Attached: 1565003776898.jpg (500x689, 51K)
Is pair bonding possible if one partner has had lost of sexual partners and one very little?
Can the partner with lots of sexual partners actually pair bond to begin with?
Yeah. Two people become an item, no open relationship bullshit, etc. Can the pair bonding happen even if one's had plenty of sex and the other very little?
Go research divorce statistics, look for sexual partners and the relation to divorce rate. That'll answer your question.
"Pair bonding" in this context is an Jow Forums buzzword that autists use to describe a sensation they don't understand. Human relationships are infinitely complicated and cannot be quantified in graphs and charts. The sum of a person is much, much more than simply how many people they've had sex with. Additionally, it isn't the act of having sex with lots of people that endangers your ability to develop stable relationships, its what compels you to express yourself through sexual compulsion is what endangers it. You can stand two people next to each other who have had sex with 20 people and their life stories could be wildly different. Whether or not they've been able to address their sexual issues, develop better interpersonal skills or grow past the tumultuous, impulsive days of their youth is not something that can tell from looking at a graph. People don't develop emotional issues because of risky sexual behavior, they engage in risky sexual behavior because of those emotional issues - abuse, abandonment, neglect etc.,
This boils it down to one question - is someone cursed to dysfunctional behaviors for their entire life? The answer is a resounding no. You really have to talk to people face to face and figure out your relationships that way. There's nothing wrong with being conscious of high risk behaviors and avoiding getting yourself involved with someone that has a too much emotional baggage - if that's your choice. What is wrong, however, is dismissing someone's capacity to love and support you because a graph on the internet told you to.
If pair bonding capability was quantifiable numerically, it would be inversely related to how much partners you had.
Usually, if a pair bond is strong enough, sticking to the partner you bonded with is an easy thing
This, a thousand times this
I’m going to assume you mean life-long, successful marriage by pair-bonding. Is it possible? Yes, of course. Would I risk it? Personally, no, especially if I have better options.
I hate charts like this because they always try to make a connection between fucking prime 14 year olds and them being STD ridden sluts later in their life when it's the opposite.
While I'm still skeptical about the connection between starting early and becoming promiscuous later in life, I'm adamant that promiscuity bring naught but short term enjoyment and tears in the long run
>I'm adamant that promiscuity bring naught but short term enjoyment and tears in the long run
You're getting it backwards again. Sexual compulsive behavior doesn't cause emotional issues. Emotional issues cause sexual compulsive behavior. High risk behavior doesn't damage people. They engage in it because they were already damaged, user.
>High risk behavior doesn't damage people. They engage in it because they were already damaged, user.
>Implying this doesn't cause the first problem to snowball into bigger ones, resulting in more promiscuity to evade them, repeating the vicious cycle furthermore
>Implying this doesn't cause the first problem to snowball
If you want me to clarify then just ask but there is no need to put words in my mouth and strawman my position. I'm not claiming that compulsive behaviors can't compound a person's issues. What I'm saying is that compulsive behaviors don't create the kinds of emotional/psychiatric dysfunctions that cause compulsive behaviors. A person who was raised with a good, loving relationship with their parents and a healthy sense of self-esteem isn't likely to suddenly turn into a sexual compulsive because they slept with a couple people in college, the same way a person who has no family history of alcoholism is not likely to become a full fledged drunk simply because they had a bit too much to drink a couple weekends. Some people are prone to these types of behaviors and some aren't. My base assertion is that allowing yourself to participate in high risk behavior merely worsens a problem that was already there - it doesn't create it.
>resulting in more promiscuity to evade them
Another oversimplified assumption. Sure, this can happen, but people are also "promiscuous" (whatever your definition of that is) for a wild array of reasons. Not everybody who experiences periods of sexually compulsive behavior do it for the exact same reason. Addictive behaviors can and frequently do spiral out of control but you're working on the assumption that all manner of sexual compulsion is based on the foundation of addictive pathology. It isn't. As I said in my original post, every person is different. To solve the puzzle of an individual's relationship with sex or intimacy you need to address it individually, not through assumptions and generalizations.
