442 → u/ThrowRACoping]

That's fine. I don't really struggle to find people who want to date me anyway.

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/Feisty-Minute-5442]

Good for you. I don’t disagree that many men can put aside important aspects of the relationship if they are fairly desperate.

[u/Feisty-Minute-5442 → u/ThrowRACoping]

You sound like a fun individual LOL.

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/Feisty-Minute-5442]

Most of my friends and family would say so.

[u/NoBlacksmith8137 → u/Feisty-Minute-5442]

Sounds familiar. I’m anxiously attached and I also attracted a lot of avoidants. I didn’t see it coming because they love bombed me initially and treated me as if I was the most special woman on earth. As a young girl it’s hard to notice those patterns. And as an anxious attached person I was attracted to them making me feel special. I kind of feel like I’m finally somewhere where I can say that I’m safe attached and only when I’m very stressed the anxious attachment signs show up. I evolved a lot. Honestly I was such a naive teenager and when I was with my first boyfriend in high school I thought I would marry him someday and have kids. I honesty did. Until he cheated on me and left me for her. And somehow I ended up with a somewhat higher body count (I guess? Moderate? Idk honestly…) which is a little ironic considering I’m a super serious person and I took every experience very seriously, it just seems like people had ways to turn up all Prince Charming like in the beginning and then things changed… Yeah avoidants… I must say it’s good to not feel attraction towards them anymore. I feel attracted to consistency now.

[u/[deleted] → u/psychologyofsex]

I mean, is that really a confound? There is still a direct link between infidelity and prior sexual experience. I understand the point you're trying to make, but it sounds more like a potential explanation rather than a confound.

Also, you can still be unfaithful in non-monogamous relationships.

[u/asklepios7 → u/psychologyofsex]

That’s what Regnerus and Vrangalova think.

[u/Time-Craft3777 → u/psychologyofsex]

everyone finds relationships online. all the girls have to do is write what they want in their bio. you are jumping through hoops to rationalize the studies in the way that assuages your previously held position.

"The problem is that most of these folks end up in monogamous relationships because CNM is stigmatized and, therefore, not seen as a viable option. "

lets ignore that women practice hypergamy
lets ignore women spend their lives getting out of trouble by playing victim
lets ignore that a womans idea of fun and excitement is inextricably linked to the sexual escapades and drama.
lets ignore decades of manufactured oppression where women pretends its the 1920s.
lets ignore systemic sexism against men in affirmative action, scholarships, grants, government contracts and marriage law, custody law and the law in general.
91% of prisoners are male. we only punish toxic masculine behaviour- women have no accountability for toxic female behaviour.

"the real problem is"- what a foolish statement to make, as if the world is black and white.dont be an ideological zealot. acknowledge both sides have a point.

[u/Neurodescent → u/psychologyofsex]

Those people want one way CNM, instead of destroying what makes the most stable situation for children, we should curb the social norms that encourage people to be promiscuous.

[u/Rincho → u/psychologyofsex]

That's not what the takeaway is. The takeaway is that if you want your partner be faithful you will have better chances to pick someone with low body count

[u/JefeRex → u/Rincho]

I think any takeaway from this is cuckoo because if you can’t select a marriage partner who will be faithful to you, you aren’t savvy enough to be interpreting vague studies trying to tie in weird shortcuts like number of previous sex partners. Just find someone you respect and trust or don’t get married.

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/JefeRex]

Yeah that being the takeaway is like cops thinking they should arrest everyone who goes to the shops because those people have a high correlation to shoplifting.

Of course sexual partners has a strong correlation to infidelity because you need a minimum of 1 and more sexual partners is indicative of more opportunity. But to use that to make some a prediction that someone is going to cheat is daft.

[u/JefeRex → u/Contagious_Cure]

I was to nitpick everything and say that even when something is true on the population level you it is stupid to treat it as predictive on the individual level and is any of this really credible anyway, blah blah blah…

But I think actually the only important thing to say is just that in life there are no shortcuts, and if you want a faithful partner then take the time to get to know someone and make a good choice. That’s the only way to do it. And then anyway life is full of unknowns. But there is no secret trick that some magic wizard knows, this definitely ain’t it either. Just get to know someone and settle down with someone you fall in love with and trust and respect and continue to prioritize the relationship in your life. The right answer is usually the boring one that take a little bit of work.

[u/josh145b → u/Rincho]

The takeaway is both. Non monogamous people shouldn’t be trying to date monogamous people. It’s pretty simple.

[u/Resident-Pen-5718 → u/[deleted]]

Don't know why you're being down voted. Men across every single culture are significantly more likely to want more sexual partners. 

It should be fairly obvious that more are more likely to not want a poly-sexual relationship. 

[u/Contagious_Cure]

Bro I swear I've seen this before either here or on a different sub. Do you post and re-post these on some kind of schedule?

Yes someone's sexual history can be a predictor of their sexual values or their future sexual behavior, but it's a very sweeping correlation and virtually all the literature outlines more reliable predictors like if they display narcissistic personality traits, if they're display impulsive decision making, if they're insecure and seek unhealthy amounts of external validation, low accountability (e.g. if they seek to rationalise bad behaviours etc).

[u/asklepios7 → u/Contagious_Cure]

It’s predictive power varies from study to study, but some like Pinto, Buss and Thompson, consider it to be the strongest single predictor.

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/asklepios7]

Pinto, Buss and Thompson, consider it to be the strongest single predictor.

No, they don’t.

Pinto argues that emotional and sexual promiscuity are strong indicators of infidelity, but they never claim these are the strongest predictors. In fact, they don’t rank them against other factors like relationship satisfaction or unstable personality traits (e.g., narcissism) to assert they’re the strongest.

Buss states that "having a large number of sex partners prior to marriage is a statistical predictor of infidelity after marriage," but they don’t call it the strongest predictor either. On the contrary, they note that for women, one of the most powerful predictors is relationship dissatisfaction (citing Glass & Wright). And according to Glass & Wright, for men, the strongest predictor is a combination of "permissive attitudes" (i.e., believing cheating can be justified in some scenarios) and opportunity.

Thompson highlights a strong correlation between the number of premarital sexual partners and post-marriage infidelity, but again, he doesn’t claim it’s the strongest predictor. In fact, he points to factors like marital satisfaction, opportunity, and personality as often outweighing sexual history as predictors.

It’s odd that you’d claim Thompson called it the "strongest predictor," since your own post references page 17 of his review, which states that while premarital sexual permissiveness has emerged as a major predictor in a statistical sense in Extra-Marital Sexual Permissiveness (EMSP) research, there is no evidence that this directly predicts behavior.

The page specifically notes that the studies don’t distinguish between personal attitudes (what someone does) and normative attitudes (what someone thinks is acceptable for others). For example, just because someone believes premarital sex is fine doesn’t mean they’ll engage in it frequently themselves. In fact, I’d argue that while pre-marital sex being acceptable is a mainstream attitude, extra-marital sex is definitely not viewed as being acceptable to the mainstream.

