Science behind pair-bonding for both sexes

[Lynx nkaf]

I've had good recent memories. They just aren't as abundant. Those old memories were my normal for all those years.

Royal experience. Royal treatment.
I had that too, my word.

I asked my 29 year oneitis to come out to me here in the last few years.
A quick 'no'.
How many times am I going to 'leave the porch light' on for him?
What is it costing me in terms of my dignity?

He treated me royally, encouraged me to read the feminist column of Z magazine,
the only man I introduced to every family member, only one I ever went on vacation with.
The only one who was able to powerfully shut down the man before him(whom I had lost the V to)
He debated and argued and dominated every counter verbal attack with the ex at the time in the kitchen of some party.
Eventually the first one submitted and wished him happiness with me.
He was so smug and selfsatisfied he 'defended my honour'.

I've never met anyone since with such poetic, piercing intelligence.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Royal experience. Royal treatment.
I had that too, my word.

It's not "royal" at all. That's how you should be treated. Anything less is not worth it and disrespectful to yourself.

I asked my 29 year oneitis to come out to me here in the last few years.
A quick 'no'.
How many times am I going to 'leave the porch light' on for him?
What is it costing me in terms of my dignity?

He treated me royally, encouraged me to read the feminist column of Z magazine,

It's not royally, that's how your MAN should treat you.

the only man I introduced to every family member, only one I ever went on vacation with.
The only one who was able to powerfully shut down the man before him(whom I had lost the V to)
He debated and argued and dominated every counter verbal attack with the ex at the time in the kitchen of some party.
Eventually the first one submitted and wished him happiness with me.
He was so smug and selfsatisfied he 'defended my honour'.

I've never met anyone since with such poetic, piercing intelligence.

That must've felt great. You can find it in another who see's you in the correct light. Having walls up prevents it from ever happening again, also being "too careful". The last time it happened, it just happened without you trying or forcing it, right?

 

[Lynx nkaf]

It's not "royal" at all. That's how you should be treated. Anything less is not worth it and disrespectful to yourself.


It's not royally, that's how your MAN should treat you.


That must've felt great. You can find it in another who see's you in the correct light. Having walls up prevents it from ever happening again, also being "too careful". The last time it happened, it just happened without you trying or forcing it, right?

it was in school.
I had just transferred from an all girls catholic h.s. to my Dad's old coed public school.
I did an hour long presentation on Andy Warhol and The Velvet Underground, dressed as Warhol with a wig and his way of speech and mannerisms and I played psychedelic music and had lots of art and colours displayed...walked around the classroom pausing in front of each classmate for emphasis as I told my history(as Andy Warhol)
He said he fell in love with me that day. I got 50++/50 made my teacher cry and hug me. I swear I can't make this up.
So from that day forward he said I'm sitting beside him and that's when I started paying more attention to him. He had the most unique handwriting I've ever seen to date. Earlier today at my house I was holding his collection of poetry, but sometimes I don't read it, I just hold it. Next time I'll take a non-doxing pic of some words to display his handwriting.

I spent every day with him in person or on the phone for the next 3 years.

He backwards encouraged me to get into a work environment where I was surrounded by men.
He thought it clever of these 'supermodel' photographers to surround themselves with women all day.
It entered my subconscious that was a good idea.

I didn't think of what he inadvertantly did until just a few years ago, lol.
He was right though. It keeps you sharp being around your opposite gender.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

it was in school.
I had just transferred from an all girls catholic h.s. to my Dad's old coed public school.
I did an hour long presentation on Andy Warhol and The Velvet Underground, dressed as Warhol with a wig and his way of speech and mannerisms and I played psychedelic music and had lots of art and colours displayed...walked around the classroom pausing in front of each classmate for emphasis as I told my history(as Andy Warhol)
He said he fell in love with me that day. I got 50++/50 made my teacher cry and hug me. I swear I can't make this up.
So from that day forward he said I'm sitting beside him and that's when I started paying more attention to him. He had the most unique handwriting I've ever seen to date. Earlier today at my house I was holding his collection of poetry, but sometimes I don't read it, I just hold it. Next time I'll take a non-doxing pic of some words to display his handwriting.

I spent every day with him in person or on the phone for the next 3 years.

He backwards encouraged me to get into a work environment where I was surrounded by men.
He thought it clever of these 'supermodel' photographers to surround themselves with women all day.
It entered my subconscious that was a good idea.

I didn't think of what he inadvertantly did until just a few years ago, lol.
He was right though. It keeps you sharp being around your opposite gender.

You don't think females won't be more critical of you and more competitive with you than males who might want to flirt with you and be attracted?

