The war on men

[Jacob]

I used to theorize that you were better of settling down with a woman who'd been around the block a few times than with someone inexperienced. The theory was that she'd know what she likes, and thus any compatibility would be longer lasting. Also, you wouldn't run the risk that after a while - after she got into the groove, so to speak - she'd eventually decide that she'd like to try some of all those other flavours out there she'd given a miss; whereas someone more experienced would have sampled all the flavours they were interested in, and settled with the one they liked the most.

That's sort of the opposite derSpiess' theory that women who've had plenty of sex partners (whatever that amount is) are more likely to want to have plenty of sex partners even after committing to a relationship, but I think the logic is equally sound.

At this point, however, I think that the potential for cheating has much more to do with the couple's compatibility than any kind of virgin, slut or other sexual status.

[Ed Anger]

I just put a hundred dollar bill on a sting and drag it front of the Gap. I get all the ladiezz that way.

[derspiess]

Baby Gap?

[Ed Anger]

Baby Gap?

Then you get the crazy chicks with kids.

[Legbiter]

Minsky's browbeating wore me down so I dipped a toe into the scientific literature, such as can be achieved with 10 minutes of browsing.

I present: Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/full

The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Far as I can make out, if a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50% (see table 4). When at 16 or more past lovers the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%. Even women with only 5 partners see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%.

In short, if you're looking for the mother of your children, the less cock she's had, the better odds of your marriage surviving.

[garbon]

I hope DGul will appear at some point.

[derspiess]

I win!!

[Ed Anger]

I hope DGul will appear at some point.

He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.

[merithyn]

I find it funny, on how every time you and I disagree ultimately on something gender-related, in the end you use psycho-babbling as a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack to rob yourself. You systematically refuse to acknowledge the other person's point of view as legit when it doesn't suit you, but on the contrary you turn it personal it, as a problem of personal issue, rather than taking a mere counter-argument to what you perceive ought-to be right, as if I can't or wouldn't counter anything to that.

I give you, as a man, from experience, fears some men have spoken or expressed in my presence, an input that doesn't compute with your fairy-tale world. You and I disagree, I can live with that. I don't sugarcoat things for you, I don't white knight you because you are a woman. I had, until this moment, treated with a healthy dose of respect even if I rarely agree with you, and I find some of your positions questionable (as you do with some of mine).

And the argument you present after this is, if I disagree, it must be because there's an insecurity, a fear, something lacking in me? Not only it is a smack in my face, not only it is insulting and galling that you presume things, and dare to play a pseudo Dr. Phil as a tool of debate. It is quite hypocritical, from someone who chime on how double-standards are evil, to passive-agressively hide under the double-standard to attack a man's ego because you expect it will shut him off, that because a man brings in something coming from an emotional point of view that doesn't chime with your prejudices and your already made conclusions, it must be because of something problematic in himself.

I call you on this, publicly. I call you on this, because it's an habit of yours that I have noted in several threads in which you are invested in, and nobody has called you on this. It makes it extremely unpleasant to debate seriously with you on gender-related issues. From now on, I refuse to argue anymore with you.

On that note, it is my last post on this thread. Enjoy ignoring what is the madonna-whore complex, girl. God knows the rest of the world knows what it is.

I merely said that my experience was different, not that yours was wrong. Malthus agreed with me, so obviously, it's not just a "chick" thing or me making things up to try to discredit your experiences. Shockingly, your world view is not the only one out there. As for the second paragraph in my post, I realize that it seemed like an attack on you personally, but I didn't necessarily mean it as such. I was using "you" in the broad sense, not the specific, but hey, if the dart hits too close to home...

As I just explained to Max, it's always been my assumption that the reason men dislike the idea of their girl being ridden hard is because they didn't want to have to compete with ghost relationships in the bedroom. Some guys on Languish have pretty much said as much, and it at least makes sense, however silly I find the reasoning. It has been the only explanation that made sense to me on why there is still this double standard in this day and age. Then, Legbiter and derspeiss come out with this whole thing of equating slut with cheater, which I honestly still don't understand, but okay, I guess. If that's their reasoning, or yours, or whatever. I think it's ridiculous, but as Jacob has said, it's all in how you read it. And I really don't get the Madonna/Whore thing, because, well, it's just plain fucking stupid to me. Talk about eating your cake and having it, too!