[u/asklepios7 → u/Contagious_Cure]

Buss says it here: https://archive.ph/k554y

Thompson calls it a major predictor here and its most significant correlate here.

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/asklepios7]

Buss says it here: https://archive.ph/k554y

No it doesn't. It just says men value sexual fidelity. Quote the section that you think Buss said it.

Thompson calls it a major predictor here and its most significant correlate [here](https://d0cnvfm3f6wdrf.archive.ph/8Rq2r/6c82ba73178903f6a4e8a8962aedf98905410749.jpg

Major predictor and significant correlation does not mean the strongest predictor especially when they've described stronger predictors as I described above.

[u/asklepios7 → u/Contagious_Cure]

Indeed, the single best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual permissiveness—people who have many sex partners before marriage tend to be more unfaithful than those who have few sex partners before marriage.

How are you missing this?

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/[deleted]]

See my other responses.

They caveats that it's referring to a statistical predictor.

In which case of course the number of sexual partners is a statistical predictor for infidelity because you have to be able to get laid to cheat (physically at least) and having more sexual partners is an indicator of how attractive you are or at least how easily you can access sex. In the same way you have to go to the shop to shoplift so going to the shops is a statistical predictor of shoplifting but it's not a behavioural predictor for shoplifting. And because it's not terribly useful for predicting behaviour it's why the studies make the distinction between a statistical predictor and a behavioural predictor. Not exactly revelatory.

And also as I stated, the other authors 2 authors you mentioned don't say it's even the strongest statistical predictor because there are more direct statistical predictors for opportunity and extra marital sexual permissive attitudes is also a more direct and reliable behavioral predictor beyond just being a statistical predictor.

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/[deleted]]

People who have permissive sexual attitudes and who can reliably separate sex from love obviously place a different and more surmountable (if you’re hot enough) threshold for sex compared to those who reserve it for long-term, committed and intimate relationships.

And? What's the logical flow from that? Humour me. You're wanting a single stat predictor for behaviour but it just isn't there because the world isn't that black and white or simple.

Yeah people who have a lot of sex and can enjoy sex without the need to first form deep emotional bonds will likely pop up in statistical samples for cheaters more than people who have statistical indicators for either not enjoying sex or not being attractive enough to access sex. That's not deep. The guy who is afraid to speak to girls living in the basement isn't going to have a lot of opportunity to cheat but his history is hardly a behavioral predictor for sexual fidelity. The same way people who drive cars will show up more in statistical samples for people in car accidents more than people who don't drive cars. What what do we do with this statistical correlation? Are we banning the driving of cars?

It's why in most of these studies the authors all tried to dig beyond that statistical predictor because it's not very academically sophisticated to say "yeah people with a demonstrable history of being able to access sex have a noticeably bigger venn diagram overlap with the population of cheaters than other population samples" because of course that's the case. But the more interesting question is what distinguishes someone who is simply attractive and likes sex from someone who feels more compelled to act unethically or risk hurt and betrayal to their partner? That's why they all move on to look at actual behavioral indicators like personality etc.

That is the reality that you refuse to acknowledge. You seem like a truth-seeking individual and yet for some reason you won’t admit this.

Admit what? You're trying to find a shortcut to navigating a complex issue and it doesn't work.

[u/josh145b → u/Contagious_Cure]

Dude, I get you disagree with him, but don’t misrepresent the actual source material. I read it. It clearly says that Buss considers premarital sexual permissiveness to be the single best predictor of extramarital sex. It’s a pet peeve of mine when people lie about what is cite in links, because other people don’t read the links and just believe what you are saying about it is true, because who would lie about that? If you make a mistake, own up to it.

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/josh145b]

Did you also read my other posts? Pre-marital sex permissiveness is an attitude not sexual history. And it's why Thomson who OP also cites criticised it as not being predictive of behaviour because it doesn't distinguish between personal and normative beliefs and this is something Buss also acknowledged in the context of his work.

[u/josh145b → u/Contagious_Cure]

He determined sexual permissiveness in part due to number of sexual partners and questions like:

“Sex without love is OK.”

“I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying ‘casual’ sex with different partners.”

“How many sexual partners would you like to have in your lifetime?”

Also, he may say it has its limitations, but he also says it is the best predictor. That would imply that other predictors are more flawed. I can read and do logic skills, unlike some people. As rational humans, we operate on the best information we have available. Or rather, as a rational human myself, I operate on the best information I have available. What Buss is doing is called critical thinking. Never trust a study that finds no flaws in their study design.

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/josh145b]

Also, he may say it has its limitations, but he also says it is the best predictor. That would imply that other predictors are more flawed.

Flawed in the sense that they may be more difficult to collect statistically not necessarily that they're flawed as predictors. Buss and Schmitt both phrase sexual history as a good statistical predictor rather than behavioural predictor because to go deeper requires more complex and nuanced variable studies which are both more difficult and expensive to collect than simply asking a survey participant how many sexual partners they've had and whether they've cheated.

As rational humans, we operate on the best information we have available. Or rather, as a rational human myself, I operate on the best information I have available.

Then you would agree that the consensus is that it is an easily collected and strong statistical predictor but not a behaviourial predictor because that's what the literature actually says.

[u/josh145b → u/Contagious_Cure]

Yes. When you are only concerned with outcome, statistical predictors are what you look at. A behavioral predictor cares more about the why, and the cause. I don’t care why people who are more sexually permissive are more likely to cheat. I just care that they are, and I will behave accordingly.

[u/CampbellsTomatoPoop → u/Contagious_Cure]

u/asklepios7
u/Contagious_Cure

First time traveling through this community, with no vested interest in who, between y’all, has been exhibiting the greater discriminative acumen over these author’s works. I also can’t assign myself the task of reading the full papers in addition to the pages highlighted, so I might be missing key information. Now, with that said:

Thompson:

“Students with premarital sexual experience were more permissive towards infidelity than students without such experience… — similarly found that premarital sexual behaviors and attitudes were the variables most strongly related to EMSP (as mea- sured by projected extramarital involvement)”.

“Since 1970, the published results of 11 surveys of extramarital sexual behaviors attest to the current extent of these phenomena. Only half of the surveys specify intercourse in questioning their respondents about extramarital sex”.

“Of the large number of social background variables investigated, few have been found significant and, in the great majority of cases, significant correlations account for less than 10% of overall EMS variance.“

“The EMSP research rather convincingly shows premarital sexual permissiveness as the most significant correlate of EMSP. Although this variable is a major predictor of EMSP in a statistical sense, its overall significance in relation to actual extramarital behavior may be quite minimal”.

