Low vs High Body Count - What's Ideal? cont.

[Teevster]

Dunno man the research overwhelmingly supports the link between promiscuous behavior and probability of infidelity. If you want to go against the research then by all means marry that high notch count girl and hope for the best.

https://soulmatcher.app/blog/does-p...2005 study in Personal,(7.7 vs 3.8 partners) .

Link to that research? I have read a few papers on the matters. The correlation is relatively weak, and the research design in most of these studies is questionable at best. Furthermore, none of the publications have been publication in journals with high impact factor.

-Teevster

 

[Teevster]

This is a great point. The low count girls get oneitis way easier, especially if you train them to do kink play and give them sex like they have never had before.

This to me is playing with fire. You enter some real dark territory. Been there, done that, never again.

-Teevster

 

[KJ Francis]

Link to that research? I have read a few papers on the matters. The correlation is relatively weak, and the research design in most of these studies is questionable at best. Furthermore, none of the publications have been publication in journals with high impact factor.

-Teevster

Possibly this?

Here's why I think this is something worth knowing for guys who want a serious relationship (emphasis on serious there) - it's the findings of a study by Lynn F. Cherkas of King's College, London, et al., entitled "Genetic Influences on Female Infidelity and Number of Sexual Partners in Humans: A Linkage and Association Study of the Role of the Vasopressin Receptor Gene (AVPR1A)."

“Our findings demonstrate that infidelity and number of sexual partners are both under moderate genetic influence (41% and 38% heritable, respectively) and the genetic correlation between these two traits is strong (47%).”

There was another study I heard of that tied a woman's likelihood of infidelity to her number of partners, rising with each successive partner until she hit eight lifetime partners, at which point her likelihood of infidelity had reached as high as it was going to reach. I can't find this study though, so I don't know if it's legitimate or not, and the more I think about it the more I think that it only seems logical to assume a woman who's been with 30 men is probably a lot more likely to stray than a woman who's been with eight. Until there's some solid research the jury's out on this one, though.

UPDATE: a 2007 study of American women, " Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment.," discovered a 7% increase in infidelity risk per each additional partner (also, a 10% decrease in infidelity risk per each additional year of education) for women. This means roughly twice the chance of infidelity for a woman with 10 lifetime sexual partners than for a woman with one, three times the chance for a woman with 16 partners, and four times the chance for a woman with 20 partners. Thus (to our female commenters below), the importance of an article like this for men at all interested in monogamy.

Anyway, what's all this mean for a woman's male partner?

Well, this means that, at least according to the research we already have, the higher a woman's partner count is, the more likely she is to stray from her man... and thus, the more likely he is to get stuck with a lifetime of rearing another man's child under the false impression it's his (you may be surprised to know that 1 out of 10 children born in marriage in the United States are not fathered by the husband in that marriage), or carrying a permanent infection from one of his lover's new partners when he thought he was the only one and that she was safe (one of the dangers of sex, unfortunately).

That's a little doom and gloom for you, which normally I don't like touching on on this site, but it's there for a reason: I want to highlight why knowing a woman's partner count is valuable, because a lot of people get upset that you're even talking about this and tell you to stop.

How Many Partners Has Your Girlfriend Had? Find Out Here

Here's a post that's sure to raise some ire. Ricardus and I were discussing men's tendency to want to sleep with sexually open women, but to date or settle down with or marry sexually conservative women - and how difficult it is actually figuring out how many partners women have actually had...

www.girlschase.com

 

[Teevster]

Possibly this?

How Many Partners Has Your Girlfriend Had? Find Out Here

Here's a post that's sure to raise some ire. Ricardus and I were discussing men's tendency to want to sleep with sexually open women, but to date or settle down with or marry sexually conservative women - and how difficult it is actually figuring out how many partners women have actually had...

www.girlschase.com

Impact factor 1.2. Decent journals have 5 and above. Top tier have 10 and above. This is really bad - in most universities, a publication in a journal with such an impact factor will not even count in your H-index.



