I’ve made claims from time to time that promiscuity exacts great tolls from society. There’s been a great deal of research, as well as observation, of the various detrimental physical and psychological effects of promiscuous sexual behavior, which may differ between the sexes.
However, there’s been little written on the economic effects of promiscuity. My claim last summer that there are substantial costs to society associated with sluthood evoked great derisive chortles from Jaclyn Friedman.
In my recent post What a Slut Is, I promised a follow up - What a Slut Costs. I began with a Google search, which revealed disappointingly little in the way of noteworthy analysis. So I’ve put together an original flowchart to illustrate the concept. I haven’t attached dollar numbers to specific effects, though I hope to do so in future. In the meantime, I’ve used a $-$$$$$ system to generally indicate where costs occur.
In general, direct costs associated with promiscuity may be found in the following areas:
- Healthcare: Medicaid/Obamacare
- Insurance Premiums
- Corporate benefit costs
- Public Sector Legal Costs: police, attorneys, court system
- Private Sector Legal Fees
- More divorce: less efficient spending and saving
- Prisons
There are also enormous indirect costs, including decreased productivity and a labor shortfall due to declining birth rates. Things would have to get considerably worse to reach a point of economic stagnation due to promiscuity in the U.S., but this is the path we are currently traveling.
Please note that costs vary considerably by socioeconomic status. The left side of the chart is more closely associated with low SES, the right side with high SES.
I’m not an economist; this is really more of an exercise in common sense, as well as a work in progress.
Your thoughts? What did I miss?
{ 781 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 6 »
I think you’re just grabbing at straws.
Susan, I think that the state is the Daddy now. Both literally and figuratively. I know that sounds horrible, but its true.
Feminism, the welfare state and crony capitalism (corporatism) didn’t create the impetus to sleep around, but they certainly removed the barriers to it.
Destroy Big Government if you want to people to be more chaste. Why should I commit to any woman if I am only going to be punished for doing that?
First, the Casey Anthony case is a pretty good example of the cost of promiscuity.
A. who is Caylee Anthony’s biological father? No one knows. That’s promiscuity.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20503504,00.html
B. why did she kill her daughter: so she could party (debatable). That’s promiscuity.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1344834&srvc=rss
Second, the additional education a nice guy male needs to be eligible is a cost. I, like others in the manosphere, define promiscuity as a plurality of women involved with a small number of attractive males. A nice guy man that’s a 6 should be attractive to a female 6, but she’s busy pursuing and / or actively sleeping with men rated 7 or 8. Mr Average has to work harder than his father or grandfather did. That’s a cost.
Third, is the cost women put into makeup, clothing, and exercise to be attractive to alpha males. Also the cost of birth control pills. If you aren’t having sex until your wedding night, and if there’s abortion available in the case of rape, then why do you need birth control pills?
You know that chart is itching to become a meme.
Anarchy, Despotism, Oligarchy, Mob Rule and back to anarchy, I wonder at what stage are we now?
Clearly each protected class steal from the one below it until it all collapses, promiscuity is definately a sign post of who the protected class is now.
@Susan
I commend you, great work! yes skanks are ruining civilization as they do. and yeah, some immature 35 year-old will say “hehehe, what’s wrong with that, hehehe” as he excuses those that destroy the society which gave his loser-ass a home.
sluts, of course, undercut girls who are trying to rise above nature in order to procure a proper husband (and, thus unwittingly, retain civilization) by lowering the cost of sex.
do not forget that most of this is a direct result of entertainment media prodding. again, well done Susan.
@Nomadic Neill
How so? Can you be specific?
I have way too much ADD to grapple with the meanings of such a complex flow-chart. Besides, I am on vacation.
The Blog “Maggie McNeill – the Honest Courtesan” is the real thing. I have no idea what her hit count is today but I can promise you that 10 years from now her writings will still be mentioned with reverance and respect around the camp-fires of the righteous.
Maggie was an up-scale escort and madam in N. Orleans. She can tell you exactly what is the price of promiscuity. It is 300 dollars an hour.
In her world, that is the end of it. No subsequent crime, divorce, unwanted preggers, not even any sexual harassment lawsuits. 300 USDs and you get to escape from the viscous grip of a woman who gave it up to you.
She is worth a look. Seriously.
@Rum
$300 is the revenue from promiscuity, not the cost. If only Honest Courtesans were the norm – perhaps promiscuity would be self-sustaining! As it is, it’s a major drag on taxpayer dollars.
A commendable project, if only because nobody else is doing it.
However, given that there is apparently nothing to base even a provisional conclusion on, your approach is decidedly unscientific.
You are stating your conclusion, that promiscuity has net costs to society, before you conduct your research. That’s backwards.
Instead of putting yourself out on a limb with a claim, you should be examining a question: Does promiscuity impose economic costs?
Are you prepared to discover that promiscuity is actually beneficial? As the book Freakonomics demonstrates, the field you are examining is filled with unpredictable discoveries like this (such as that the decline in crime rate was likely due to the legalization of abortion).
Your current approach has at least a couple risks: That your own confirmation bias will corrupt your research, and that even if your research is sound critics can point to your ideological agenda to dismiss your work.
Be better than Roissy.
Susan
You miss my point. The lady is very, very bright and has a lot to say.
I have never met her, at all, but she is like the Beatles in 1962. Just Saying.
Hello Susan!
Would you care to explain further what the problem is with a declining birthrate? (Other than providing more suckers to feed the government Ponzi schemes of Social(ist) Security, “free” health care, and other giveaway programs, that is.) The childfree are ready to lunge.
Random contrarian thoughts:
Speaking of Roissy, he likes to claim that women’s suffrage was the beginning of the end of the United States. However, if you chart the economy of the United States since women got the vote, it’s an overwhelming success story — the country went from promising contender to the world’s only superpower. If there is any causal effect, one must conclude that giving women more and more rights is good for a nation’s success. (Roissy’s lame retort: Yeah, but just you wait!)
What about a chart comparing levels of promiscuity over several decades to economic performance? If there is a correlation, what does it mean? If there is no correlation, why not?
The activity that goes on before sex is just as costly as the consequences after sex.
@The Unfortunate Rake
Yes, promiscuity imposes costs.
The way to analyze this is look at what it would cost, in effort, to attract a mate in your grandparents day, version what it costs in effort today. If you want to look at straight costs then adjust for inflation.
We need to define promiscuity. Strictly, it is sex outside of marriage. A more modern interpretation of promiscuity is using sex as a way to attract a partner, resources, or pleasure.
If this Rather nice flow chart is correct then promiscuity provides an excellent economic boost to lawyers, estate agents and doctors. A win win no less.
@Rake
I would argue that one need not do any more research than to simply read the newspaper each day. The societal trends identified here are pronounced, obvious.
I did look for evidence that promiscuity can be beneficial. It appears that richer countries are more promiscuous that poorer countries, perhaps because richer folks have the luxury of pursuing multiple sexual partners.
I also perused the evo psych literature – which surprisingly highlighted the fact that male promiscuity shortens the life span! (At least on experiments done with fish.) But alas, no info at all on economic effects.
Consider this flowchart a hypothesis. Feel free to disprove it. Is there any specific area where you question the cause/effect? I can certainly back up the claims of causation made here.
They could, but that would be lazy of them. I’ve seen many people diss a study because it was conducted at BYU or by the Heritage Foundation. That’s not enough – look at the study, find the flaws in the data or analysis, and then speak up.
Interesting. I’ve always thought of him as a rather brilliant commentator on culture, and very astute in his analyses. I’m not a regular reader of his site, and I believe quite a few recent (sub-par) posts are written by others.
Hence the term bureaugamy, coined by Lionel Tiger.
OhioStater’s point about increased eligibility costs is interesting, because this does seem to be a real phenomenon that often results in a misallocation of resources. But I haven’t seen any formal research on the subject.
This is something that I’d begun to notice about a decade ago when I lived in Philadelphia. For example, the young men that I worked with at the time were telling me that women their age expected them to own homes. Apparently owning a house was a prerequisite for many girls. But these guys were in their mid to late twenties. Reasonably they weren’t in a position to encumber themselves with a home purchase. Their careers were just starting and they needed to have the flexibility to move to another city, or go back to school for additional education. Buying a home could prove to be a major liability for someone in their position. And realistically the only reason that their girlfriends expected them to own a house was as a status signal. They didn’t have a solid argument for why the house was necessary. It was simply something that they associated with affluence and adulthood.
The US may be becoming like certain Asian countries in this regard, where men are expected to have significant assets before marrying. This could go towards explaining why many men are deferring marriage or forgoing it entirely. In countries where marriage eligibility is restricted in this way, you tend to find a larger proportion of unmarried adult males, and a wider age disparity between couples.