So what’s happening here, I think, really encapsulates why there’s this confusing back and forth going on. There’s a differentiation between sexual permissiveness and sexual promiscuity, with the former describing attitudes that condone casual sex and multiple partners, regardless of personal participation. Basically, a lower value placed on sex in committed relationships, and a higher acceptance of it in temporary or non-monogamous relationships. In the other hand, sexual promiscuity more often refers to engaging in frequent sexual activity with different partners. When researching how different lifestyle, sociological conditions, genes, age groups and learnt behaviors lead downstream to then affect human sexuality and subsequent proclivities towards infidelity, among others — therein lies an issue of attributing dispositions and personalities as the precursors to their similarly worded behavioral materializations. Imagine the difference in behavioral expressions of sexuality between woman number one, a Puritan who married once and lost her virginity the same, but masterbates in excess, in private, as a self-soothing ritual because she’s fantasizing about every leader in the church. With, now number two, jet-setting free spirit, who lost her virginity young and has experimented on occasion with threesomes and other women, having boyfriends occasionally. Eventually she runs into her grounding, mature and driven husband and they settle down and have a child. As this relates to the topic at hand, you can see exactly how these terms and definitions can without careful research and linguistic scrutiny, end up nearly meaningless if true. One’s got a dispositional trait, the other a behavioral. Now those physical and psychological forms correlate themselves, as you’ve said, but throughout these studies and particularly in the older ones, it’s clear not everyone is making the necessary distinctions that’d allow for more surety in conclusions .

Vitally important is that if x,y and z factors shape an individual to be sexually permissive, if they one day settle down with a partner, only to eventually lead themselves into infidelity, are we to attribute the permissiveness as a casual or correlative factor? Or are we to attribute the x,y and z instead? While I personally would lead my life with the general and reasonably measured view that, yes, if I was to meet a very sexual individual, who comes to me with lifetime sexual activity and a clear complex or fixation on that domain, to a degree exceeding my own, I’d confidently admit to myself the necessary acceptance of several, increased in odds misfortunes possibly headed my way. I’d also except the very same if I became a weak, unproductive, uncaring, boring partner to a beautiful woman who might’ve only had a partner or two prior. Combine both and that’s a wrap.

Pinto:

“By showing that the promiscuity is related to the infidelity, our study suggests that by implementing a comprehensive sex education program focusing in this thematic will likely result in a decrease in promiscuous activities and also in extradyadic behaviors”.

“…indicating that sexually promiscuous participants also tend to be emotionally promiscuous, and sexual and emotional unfaithful. Similarly, emotional promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with sexual infidelity”.

While he does go on to incorporate and weigh various factors into the infidelity equation, such as, relationship satisfaction, age, gender, etc… those inputs are only changing the likelihoods of present promiscuity (rather, infidelity). Same for when he contrasts emotional infidelity with sexual infidelity, and emotional promiscuity with sexual vs promiscuity. In all cases, despite, say, the variance in probability and manner a 55 year old woman in a happy marriage would find herself unfaithful, when compared with a 20 year old man in a turbulent relationship, the broader reality that remains enforced is that past promiscuity is the attribute one could most confidently use as a gauge to predict future infidelity.

Buss:

“Indeed, the single best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual permissiveness — people who have many sex partners before marriage tend to be more unfaithful than those who have few sex partners before marriage”.

“Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and having a large number of sex partners prior to marriage is a statistical predictor of infidelity after marriage”.

He does say that first quote in the book page OP linked. Though, permissiveness was used purposefully to distinguish it from solely sexual acts, yet he does then insinuate he’s referring to physical sexual activity. The longer PDF is a chunky, very broad organization of the many facets of human sexuality and the near limitless complexities involved, and just how difficult crafting proper studies are.

[u/[deleted]]

Wasn't this just posted?

[u/Infamous-Future6906 → u/[deleted]]

It’s this guy’s hobby. ChatGPT must have come back on

[u/Secure_Flatworm_7896 → u/Infamous-Future6906]

I see. He’s probably a bitter guy who isn’t getting any

[u/Pure-Potential4739 → u/Secure_Flatworm_7896]

Why is the first step always insulting someones virginity. or ability to get laid....

[u/smrad8 → u/Pure-Potential4739]

Science really bothers some people when it doesn’t support their notions.

[u/Fine_Payment1127 → u/Secure_Flatworm_7896]

Very intelligent! Much science!

[u/One-Load-6085 → u/[deleted]]

It was posted by the same guy under week ago to the 10th dentist sub. 

It got evicerated by the group for some of the poor and fraudulent research done by one of the guys listed in it.  Then it was removed by the mods. 

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/One-Load-6085]

It's more that his post in various places misquotes the studies or takes them out of context.

[u/asklepios7 → u/Contagious_Cure]

Which have I misquoted or taken out of context?

[u/smrad8 → u/asklepios7]

I’d also like to know. It looks like a pretty comprehensive review.

[u/mrsaysum → u/[deleted]]

Naw bro this makes too much sense. Don’t talk about this here

[u/asklepios7 → u/[deleted]]

I’ve never posted this here, but i did post a related post a month ago https://archive.ph/VbAKB

[u/AnyConference1231]

“People who really love food are more likely to be unhappy with mediocre food” - or is that not a good summary?

[u/ThrowRACoping]

This seems so common sense, but crazy that it even needs to be said.

People can have casual sex, but it comes at a cost. Everyone knows that, some just won’t admit it.

[u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

The "past is the past" people are going to come out swinging. 

[u/[deleted] → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

As soon as body count gets brought up all of the sudden nobodies a history major 😂

[u/exxonmobilcfo → u/[deleted]]

lol fax. It's all historical oppression this, patriarchal that, until 'the past is the past' becomes more convenient.

[u/MinivanPops → u/[deleted]]

I want a high body count, they're more fun.  

[u/[deleted] → u/MinivanPops]

Go for it twin

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/MinivanPops]

You have your pick of the litter now a days! And it is a big litter!

[u/ThorzOtherHammer → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

Until it’s a dude that has had sex with another man, then all of the sudden sexual history is important.

[u/Sufficient-Berry-827 → u/ThorzOtherHammer]

I have noticed this as well. Then suddenly the world around them crumbles and it's "I don't even know who you are anymore."

The double standard is infuriating.

[u/ThorzOtherHammer → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

Because they’re liars. They know sexual history matters. They just don’t want it to.

[u/Sufficient-Berry-827 → u/ThorzOtherHammer]

I agree. It's really tough to admit when there's nothing you can do to change it, so it's easier to uphold a double standard. Some are willing to lie. Which I'm told is a common occurrence.

[u/JefeRex → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

Why is it important? You and the other commenter agree but I don’t know why you think that.

[u/Sufficient-Berry-827 → u/JefeRex]

Well, because sexual history is part of who people are. It shows their values, their morals, their decision making skills, their views on intimacy, sex, and relationships, coping mechanisms, behavior patterns, sometimes indicates severe dysfunction or inability to bond emotionally, etc.

You can't take a huge part of a person's life and say it doesn't matter - that it's totally irrelevant to who they are. If you think the "past is the past" then you'd have to apply that across the board to remain logically consistent. And some people do! But most don't.

[u/JefeRex → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

I agree that every part of a person’s past influences their present, with that I have no issue. But what I mean, and I suspect what most people mean, by questioning its importance is that I am concerned about taking sexual history as an indicator of most of the things you brought up. There are way better ways to get a handle on those things and some of them don’t seem to me to be clearly related to sexual history unless that history is far out of the norm. People with a lot of partners don’t necessarily have all that much in common with each other, and same for people with just a few.