And the other reference is not much better: impact facto of 2.0 and 5 years impact factor of 3.



And a statistically increase of 7 % is not significant. Furthermore, there can also be a lot of spurious effects, as well problems related to stratification.

 

[topcat]

who are waiting for the one to be ok with entering into your rotation and not crash out after a few months because they only went along with it hoping youd change your mind.

You just triggered my PTSD

 

[Spike]

you gotta have some crazy good game to get all these girls with "impulse control"

You don’t need crazy good game. I mentioned on one of the earlier pages in this thread that I already gotten with 2 of these types this year (hot+low body count+ high social status). I didn’t need extraordinary game to get them. Just a matter of being at the right place at right time (Looks and game also being secondary factors). I could only keep them as fuckbuddies at the time because I already had a girlfriend that I didn’t tell them about. Would I make them my girlfriend and then potential future wife? Without question.

 

[Levo]

You don’t need crazy good game. I mentioned on one of the earlier pages in this thread that I already gotten with 2 of these types this year (hot+low body count+ high social status). I didn’t need extraordinary game to get them. Just a matter of being at the right place at right time (Looks and game also being secondary factors). I could only keep them as fuckbuddies at the time because I already had a girlfriend that I didn’t tell them about. Would I make them my girlfriend and then potential future wife? Without question.

I didn't say you needed crazy good game to sleep with them, (especially if youre lieing/omitting things to them like in your example).

I said you needed crazy good game to put them in your rotation for an extended period of time with them knowing you aren't going to commit and for them to be truly ok with it.

 

[Teevster]

I didn't say you needed crazy good game to sleep with them, (especially if youre lieing/omitting things to them like in your example).

I said you needed crazy good game to put them in your rotation for an extended period of time with them knowing you aren't going to commit and for them to be truly ok with it.

And if they do not even make the cut of being fuckbuddies, why would "impulse control" be of any importance (considering "low body count" actually leads to better impulse control, which I am critical about). Furthermore, if she was to become a fuckbuddy, an oLTR or even a mLTR, is even impulse control and faithfulness even desirable, considering these girls tend to get clingier faster, and less open to "unconventional arrangements"? I mean, if any of the premises presented by the "low-body count" hunters are true (which, again, I really question), then such would only be viable for a standard LTR.

There is something I am not grasping with their logic. I can only suspect a camouflaged form of moralism at best.

-Teevster

 

[Spike]

Impact factor 1.2. Decent journals have 5 and above. Top tier have 10 and above.

It’s the research paper Chase used for his article. So if you have issue with that, take it with him.

Either way, even if there were no such research with an 5000 impact score or whatever in existence (I pulled up the first link that showed up with I typed it into google). Not gonna be like, “well there’s no strong research that links promiscuous girls and infidelity so I’ll marry that high notch count girl.”

 

[Spike]

said you needed crazy good game to put them in your rotation for an extended period of time with them knowing you aren't going to commit and for them to be truly ok with it

Ok but I would commit if they asked because they already have the qualities I’m looking for. At the time I wasn't ready to dump my girlfriend yet.

 

[Teevster]

It’s the research paper Chase used for his article. So if you have issue with that, take it with him.

Either way, even if there were no such research with an 5000 impact score or whatever in existence (I pulled up the first link that showed up with I typed it into google). Not gonna be like, “well there’s no strong research that links promiscuous girls and infidelity so I’ll marry that high notch count girl.”

He is welcome to cite any papers he likes. That does not mean I have any issues with it. I even discussed impact factors with Chase a few months back - most people are not aware of this, especially now that there are more and more predatory journals in academia.

Again, nobody said you have to (or should) marry a high body count girl - we have already agreed that they're statistically more likely to come with some "baggage" compared to women with a more average or lower body count.

The main point in this thread - and I know I sound like a broken record - is that a low body count is not necessarily a reliable indicator of anything positive. There is no research proving that.