@Pip
Failure to replace the population leads to a labor shortage. In Western Europe, this led to importing labor just to keep the economy running, even if in a moribund fashion. That labor is nearly all Muslim, and we know that assimilation has been lacking and problematic in all cases. This has provoked violence and racked up enormous costs for the governments.
In the U.S., the situation will be quite different. We will likely import most of our labor from south of the border, which will make our current immigration challenges look like child’s play.
for this to be anything but confirmation bias there have to be additional charts, illustrating the costs of LTR, marriage, vs just staying alone at home
BTW this blog could change its name to “please dont hook up” dot com
Your flowchart is generally good on what it covers, but it does not cover everything. It does not differentiate between the promiscuity of single and attached/married folks.
Promiscuity (cheating) by married folks pumps more money out of the private sector and into the government, generally moving two adults closer to (although not necessarily all the way to) poverty. In particular, divorce generally leads to underemployment by one or both parents compared to married couples. In married couples, even if the mother is technically underemployed (which is arguable given how many of them just went for their MRS degree), the father is generally optimally employed. We’ll leave the effect on real wages of effectively doubling the workforce by including most women untouched for now, since that’s in effect today whether most marriages succeed or fail.
There’s also the more difficult-to-measure effect of the increased revenue for the courts in the form of divorce settlements, which would tend to increase its appeal to couples on the brink of adultery or divorce.
Single or married, I think the biggest and most preventable cost of sluthood lies in male investment, or lack thereof. The village bicycle doesn’t get any money from the potential baby-daddies unless the police and courts get involved – costing taxpayer money. The “reformed” tramp (making up the majority of sluts claiming reform, though certainly not the totality) gets the fancy wedding and McMansion, until the divorce where money is pumped into courts and non-productive private sector workers (lawyers) and both parties end up undereployed. The poor produce more kids requiring government funding to raise (welfare, public education, and police as the misbehaved little tykes reach their teen years); the rich produce fewer kids and raise them to the same promiscuous lifestyle (where, like the Hiltons, the kids are raised without the skills to run any business, let alone the one they could have inherited – unless they’re able to live of celebrity for a decade).
And that’s just women. Women may be the biggest consumers, but men are the biggest producers, and less investment in family means the average worker produces less, since he’s spending his twenties and early thirties goofing off. I’m not sure what I’d say about high-producing men like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, since I suspect they would still produce their game-changing products with or without wives, but the lack of investment from regular drones adds up fast.
On the plus side, the alcohol, condom, and tourism industries benefit tremendously from promiscuity.
What about the stats of OOW births, which have been steadily increasing in the US? The marriage rate among African Americans is 40% or so. Is it confirmation bias to observe that young men being raised without fathers are perpetrating violence from puberty onward?
Also, the healthcare costs incurred as a result of STDs are clearly directly a result of promiscuous sex. There is no alternative explanation.
Ha, have you just figured out I’m not a fan of slutting it up? However, a couple of points:
Hooking up refers to any physical contact, starting with making out.
I subscribe to “No Sex Before Monogamy.”
I don’t say please. I lay it out there, take it or leave it.
I just got home from a shift in my ghetto ER – I’ve literally still got my scrubs on and I’m wondering about the gym vs. a glass of Scotch.
From my point of view, promiscuity pays my bills – along with bad genes, shitty nursing homes, pure dumb bad luck, and stupidity.
I helped take care of roughly 30 patients today. About 5 were various types of injuries/burns (love them fireworks), 2 car accidents, a motorcycle vs. stationary object, a few tweakers, and maybe five or six old people. There were a few abdominal cases, some folks with the sniffles, and one person who was actually sick.
At least four of the others were women with either an STD or a possible problem in pregnancy. None of the women today were married, and not one dad/LTR boyfriend was in evidence. That’s about an average day Tuesday for me, except for I didn’t have a single cardiac patient or opiate OD (praise be unto Allah).
When I work the pediatric side of the ED, most of our patients are there for simple stuff like strep throat, URIs, lacerations, and broken bones. All of this could easily be taken care of in a regular doc’s office or urgent care. Unfortunately, very few of the poorly educated, polybabydadic* women have private health insurance, and the docs/urgent cares around here will go out of business if they take what Uncle Sam’s willing to pay to see them. Instead, the moms haul the kids in to the ED. Sometimes, they use those taxis with the flashing lights and the EMTs in back, because those are “free”. Some folks call those kind of taxis “ambulances”.
This is so wasteful it makes my teeth hurt.
One woman who’s pregnant (again) doesn’t go to an OB because she doesn’t like the bus. She calls EMS, states she’s having abdominal pain and/or bleeding and gets a ride to the ED in a “free” taxibolance. She keeps up with the story long enough to get an ultrasound printout for her scrapbook, then she begs for a cab voucher home. She’s been in many times over the last several months, and there’s never anything wrong. She just wants the pictures, I think. She’s definitely not the first person I’ve taken care of like this.
Anyway, she’s got Medicaid, so you’re paying me to bang an IV or two in her and bring her blankets and stuff. The docs like it because I work at a teaching hospital and the resident physicians get to check off procedures they need prior to being EM board eligible. I like it because she’s actually pretty nice, despite what she’s doing to the health care system.
Stop asking these questions. If you somehow fix this problem, roughly 20% of my patients will disappear – and that doesn’t count the men/boys who grow up fatherless, and the ensuing injuries that accrue from a life of crime/drugs/poor impulse control that engenders. I might actually have to get a real job, and I don’t think I’m equipped to make an honest living.
So pay up, suckers. Dogsquat is depending on you to inflate his paycheck.
*Polybabydadic is a medical term derived from Latin. It denotes a woman who has given birth to children fathered by multiple baby daddys. Acute cases of polybabydadia may sometimes involve six children by four fathers(ref – Wrapupyo, D. Lifecycle of the Urban Humanity In: Gabbe SG, et al. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007.).
To pre-empt the hand wringing this type of plain speaking normally brings up on these issues-
Yes, I am compassionate and professional at all times. Yes, I treat these people exactly the way I treat wealthy type folks. Yes, our society needs a safety net. I am part of the safety net and I love my job, so think about that before you go all high and mighty on me. Yes, this post is HIPAA compliant and I’m not talking about you or anyone you know.
OCD kicking in – Why is a sexual assault prosecution when drunk two $$$’s but not drunk only $$?
Otherwise personally, I love your flow chart!
“No Sex Before Monogamy” dot com, works!
If I was the omnipotent leader of the world, I wouldnt allow single motherhood. And to become a parent you would have to be in a relationship that at least 5 years, and pass a lot of psychological and character tests. And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.
Vote for me
BTW I dont think the raise on single motherhood is due to casual sex. I think casual sex and single motherhood are the result of something else
Whilst having a ONS it’s monogamous, till the morning…unless it a threesome.
@ Susan
In the short term, I do not believe that there is a labor shortage in the U.S. In the long term, less population means (generally) less need for some kinds of labor, tempered by heightened affluence and longer life spans, of course. Europe had the unfortunate proximity to the Muslim hordes, I concede, and the lack of will to stop the flood.
“We will likely import most of our labor from south of the border, which will make our current immigration challenges look like child’s play.”
This is a hot topic in West Texas where I live. Interestingly, it looks as if much of our labor is being exported south of the Rio Bravo and over the Pacific. Or, at least the work is.
And I don’t see how our failure to control our border is related to a too low (for some, not me) birthrate. The answer is to flood the already crowded world with more children to buttress our position? Have more children so they can pick the lettuce and man the counter at Micky Dee’s instead of the Latinos? Those are jobs that are being filled by Mexicans (around here, anyway) not because of a lack of people, but of a lack of people that want to do that work. Of course, you wouldn’t want your children doing that work. I know I wouldn’t.
Loved the chart Susan.
Yohami cantó una canción:
“If I was the omnipotent leader of the world, I wouldnt allow single motherhood. And to become a parent you would have to be in a relationship that at least 5 years, and pass a lot of psychological and character tests. And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.
Vote for me”
___________________
Fuck yes. I’ll sell my organs so I can donate to your campaign. I’ll sell other people’s organs, too. At least make it harder to have a kid than drive a car.
____________________
“BTW I dont think the raise on single motherhood is due to casual sex. I think casual sex and single motherhood are the result of something else”
____________________
I agree. I have no statistics to back this up, but….
I have seen several cases where I honestly believe the mother got pregnant to keep the father in her life, even tenuously. Sometimes, it’s with the knowledge that marriage/monogamy isn’t in the cards. Usually, the babydaddy is high-status in the local street-life – fairly successful drug dealer, or a higher up gangmember (terms are somewhat interchangeable in my area).
