Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Slutology.*

A drop in the usual tone of this blog.

The science of Slutology continues to advance and here I present another interesting paper worth perusing.

Attractiveness and Spousal Infidelity as Predictors of Infidelity in Couples from Five Cultures.

Nothing here that's new under the sun but it's nice to see science proving what common sense asserts. Some choice quotes from the paper:
This  wide  variation  in  reports  of  frequency  of  infidelity  and  non-paternity  may reflect differences in  reporting  accuracy  regarding  these  delicate matters.  In  a  US  study, women  (but  not  men)  tended  to  underreport  their  number  of  sex  partners  unless  they believed  lying could be detected (Alexander  & Fisher, 2003). Another  study of American women  found  that  when  asked  face-to-face about  number  of sexual  intercourse  partners in  the  past  year,  1.08%  of  married  women  reported infidelity  whereas  when  the  same question  was  asked  through  a  computer  questionnaire,  6.13%  of  the  married  women reported  having sexual  intercourse with  more than  one man  (Whisman  & Snyder, 2007). [Ed: Ouch! That's almost a sixfold increase!]
Values: Smith (1994)   found  permissive  sexual   values  to   be  associated   with infidelity.   Over   three-quarters   of   Americans  who   did   not   think  extramarital   sexual relations  are  “always  wrong”  reported  engaging  in  infidelity,  whereas  those  who  said  it was  “always  wrong”  reported  a  10%  rate.  Being  politically  liberal,  highly  educated,  and sexually  permissive  before  marriage  was  related  to  casual  sexual  mores.  At  least  two studies  have discovered  that  the more  religious  people were, the less likely  they reported engaging in  extramarital sexual relations (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Whisman  &  Snyder,  2007)
Physical attractiveness, as determined by independent raters, was not a predictor of the number of times US college women engaged in extra-pair sex [ED](Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997). In fact, women with low self-esteem tended to have had more sex partners and one-night stands (Mikach & Bailey, 1999). Similarly, adolescent girls who had had many sex partners rather than few or none tended to have lower self-esteem and more depression (Spencer et al., 2002). 
One factor that seems to affect infidelity across cultures is low paternal investment. For example, in matrilineal societies paternal investment typically is low, often giving rise to the  avunculate, and infidelity and divorce tend to be common (Daly, Wilson, 1983; van den Berghe, 1979). Similarly, where the wife is relatively independent economically of the husband, marital bonds tend to be weak (Friedl, 1975; Goode, 1993; Seccombe & Lee, 1987) and infidelity by the wife is relatively common (van den Berghe, 1979).
Nothing is certain in life and picking a good partner is hard but an attractive girl, who loves her daddy, and is from a good, stable, conservative-religous family is a pretty safe bet.

*Hat Tip to Randall Parker for the term. Though he uses tt". i.e. Sluttology

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Women from poor, US NAM (Non-Asian Minority) households tend to be slutty, single mothers and have a lot of abortions.

Fat white women also are quite promiscuous.

The hilarious thing is that the fat acceptance movement and sluttiness is good are deeply interconnected.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

"Safe bet"? I'd like to see those odds.

lulz

Anonymous said...

Good wife:

1) no lower self-esteem
2) good, stable, conservative-religous family
3) no independent economically

Johnycomelately said...

"An attractive girl, who loves her daddy, and is from a good, stable, conservative-religous family is a pretty safe bet."

Couldn't be said any better.

Problem is outliers like Belle Knox, she seemed like she followed the perfect life scheme, UMC, Married parents, Catholic father, private Catholic schooling and she ended up a porn star.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Knox is not an outlier. She's just a common garden variety slut. She was watching porn from age 12. Where were the parents then?
The parents have been (falsely) described as "devout Catholics"

So devout, that after the initial shock of finding out that their daughter was a porn star they continued to support her.

Going to a Catholic school counts for naught these days.

Nothing religious being taught in these schools. It's all about social justice. Students learn nothing about the Catholic faith..

As researcher Dr Luke Saker,(in my home state of West Aust) said, a few years back..
"If Catholic schools are primarily about the Catholic education of their students, then, it would

appear that Catholic schools are not living up to their mandate, to be Catholic. After two years

of attending senior religious education classes, it appeared to me that my university students

intending to be teachers, in a Catholic school, and to teach religious education, had a poor

perception of their religious education classes. There was little evidence of the outcomes

being achieved, while acceptance of official Catholic Church dogma and doctrine is rejected

by the majority of the students."