Even if studies were to show that women with high body counts are more likely to have certain issues, that does not automatically mean that women with low body counts are free of them. Such assumption is a logical fallacy.

-Teevster

 

[Skills]

This is a great point. The low count girls get oneitis way easier, especially if you train them to do kink play and give them sex like they have never had before.

Unless you're looking for a LRT yourself, you gotta have some crazy good game to get all these girls with "impulse control" and who are waiting for the one to be ok with entering into your rotation and not crash out after a few months because they only went along with it hoping youd change your mind.

Correct is a total nightmare... last one gave me legit PTSD with gen z on steroids in other words problem amplified

 

[Spike]

Furthermore, if she was to become a fuckbuddy, an oLTR or even a mLTR, is even impulse control and faithfulness even desirable, considering these girls tend to get clingier faster, and less open to "unconventional arrangements"

Yes they are not ideal candidates for fuckbuddies. Nor is that the role I’m looking for those types of girls to fulfill. Don’t want it to be misinterpreted. That I’m ONLY screening for high quality girls. I want to marry a high quality girl. If a girl isn’t high quality, there are of course other roles she can fulfill

then such would only be viable for a standard LTR.

Correct.

 

[504]

Hey Spike,

Chase answered this on page 3:

I remember reading that. I'm curious as to your own motives. Exactly the same as Chase's?

or even having kids for that matter

Why does a girl's partner count influence her desire to have children?

Is the reason you prefer low-count girls that you read the research and would rather like to take a girl who is statistically more unlikely to stray as a girlfriend...or were you cheated on by a high-count girl and/or know of men whose high-count wives bore children with different fathers?

Don't get me wrong, subconsciously I do think a low-count girl would be better bet as a girlfriend but anecdotally I haven't seen anything pointing to a low-count girl being a good idea and a high-count girl being a bad idea at any time in my life.

Yes one the best sex ever i had was an inexperienced girl...

Do you have any idea why it was so? Why was she so much better than the ones before her and after her, better than other inexperienced girls and all the experienced ones?

Impact factor 1.2. Decent journals have 5 and above. Top tier have 10 and above. This is really bad - in most universities, a publication in a journal with such an impact factor will not even count in your H-index.

Would you say that any papers from journals with a score below 5 should be at best taken with a grain of salt and preferably ignored? I sometimes consume academic literature and I hadn't heard of impact factors until you mentioned it.

The main point in this thread - and I know I sound like a broken record - is that a low body count is not necessarily a reliable indicator of anything positive. There is no research proving that.

As in:

low-count girls are better for relationships

but high-count girls aren't necessarily problematic in any way?

That I’m ONLY screening for high quality girls. I want to marry a high quality girl.

You mentioned what you like in a girl.

Let's say we found such a girl.

But she's a prude and stays a prude and you cannot get her to do what you want in bed. Actually she has a low sex drive as well. And she pampers the three boys you sired and doesn't want to make them into hard motherfuckers like you do (big presupposition here but bear with me )

This notwithstanding, she has truly all of the other qualities you're searching for.

Is she still high quality?

The reason I ask is that I'm going through something similar: I have the qualities I want in a woman but my argument doesn't really hold water. And I feel that your list of qualities can be relatively easily perforated.

Thanks!

 

[Skills]

504 i personally think they have access to porn and sexualized earlier...

 

[Spike]

Is the reason you prefer low-count girls that you read the research and would rather like to take a girl who is statistically more unlikely to stray as a girlfriend...or were you cheated on by a high-count girl and/or know of men whose high-count wives bore children with different fathers?

Don't get me wrong, subconsciously I do think a low-count girl would be better bet as a girlfriend but anecdotally I haven't seen anything pointing to a low-count girl being a good idea and a high-count girl being a bad idea at any time in my life.

