High previous partner count lowers female satisfaction with marriage - but not male

MissMissy

So what's an early 20's woman who will soon be entering the dating market to look for a red pill LTR supposed to do? I haven't been finding a lot of red pill dating advice for women my age, besides The Rules Revisited.

Evo-psyche says that I'm at my peak attractiveness, but it seems that most men not too far from my age are either player alphas not wanting to commit or betas wanting to lock me down. I've dated a couple early 30's guys but the decade age difference was off-putting. I've so far been having lots of first dates and ending them after that because I can usually tell which category they fall into after that, so I keep my N low, but I feel like I'm flying blind so to speak with respect to a dating strategy. What makes it even harder is that it seems like there are so few MMSL-type guys out there with a good mix of both alpha and beta...

LL80

@shibari said:

Also, I think solving the slut/prude conundrum is not the most pressing problem of a girl in today's LTR marketplace, especially if she is 30+ and Red Pill aware (for lack of a better term). Finding an available guy she's highly attracted to, with healthy libido, lots of good alpha, who has his shit together and a plan and who really goes for what he wants and who is highly attracted to her ... will be enough of a challenge.

Ain't that the truth?

MissMissy

Haha, @shibari‌ we cross-posted... That's exactly my struggle.

Frank_London

MissMissy said:

.

Evo-psyche says that I'm at my peak attractiveness, but it seems that most men not too far from my age are either player alphas not wanting to commit or betas wanting to lock me down.

That seems to be the gamut right there; guys who want short term and guys who want long term.

I guess if you're really at 'peak attractiveness' what you are really hoping for is to snare an alpha into a long term relationship. Right?

Serenity

That was a lightbulb moment for me. Very well said.

So, if you're a woman looking for marriage, it's not particularly helpful to give a lot of weight to the POV of the man who's looking to play the field. You need to be listening to the guys who are looking for marriage/LTR's. 

And if you're a guy who's looking to maximize his sexual partners, don't bother wasting your time on married women's opinions. They're not your target market.

Athol_Kay said:

The issue is that there are two completely separate Sexual Marketplaces overlapping each other. One is the short-term / hookup market, and the other is the long-term / marriage market. Both have different buyers and sellers, but everything is taking place in the same room and there's an awful lot of confused signaling between everyone as to what they are actually shopping for.

Angeline

"Snare" lol no.

I want to be so awesome he WANTS to be with me.

Rorschach

Not Pareto optimal in either case.

JellyBean

The study quoted here isn't really science in the strict sense.  The National Marriage Project is hardly an unbiased organization.  I believe the study results they produced are obnoxiously biased and manipulative.

The Project is run primarily by The Institute for American Values, which is mostly funded by the John Templeton foundation and the Bradley foundation, both of which are widely recognized as promoting conservative Christian points of view.  What's more, the IAV has a very long history of actively lobbying the White House and Congress to promote their agenda.  It would be fair to say that the NMP is a tool of an overtly biased organization.

Whenever there is an overt bias, there is a high risk of indulging in confirmation bias, which negatively affects objectivity and decision making.  Researchers operating under confirmation bias are far more likely to select information that supports their preexisting beliefs and attitudes.  The results of these studies laden with confirmation bias can masquerade as looking very scientific, even though they are deeply flawed.

I'm not necessarily disputing the claims made as a result of the study, I'm just saying it should be taken in context as being offered by a group that actively tries to promote conservative Christianity as the ideal.

growingafamily

I would think conservative Christianity would be enforcing the idea that both sexes report higher satisfaction with lower partner count. At least in the branch I was raised in (and still adhere to) all things are equal as far as what's sinful or not for one sex is sinful or not for the other as well.

OneEyedDrunk

MissMissy said:

So what's an early 20's woman who will soon be entering the dating market to look for a red pill LTR supposed to do? I haven't been finding a lot of red pill dating advice for women my age, besides The Rules Revisited.

Evo-psyche says that I'm at my peak attractiveness, but it seems that most men not too far from my age are either player alphas not wanting to commit or betas wanting to lock me down. I've dated a couple early 30's guys but the decade age difference was off-putting. I've so far been having lots of first dates and ending them after that because I can usually tell which category they fall into after that, so I keep my N low, but I feel like I'm flying blind so to speak with respect to a dating strategy. What makes it even harder is that it seems like there are so few MMSL-type guys out there with a good mix of both alpha and beta...

I think keeping your N low is pretty much what's recommended. Don't be riding the "cock carousel" as it's known around the manosphere. Just be cool, friendly, display high value, and what you want will come to you. Guys gotta do all the work. Women just need to show up and be feminine. 

Athol_Kay

I realize I'm somewhat of a outlier in that my personal and professional life have such overlap, but if @Jen_Kay dies I don't believe I'd date much, if at all. Spinning plates just seems like a timesink.

I would eventually put a shingle out that I was looking for a wife though. Potential future wives would be thoroughly test-driven before any nupitals, but I don't think it's the first thing that happens in the interview process.

I also have a type of woman that I'm interested in for a LTR/Marriage. We *might* have sex on the third date. But we'd have fairly intently vetted each other by then.

judyjudy

I find this interesting because Mr. Judyjudy isn't bothered so much by my number, but that I've had two long-term live-in partners before him. He appears to find me having shared "the whole package" offputting in the same way some may find a high number offputting.

Rorschach

I think what it comes down to is that short-term and long-term, or dual, mating strategies evolved for both men and women. As Athol implicitly pointed out, the manosphere likes to focus on the female dual mating strategy ("alpha f**ks/beta bucks), while privileging the male dual strategy (it is, after all, the manosphere).

These male and female strategies evolved together, essentially in conflict. As Robert Wright has written, the minds of men are a reflection of the evolution of women, and vice versa (or something like that--I don't have the exact quotation).

The strategies are always already in conflict, and there is no reason to think they should answer to our normative expectations or be conducive to our individual happiness. This is because the strategies evolved, in relation to the marginal minimum parental investment of each sex, solely in order to replicate our "selfish genes" in the next generation, and not to make us happy.

Maria

And all the time the answer was there, before our very eyes, in a different category.

Eightbit

Articles like these make me think my wife is a special snowflake.  They are not good for my oneitis.