That’s not common among the middle/upper class, but it seems pretty common amongst the poor.
Not strictly promiscuity as you say – more like hypergamy run amok. As far as the women are concerned, there isn’t much downside to this. Uncle Sam will pay for most of the fixed costs of child rearing, and these gals weren’t going to school anyway.
The promiscuous college types get abortions. Before I started in health care, I couldn’t believe how common that was. One mid twenties SWPL type I took care of had seven – count ‘em – seven elective abortions. Poor thing had two permanent STDs, too.
It appears that richer countries are more promiscuous that poorer countries
.
Screw locally, marry globally. The ultimate Western man arbitrage. Feminists cringe.
In the short term, I do not believe that there is a labor shortage in the U.S. In the long term, less population means (generally) less need for some kinds of labor, tempered by heightened affluence and longer life spans, of course. Europe had the unfortunate proximity to the Muslim hordes, I concede, and the lack of will to stop the flood.
Do you know that the life expectancy is steady rising? Who will take care of the old people that cannot work in decades to come? We need labor to replace the old but given that we will also need a huge source of labor when baby boomers start to flood the nursing homes. Drivers, nurses, caregivers, cooks, delivery service. You should take a look around at the last years of any american to see how badly are we going to need labor in the future.
On the plus side, the alcohol, condom, and tourism industries benefit tremendously from promiscuity.
Sorry but my mother is a teacher I have a friend that lives in Italy that told me that the low birthrates are leaving many teachers without a job, if you account the amount of people employed by the educational system this things will disappear too.
“If I was the omnipotent leader of the world, I wouldnt allow single motherhood. And to become a parent you would have to be in a relationship that at least 5 years, and pass a lot of psychological and character tests. And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.
Vote for me”
How about adulthood tests? People need to pass certain tests, like common sense to get an ID and get to drive,drink, get married,work and so on instead of the standard 18? I really think we teenagerhood just moved like 10 years down in the life of people and society hasn’t adapted yet.
.
But its them and their feminists patrons who screech about supporting state funding of abortion for poor women not because they care about these women but because they are looking for sympathy to support abortion overall out of fear of losing their own “right” to it. Self serving snots.
.
.
Don’t American men deserve better than mal-nurtured women? Think of the children.
.
And that’s just women. Women may be the biggest consumers, but men are the biggest producers, and less investment in family means the average worker produces less, since he’s spending his twenties and early thirties goofing off. I’m not sure what I’d say about high-producing men like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, since I suspect they would still produce their game-changing products with or without wives, but the lack of investment from regular drones adds up fast.
I will say that yes a single woman will spent a lot of money in dating an looking the youngest possible. But guys will invest money on their escapism too, video games and porn the porn industry is supported by men and is millionaire so I think is an issue in what they spent money. A man will use the same T-Shirt for years, but he might be spending tons of money in porn, while the woman is the other away around.
As general rule unhappy people invest a lot in filling the void of their lives in the past (and in poor countries) this was achieved by going more to church, in this time and day in buying stuff: travels, clothes, shoes,video games, porn, collectable pieces…. So I will think that sluthood does move the economy but it doesn’t enrich a nation in fact it will drive it to poverty from the consequences of having a large portion of the masses living like cattle, investing in sex only not in the future, YMMV.
Hey Stephenie,
WTF is filking?
WTF is filking?
??? What?
Oh my god. This is such trash. I can’t even.
You aren’t even pretending to have sources for this one!
I have to agree. The only good thing(s) about this article are the comments.
I would just like to point out that a lot of your thesis is “sluthood=people spending a lot of money.” But that’s actually a good thing! In our current economic crisis, the aggregate demand is extremely low, which is one of the reasons consumer spending is so low, which is one of the reasons that unemployment is so high. Therefore, according to your logic, sluthood is a net economic good: it gets more money out there in circulation, creating jobs for condom makers, pharmacists, lawyers, adoption agencies, infertility clinics, et cetera.
Women and men, you know your economic duties! Fuck for the sake of the capitalist system!
Although, for maximum economic benefits, sluts should refrain from reproducing, instead either having abortions or giving their children up for adoption by childless fortysomething couples. Despite the job-creating stimulus potentials of a single-mom-raised child, the child would also be less likely to be a good worker, which would make factors of production more expensive, drive down the aggregate supply and risk stagflation.
@Susan
You used to be a consultant right?
Imagine you showed one of your clients a slide like this with $ and $$ and $$$… give me some cold hard numbers and then we can start thinking about correlations… and after that causation.
.
Best advice ever given on this site! Slut genocide or sluticide…now that is something Taxpayers will gladly fund. Stop the vicious cycle. Cut them off from influencing innocent young girls and in 21 years there will be a ready supply of wife worthy American women. Yes, American! Throw in a free sterilization program with cash awards for tube tying sluts and global respect returns to America in a generation. Slut-eugenics — now that’s a bio-social movement we can all get behind.
@Jack
I saw an article last week discussing the saving habit of single Chinese men. Some highly motivated men are saving like crazy in an effort to amass capital as an incentive for a woman to marry. I wondered whether in the U.S. we’re seeing the inverse of that – all of this talk about “the decline of men” is about men in their 20s not working hard, not saving, not “moving forward” in a mature fashion. Perhaps that reflects little or no desire on the part of men to marry?
@Bob
Great feedback, thanks.
Although the setting up of two homes feeds the private sector. The “consumption” marriage, which is efficient, ends and many expenses are now duplicated.
And that explains most of the increased wealth gap in the U.S.
This is the real kicker. We’re fundamentally changing the composition of the American population, in a way that can only decrease productivity – and dramatically at that.
Ah, I see you’ve already made the point I just noted to Bob. And you’re right of course about the plus side – promiscuity is big business. In addition to alcohol, condom and tourism we could add pharma (Viagra, birth control pill), and Hollywood (rom coms about FWB, SATC, etc.).
@Yohami
There may be, and probably is, a variety of factors promoting casual sex in the poor population. However, sex is a requirement for most of the single motherhood, and most of that is casual. I suppose you could call it serial monogamy instead – a 15 yo girl gets a bf long enough to get pregnant, has her baby, repeats the cycle. Since commitment is absent, and often the baby is the goal, I consider that casual sex.
@Pip
There is no question that who reproduces is important in terms of productivity. We will always want immigrant labor for picking lettuce – George W was absolutely right about that. But when the movers and shakers in society don’t reproduce – when the smartest, most accomplished women don’t marry and wind up with one test-tube baby, if that, we’re failing to create the next generation of innovators, thinkers, etc.
Failure to replace population is widely accepted as an economic death knell, or at least a sort of code blue.
I haven’t seen or heard of a SWPL teen carrying a baby to term in 20 years. This probably happens more in other parts of the U.S. – but in the Northeast? Never.
I saw a Down’s kid the other day with her mom, and realized that’s something else one never sees today. When I was a kid, there were always Down’s kids in the neighborhood families (Irish, Italian).
I think the 5th Horseman explained the effect and consequences of disincentivized males
@Sarah, Nomadic Neill
I find it fascinating that people freak out when you take commonly articulated and accepted concepts and display them in colorful squares. I challenge anyone to find one single concept in this graphic that isn’t commonly understood and accepted in society. I’ll allow that the number of $ signs may be off in a box or two, but that’s it.
I stated that I do plan to continue working on the chart – plugging in numbers. It’s just that no one is paying me $450 an hour to do it, waaaahhh. Also, FWIW, let me tell you something about consulting. This is exactly how we work. We think hard, formulate a hypothesis, analyze, gather data (much of which is back of the envelope or approximation) and come up with nice graphics. I’ve done that here. This chart would indeed pass muster with senior management at most of the companies I consulted for.
Business leaders are not whingeing and whining about confirmation bias and “correlation is not causation.” Gee, we ran an ad campaign that has been described as slightly racist, and sales of our product fell through the floor. Pull the ads!
Levitt and Dubner didn’t prove that abortions reduced crime – they noted a particularly striking correlation and made an argument, one that is still hotly debated. There is no “proof,” only data, and data tells a story. Yes, it can tell the wrong story, and that’s why we debate.
Do you demand regressions stats when you discuss politics at a dinner party? This isn’t the U.S. Dept. of Labor, LOL.
@ozy
That is dwarfed by “sluthood = government spending a lot of money.” And government = taxpayer = me. Also, the money is spent in an incredibly inefficient healthcare and legal system. It’s bad for the economy, not good.
In any case, as you see, the real, ultimate cost is the loss of poor youth to prisons and failure of the educated to reproduce. That is what will do us in.