I didn’t read any research before coming to that conclusion. It’s just something like you said, something you subconsciously just know as obvious. From my own experience having been with a low count girl long term (3+ years). As a naturally distrustful person (reinforced by red pill talk about how girls are always lying about everything. Hiding things etc,,), I saw that you can actually trust girls that do have that impulse control. Putting themselves in situations where they could cheat but didn’t. It

But she's a prude and stays a prude and you cannot get her to do what you want in bed.

Funny you mention this because one of the girls I wrote about was actually a prude before I met her. And then soon after I started having the same rough sex as I did with other girls. So I know this can be trained. And therefore is not part of what I screen for.

 

[Teevster]

Would you say that any papers from journals with a score below 5 should be at best taken with a grain of salt and preferably ignored? I sometimes consume academic literature and I hadn't heard of impact factors until you mentioned it.

Yes, although journals creeping toward an impact factor of 5 - say, above 3 or 4 — can be considered somewhat respectable, they’re still not what most would call prestigious. A journal with an impact factor around 1.2, like the one mentioned above, is basically where you submit a paper after getting rejected from higher-tier journals.

It’s quite common to be rejected from top-tier journals. They typically require at least three rounds of peer review — and that’s assuming your paper even makes it past the initial editorial screening, which often rejects over 75% of submissions outright.

So what researchers usually do is submit their paper to a few high-impact journals and hope one of them sends it out for review. Once it's under review, the chances of eventual acceptance are pretty decent, provided that you deliver strong revisions.

But when no journal bites — and a year has passed — researchers often just “dump” the paper in a low-tier journal to get it published and move on. It's a bit like settling for a fatty at 4 a.m. after a long night out — if you catch the analogy.

That's just how the process goes.

As in:

low-count girls are better for relationships

but high-count girls aren't necessarily problematic in any way?

Normal count ideal for stability. Low count and high count are both more likely to be problematic for relationships - although high count women have the benefit of accepting unconventional relationships - swinging, mLTR etc... for those that are into that (but thats not without its costs).

-Teevster

 

[Chase]

Would you say that any papers from journals with a score below 5 should be at best taken with a grain of salt and preferably ignored? I sometimes consume academic literature and I hadn't heard of impact factors until you mentioned it.

Unfortunately, if we are relegated to only journals with impact factors over 5, we will need to disregard pretty much all existing research on human reproductive behavior (including most research on, e.g., eye contact, posture, peacocking, approach invitations, opening lines, flirtation, humor, sexual conversation, LMR, etc.).

Research into human mating runs into this impact factor problem that Wikipedia highlights:

Impact factors are sometimes used to evaluate not only the journals but the papers therein, thereby devaluing papers in certain subjects.

I don't know why journals covering romantic and reproductive psychology are not cited nearly as highly as, say, journals on information management or oncology. (Well, I mean, actually I do: there is significantly less funding for these fields, thus significantly fewer papers being published, thus significantly fewer authors citing each individual paper, thus significantly fewer citations for journals in our space, thus significantly lower impact factors across the board.)

Basically you will only see journals >5 IF in the dating/relationships space if they also cover a lot of other stuff outside the space -- neuroscience, etc. Medical journals that occasionally publish papers in our space tend to have much higher IFs than pure psychology journals; pure psychology journals tend to have much higher IFs than journals niched down into reproductive psychology; etc.

There are only three journals I can see with impact factors >5 that somewhat regularly deal with sexual and romantic behavior (Evolution and Human Behavior: ~5.1 in 2023; Psychological Science: ~9.2 in 2023; Personality and Social Psychology Review: ~10.2 in 2023). The only one of these that publishes frequently in this space is Evolution and Human Behavior (and even that one, a bunch of sources have its impact factor under 5 now). That journal (Evolution and Human Behavior) does happen to have a study supporting a promiscuity-infidelity link. I highlight the relevant quote in this article (infidelity risk factor #5/49):

49 Early Warning Signs a Woman Is Going to Cheat on You

A cheater doesn’t cheat out of nowhere. She leaves clues, hints, and signs – some of them quite obvious. These 49 signs tell you she may soon cheat on you. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Sex-Related Risk Factors 3. Lifestyle Risk Factors 4. Visible Risk Factors 5. Behavioral Risk Factors 6...

www.girlschase.com

But that being said -- I am a bit surprised to see this thread still going.