 

[BeExcellent]

If she can bear children then you shouldn't want to abstain because ugly, fat, and even some older women bear children all the time. That means you're not hardwired, it's still your choice.

On top of that the fact that men pair bond, and especially that their proclivity to do so varies individually, is itself evidence that men aren't "hardwired" to fvck as many women as possible. We tell men all the time to not catch "oneitis", we say how men grow up believing in "disney" and that men are the truly romantic sex, and now here you want to tell me that men are hardwired to fvck as many women as possible? This theorizing is a joke dude.

The research ITDG cited is legit however there are also numerous studies that show promiscuous behavior in men leads to adverse outcomes over time. Similarly along the lines of desensitization and a grass is greener attitude which when followed to logical conclusion over time leads to lesser relationship satisfaction and impairment of pair bonding.

Many scientific articles note greater longevity and greater life satisfaction indexes in married men for example. Tons of research is out there on this.

And some of it is hormonally driven. Testosterone itself is a reason men stastically have a shorter life span than women for example. Long time life partnered men have less testosterone and more oxytocin/vasopressin than non paired men. It is well known that paired men live longer. So yes, science. But it depends upon your theory/perspective what science one uses to support a particular viewpoint.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

@AttackFormation Don’t listen to sugar momma above. While promiscuity across the board is bad, the effect *is* actually more pronounced in women than in men, and men are still able to bond after 100 women whereas no such thing exists for men.

As for the research on the effect of promiscuity in men on marrital stability, the data is mixed. Some research says that it lowers marital satisfaction and increases risk of divorce, some days it makes no difference, some says it actually increases marital satisfaction and lowers risk of divorce. The best study I could find since I last looked at all this stuff a year or 2 ago was this one:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600089?seq=1

It’s probably the most comprehensive study that I’ve found because it accounts for a lot of different variables, though there may have been more research since I last checked. He says that premarital sex in women increases risk of divorce but premarital sex in men does not. Personally I think it does increase risk of divorce in men a little bit too, but just not nearly to the extent of women lol. But again, that’s just my opinion, the study from this guy says otherwise.

And yes, it’s true that married men live longer and have greater life satisfaction, but only in men from older eras lol. It’s been going down in recent times, for obvious reasons.

As for the testosterone thing—that is MASSIVELY misrepresented. Married men do have lower testosterone than their unmarried counterparts and (historically) they don’t live as long. But that’s not because of testosterone. The men who live the longest amongst married couples have the highest levels of testosterone amongst the married group; the higher the testosterone levels were in the married man (relative to his age group), the longer he tended to lived.

The main reason why men don’t live as long as women do is because men are simply killed more (via murder, workplace accidents, war, etc.) and suicide. Those two factors are the biggest reasons why men don’t live as long as women do. BE is just drawing major false equivalencies here. Yes, high testosterone does increase LDL cholesterol and lower HDL which can bring heart disease, yadda yadda yadda, but the men with the highest test levels tend to be HEALTHIER overall (hence the high test levels) which is why they lived longer in married couples. Also because married couples have it easier since duties are split. As for unmarried, they have to do everything themselves and are more willing to take risks in life that can possibly hurt/kill them and/or damage their health because they have no one to think about but themselves lol.

 

[AttackFormation]

It is well known that paired men live longer.

Except for men paired with unhappy women haha... see the results here: https://www.google.se/search?q=nagging+shortens+mens+lifespans&ie=&oe=

 

[AttackFormation]

The research ITDG cited is legit however there are also numerous studies that show promiscuous behavior in men leads to adverse outcomes over time. Similarly along the lines of desensitization and a grass is greener attitude which when followed to logical conclusion over time leads to lesser relationship satisfaction and impairment of pair bonding.

Which studies did you find for this by the way? I remember seeing one chart that showed how marital satisfaction negatively correlates with increased partner counts for both men and women, with the male line in blue and the female in yellow, but that's all I can recall seeing.

 

[Lynx nkaf]

You don't think females won't be more critical of you and more competitive with you than males who might want to flirt with you and be attracted?

is that why I switched to coed h.s. and to this day I don't compete with women? She'll win every time, every scenario(unless a woman is hurting my brother or sonething)

 

[BeExcellent]

@AttackFormation as I stated there are various studies.

The reasons testosterone is a factor is that higher testosterone levels are associated with higher mortality in mammals. This is a widely accepted reason females have greater longevity than males. It’s interesting stuff.

Having said the above in addition to my previous comments I should also note that I think promiscuity is a bad idea for women. I simply disagree with ITDG that there is lesser affect on men.

I work in research in healthcare and on peer reviewed articles (such as the ones quoted here) there is always some bias due to the beliefs of the authors; their hypothesis.