@Jason
That’s what a blog is. A vehicle for engaging readers in conversation and debate. If the comments are interesting, I’ve succeeded as a blogger. I note that you don’t have anything particularly interesting to say, however.
@Robin
Good to see you!
Because it’s much harder to prosecute a rape case when the victim was intoxicated. Consent becomes murky, or at least it’s easy for the defense to make that claim. This is why most colleges fail to discipline students accused of sexual assualt – it’s difficult to prove, and if she went to his room drunk at 3am it’s nearly impossible.
“I find it fascinating that people freak out when you take commonly articulated and accepted concepts and display them in colorful squares.”
well said susan. you see, when people don’t like a certain point, you suddenly need to be a paid scientist spending months of the year researching every aspect of your point feverishly before you churn out a study that they wil still not like.
all the problem with your point is that it is nor pop-culturally correct. it just simply spoils that party (that should’ve been spoiled decades ago, for the purpose of preserving civilization). what you stated is what is obvious.
I think Susan is right. This isn’t a court of law. Anecdotal evidence is adequate. By the time we have numbers and stats and scientific study the problem is too big and its too late. Her illustration adequately frames the problem.
Now, my one criticism is women, Susan included, are discounting promiscuity that happens before monogamy, since this promiscuity helps them find the highest quality mate, or potentially partner. If there was no promiscuity, an average girl has no hope of snagging an alpha.
I want to go farther and say all promiscuity is costly. I said in a previous post an inexperienced average guy will have an easier time with a less promiscuous girl. The average guy loses out if his natural partner, his equal, is part of a de facto 20 strong alpha harem.
Morality is like a yard stick. It should be firm, rigid, and unchanging. There’s a bar at the metric office in France that is exactly 1 meter long, made of metal that doesn’t rust or erode. The French didn’t use a piece of string as their reference.
By saying promiscuous I’m not judging right or wrong. I go to church and I accept that I’m guilty of many sins. However, my belief is I behave the way I do, and I’ll accept the consequences of my actions. All I’m saying is there is more to promiscuity than cheating on a monogamous partner, and that this is also costly.
There’s no need for numbers or studies to verify what you can see with your own eyes.
I’m skeptical of the claim that young men have suddenly gone shiftless en masse. But to play along – young men’s investments (e.g. education, savings, workload ) will reflect their estimates of future rewards. If they aren’t investing, it’s because they don’t anticipate that the returns will be valuable to them. This applies to their careers, marriage, and role in society. So it may not be that they don’t intend to marry, but that they don’t see as much value in marriage, or in women.
This goes to my point about eligibility costs, and ties into your views on promiscuity. Promiscuity may have the effect of causing estimates of the value of eligibility to diverge between men and women. Simply put, as promiscuity increases, men value eligibility less but women actually increase their eligibility requirements, thereby increasing their costs to men.
Women’s tendency to increase their eligibility requirements is something that you can observe among women who’ve gone through a series of relationships. They’ll often attempt to compensate for the time and effort ‘wasted’ by upgrading their requirements, and so you see the familiar pattern by which young women will gravitate towards requirements that are often unrealistic. Their preferences shift from poets and musicians to lawyers and hedge fund managers.
Susan, you left off double households. A married man and woman can form a single household and save on expenses. If you’re a pure Keynesian who thinks spending $1 trillion on Dixie cups is equivalent to spending $1 trillion on infrastructure, then this doesn’t matter, but if you’re looking at long-run returns, this is a big cost. I think the government would fight a return to marriage just to salvage the housing market…
@OhioStater
I’ve seen this argument, and I don’t understand it. Why is it necessary to have sex to identify a high quality mate? Sexual compatibility is important, but cannot accurately be measured before monogamy anyway for many women. Many women would experience relationship sex very differently from casual sex, and their behavior would reflect that.
@Jack
This is not hyperbole – it is the actual truth. And then at 30 they wonder why there are no good men left.
@Orthodox
Ah, I came at that from a different angle, thinking of creating double households as a byproduct cost of divorce. I think you’re saying that delaying or avoiding marriage creates more inefficient households? It’s an opportunity cost.
Yes, you often do.
But this is pretty poor form. I criticize your article, and that’s not interesting. Perhaps you should take it as it was intended, and not as an attack.
@Susan
Susan said:
“This is not hyperbole – it is the actual truth. And then at 30 they wonder why there are no good men left.”
they are deliberately doing things that are known to lead to this. not enough will ever get it until they are told what to do literally. following their (counter-productive) instincts + entertainment media training causes this.
Susan said:
“Why is it necessary to have sex to identify a high quality mate?”
because Susan, pop-culture said so. it is the lowest common denominator. any dumbass can do this. set your goals ultra low and scorn anyone who sets them high. time for some reality; if you are sexually unsatisfied, just STFU, enough from the perpetually unfulfilled.
@Susan
If the real problem is “the wrong people are reproducing” then why do you label the problem “promiscuity“?
After all, the educated are promiscuous, too. They’re just using birth control.
It seems like the lion’s share of the negative results could be eliminated if the bad people all used birth control and the good people didn’t. Zeroing in on promiscuity is off-target.
What if promiscuity is just a by-product of freedom? And the only way to restrict promiscuity is to restrict freedom (by, for example, rolling back women’s rights to “encourage” women to marry young and have babies)?
Would the economy of the nation actually perform better? Any historical evidence to back that up?
I think you’re reaching pretty far with this one. I’ll go with declining birth rates being an issue for us in the future, but I don’t think you can put that on promiscuity so much as birth control and abortion. And, if anything, birth rates have fallen the most in married couples. We’re also off-setting some of those problems with immigration.
Obamacare because of sluts? Um…sorry, I’m not buying that one. Blame the liberals if you want, but not all sluts are liberals and not all liberals are sluts.
Further, a good portion of this nation’s economic growth in the past 30 years is directly attributable to the increased buying power of women in the workforce, with is directly related to delayed marriage/birth control.
I also think this seems pretty flimsy. Where is the evidence for Delayed Marriage –> Increased Risk of Infidelity –> Increased Risk of Divorce? I thought that stats showed that couples who married later were less likely to divorce?
Aldonza
Blame the liberals if you want, but not all sluts are liberals and not all liberals are sluts.
Very true! In fact, the “Blue States” have lower divorce rates and lower OOW births.
@ Jess
If this Rather nice flow chart is correct then promiscuity provides an excellent economic boost to lawyers, estate agents and doctors. A win win no less.
_____________________
Not to mention bar owners everywhere…lol
@ Susan
Many women would experience relationship sex very differently from casual sex, and their behavior would reflect that.
__________________
Bingo.. In my opinion it doesnt matter which type of sex came first. A persons behavior IS different when they are single vs in a relationship. The feel is different, the goals are different, the committment is different the expectations are different the peer pressure is different etc.
Speaking of Roissy, he likes to claim that women’s suffrage was the beginning of the end of the United States. However, if you chart the economy of the United States since women got the vote, it’s an overwhelming success story — the country went from promising contender to the world’s only superpower. If there is any causal effect, one must conclude that giving women more and more rights is good for a nation’s success.
No, it’s not. Superpower status was the result of the U.S. economy being the only one with an industrial infrastructure that was left untouched by the ravages of WWII. The GDP statistics are wildly misleading since they are dependent upon outstanding credit that presently is 3.46x total GDP. Roissy is correct and universal suffrage has been a complete and unmitigated disaster.
Just remember: voting != liberty.
@Jason
I think readers here know that I welcome constructive criticism. Seconding, “OMG, this is such trash, I can’t even!” from a sex-positive feminist is not criticism. It is an attack.
Perhaps I misunderstand – what was your intention? What’s your thoughtful feedback? I’d be genuinely curious to know why there is no good thing in the post.
@Dogsquat
Is this real? I just choked on my coffee, I was laughing so hard.
My thoughtful feedback:
I became dumber reading that article. I’m going to stop reading this site now.
the comments for this one going to go through the roof, i can tell that already. unfortunately, most are just grasping at straws looking for the most miniscule molehill to turn into a mountain. it is not a scientific treatise, but a woman’s blog entry so the amount of dissimulation so early on suggests that she is approaching a most holy sacred cow indeed.
“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
Yohami,
You got my vote. Absolutely.
A declining birthrate may upset the economic applecart a little in the short term, but it is exactly what both the human race & the natural world most needs to survive.
Unlimited expansion is a bubble that obviously cannot last, especially once the oil runs out – oil is a finite resource, & we’ve used more than half of this planet’s supply of it in the last hundred years, almost all of that the past 50. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion people on the planet. Now there are 7. In another 50 years a likely estimate is 12. Twelve Billion people.