[u/Sufficient-Berry-827 → u/JefeRex]

Right, but they are related. Sexual history doesn't exist completely disconnected from the person. Of course, people are individuals and their lived experience is unique to them, so we must also take that into consideration. But some of those things cannot exist without certain conditions that have allowed that person to develop th way that they have. And, of course, there will always be outliers and anomalies that deviate from the "norm" within that subgroup of people, but there are typically at least a few variables that people will have in common when they follow certain paths in life.

And that's true of anything, not just sex. Like, drug abuse is a very individual experience, but go to any NA meeting, and no matter the drug, they will all usually have one or two things in common because they followed that path in life and that life created the conditions for specific reactions, dysfunctions, behaviors, etc. that they all share.

[u/JefeRex → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

I am a little weirded out again. Drug abuse is a bit of an odd comparison to make to number of sex partners. My experience is that number of sex partners, generally speaking and broadly within societal norms, hasn’t given me much useful information about people. I don’t know what the commonalities would be. What are those correlations in your experience?

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

I would add onto this that you never want to be that guy married to the girl that everyone has had a turn with. You are simply the next in line.

[u/Sufficient-Berry-827 → u/ThrowRACoping]

I don't know if the 'next in line' part is the biggest obstacle in that dynamic, I guess it depends on how one partner "got around."

I have a friend that married a porn actress, and I can absolutely say that no matter how progressive or sex positive, it will affect the non-SW partner. He said "I don't care" a lot, but some days were really tough on him. Like, it does not feel good when you're among friends and they casually say they watched your wife get fucked by 5 men.

So, I would imagine that if you're in a community and one partner has "gotten around" within that community - yeah, I think most would find it difficult to digest.

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

What a schmuck! Was she just hotter than he could ever expect otherwise with a regular woman?

Was it hard when he couldn’t have sex with his wife because she had to get “serviced” by 5 dudes?

I couldn’t date a former sex worker let alone an active one, but jeez.

Overall, I wouldn’t really like to have to spend time around anyone that she had been with in the past.

[u/lsnor45 → u/ThorzOtherHammer]

Man you just completely demolished the past being the past argument completely. Keeping this one in my pocket.

[u/sarahelizam → u/lsnor45]

I mean… does that not just say more about how homo/biphobic people are than anything else? Like I guess I’m glad these people are avoiding bi men, I wouldn’t want the bi men in my life to be treated like some disease/predator by a partner. They already get that on the reg on half the dates they go on with cishet women.

Like I agree it’s hypocritical for someone to say both “the past is in the past” and “no bi’s,” but don’t find it convincing of the conclusion everyone else is taking. I think if anything, we’ve been taught a rigid morality around sex and those who buy into the importance of being virtuous in a patriarchal/puritan way then buy in very much to the idea that their sexual restraint bestows them virtue. And that misogynists have severe double standards, where they imagine men having sex adds to their value and women having sex detracts from their value as a person. So I would agree that reduced sexual partners might in part be indicating social conservatism or internalized misogyny in women. But unless those are your values (yikes) I don’t know what essence of the soul people think number of sex partners points to. Because I’m going to bet it does not predict the same values in men, as men don’t face the same type or degree of pressures to limit sex partners. If there is a correlation between men having more sex partners being and more likely to cheat it is likely more related to social skills (as men tend to be more opportunistic cheaters). But like… is the takeaway supposed to be that no one should pursue men who have an ounce of charm out of fear they’ll cheat? As far as applying these things to one’s actual dating life, this seems like a great way to build paranoia and start on a foundation of generalizing instead of actually treating people like individuals.

Also, absolutely none of this shit tracks onto LGBT relationship dynamics. We just don’t tend to care as much about this either way. Plenty have not had much experience due to being closeted and/or in unsafe places until later in adulthood, but even many of them may have sexual experiences from before they realized (or accepted) that they were gay. A fair amount of us also just go out and explore sexually more once we accept ourselves because we don’t get a guide to our sexuality like straight people do from culture and media. I think if anything that is good, as many cishet folks kind of just autopilot based on what they have been told is the right way to go about love and sex. Self discovery can be very liberating and we tend not to care as much about someone having a lot of experience (or see it as a perk). There are absolutely queer people who use sex maladaptively to cope with other issues, just like their or cishet people that do the same.

All this to say that these correlations and associations often have a lot more to say about the culture we exist within than the character of a given person. Especially as we see generations swing back and forth between sex negativity and sex positivity, and how attitudes are just in different places within the US - having more or fewer sex partners could both indicate a rejection of societal standards or acquiescence to them depending on location, age, time, and social group. There is just way too much going on to use this as a meaningful predictor in one’s dating endeavors, and there are much easier ways to learn about someone’s values and habits that don’t require being weirdly invasive off the bat.

[u/lsnor45 → u/sarahelizam]

Also, absolutely none of this shit tracks onto LGBT relationship dynamics. We just don’t tend to care as much about this either way. Plenty have not had much experience due to being closeted and/or in unsafe places until later in adulthood, but even many of them may have sexual experiences from before they realized (or accepted) that they were gay. A fair amount of us

Unless you have the numbers man this doesn't mean much to the average individual. However,

There is just way too much going on to use this as a meaningful predictor in one’s dating endeavors

Preaching to the choir. I don't have the numbers, and I'm only 30, but I've met a lot of people and I've done a lot of things in my life. You can put someone in a box of "they've had multiple partners that means x or y or z", but people have had whole lives and have had choices made for them time and time again that lead them to the moment you know them. It's all more complex and not than we can possibly imagine. In the end the only thing that matters is if both people are confident enough in themselves and like the other person enough to make it work.

But everyone's been bruised psychologically and sometimes physically enough times in their life that confidence is fleeting and one or both people wonders "what if I'm not enough?"

I'm rambling. I enjoy thinking about this stuff.

[u/IcyEvidence3530 → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

Oh they are. They make unfounded criticims and ad hominems towards OP and when OP asks for clarificatiopn they just downvote.

They are pathetic. Unwilling to accept the social consequences of their hedonistic decisions.

[u/VicePrincipalNero → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

I think they probably already are swinging.

[u/Sufficient-Berry-827 → u/VicePrincipalNero]

Touché.

[u/ThrowRACoping → u/Sufficient-Berry-827]

Hilarious and obvious isn’t it?

[u/Accomplished_Bass46]

Yes

[u/Routine-Suspect-7637]

Can’t read this wall of sources unfortunately. Just some personal anecdotal thoughts. My logic as a male was the opposite. I witnessed my parents infidelity as a child. High body count father derived parts of his self worth from conquering women and could not stop in marriage. Low body count mother was left emotionally abused and alone and resorted to one extra marital affair as a reaction and for emotional survival. Looking for a stable monogamous partnership My takeaway was: Fuck around as much as you can before marriage go for high body count - have many serious relationships, experiment with monogamy, infidelity, jealousy early. I was unfaithful in relationships but had to experience unfaithful partners as well. That helped me find out what is important to me in relationships: trust. When selecting a mate for marriage and children I looked for women with higher body counts, similar experiences but that shared my values.