Looks like it is going in circles.

From what I can see here the debate has somewhat devolved into this:

LOW COUNT GUYS: "If she's high count, she's too risky, thus automatically ruled out."

HIGH COUNT GUYS: "It's silly to weigh count at all, because count is not the only factor."

There's some kind of polarization effect occurring in this thread, where both sides have pushed each other into extreme positions.

It's like a political debate!

"Tune in at 11 as two senatorial candidates argue the merits of low vs. high body counts among female aides and assistants!"

Chase

 

[Teevster]

Unfortunately, if we are relegated to only journals with impact factors over 5, we will need to disregard pretty much all existing research on human reproductive behavior (including most research on, e.g., eye contact, posture, peacocking, approach invitations, opening lines, flirtation, humor, sexual conversation, LMR, etc.).

I know why — it's because research on these kinds of subjects is inherently difficult. Using purely quantitative methods often comes with a large margin of error, and due to the nature of the topic, it typically leads to weak or unreliable results.

Most psychological research designs incorporate both quantitative and qualitative elements. However, these studies tend to lean heavily on quantitative approaches, since many qualitative methods are restricted for… well, ethical reasons (which is exactly why we can do it ).

This is partly why I rarely bother reading any "psychology" that directly links to pick up related subjects.

-Teevster

 

[Chase]

I know why — it's because research on these kinds of subjects is inherently difficult. Using purely quantitative methods often comes with a large margin of error, and due to the nature of the topic, it typically leads to weak or unreliable results.

Most psychological research designs incorporate both quantitative and qualitative elements. However, these studies tend to lean heavily on quantitative approaches, since many qualitative methods are restricted for… well, ethical reasons (which is exactly why we can do it ).

This is partly why I rarely bother reading any "psychology" that directly links to pick up related subjects.

-Teevster

There's a lot of good quantitative pickup science though.

My favorite all-time study in dating is Monica Moore's and Diane Butler's 1989 paper "Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in women", published in Semiotica, for instance (that journal has an impact factor below 1). It is conducted in-field, with different predictors vs. observers, and remarkably clear results.

Or this paper, which I also enjoyed; also conducted in-field (also published in a journal with a sub 1 impact factor):

They had young guys in France stand next to either a new luxury Audi (€58,000), a 1 y/o Renault (€24,000), or a 15 y/o Renault (€800). They did a bunch of things to control for variables. Then they had the guys jump out of the cars and approach girls using neo-direct (lol); 180 approaches per car. Result was women were almost 2x more likely to give their numbers to the guy in the high status car than the middle status car, and 3x more likely than the guy in the low status car. (IOW, status signals help men close.)

There are a number of qualitative studies as well. I cited this one in that article above.

And actually the single best paper I have ever read on how the designs of venue facilitate or inhibit approaches and escalation was a qualitative paper (albeit it was done in gay sex clubs, lol). (Impact factor for the journal it was published in: only 1.5 in 2023 I had to bleach my eyes after reading that paper, but there were so many logistical gems in it. A lot of the ideas in this post come from that paper)

I think it is also worth remembering:

A lot of the early seduction stuff came directly from academia.

The concepts of frames, screening, values elicitation, rewarding and punishing, push-pull, compliance / commitment-consistency, LMR "token resistance", and much more were all lifted directly out of psychological research / concepts named by psychologists.

Part of the decline in innovation in the seduction space IMO seems to be due to fewer and fewer guys in seduction who have any familiarity with psychological literature.

(I'm gonna risk a derail if I keep talking about this stuff though. All right, I'll let you fellas get back to debating about body counts )