[img]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg[/img]
Anything that lowers the human population & steers us from devouring what is left of planet earth like a plague of locusts is a good thing. We’re a virus with shoes.
Hmm.. that graph which didn’t display is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg
@Yohami
“And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.”
duuuuude! i never even thought of that!!! great idea! i’m literally beside myself! kudos maestro.
Hi Susan,
“But when the movers and shakers in society don’t reproduce – when the smartest, most accomplished women don’t marry and wind up with one test-tube baby, if that, we’re failing to create the next generation of innovators, thinkers, etc.”
I think I disagree. In my experience, there’s always more up and comers from all walks of life to take the place of these ‘missing’ kids from the “smartest, most accomplish women.” Our next generation of innovators, thinkers and such will, I believe, come, from across the spectrum of people.
“Failure to replace population is widely accepted as an economic death knell, or at least a sort of code blue.”
Failure to replace population all at once would certainly cause a pinch in the hose of entitlement transfers! But I’m not sure how gradually lowering the population is a bad thing.
Hi Susan.
I’m not suggesting you need to use sex to identify a high-quality mate. Usually the high quality mate is identified, but how do you obtain a commitment?
I’m saying that if there are 3 girls vying for the attention of 1 high quality guy, it’s risky for one of the girls to abstain from sex. To “compete” with the other two girls, she “needs” to have sex if the guy wants sex. It’s risky because if he doesn’t get if from her, he’ll go to someone else.
Do you think this sort of activity falls under the umbrella of promiscuity?
That’s not what I said. I said the cost is twofold: 1. the loss of poor youth to prisons, which is an enormous waste of potential and 2. educated people, already primed for successful offspring, are not reproducing. So it’s not that the wrong people are reproducing, it’s that those born into poverty are facing long odds from day one, and those never born into privilege obviously cannot enjoy their favored status.
Whoa, I did not intend for this to be come about eugenics. Promiscuity causes poor results for both sides of the SES spectrum. The people you are calling “good” are marrying so late, and the women are so infertile that birth control is hardly an issue. Promiscuous educated women are also more likely to cheat, and initiate 2/3 of divorces. That also has negative economic consequences.
Promiscuity is the starting point of difficulty for both the poor and the affluent.
Or one can use the MANY methods of birth control, wear condoms, not sleep with sluts, practice abstinence (and no – abstinence isn’t something exclusive to females)….Women don’t ride the cock carousel on their own. Two to tango and all that (and before one starts with the whole “alpha” thing – “alpha” is what guys want to be, so….).
And besides, single-mother households isn’t just something that happens to sluts anyway.
@Rake
That’s exactly what it is. Female sexuality unleashed is hypergamy gone viral.
The only way promiscuity will become restricted is when women realize they’re acting against their own best interests. Through a combination of:
hard lessons learned
observing societal trends, e.g. knowing lots of 30-something women who never found the right guy because they always chose the wrong guys
avoiding promiscuous men
not putting out as a means of getting something else, i.e. a relationship
intrasexual peer pressure, i.e. slut shaming
Women have too many incentives to delay marriage and childbirth. But even a couple of years difference due to staying off the alpha cock carousel can mean finding a mate, two kids instead of zero, and an ability to embrace marriage without being cynical, jaded, or “easily bored.”
There is a ton of evidence on the effect of falling birth rates on first world economies. Google Italian Economy and go from there. You’ll be reading for days.
saving bits to my blog http://yohami.com/blog/2011/07/06/if-i-was-the-omnipotent-leader-of-the-world-i-wouldnt-allow-single-motherhood/
@Aldonza
Promiscuity clearly delays marriage. The average college graduate female marries today at 28, a point at which her fertility is already declining rather dramatically. In many cases, it prevents marriage altogether. Look at the most promiscuous women in society, sex-positive feminists, and observe the marriage rate. It’s got to be 20% at the most, probably much lower. There’s a whole new literary genre of single women hitting the expiration date who confess to having “made some unfortunate choices in men during my 20s.” It’s well on its way to being a stereotype, for good reason.
You misunderstand. I’m not saying Obamacare is a result of promiscuity. I’m saying that Medicaid is paying big, big bucks for health care required as a result of promiscuous sex. With Obamacare, those numbers are going to get much, much bigger. Dogsquats testimony is just the tip of the iceberg. By the way, it’s not just Medicaid for the poor. Lots of educated young women get subsidized abortions at Planned Parenthood.
This is an interesting point. Yes, women’s earning power has increased, even as men’s has decreased. A large portion of women’s income generally goes to childcare for women who have them. I’m not at all sure you’re right about economic growth being a result of the Women’s Movement, especially since many women work in government. Certainly, the transition from a manufacturing to a technology/information economy has not been effected primarily by women.
In any case, delaying marriage due to women’s options for education and career may be a tradeoff society deems worthwhile, even at the expense of a declining birth rate. Delaying marriage because one has had 50 sexual partners in 10 years is deemed worthwhile only by a tiny group of outliers.
Assuming this is true, all you have to do is link promiscuity to declining birth rates. If people started pairing up for longer times, would they necessarily be having more of the right babies?
@Jason
That’s a scary thought. Hope you can still find your way out of here. Buh bye.
Agreed. Quite a few of them will actually come from immigrant families. Where they will not come from is single mother households in the inner cities.
@OhioStater
I do think that’s promiscuous behavior – if she doesn’t feel ready to have sex, but caves in hopes of winning the alpha. More importantly, I would argue with your point that a guy who walks away from the woman who wants to wait for monogamy is a high quality guy. In fact, a lot of the men here have given that precise advice to women. They say they want to escalate, and have her decline, so they know she is the real deal.
@Rake
When people in stable relationships have and raise children together, those children are primed for survival and success. It’s the absence of fathers that causes so many difficulties. It’s not the question of right babies and wrong babies, it’s a question of the trajectory of the babies we have. Every child will benefit from a loving, intact family, an education and having his basic physical needs met. Promiscuity reduces the number of children who have those advantages.
@Byron
This is an interesting point. Declining birthrates are not always a result of voluntary choices. The birthrate is also affected by infertility and STDs. This reminds me of what population control folks said about AIDS. It effects a winnowing out, a culling of the population, a failure of the least fit to survive. In fact, AIDS is a disease of promiscuity, especially in Africa. I think it’s very possible that another opportunistic virus will become prevalent as a result of sexual promiscuity. STD rates are skyrocketing, some sexual diseases are becoming resistant to treatment. To be clear, I’m not hoping for this to happen – I just think it’s a distinct possibility.
And of course, there’s the oft-repeated male preference for women of limited sexual experience. If all the women become sluts, there will be less marriage, and fewer children, because the pool of marriageable women will have decreased dramatically.
Is this real? I just choked on my coffee, I was laughing so hard.
We call those centipede homes one mom (head), several children from different fathers (feet). We Latin people are always more naturalistic!
@Susan
I totally support your chart I was privileged enough to see all this happening at microlevel at my country. Slut rise creates uninvolved fathers (the child of a slut is no one’s child), affects education and poverty and increase the need for abortion, birth control, fuel the alcohol ingestion but then when a guy has to pick between saving money for a book and inviting a slut to drink in order to have sex…well you can imagine what is his choice and sluts don’t raise their kids not to avoid their mistakes, they pretty much assume they just had bad luck and they should try the same methods so sluts breed sluts and a slut that started to have her kids at 15 is probably going to see their own boys and girls at 13 starting to have sex and even pressure them to do so, I know but I do have a friend mad because her 18 year old boy haven’t given him any grandchildren and is actually still a virgin (he was raised by his evangelical stepmother)
Now I think you are wasting your time with this, only people that had been eyewitness will believe it. No one is going to accept such a hard truth because every woman that opens her legs to any hard cock she finds attractive wants to believe for some reason that she is different than the common sluts and every man that knows that with some effort he can get variety of punani believes he is better than any other “cueromacho”.
Do you really think my slut male friends though they were less moral or ethical than a church going faithful man? Most of the time they compared themselves to a worst male, someone that cheated on his wife with her mother thus their actions were not as bad an told me that only gays and low libido men are capable of fidelity and that a woman that wanted a good sex life was being ridiculous expecting a faithful man.
My slut female friends also never connected their lifestyles to any of the issues they had no matter how obvious they were.
So yeah prepare to be attacked, mocked and quoted. You are right but you are pretty much teaching evolution to creationists…they won’t listen. Not that you should stop saying it, but just don’t expect any epiphanies. This is the type of things you have to live to believe.The god fight is never the easiest one.
@LJ
Start here:
Sexual Partner Divorce Risk
To be clear, it’s when marriage is delayed due to habitual promiscuity that the risk of infidelity goes up (see chart). The risk of divorce also goes up, whether via infidelity or not, but it sure can’t help.