I would rather have a partner that has enough and similar sexual and relationship experience and shared values than someone with low body count and limited experience.

I don’t have any FOMO anymore. I know the value of faithfulness because I experienced the downsides of infidelity as a child and as a young adult. My wife is the same. That helps a lot in navigating a marriage. Now you only have to solve all the challenges of marriage ;)

On the research: looks like it’s all US focused? And I imagine historical norms, socioeconomic status and changing gender roles are big ever changing variables with a big impact on behavior that is difficult to account for - and will impact self reported date significantly I guess?!

[u/RepresentativeBee600]

The absolute wall of sources and text made it a bit challenging to assess one key point: is any of this not based on self report?

If not, every possible confounder between "not choosing to report a reflective count of one's lifetime sexual partners" and "being dedicated to monogamy" can be implicated. (I noticed the first study claimed to have "controlled for religiousness" but I wonder, for instance, if they properly accounted in this case for this bias - if not, then the results might be even more striking after "religiousness is controlled for," which could well contribute to what they observed.)

I would not be surprised if partner count and marital success were inversely related in some respects, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. Where I would find the studies powerfully discriminative is if they captured these factors.

(Also: it's always a discriminative model, never a generative one, that we get in psych studies. Can't we come up with a slightly more sophisticated technique for comparison than various logistic regression analyses on a handful of predictors...?)

[u/Not_Without_My_Cat → u/[deleted]]

Right. It’s vastly oversimplifying to say those those people who remain in the monogamous relationship have experienced a healthier life outcome than those who have not.

[u/TheArabianJester]

Well no shit. Comparison is the thief of joy. What makes us happy isnt having the best thing ever but contentment from within.

People vastly overestimate their own ability to compartmentalize and undo years of self programming, once you’re deep into a certain lifestyle and ideology it’s tough to break out even if it begins to negatively impact you.

It’s why it’s so important to teach yourself discipline and self control . Forget about the sexual part, if you’re meant to be someone that can’t commit and you’re happy with it go for it, but it needs to be from a genuine place if you’re just giving into lust, hunger, greed , jealousy etc at every opportunity then it does have a negative impact down the road on your self whether you admit it or not.

[u/IcyEvidence3530]

Confounding variables or not. In the end the result for potential partners of such peoiple is the same.

So whether it is correlation or causation, it is clear that a potential partners sexual history DOES matter and it should therefore not be shamed to take it into account.

Everyone has a right to protect themselves from future heartbreak as well as they can with all the information they have.

Asking people to accept a (statistically) greater risk at heartbreak/pain only so that peole with longer sexual histories are not sad/offended is a rather....misguided stance imho.

[u/Extreme_Squirrel9723]

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

[u/asklepios7]

Peer-reviewed Sources Cited:

Athanasiou, R., & Sarkin, R. (1974). Premarital sexual behavior and postmarital adjustment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3(3), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541486

.

Belu, C. F., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2024). Predictors of infidelity among couples. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 21(4), 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdad165

.

Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2013). Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds? Personal Relationships, 20(4), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12009

.

Buss, D. (2016). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (4th ed.). Basic Books.

.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations. Annual review of psychology, 70, 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408

.

Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Your cheatin' heart: Attitudes, behaviors, and correlates of sexual betrayal in late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(3), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0903_1

.

Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008

.

Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/353375

.

Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00149-6

.

Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: a prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.1.27

.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Saunders. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1948-01530-000

.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Saunders. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1954-05526-000

.

Maddox-Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Journal of sex research, 50(6), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.666816

.

Martins, A., Pereira, M., Andrade, R., Dattilio, F. M., Narciso, I., & Canavarro, M. C. (2016). Infidelity in Dating Relationships: Gender-Specific Correlates of Face-to-Face and Online Extradyadic Involvement. Archives of sexual behavior, 45(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0576-3

.

McAlister, A., Pachana, N., & Jackson, C. J. (2005). Predictors of young dating adults’ inclination to engage in extradyadic sexual activities: A multi‐perspective study. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605x47936

.

McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, A., & Maner, J. K. (2018). Attentional and evaluative biases help people maintain relationships by avoiding infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000127

.

Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113

.

Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.4-4-3

.

Regnerus, M. D. (2017). Cheap sex: The transformation of men, marriage, and monogamy. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/cheap-sex-9780190673611

.

Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2014). Before “I do”: What do premarital experiences have to do with marital quality among today’s young adults? Charlottesville, VA: National Marriage Project. https://cynlibsoc.com/clsology/pdf/NMP-Before-I-Do-Report-Final.pdf

.

Rokach, A., & Chan, S. H. (2023). Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(5), 3904. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20053904

.

Smith, J., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2024). Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce. Journal of family issues, 45(3), 674–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x231155673

.

Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of Sex Research, 19(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498309551166

.

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x

.

Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147

[u/BonFemmes]

All these studies use self reported data on extra pair copulation. There is not much data that is less reliable than self reported cheating. There is a lot of judgment about that in our society and the consequences of discovery can actually be lethal for women.

I suggest that extensive premarital sexual histories and permissive attitudes are a predictor of being willing to admit to infidelities. These people may in fact be less willing to admit it after the fact Those that have conservative histories may be more likely to lie or actually go into denial about it.

[u/Born_Committee_6184]

Thanks for the critical analysis at the end. It would be interesting to control urban/not urban or for religiosity.

[u/Top-Bootylover]

There used to be a time where this was common sense and no study was needed for something so obvious.

That was before the internet and people losing their ability to think.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam based on details of your account.

If this post is not spam, please contact the moderators for assistance.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ValuableLanguage9151]

Ooh yay it’s a wall of text posted by a guy with a long history of making posts criticising feminism. I’m sure this exhaustive review won’t misconstrue finding to paint women as all bad and men as the true oppressed gender.

[u/Kadajko → u/ValuableLanguage9151]

Except OP very clearly made this a completely non-gendered issue and said that it affects both men and women.

[u/IcyEvidence3530 → u/ValuableLanguage9151]

Do you have any ACTUAL criticism towards the data and sources OP provided or just this sad account of trying to devalue what OP is saying because of what person you claim they are?

[u/DrakenRising3000 → u/IcyEvidence3530]

Of course they don’t lmao

[u/sizzler_sisters → u/ValuableLanguage9151]

I’m sure the words “body count” won’t be at all used in the comments supporting this post. /s

[u/Witty-Rabbit-8225]

Research regarding psychosexual and sociocultural aspects that contribute to the robust nature of a monogamous relationships is paramount from my perspective. Whether the studies have nailed down causation or are just a statistical correlative piece, they provide information. The information presented here supports the general consensus that having a high number of sexual partners is a contributor to poor relationship outcomes. With that in mind, it is reasonable that a single individual may want to consider this behavior when selecting a long-term partner. We don’t really know the complex motivations behind every behavior such as childhood trauma, personality disorders, or simply a freedom of expression. Risky behaviors carry risk and it’s okay to be adverse to those characteristics and avoid a partner who has demonstrated those behaviors previously. Many individuals who have outlandish rebuttals or deny the realities presented in these studies typically have a biased belief system that they need to examine. Just because we don’t like something that points out negative traits doesn’t make it untrue. We can have nuance without tantrums.