In any case, promiscuity, whatever it's causes may be, only causes further problems down the line, on top of what may have caused it, and is a vicious cycle
>Human relationships are infinitely complicated and cannot be quantified in graphs and charts
Newsflash: you are Not as special as you think and your behaviours can be categorized and graphed just like anyone else's
The correlation between number of previous sexual partners and likelihood of divorce within 5 years is just that, a correlation. A long sexual history deserves scrutiny; you need to figure out why it happened and whether or not you're really The One or just another imminent ex. But 20+ year marriages still do happen and not just with virgins.
kill yourself you projecting sperg
Again, far too generalized, far too vague. What do you think qualifies as "promiscuity"? Do you make any distinction between high risk sexual behavior like unprotected and anonymous sex or behaviors such as serial monogamy or hyper sexuality within the boundaries of monogamous relationship? It seems as though you've lumped promiscuity into this one-size-fits-all category that just generalizes people. You say things like "problems" and "vicious cycle" yet you're unable to categorize, define or articulate exactly what any of that means and in what context. Your analysis cannot be regardless of causes, user. You can't dismiss them as "whatever they may be" because sexual compulsion, high risk sexual behavior and hyper sexuality have completely different psychological profiles and impact people in many different ways depending on their developmental and psychiatric histories. It really seems as though you aren't very educated in the topic you're discussing.
>you are Not as special as you think and your behaviours can be categorized and graphed just like anyone else's
Anything can be categorized and graphed, user. Nobody is saying that human behavior doesn't have elements which can be quantified. What the base assertion is believing that looking at a graph gives you a full understanding of human behavior and its causes and effects is an illogical and infantile mindset. You can look at a graph that charts my sexual behavior, its frequency and number of partners but what the chart can't tell you is how this behavior fits into the picture of my overall health and psychology. Like I've been saying since the beginning - human behavior is complicated. Very complicated. The most complicated part of it is that people change, drastically, sometimes slowly over time and sometimes without warning. It has nothing to do with thinking you're special.
These charts are very odd. I question the "Effects of Early Sexual Activity on Single Motherhood" histogram in particular, as it seems to depict that the average occurrence of single-mother households is above 15% in the United States, which is just outright wrong.
Also, having some quick notes for how the fuck they measured happiness would be nice, rather than having to read from each of the studies.
Also, what in the fuck is with the mismatch between the Marriage Quality and Marital Success charts. This chart suggests that more people who have not have sex are willing to stay in miserable marriages.
looks like most of the data was taken from a survey
>its what compels you to express yourself through sexual compulsion is what endangers it.
The other person has just had hookups from uni. A girlt too, so some alcohol, club, and guys approaching her. It's not like some dramatic arthouse movie where she's seeking out insane destructive stuff in some run down part of town because of some past trauma.
They both cause each other. A lot of sexual interactions means a chunk of them were probably really shitty and make a person calused. Like a bunch of pump and dumps makes either gender use others as they've been used. It's like the cycle of abuse but not as insanely bad. But it makes a bad feedback loop that feeds on itself and shows through risky or cold or deadened sexual behavior.
Pair bonding is an incel meme.
>You're getting it backwards again. Sexual compulsive behavior doesn't cause emotional issues. Emotional issues cause sexual compulsive behavior. High risk behavior doesn't damage people. They engage in it because they were already damaged, user.
OP. Girl in question doesn't have these emotional issues or mental problems. It's simply her getting approached in clubs at uni and going along with the hookup cause she likes sex. Although does that quantify as high risk behaviour in your eyes?
Probably but I do wonder at times what truth is cause I'm so sexually inexperienced myself. The amount of times I've had an incel user online proclaim with certainity I'm hideous cause of this is hilarious and shows how binary they mindset it.
>it seems to depict that the average occurrence of single-mother households is above 15% in the United States, which is just outright wrong.
Aren’t single mother households in the US like 20%?