@LJ
This is definitely not about blue vs. red states, or liberals vs. conservatives. Aldonza was mistaken about that. If it was, there’d be no hooking up at religious colleges, and that’s definitely not the case. I do believe BYU has a pretty straight edge culture, but that’s only because the penalty for sex is so high.
The real story on OOW is not the state. Within each state, there will be populations with zero OOW births, and others with high numbers.
Perhaps that reflects little or no desire on the part of men to marry?
The manwhore post made me think about this. I came to one conclusion: marriage in the U.S. is a joke!
1. It serves no real purpose.
2. The divorce rate is huge and rapidly growing. It is predicted that if trends continue, the divorce rate will soon reach up to 40-50%.
3. Around two-thirds of women initiate divorce.
4. The losses for men from divorce are extreme. Alimony, the house, child support and he loses the child (83% of women get sole custody after divorce).
5. The existence of no-fault divorce.
Personally, I would much rather have a girlfriend that I have a kid with. If things fail, we can still work things out and things won’t (hopefully) destroy my life as much as divorce could.
Also, why have you moved away from discussing feminism’s part in the destruction of the family life? I am almost certain that these changes around marriage and promiscuity was a large part of the feminists plans.
@Susan,
It seems a horribly heartless & impersonal way of looking at ourselves, but yes, if we see ourselves in our entirety, as a single living organism, then cancer & AIDS & the bubonic plague are simply nature/life regulating itself.
All other species find their population level because of food – if there’s no more of it then they starve & die off & the population decreases. Human beings, alone out of all other species, found a way to cheat the balance of nature when we invented agriculture – we could produce the food, & then store it in vast storehouses, & so feed more & more & more of us (another bubble which cannot continue indefinitely). Between that & our astonishing advances in medicine, Nature has had to be especially creative to keep us in check.
3. Around two-thirds of women initiate divorce.
I meant to say: “3. Around two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women.”
Goddamnit Susan, I love you like a Scarlet Pimpernel loves loamy soil.
or French royalty.
@OhioStater
Forgive me if this has been addressed already (I haven’t yet read to the bottom of the comments). But this is a fascinating thought.
I question it. I know that there are more than a few different definitions of “Alpha” to be considered, but isn’t one of the most accepted contained in the idea that an alpha is someone women select as desirable?
If that’s so, then if there was no promiscuity, whomever a woman decided was good enough for her would make her choice an alpha. It’s no longer the decision of some amorphous collective of women (aka, society) who make the decision for her. Her selection makes it so.
The only thing different is that the man’s “number” is no longer 20 or 50 or 100, but something much closer to 1.
He’s still an alpha.
This graph is a poor thought experiment at best. Your defense that everything in the graph is “commonly understood and accepted in society” is meaningless.
For it to have any real meaning would require evidence supporting every connecting arrow. Dismissing dissenting readers who request evidence, with “trust me, I read it on the internet”, or “google it yourself” certainly doesn’t help your argument.
Even if you were able to factually support your logic, the *actual* economic cost to society would be fairly impossible to quantify.
The conclusion that promiscuity will cause “eventual economic stagnation” is preposterous. I challenge you to defend just the final two causal links: the cost of prisons, and declining birth rate. How can those two factors cause “eventual economic stagnation”?
Susan, that’s an interesting report. Apparently divorce is least likely if you’re a virgin when you get married. I didn’t get into the methods and data sources, so I couldn’t tell whether it’s credible. I could see that individuals who marry as virgins have a rigid no sex before marriage rule, and are also rigidly against divorce.
On the other hand, it’s well-reported that those who marry at a later age (usually considered > age 25) are also less likely to divorce.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/sizing-up-divorce-risk/
http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/cdc.html
and I would assume higher age would correlate with higher partner count.
On the other hand, it’s well-reported that those who marry at a later age (usually considered > age 25) are also less likely to divorce.
To plays Devil’s Advocate we could also imagine that a person that marries at later age does it when his/her market value is declining so they know that if they divorce they won’t be as successful as they were when younger so they rather stay married.
Of course I do think the virgin data is probably not accurate because imagine that if you are a Mormon you are probably going to get married a virgin and have all the values and community support to stay married so your chances of divorce most be really low not so much for the lack of casual sex but for the rest of the marriage protecting elements, another thing that slut lacks is any support for a LTR specially in big cities or the internet, YMMV.
Susan wrote:
How many young men in the west today could realistically accumlate any significant capital even if they wanted to get married?
How many unemployed graduates are there out there now? There used be jobs-for-life once upon a time didn’t there? Where have they gone?
Lets say that a hypothetical financially secure young man has made it. What kind of treatment can he realistically expect once he gets married to a western woman in 2011?
Doesn’t look very promising does it?
@ Stephanie, I could see that. Re-entering the dating scene at age 40 after 10 years of marriage would be a lot less appealing than at age 30 after 10 years of marriage.
Also agree it’s probable that religiosity and a community that’s intolerant of divorce would lower the risk of divorce.
I looked at that link at the Social Pathologist more closely and realized it’s not saying what I initially thought it was saying. I thought it was about divorce risk per # of partners, but he plotted the “stable marriage rate” per # of lifetime sexual partners. But that means that anyone who was NEVER married would be counted as “not in a stable marriage.” It makes to me and I don’t think it’s very groundbreaking that for a given age cohort, those who have had more partners are less likely to be married. Doesn’t mean they won’t get married eventually, unless the age cohort is something like 40+, where I think most people who will get married eventually have done so by that age.
What you’re seeing is the end result of the fact that financial status is becoming less and less of a barometer of social status in the US. Granted, if you’re incredibly rich, you’ll still be able to bang whomever you want, but if you’re “well off”, it doesn’t mean anything anymore. Women would rather bang the uneducated thug than the young man with a degree and financial resources.
This is one reason the male:female ratio at colleges is down: men are realizing that a college degree isn’t all that its cracked up to be, both in an economic and social sense.
Two consequences of promiscuity keep coming up: Bad births (babies born out of wedlock) and STDs.
But both of these can be attributed to poor risk management. It’s possible to have sex without becoming pregnant or acquiring an STD.
Hypothetically, imagine that everyone started being responsible about birth control and disease protection, but they were just as promiscuous. The bad births and STDs are eliminated from the equation, but sexual morality remains the same. Would promiscuity still be a significant drag on the nation’s economy? If so, how?
Susan,
But what about those women and girls who have casual sex, because they enjoy having sex, nothing else (I guess they’ll be under slut shaming and hard lessons learned if they go through said hard lessons)?
I ask, because while there seems to be outlets for men who go through periods of celibacy and need to scratch that “itch”, the only thing women have is masturbation. Unless this is under that whole biological difference thing.
@Fred Woodbridge
So good to see you outside of Twitter! This has to be the most original compliment I’ve ever received:)
@LJ
No, 25 is not late. For a woman, the average age is 26 with a high school education, 28 with a college degree, and 30 with a master’s. For men, it’s 28, 30 and 32.
Re partner count, I wrote a recent post that shows both sexes, but especially men are unlikely to be “extremely satisfied” with a marital sexual relationship with a count of 20 or higher:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/06/28/hookinguprealities/manwhores-for-casual-sex-only/
What do you mean by higher partner count? That a 28 yo woman might have 10 sexual partners? Remember, I’m talking about habitual promiscuity. Women who proudly proclaim themselves sluts often boast partner counts of 50, 75, 100 or “I’ve stopped counting.”
I have never cautioned against premarital sex. My own philosophy is “no sex before monogamy.” A woman who shares this philosophy will probably have a few sexual partners before marriage, but not the kinds of numbers that alarm health officials. There’s a reason Gyn’s ask about the number of sexual partners a woman has had at the beginning of every exam.
@BadBoyfriend
OK, which of the following do you require evidence for?
Promiscuous sex (PS) increases the risk of STDs.
PS increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy.
Unwanted pregnancy increases the incidence of abortion.
Unplanned pregnancies carried to term are often funded by the state.
Boys without fathers are at risk for dropping out of school.
Boys without fathers are at risk for criminal activity.
Habitually promiscuous women marry later, or not at all.
Marrying late is a concern for women re fertility.
Couples marrying late are likely to have fewer children.
Habitually promiscuous women are less likely to stay married.
Habitually promiscuous men are less likely to marry.
Divorce is expensive.
As tito said, why do you need statistics to tell you what your own eyes see?
Never said that, don’t be snarky.