Catholic schools in America, are in a worse state than they are in Australia..

The Social Pathologist said...

Problem is outliers like Belle Knox, she seemed like she followed the perfect life scheme, UMC, Married parents, Catholic father, private Catholic schooling and she ended up a porn star.

What we know about Belle Knox is what we know from the media. I don't know any Conservative Catholic family who would let their daughter major in womens studies. Literature, arts, science and medicine I understand but to letting your daughter take a course in feminism is like a Rabbi sending is his kid to the Fuehrer for a lesson in family values. I imagine that the family ain't that pious.

@Kath

Nice to have you back.

Yep, the Catholic schools are pretty terrible, both academically and with regard to religion.

@LBF

Judas hung around with Jesus and even he ended up being a dud. No 100% certainties in anything. But you can screen to put the odds in your favour.

Novaseeker said...

Miriam Weeks is a kind of a type -- the "rebellious Catholic schoolgirl" type who, once away from the family/turning 18, turns full-on GGW.

I knew girls like this in Catholic school when *I* was there in the 1980s. They usually come from average Catholic families, and ones which are somewhat strict when it comes to boyfriends, attire and so on. This is then rebelled against once they are out from under daddy, often in a spectacularly slutty manner -- often some of the sluttiest sluts among college freshmen are these kinds of Catholic girls in rebellion mode. Most of them reform again, settle down, and live normal lives once they get through the GGW phase.

The trouble for Miriam Weeks is that this is going to be bloody difficult for her to do, given that her GGW phase has taken place in front of the cameras, and will be on the internet in perpetuity. A particularly stupid decision, even when compared with the other GGW/Catholic schoolgirl in rebellion types.

I doubt her family is interested in her majoring in feminist studies. At the same time, it's a bit much to expect her family to disown her at this point. She is certainly in rebellion mode, but I think many families would try to work with that rather than casting it aside. Yes, Daddy could pull the financial support for Duke -- and perhaps that would be a good thing as well -- but he's probably quite invested with Miriam getting a degree from a school like Duke, and so likely doesn't want to do this. he probably figures she is better off at Duke than she is if he pulled her from there, and she left college, moved to LA, and got into the porn world 24/7.

Prediction: In 10-15 years, Weeks will publish a book like Traci Lords did, taking it all back, and professing a conversion. And she'll cash in on that, too.

sunshinemary said...

I hope Miss Weeks does come to her senses, even if it takes 10-15 years, and I hope her repentance will be genuine. She'll never be able to get away from her past, as you noted, but perhaps she might some day use it to guide other girls away from making the same mistakes she did. Eighteen is so young and girls can be so foolish at that age, especially in a permissive, feministic culture.

Jason said...

Speaking of infidelity doctor, I found this thread (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=870532) at Catholic Answers to be absolutely fascinating (hat-tip to Rollo at The Rational Male). I say this because one can find there all the basic themes of churchianity (I prefer the term “cheap grace”), alpha fucks/beta bucks, a kind of unconscious male shaming, and so on laid out with frightening clarity. Good beta Catholic husband is having marital problems with his wife (perhaps partly because he is infertile); frustrated wife goes out, gets drunk at a bar, and apparently gets knocked up (by an African-American); depressed husbands asks for advice on this Catholic Forum; good, devout Catholics respond, saying generally that he needs to think of the child, he needs to forgive, he needs to let go of his anger, blah, blah, blah (very little discussion of the wife’s need to repent, or sympathy for the very legitimate anger the husband is feeling, or of the fact that the wife may have been very consciously trying to get pregnant through illegitimate means). Even as an agnostic, there is something about it all that I find rather unsettling. I feel that most of the commentators are engaging again in a “cheap grace” kind of response that is only superficially Catholic. Anyway, as a medical practioner and a Catholic, it might interest you.

Jack said...

@ Jason,

I do not read that the fellow is infertile. Perhaps I missed that? He says given the timing that there is no way the child could be his as he was out of town, yes?

@SP

Without Judas we would not have the rest of the story, right? He repented and regretted his actions.

@ Everybody,

It would be great to have a parenthetical reference to acronyms that we're all so fond of using. GGW?

Jack

Jason said...