The interesting thing is that you seem to think that because you have a penis, you have the market on what men think about women. Dude, I'm older and been in more relationships with more men than you can imagine, and I'm not talking about sexual relationships. You may know more about the men in your corner of the world, but the truth is that your "knowledge" just isn't that broad or varied, as the responses from a number of the other guys from Languish shows you. You laying it out there like it's some fact is laughable, but what's even more hilarious is you thinking that it should be respected as such. It's your opinion based on what you know, not fact, and that's exactly how I'll treat it. Feel free to do the same about my opinion; god knows you wouldn't be the first nor would you be the last to tell me that you thought my opinion is full of shit. The difference is that I know it's my opinion, and I'm pretty comfortable with people giving it zilch weight.

I'd be lying if I said that I'd miss our tete-a-tetes. You're kind of everything that I find abhorrent in a man, so you declining to talk to me is really not a hardship. It may be that distaste for you that comes through in my posts. I'd be lying again if I said that I'm sorry.

[DGuller]

I hope DGul will appear at some point.

He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.

For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming.  I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.

[Ed Anger]

I hope DGul will appear at some point.

He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.

For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming.  I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.

My vagina just dried up. Try again.

[merithyn]

Minsky's browbeating wore me down so I dipped a toe into the scientific literature, such as can be achieved with 10 minutes of browsing.

I present: Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/full

The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Far as I can make out, if a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50% (see table 4). When at 16 or more past lovers the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%. Even women with only 5 partners see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%.

In short, if you're looking for the mother of your children, the less cock she's had, the better odds of your marriage surviving.

Just out of curiosity, did they factor out religious reasons for not cohabitating?

[merithyn]

For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming.  I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.

[Legbiter]

Just out of curiosity, did they factor out religious reasons for not cohabitating?

A number of commonly used family background, life course, and socioeconomic variables pertaining to women are available in the NSFG, and I use them to limit the likelihood that any effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex are spurious. Each of these control variables has been identified in prior research as being linked to the risk of marital dissolution (Bumpass et al., 1991; Teachman, 1983, 2002). The control variables that I use are as follows: father's education in years; mother's education in years; number of siblings; whether the respondent is White, Black, or Hispanic (being White serves as the baseline); whether the respondent is Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or some other religion (Protestant serves as the baseline); whether the woman grew up in an intact family or experienced parental death, parental divorce, or any other nonintact family form during childhood (having grown up in an intact family serves as the baseline); the number of different childhood living situations experienced by the woman; the woman's age at marriage; her education in years at the time of marriage; whether she had a birth prior to marriage; whether she was pregnant at the time of marriage; and a series of dummy variables indicating 5-year marriage cohorts. In models estimating the effect of premarital sex, I also include a control for the woman's age at first sex on the assumption that sex at a younger age is likely to indicate either less commitment to the permanency of unions or provide greater opportunity for learning poor relationship skills. Women who begin their sexual careers earlier in life are also less likely to marry their first partner, are more likely to have a larger number of sexual partners, and may evidence less discrimination in their choice of eventual marital partner.


The NSFG also contains data on husbands that can be used to create variables that have been linked to the risk of marital disruption (see Bumpass et al., 1991; Teachman, 1983, 2002). The variables that I include are as follows: husband's age at marriage; husband's education in years; whether the husband was married before; whether the husband is of a different race; whether the husband is 2 or more years younger than the respondent; whether the husband is 5 or more years older than the respondent; whether the husband if of a different religion; and whether, according to the respondent's report, religion is important or very important to the husband.

These are the control variables. Religion (in several hues) is controlled for.

[garbon]

I hope DGul will appear at some point.

He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.

For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming.  I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.