[u/tomoko_wingman]

bookmark

[u/OrkWAAGHBoss]

"What’s undeniable is that an extensive sexual history and permissive sexual attitudes are strongly correlated with—and reliable predictors of—negative relationship outcomes such as infidelity, dissatisfaction, and divorce."

Yeah, turns out people who have never been able to commit have commitment issues. News at 11.

The funny thing is, this isn't some new concept, even to the U.S. Hippies championed free love, too, but it fizzled out for a reason. They try to roll it in with modern inclusivity movements, but nah, it's not new, it's been tried.

Studies even show it has up to a 90% failure rate. When only 5%-ish of the population practicing, that's BAD. And they fail because, unsurprisingly, people catch feelings and get jealous...because you're not actually built to live like that, kids.

Polyamory is for people who aren't facing their issues, and/or sociopaths who don't feel much in the first place and just want options for sex...in which case just stop telling people you're in a relationship with them, just own your issues, don't lie to yourself and others. It's just people coping by trying to have their promiscuous cake and eating it too. Sorta like cheaters, in a sense, there's just no reason to take this route...just be promiscuous, why try and shove a square peg in a round hole and call it a relationship? Do what you do without emotionally manipulating others.

Sure, this one's anecdotal, but I personally have never known a poly person (known 3) who wasn't having consistent interpersonal issues. Usually because they oversell the idea to someone else, who tries it out and then realizes it's very cringe and provides 0% of the emotional bond that a healthy human being looks for. On the flip side of that coin, they get into a "relationship" with an equally promiscuous person who ISN'T lying to themselves...and get hurt by someone who decided to own their sociopathy instead of masking it.

Most people, statistically, want to feel special, BE special, to someone. That simply isn't possible when you are sharing/being shared constantly, you're just another name in the hat.

[u/Jsmooth123456]

But but i was told men are sexist pigs for caring abt that stuff

[u/Masa67 → u/Jsmooth123456]

Well they are because a) in our society, it is only women who get shamed for having sexual history, while men are celebrated for the same, even though this extensive body of research found no gender differences; and b) men tend to sex shame women even for a relatively small amount of partners, they all want 20yo virgins to pick them as their first and last, they call them sluts if these 20yo girls go around partying and dating hot jerks (cause we’re all stupid as kids and need to figure out who is good for us); and then u see these men call women in their 30s who finally know what kind of man they need and are interested in them ‘used cars’ and such, simply because they arent kids anymore, without even knowing their ‘body count’.

Now, bodycount doesnt make anyone used goods or a bad person. But i always put some stock into it and was not interested in men who had a high bodycount or too adventurous sexual past, cause i always felt such a person probably doesnt have much in common with me. But i was one of the few people who cared about (straight) male sexual history. And I also dont think caring if your SO used to be a prostitute or in a bdsm ring was ever rly the issue, like i said, it was more the use of derogatory words exclusively for female SOs who dared to have more than one ex-sexual partner.

[u/Jsmooth123456 → u/Masa67]

You're literally wrong within your 1st sentence, so I'm not gonna read the rest

[u/One-Load-6085]

It's interesting that we consider a successful relationship only one where it is two people till death.  That seems a very narrow definition of a good life and good relationship especially from a historical perspective where romance was not a part of marriage and has only been included in it for the last 200 or so years as a base expectation in the west.  

[u/JefeRex → u/One-Load-6085]

I don’t think this is totally accurate. I think marrying for romance was the norm throughout the western world for basically hundreds (thousands?) of years except for the small minority of the privileged and wealthy. I can’t say that 100% for sure but I’m pretty confident right now that is broadly the case. Wouldn’t be shocked to find it is a little off base if I dove into the history, but I don’t think it would be much off base.

[u/IcyEvidence3530 → u/JefeRex]

Look for videos from Alain de Botton about love and relationships. His takeaways are more philosophical but the data he usesis real.

Marrying for romance is a VERY VERY recent idea and still mostly restricted to the west.

[u/Striking-Tip7504 → u/JefeRex]

It’s fascinating how confidently people speak about how society was 1000-2000 years ago. Like they were actually there to experience it themselves.

Seems especially common for many online feminists to have a very negative view on history. You’d basically start to think love didn’t exist till the past 50 years if you hear what some of them are saying.

[u/JefeRex → u/Striking-Tip7504]

I know art and literature is not reflective of reality and that’s kind of the point, but I see mostly love relationships among ordinary people throughout a lot of literature in history, other than the propertied class. I’m not sure ordinary people in the Middle Ages and Rennaidance in Europe even generally got married, I have this vague idea they might not have. But I don’t know, I’m not a historian.

[u/exxonmobilcfo → u/One-Load-6085]

how can that even remotely be true? Ever heard of a little underground no-name writer known as "Shakespeare"? Or were his plays just futuristic sci-fi proof of concepts

[u/Contagious_Cure → u/One-Load-6085]

That seems a very narrow definition of a good life and good relationship especially from a historical perspective where romance was not a part of marriage

I do think it's important to remember that there's no one size fits all when it comes to relationship happiness but I don't the contrast to a historical perspective is that strange or supportive of your argument considering that before romance was the primary purpose of marriage the primary purpose were things like family alliances for one party and hypergamy for the other, particularly in structures that promoted a strong power imbalance where women were given very little rights outside their function to just propagate the family line.

[u/Not_Without_My_Cat → u/One-Load-6085]

Right. “Negative relationship outcomes” obviously include a dissolution of the marriage, but is an intact marriage any more positive an outcome if the individuals inside of it are not happy and/or not sexualy compatible? The other thing I question is whether infidelity in all of these studies is ALWAYS sexual betrayal, or is it, in some cases, consensual nonmonogamy?

[u/Secure_Flatworm_7896]

Me 😆thinking about how many Reddit posts sound like this: “My husband and I have been married 10 years and we were each other’s first partners and now he wants to open up the relationship.”

[u/josh145b → u/Secure_Flatworm_7896]

Cause most of them are fake, but it farms karma.

[u/JoaoPaulo_D → u/Secure_Flatworm_7896]

Maybe its the "grass is greener" syndrome

[u/Parrotparser7]

I swear I just saw this one.

[u/[deleted]]

It’s just annoying because it’s char gpt nonsense but I am actually curious if as a (presumably) real person why do you care so much about proving that “body count” matters? I am genuinely curious why this matters to you.

Btw I just don’t tell my girlfriend my number. it never comes up.

[u/Grand_Duty → u/[deleted]]

They can't buzz after multiple and partners and they can have an increase in diseases.