Jack, I certainly might be missing something, but I can’t help thinking that the Catholic gentleman is infertile for psychosomatic reasons (i.e. he is not terribly strong or manly, and his wife is turned off by this, leading to an abysmal sex life between the two of them in which there are performance issues; also, hence, her fling with a guy who is perhaps a Big Man and is able to turn her on because of a high T-count, aggressiveness, etc.). Among other reasons, I brought this to the doctor’s attention because the man involved seems to be Exhibit A of the sort of problem The Social Pathologist has described over his last few essays: namely, the dangers of having simply a spiritualized view of relations between the sexes, while at the same time ignoring love’s carnal aspects (in essence, a form of Gnosticism).
Let me say here also that I was perhaps to judgmental about the commentators in the thread; I’m not sure. I very much sympathize and empathize with the gentleman here, who I believe is doing his best to do the right thing, although I guess I worry that he might do the “right” thing in the future rather than take the steps really needed to repair his marriage.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Jack

Without Judas we would not have the rest of the story, right? He repented and regretted his actions.

Not clear what you mean here Jack. But I think it is important not to conflate prudence with forgiveness.

@Jason

Pretty depressing thread and an awful predicament to be in.

Her husband is away for the weekend and she chooses to go to a bar and drink? Huh?

Why didn't she visit her mother, sister or get drunk at home?

Reading between the lines, this comment by the original poster reveals a lot.

We had a large argument prior, and I said some personal things about her past that I should not have[Ed. N>1]. It was too much for her. She admitted that the trip to the bar was to ease the pain, while being in the company of other men.

She was looking for sex.

Why she blabbed to him in the morning. Maybe guilt, but then again, maybe because someone they both knew saw her and felt that it would be better to confess than be found out?

I've become more of a hard arsed cynic as I get older.

The comments thread is also very depressing, and abounding in "cheap grace" but that's what you get when dumb but well intentioned people "do theology".

Novaseeker said...

GGW = "Girls Gone Wild".

KPR Rumah said...

I agree with this One factor that seems to affect infidelity across cultures is low paternal investment.

jul tempat dan tong sampah murah said...

thank's For your information :)

oemahsehat said...

Great article. There’s a lot of good data here, though I did want to let you know something - I am running Redhat with the latest beta of Firefox, and the layout of your blog is kind of quirky for me. I can read the articles, but the navigation doesn’t function so good.

Trần Văn Quảng said...

Women from poor, US NAM (Non-Asian Minority) households tend to be slutty, single mothers and have a lot of abortions.

Fat white women also are quite promiscuous.

The hilarious thing is that the fat acceptance movement and sluttiness is good are deeply interconnected.
bán hàng trực tuyến
ban hang truc tuyen
cách kinh doanh hiệu quả
kinh doanh online

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Hope you don't mind my posting a rather long winded comment I previously made on a youtube clip (minor changes) where people discussed the death of Peaches Geldof.

>That lady, I think, is right about not knowing what people are having to grapple with in private but what does reaching out consist of? For instance, I had a moderate Christian upbringing (primary school also Christian), now, we don't have to look to Shakespeare to see how fundamental sex, the relation between the sexes, is (though, of course, it features very greatly in Shakespeare). What I've found is that the Christian ethos, that civilising ethos, if anything, not so much emasculates men but does not enhance his desirability, not like 'virtue' enhances a girl's desirability.
It surely helps make a man better husband material but girls, with their enhanced sexual market value combined with contraception, treatment of STD's, mass abortion and militant feminism ('empowerment' affirmative action) are generally going to want to 'play the field' for years, maybe til the age of thirty, before considering 'settling down' by which time they make the likes of Lydia Bennett (frivolous, wilful, ignorant) the Steele sisters (affected) and Mary Crawford (calculating, manipulative) of the Jane Austen novels look positively virtuous and saintly.
They would rather share, ride the carousel with, a relatively small proportion of 'alpha males', 'bad boys', this creates a toxic imbalance and ratchets up the propensity of men to turn to pornography, prostitution (Eastern European sex slaves?) and especially unethical practice (Banking?) if it makes them rich and redresses this imbalance; in short, a culture of bad faith flourishes.

I hazard a guess that lady wouldn't wish to "reach out" to me unless it was with an urgent need to reprogram me. After all, can I prove anything of what I say? Where's my proof? Where's the hard data?
Women don't want to reach out, as soon as they catch wind of such subversive implications they (nawalt) seek to ostracise... If Jagger said "if you can't rock me, somebody will" a lot of women soon make it clear - 'if you don't subscribe to the script of female 'liberation' you're worse than expendable'

Jane Bennett: "It is our vanity that fancies admiration (sexual attractiveness) means much more than it does."
Elizabeth: "And men take care that it should."

Men MUST take care that it shouldn't<