You can get statistics to say very contradictory things in support of various viewpoints. That’s an ongoing joke in fact in the research community and why meta analysis is often of more value than statistics from individual studies. Meta analysis removes the bias inherent in the individual studies to a reasonable degree.

Additionally there is no need to hurl insults at me ITDG. A strong position in a debate does not require personal attack but rather will stand on its own merit.

 

[AttackFormation]

@AttackFormation as I stated there are various studies.

Yeah exactly, that's why I wanted to see a couple of them! I figured you would have links if you had recently been looking that stuff up, but I guessed then and still do that you meant for me to google them myself? Personally I would provide them myself if my argument depended on them, although I guess you could counter that with not caring whether I make something of what you said.

By the way ImTheDoubleGreatest, I'm taking you off ignore now after reading a few of your last posts and seeing what seems like growth. Now don't show old AF a fool's gold, huh son?

And yes, it’s true that married men live longer and have greater life satisfaction, but only in men from older eras lol. It’s been going down in recent times, for obvious reasons.

As for the testosterone thing—that is MASSIVELY misrepresented. Married men do have lower testosterone than their unmarried counterparts and (historically) they don’t live as long. But that’s not because of testosterone. The men who live the longest amongst married couples have the highest levels of testosterone amongst the married group; the higher the testosterone levels were in the married man (relative to his age group), the longer he tended to lived.

Do you have studies for this part?

 

[BeExcellent]

AF there are various studies. I was on a teleconference with some European colleagues this morning so did not have time to pull & load specific links but you can Google with various search terms and you will turn up various scholarly articles. In fact it’s simpler if you do that from the standpoint of you can then research it and inform yourself...rather than me introducing my bias in providing articles for you.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Do you have studies for this part?

I gotta be honest bro, I looked this stuff up years ago. I know the research/data exists, but that was hours of reading up on stuff bro and I really don’t have the motivation to do all that stuff all over again lol it’s just too daunting. And yeah BE is right in that research is so fked right now due to data manipulation and even falsified data, and it’s one of the reasons we’re running into the replication crisis right now. Universities only care about pumping out study after study, they don’t care about actually finding anything valuable. And researchers are really pressured to have found something because if you’ve been working on a project for like 2 years and the results come back that you didn’t find anything, you basically are kicked out because you aren’t finding anything, and now you’re homeless. In addition, the person/people/organization funding the study will oftentimes threaten to pull funding if the researchers don’t get the results they want. I know that several decades ago the federal government threatened researchers that they would pull NIH funding if their results for nutrition research didn’t reaffirm with the dogma that was prevalent at the time (that fat causes heart disease; you can thank that douchebag Ancel Keys for that). Other science fields aren’t as bad and took a long time to before they began being corrupted, particularly hard science, but now most of it is garbage really. **** is so ****ed. Especially right now.

But BE the thing is with the study I showed above is that it was from 2003. It was well before we started having all these issues. He accounts for much more variables than all other research that I had seen at that point, and you’ll find that if you check his methods that he used data from a government database rather than make up the surveys himself. Not only that, but due to it being a government database, it was a pretty large sample size. The ONLY thing he didn’t account for that may be skewing results is our perceptions/attitudes of premarital sex and how they have changed over time due to the change in culture that took place over last 20 years (which he couldn’t do since it is in fact an old study). It is possible that our more lax attitudes about premarital sex is increasing marital stability. At least least, that’s what I saw in an article I read. However, I don’t think it was actual published scientific literature like this is (not like it matters anyway, I still think the source was reputable).

It *does* disproportionately affect women more than men. You’ll have to find most of the data for this type of stuff through different organizations rather than research journals though, as I find that data from the latter is pretty scarce when I first started looking.

Also just for the record, meta analyses does not really remove bias from research, I can cite like 7 different meta analyses from nutritional research and another like 6 that disagree with each other on the same exact topic. Those just make it easier to see what the current score is at regarding what theory/hypothesis is most correct at the current moment. Does not necessarily mean bias-free though.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

is that why I switched to coed h.s. and to this day I don't compete with women? She'll win every time, every scenario(unless a woman is hurting my brother or sonething)

So i was at work and focused on doing my work. One of my coworkers favorite things was to talk about new gadgets he purchase. Personally i don't believe in getting all the gadgets and wasting my money. So it was a sort of "competition" i had no intent of winning because it's not my thing. There are all these "keep up with the joneses" type "competitions" that are not important to me. I will do what i need to do and give my life what it needs.

 

[BeExcellent]

@ImTheDoubleGreatest! I think your comments are well reasoned. I will comment further once I get back from dinner later this evening.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I didn’t sleep at all last night so I’m going to bed. It’s about time I reset my circadian rhythm.