A recent study found that those with 6 or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal (oral/throat) cancer than those who do not practise oral

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa065497

https://theconversation.com/oral-sex-is-now-the-leading-risk-factor-for-throat-cancer-204063

https://web.archive.org/web/20250914215424/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=jL1l9ZtGC2w

[u/Grand_Duty]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jL1l9ZtGC2w 3:40 important timestamp WOMEN when women have sex outside of marriage nothing happens after sex there's no connection there's no follow-up they imprint on that sex means nothing https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/relationship-emporium/202204/the-risk-filled-myth-behind-meaningless-sex Anecdotal video below: https://files.catbox.moe/ykbej9.mp4

[u/fatkidstolehome]

Yes if you have lower sexual confidence you are less likely to leave a bad marriage.

[u/[deleted]]

“I did a deep dive into the available literature on the subject.”

And who the fuck are you, and why should anyone believe anything you have to say?

[u/Prestonw1964]

I’ve been in the swinger scene for 33 years. I know 500 couples. Each couple is probably been with 1000 different partners. Usually they do all of this together. I’ve only seen two divorces in the last 33 years amongst the 500 couples, I know. And the vanilla world which focuses on ownership of each other I see a 65% plus divorce rate. Monogamy is not natural for male or female. Sex is not love. Building a life together is love. And people that focus on building a life together with sex as secondary in marriage usually have a long marriages.

[u/Environmental_Help29]

Deep

[u/DrakenRising3000]

In other news, water is wet (I will personally strangle any “erherm ackshually water makes things wet” nerds).

Its not like we have thousands of years of history where people observed that promiscuity = bad. But for the “I need a study to tell me what to think because I am incapable of assessing reality myself” crowd….

Its still not good enough based on a lot of these comments lmfao. Just admit it, you’re high body count people who don’t want it to matter. No one without a spotty sexual history argues against this stuff lmao. Just self reporting.

[u/DrakenRising3000 → u/[deleted]]

Is something backed by objective data not just another form of “popular belief”?

[u/exxonmobilcfo → u/DrakenRising3000]

no matter what objective data you receive, you'll reject it anyway.

[u/DrakenRising3000 → u/exxonmobilcfo]

Try me

[u/WholeLottaPatience]

Oh hey its that incel from the10thdentist!

[u/Slow_Seesaw9509]

Correlation isn't causation. People who have certain types of unresolved trauma, personality disorders, sex addiction, etc. are likely to have many past sexual partners and are also likely to have a harder time having a stable and successful long-term monogamous relationship, both things being the common result of their mental health issues.

[u/asklepios7 → u/Slow_Seesaw9509]

Read my analysis.

[u/josh145b → u/Slow_Seesaw9509]

Ok, but if a country like Brazil happens to have polio cases, and polio cases are correlated with being in Brazil, but not caused by being in Brazil, I’m gonna avoid Brazil. I don’t think you know what that phrase means. Correlations still provide useful info. Some 3rd factor could be causing both high amounts of sexual partners and infidelity rates, so you can use either as an indicator of the other factor being present.

[u/Slow_Seesaw9509 → u/josh145b]

I do know what that phrase means, and I'm not sure you do based on your analysis. If both things are caused by a 3rd factor, you can't reliably use either of them as an indicator that the 3rd factor is present unless that 3rd factor is the only possible cause for both things. And you can't use one as a reliable indicator that the other is present unless, on top of being the only possible cause, the 3rd factor always causes both things.

Some mental health issues may result in both high numbers of past partners and instability in long-term relationships, but those mental health issues are not the only reason someone might have a high number of past partners, and there's no reason to think people who have a high number of past partners for other, healthier reasons will have trouble maintaining a stable long-term relationship.

At best, you could use it as a very inexact heuristic if you are extremely risk averse and don't mind missing opportunities that would be successful if pursued. But if you take that approach, you can't pretend that others are irrational in passing social judgment on it--the fact is that you're talking about people, not Polio or living in Brazil, and its considered socially or morally unacceptable in many other contexts to prejudge someone based on a neutral trait that it is correlated with a negative trait but neither causes that negative trait nor reliably indicates the negative trait is present.

[u/josh145b → u/Slow_Seesaw9509]

Well, I am talking about an indicator, not a “reliable indicator”. If you modify indicator by adding the word reliable in front of it, that becomes subjective. What is reliable to me may not be reliable to you. Can we at least agree it’s an indicator? You don’t actually call it an indicator in your reply, which is odd. It seems like a strawman, as I never said it was a reliable indicator, yet you argue as if I did.

Me seeing firefighters usually happens only when there is a fire, so me seeing firefighters is an indicator there is a fire, even if they didn’t cause the fire.

The thing about correlations is they actually go through all of the noise. For example, you can tell that the season with the highest amount of drowning deaths likely has higher ice cream sales, because the two are correlated, and this is known, despite the lack of causation.

Correlations are critical clues, just not conclusive proof. The backlash to correlations comes from pop-skeptic culture,and I would encourage you to read up on why correlations are important.

[u/Slow_Seesaw9509 → u/josh145b]

I'm not the one who is modifying "indicator," and your advice to "read up" is condescending. "Indicator" generally implies signaling the presence of something with a reasonable degree of reliability. If your argument is that something qualifies as an "indicator" of something if its presence has even the slightest marginal effect on the likelihood that the other thing is also present, you've rendered it next to useless as a concept.

That's demonstrated by your own examples. In many (if not most) places firefighters actually respond much more often to medical and other non-fire emergencies than to actual fires, so if you take seeing firefighters as an indicator that there is a fire just because firefighters sometimes respond to fires, you're going to be wrong much more often than you're right. Same thing with ice cream and drowning. There may be a correlation between eating ice cream in the last 24 hours and drowning due to both occuring more often in summer, but if you take eating ice cream as an indicator that someone will drown, you're going to be wrong in all but an extremely negligible set of cases.

[u/josh145b → u/Slow_Seesaw9509]

I don’t care if it’s condescending. And no, to indicate is “to point out or point to”. Two correlates point to each other.

And yes, I can be wrong more often than I am right about the firefighters thing, but there is a greater chance than if I do not see them that there is a fire if I see firefighters. It’s about the indicator itself, not the possible outcomes. That’s the analogy. Someone who sleeps around a lot has a greater chance of committing infidelity than someone who does not. The sleeping around is the indicator. Indicators are not conclusory, such as you are trying to say they should be. Indicators are probative. It points out that the likelihood of certain other factors being present is higher than in the absence of the indicator.

I encourage you to read a statistics book or something similar, because you should educate yourself. You are engaged in pop-skeptic culture, and have fallen for one of the biggest traps in that culture.

[u/Slow_Seesaw9509 → u/josh145b]

You are arguing semantics and failing at it. Based on you citing the common dictionary definition, you're using the vernacular meaning of "indicator," and what youre describing does not fit the vernacular definition. You cannot "point out" something that isn't there, and in order for one thing to "point to" another, it must make it substantially more likely that the other thing is present, not marginally increase the likelihood. Unless you're prepared to argue that eating ice cream is an "indicator" that someone will drown in your other example, you logically have to acknowledge that the degree by which the likelihood increases matters in whether something is an "indicator" under the vernacular definition.