Honestly, it’s not really my job to educate the populace on why a society’s failure to replace its population produces a moribund economy. However, I helpfully suggested that taking a look at Italy might be useful. Here’s what I called up in a nanosecond:
http://www.indexmundi.com/italy/economy_profile.html
From the New York Times: Low Birth Rate is Becoming a Headache for Italy
From the Financial Times:
The logic is sound, quantifying the effect of promiscuity is definitely a challenge. What I will do is go through item by item – for example, abortions. What % are performed on singles vs. marrieds? What % of women have had more than one? What does the federal government pay for abortions each year? What do insurance companies pay? What percentage of federal support for Planned Parenthood goes toward abortions? At some point, I will be required to estimate what percentage of abortions result from promiscuous sex vs. relationship sex. This is not unusual – all estimates, whether private or public sector, are derived in a similar manner.
And so on. Will the information be perfect? No. Does that mean it’s not worth considering and debating? No.
It’s not just the cost of prisons, it’s the waste of human potential that is epidemic in our cities. There’s the very real, high cost of dealing with violence and crime in society. There’s also the opportunity cost of what those citizens might have been able to do if they had not dropped out of school, not become pregnant three times before age 20, and not joined a gang. The marriage rate among African Americans is low and plummeting, the number of single mothers continues to grow. African American males have a mean # of lifetime sexual partners nearly double white males. Do you deny this is a problem in our society, and that is has economic impact?
As for the declining birth rate, think about it. We aren’t producing enough young people to fund Social Security and Medicare. The American population is graying, as Boomers outnumber their offspring. Nor are we producing a full labor force. Continuing at the current birth rates, Immigration will not be a problem we try to control, it will be an absolute necessity to sustain economic activity. We will no longer hold all the cards – with immigrants risking their lives to come to the U.S. in the dark of night. We will be begging immigrants to come and work here, offering costly incentives, including citizenship to bulk up the labor force.
It’s not guaranteed though! It’s been estimated that at least a third of college students don’t use condoms when hooking up, probably because they are too intoxicated. Teenagers are poor risk managers. Also, several STDs are not prevented by condoms. HPV may be transmitted through contact of the torso, abdomen and inner thighs. Genital herpes is most commonly transmitted from the mouth of a partner during oral sex (75% of new cases on college campuses.)
If you could eliminate bad births and STDs, you’d certainly eliminate serious medical and crime problems. But how would you do it? How will you convince the 9th grader that it really isn’t all that cool to become a mama? (I know a ninth-grade algebra teacher who had 5 pregnant girls in her class this year.)
However, you’d still be left with the high SES side of the spectrum. As long as men care about promiscuity in women, then rampant promiscuity is a problem for marriage. As long as women delay marriage to “have fun and be on the prowl” (a phrase I saw in an article today) then compromised fertility will still be an issue.
My argument is not a moral one. My claim is that sexual promiscuity is detrimental to society in a number of ways, including economically. If you are pro-promiscuity, then you must accept that it is a costly way of life.
“I meant to say: “3. Around two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women.”
It is more like two thirds of divorces are filed by women rather than some people may perceive the word ‘initiated’. Chinese whispers.
It includes man having an affair, woman throws him out he lives with his mistress but delays divorce for e.g. financial reasons. Just one example.
But women do generally initiate more (but not two thirds). There are differences in the sexes in that cheating men may want to carry on both (or more) relationships whilst cheating women are more likely to want to end a marriage. Also legal and other aspects. That seems less of a male/female dive and more whoever is least penalised. In the Philippines as one example amongst the lower classes men cheat a lot, drink (also a problem in times gone past in western countries) abandon their wives and children don’t support them. Men behave badly in south american countries like Dominica as Stephanie keeps saying. Both genders act badly, whoever gets away with stuff does it.
@Renee
I believe that the number of women who enjoy no-strings sex as a way of life is very, very small. They are probably higher in testosterone than the average female. Many women have casual sex as a way of soliciting male attention as a proxy for commitment, or hope that “blowing his mind in bed” will inspire the male to commit. The truth is that most women who have casual sex wind up regretting it. To the extent that they can stop doing what feels like crap (via hard lessons learned or peer pressure), they reduce the number of sluts, altering the supply/demand equation. If only women who truly love casual sex have it, then we will see a dramatic decrease in the amount of hooking up among young people.
Why don’t we all try to calculate the NPV (net present value) of a whore vs non-whore, and how they each contribute to different sectors of the economy
.
We might have a fairer comparison then, hehe.
Continuing at the current birth rates, Immigration will not be a problem we try to control, it will be an absolute necessity to sustain economic activity. We will no longer hold all the cards – with immigrants risking their lives to come to the U.S. in the dark of night. We will be begging immigrants to come and work here, offering costly incentives, including citizenship to bulk up the labor force.
I will add that immigration is a temporary solution. Immigrants usually assimilate the idea the “smart people have fewer or no children”, unless they are deeply religious and keep themselves isolated in their communities no one wants to be socially different for having a big family. So the norm of only 2 kids quickly reduces the immigrant population specially in first world country that are not friendly to maternity and children and it looks like kids that grew in small homes are also more likely not socialized with the idea of carrying the family name so the fewer kids is better can decimate a whole family bloodline in 3 generations or less. And this is again something my friends married to European guys say, the herd of women there with few or no children look down to women with more than 2 or women that plan to have kids before having had money, career or reaching 35 ( again no kidding in this, my friend is 33 and she mentioned she wanted to try to conceive this year and all her coworkers were “educating” her in what bad idea that is), add that how hard is to expose your children to that kind of hostility. That reminds me that JK had the Wesley (7 children) being constantly mocked by the Malfoys (1 children) I do wonder if she did this out of seeing this happening in England, but they don’t import my countrywomen as much as the other European countries, so I wouldn’t know.
Why don’t we all try to calculate the NPV (net present value) of a whore vs non-whore, and how they each contribute to different sectors of the economy
.
We might have a fairer comparison then, hehe.
Well whores are paid so you might mean sluts. It will be interesting indeed.
“There are also enormous indirect costs, including decreased productivity and a labor shortfall due to declining birth rates.”
If I look around I can’t see a problem where I live, Denver, with too few people.
I like not being crowded.
I’d way rather have too few people for the number of jobs than the other way around, which is how it seems to be now. *Labor shortfall* is a problem for rich people who can’t find good help. I certainly haven’t noticed it.
If having a large population is ipso facto a great thing, than China’s the greatest place on Earth. I’ll pass.
I dont want to diminish your other arguments about promiscuity, but population shortfall isn’t a problem in my book.
“My thoughtful feedback:
I became dumber reading that article. I’m going to stop reading this site now.”
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.Er.. that’s provided you can find the door, Jason.
I for one found your article to be a thoughtful commonsense piece, Susan, and I think that you are spot on.
I know at least half a dozen women who say they enjoy casual sex. I have yet to meet a woman who says “I want a dominant man.”
I have personally seen none of those listed claims in my relationships. Even if I had, my small sample size is meaningless. I refuse to accept anecdote or majority opinion as fact. Humans are terrible at judging fact from fiction.
Perhaps not literally:
None of the data you posted about Italy gave evidence that Italy’s economy is suffering economic stagnation due to low birth rates. You only show that Italy has low birth rates and the workforce is getting smaller. One economic theory that “proposed to realistically explain the final direction of a population” is not evidence.
Japan and Germany currently have negative population growth (while Italy is positive). Why are they not suffering economic stagnation?
You can hardly defend that we currently have a labor shortage in the US in the midst of an unemployment crisis (though you make the argument anyway).
Next, I did not deny that prisons cost money. I contend that prison cost does not equal economic stagnation. Money spent on prisons goes straight into local economies. Show me that the economic cost of incarcerating criminals is higher than boosting local economies, indeed that it stagnates them. That is your claim.
When you make such a bold claim that promiscuity==economic stagnation, and present a diagram as proof, it should be properly supported by factual evidence to before it is given credence. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” So far, you have presented none.
They will say they want a nice guy, sure, anything and everything but what really attracts them unless the girl is the self aware type
I know at least half a dozen women who say they enjoy casual sex. I have yet to meet a woman who says “I want a dominant man.”
.
Still working on the realization that what a woman says she wants or enjoys isn’t always the same as what they really want?
.
No doubt, there are women who enjoy casual sex with a variety of cock. A greater percentage probably say it because they think it is the “empowered” view.
.
I never liked the use of the word dominant…too loaded of a word…but most women like a guy who *leads*. They often can’t say it or intellectualize it because again it is 180 degrees from the “empowered” view, but it is deep in the psyche.