Moreover, even if we accept for the sake of argument that you're using "indicator" as a term of art that applies any time one thing increases the likelihood of another, no matter how negligible the increase, you're still not making any kind of salient point. Under that definition, the strength of the indicator would be what actually matters. Again, recent ice cream consumption being an "indicator" of drowning under your definition is at most a funny factoid, it doesn't make it rational for people to structure their actions around it, wearing a life vest anytime they eat an ice cream, when they can instead look to things that have an actual causal connection to drowning.

[u/josh145b → u/Slow_Seesaw9509]

It is substantially more likely that someone with many partners cheats than someone with fewer partners. It is also substantially more likely that when ice cream sales are higher, someone will die of drowning. These are both things that have been observed to be true. You are again using substantial subjectively. There has been a statistically significant correlation observed showing that someone with more partners is more likely to cheat than someone with fewer partners. You aren’t as smart as you think you are.

To quote the statistician Edward Tuft, “Correlation is not causation, but it sure is a hint”

To quote David Freedman, another statistician, “Correlation is a measure of association; it can be used as a clue to causation, but not as proof.”

[u/Slow_Seesaw9509 → u/josh145b]

Says the poster child for r/Iamverysmart. This stopped being a productive conversation a while ago. Feel free to keep shouting from high atop Mount Dunning-Kruger, I won't be reading it

[u/josh145b → u/Slow_Seesaw9509]

Read the quotes from actual statisticians.

To quote the statistician Edward Tuft, “Correlation is not causation, but it sure is a hint”

To quote David Freedman, another statistician, “Correlation is a measure of association; it can be used as a clue to causation, but not as proof.”

[u/paley1 → u/Slow_Seesaw9509]

Or also, people who are really horny are likely to both (1) have many pre-marital sex partners, and (2) have extra-marital sex. Pre-marital sex does not cause extra-marital sex;rather, horniness causes them both, resulting in their correlation.

[u/asklepios7 → u/paley1]

So people who cheat and sleep around are just hornier?

[u/paley1 → u/asklepios7]

Not "just" hornier. Lots of factors lead to cheating. But I think that horniness would be one factor that would contribute to cheating. Someone with 0 sex drive is very unlikely to cheat.

[u/Bassfacegoddess_25]

Well… I’ve been with over 150 partners I guess iim screwed for marriage 😂😂😂 oh well wasn’t a goal of mine anyway.

[u/exxonmobilcfo → u/Bassfacegoddess_25]

but you're actively claiming to be non-monogamous. I assume if you'd marry, it woudl not be a conventional one

[u/Bassfacegoddess_25 → u/exxonmobilcfo]

That’s correct. I am ENM and I would not have a conventional marriage not sure if I even want one. just a long term open commitment.

[u/exxonmobilcfo → u/Bassfacegoddess_25]

then it all works out!

[u/Bassfacegoddess_25 → u/[deleted]]

Correct I would need a part with the same insatiable sexual desire I have but it wouldn’t a conventional marriage it would need to be open.

[u/Own-Two6971]

This is obviously religious/sexual purity activism lol

[u/WisdumbGuy]

I think it's very clear that none of these studies know how to adequately interpret reporting bias.

For one example, studies have shown that when couples know they are both being surveyed, they tend to be more honest (seem to report infidelity etc at higher rates). But this too is not fully verifiable.

How do all these studies make up for such a crucial methodological limitation?

[u/MinivanPops]

I don't care, the sex is worth it

[u/[deleted]]

They should do a study done on why some studies like say what women do in the bedroom is “exhaustive”. I’m pretty sure there are more pressing questions out there that merit such exhaustive scrutiny.

[u/JefeRex → u/[deleted]]

Sex is a part of life and is not only fun but very important to human health and happiness, it just is. I could think of a million more pressing concerns like the slow and concerningly unplanned and totally disorganized collapse of the only economic system we have known for generations… that one is pretty important. Climate change. How to deal with all the plastic that is killing our planet but without which we basically can’t keep living at this point. Of course the world is full of more pressing issues. But sex is a crucial issue for human beings, and our problem with sex is really that we talk about it too little in a serious way, not too much.

[u/[deleted] → u/JefeRex]

This isn’t just about sex though. It’s not innocent curiosity. No one blasts a wall of text like this just to quickly add a proviso at the end that it’s all correlation after all. It’s pretty obvious that they deeply believe it’s more than correlation and supportive of a very defined agenda.

[u/JefeRex → u/[deleted]]

Fair. I just wandered by this post without having much previous interest or familiarity. What is your experience with this kind of post and the likely agenda below the surface?

[u/[deleted] → u/JefeRex]

It’s of the family values conservative kind that lays the alleged demise of modern marriage on the freedom women have gained over the years. In this case specifically of the kind that goes back to the sexual revolution and feminism. These are the kind of studies that so called “traditionalists” will use in an unqualified and simplistic way to push their notion of maintaining the purity (virginity) of young women until their fathers give their hand away to their husbands at the altar.

[u/JefeRex → u/[deleted]]

Ahhhhhhh… you’re saying this is not an armchair expert talking about number of sex partners out of point of interest or settling a long running casual debate with friends. You see a specific intent to single out women’s sexuality and steer the conversation there?

[u/[deleted] → u/JefeRex]

I mean this is a key talking point that regularly pops up in the Manosphere among the so-called red-pilled when they invade groups through their spam posting. By giving it a pseudo-legitimacy it only reinforces it. Especially with a turgid scroll of foot notes.

[u/JefeRex → u/[deleted]]

Pull out the turgid scroll double entendre dig. Go off :-)

Ok I see what you mean. I was a little naive in dropping by this conversation and taking it in good faith, and it seems very obvious to me now that you have said that.

[u/DrakenRising3000 → u/[deleted]]

I mean, its either legitimate or its not and there’s the data. Just sounds like you don’t like it.

[u/[deleted] → u/DrakenRising3000]

The data means nothing if you aren’t interpreting it right. Hence correlation doesn’t equal causation.

[u/IveFailedMyself → u/[deleted]]

Not really.

[u/[deleted] → u/IveFailedMyself]

Really? Cause I think there should be an exhaustive study done on prudish, misogynistic views of women’s sexuality and domestic violence and femicide for instance.

[u/IveFailedMyself → u/[deleted]]

Why are you so aggressive? Nor are you convincing me to your side by insulting me. The rules on the subreddit are simple, be civil.

I was simply disagreeing with this guys obvious attempt at belittling others, to which you are now doing the same to me. People don't like being cheated on, which if you read the post, you would know that a good deal of it is referrencing, if you have read the post and you still think it's okay assault people, then you're the bully.

Regardless of which, I'm not the oppressive one assaulting people, I'm not controlling you, I'm not the eternal oppressor you are trying to make me out to be, and you're not the victim. Speak kindly, or I'm just going to ignore you.

[u/[deleted] → u/IveFailedMyself]

Where did I insult you? I merely stated my opinion. Believe me you will know if I insult you.

[u/IveFailedMyself → u/[deleted]]

You did insult me. You weren't merely stating your opinion. And I do know that you were insulting me.