I never liked the use of the word dominant…too loaded of a word…but most women like a guy who *leads*. They often can’t say it or intellectualize it because again it is 180 degrees from the “empowered” view, but it is deep in the psyche
Maybe they should compromise with “empowered women are attracted to empowered men”
As for the declining birth rate, think about it. We aren’t producing enough young people to fund Social Security and Medicare.
.
Not sure how it shakes out, but Baby Boomers are a large voting block. Eventually, the money simply gets created to fund Social Security and Medicare without taxes.
.
You might find this an interesting read:
.
http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
.
Hard to know what productivity increases and technological innovation will occur in the next 20 years, but I see the primary “labor shortage” issue being in specialized health care for the aging population. You can’t just get immigrants off the truck to serve that need. Labor isn’t fungible. The guy who sweeps the floor probably can’t build a complex Excel model.
.
Has promiscuity had an economic effect? IMO, answering no to this is a good test to detect an idiot. Of course it has. The state/government has become the beta provider where a Dad used to play that role for some percentage. Can it be perfectly quantitied to the nearest dollar? Of course not.
.
http://www.tocqueville.com/media/SPENDING_STUPID.pdf
.
“First, let’s take a quick look at what’s been going on with the economy. Over the past 45 years, nonentitlement spending (including defense) has remained relatively constant as a percentage of GDP. Over
the same time period, however, entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) have
increased more than 1000 percent while real GDP has grown 300 percent. Entitlement programs were 6
percent of GDP in 1970; they now stand at 15 percent of GDP — and this before the baby-boom
generation has reached retirement (and entitlement) age! Without any changes in policy, the numbers are
going to get much worse.
At the state level, things look similarly grim. In 1945 there were 44 federal aid programs to the states
totaling a few billion (2011) dollars. Last year’s programs totaled 1,122, paying out more than $600
billion. But to what avail? Unfunded state pension liabilities have grown steadily and now amount to
trillions of dollars nationally.
I think a better way of saying this is “what a woman says she wants or enjoys is what she wants or enjoys from a man she is already attracted to”.
Mike C
So thanks to promiscuity the state became the Beta dad? isnt that result of A) destruction of marriage (feminism) and B) pressure to protect single women and let them get away with making mistakes (feminism)
So marriage is broken, of course people are going to have “many” partners where they usually would have fewer. And “many” of the higher tingle possible, hence more alphas, casual flings, etc. but is that the reason for childs being born out of marriage? I doubt it because there´s abortion
I see the two issues unrelated, or related indirectly, as symptoms of the nuclear family being broken. Being promiscuous and eternally single now is the survival option that works. Its what culture enables. Marriage is a death trap, unfortunately, and the character traits needed to remain with a single person and raise kids and be a team and all the charade, are shamed and rare and pretty much out of the panorama, that it makes me wonder if they existed to begin with
So promiscuity or lonedom = reality
Costs of promiscuity = compared to what? I got almost ruined financially because I went into committed relationships with the wrong persons. Promiscuity is pretty damn cheap actually.
State being beta dad != promiscuity
State being beta dad = women programs
Feminism = die, bitch.
Over the past 45 years, nonentitlement spending (including defense) has remained relatively constant as a percentage of GDP. Over
the same time period, however, entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) have
increased more than 1000 percent while real GDP has grown 300 percent. Entitlement programs were 6
percent of GDP in 1970; they now stand at 15 percent of GDP
You know given that my I have
manysome friends that hate Republicans because they think this type of idea that medicare and medicaid show that you don’t care about the poor and don’t want the well being of anyone but the rich. Would you explain to me what alternatives that would be better for poor people that can’t afford medicare and social security, because again they are poor? Just if I’m ever drunk enough when the Republican bashing starts I can tell them something?I find it rather amusing that a complex flow chart attempting to diagram the patently obvious is considered so controversial.
Look around you at all of the social chaos promiscuity has unleashed. It’s right there, in front of your eyes.
I think
manysome of you would benefit from reading Dr. Daniel Amneus’ The Garbage Generation.Sex is the lynchpin to civilization. The way it is viewed and the effects a societies code of ethics guides the behavior determines whether or not sex is used to build up society or tear it down.
In short, Patriarchy channels the sex drive into marriage so as to enfranchise men to build up civilization, because they benefit from having a wife and children, they are motivated to provide for their own and make civilization a beneficial society for their own family to inhabit.
Promiscuity is really nothing more than the deliberate destruction of Patriarchy. It tells women to not save their sex for marriage, so sex is not longer channeling men’s behavior towards civilization-building pursuits.
There’s no impetus anymore.
Sex is cheap, devalued and worth only a fleeting moment or two of orgasmic pleasure.
It’s been de-coupled with reproduction and the family unit de-emphasized.
Promiscuity destroys prosperity..because it destroys the building block of society – the Patriarchal nuclear family.
@Stephenie
In looking up the data about Italy, several sites included a discussion of why the Italians aren’t having children. There seems to be consensus that it’s too expensive – people would rather have expensive clothes, cars, etc. It’s consumerism in Italy, not promiscuity. So the causes may vary, but the result is the same.
@Yohami
There is absolutely no question that feminism is the engine behind promiscuity, but it was more than the women’s movement, it was also technology in the form of the Pill. Those two developments in the 60s, as well as Roe v. Wade, created a perfect storm of social change that unleashed hypergamous female sexuality.
Epic comment from Keoni.
That’s your rebuttal? That is the evidence with which you dismantle my argument?
Japan’s economy has suffered so much in the last 25 years that economists refer to a “structural pessimism” that characterizes its stagnation. As an interesting aside, it’s believed that the very peculiar male sexuality of Japan is a direct result of long-lasting recession.
Germany has also struggled economically, but has been doing better lately because Germans avoid debt in their personal spending compared with other nations. Also, they’ve frozen wages there and reduced benefits. However, Germany has had to import Turkish labor and grant them citizenship. Turks now make up around 5% of the German population. Although Turks are among the most secular Muslims, they have not assimilated and there is considerable strife and xenophobia in Germany as a result of their presence.
I don’t expect readers to know any of this stuff, but neither am I interested in debating someone who is ignorant of the facts.
Again, there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about the claims I’ve made here.
That reminds me that JK had the Wesley (7 children) being constantly mocked by the Malfoys (1 children)
___
Interestingly, JK was a single mother at the time she wrote Harry Potter. A poor one at that.
Re Italy there is a difference between north and south.
“The only way promiscuity will become restricted is when women realize they’re acting against their own best interests. Through a combination of:
“hard lessons learned”
>>>>they can receive hard lessons all day and 90% will never learn. or rather, they will learn, but then still do the same thing.
“observing societal trends, e.g. knowing lots of 30-something women who never found the right guy because they always chose the wrong guys”
>>>>whom they chose on purpose, knowing all along they were the wrong guys
“avoiding promiscuous men”
>>>>this would only happen under force. think old-school italian immigrant fathers
“not putting out as a means of getting something else, i.e. a relationship
intrasexual peer pressure, i.e. slut shaming”
what else can be said, if the entertainment media culture and fashion industry don’t give the command, the girls will do exactly what they know to be harmful to themselves, but much more importantly, to society as long as al the other girls are doing it.
this is the issue.
Interestingly, JK was a single mother at the time she wrote Harry Potter. A poor one at that.
Oh I know my guess is that she probably did wanted to have a big family but life got in the way so to speak. She treats motherhood like a noble pursuit so much that I had seen feminist critique in the fact that many of the most evil women are single and/or child-free. We are talking about the same woman that created Hermione Granger a female character that was practically written with the feminist bible in mind…no way to make feminists happy it seems like.
Apparently you aren’t really interested in debating anyone, regardless of what they say.
I made several salient points, and you pull one sentence out of context as a straw-man so you can ignore the rest.
I also never claimed I know every fact, but you dismiss my arguments by labeling me ignorant? Apparently you know all the facts?
You try to claim the intellectual high ground with this blog. I’ve read you doing it over and over. Yet you resort to such intellectual dishonesty when someone presents a reasonable debate? Enjoy your echo chamber. Apparently that’s what you are looking for.
@BadBoyfriend
An honest debate is generally not initiated by hurling an insult, which is how you showed up here. Talk about getting off on the wrong foot.
Your points are not salient if they are erroneous. You offer Japan and Germany as evidence, yet it supports my claims rather than yours. I don’t see how I can debate you when you oppose my argument in principle but offer no coherent argument of your own. That’s not intellectual dishonesty, though I confess to some impatience with readers who display massive attitude without being able to back it up.
HUS may be lacking in a variety of ways, and it’s definitely not everyone’s favorite flavor. But one thing it is not is an echo chamber.
“And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.”
duuuuude! i never even thought of that!!! great idea! i’m literally beside myself! kudos maestro.
______________________
Where do you think we are, China?
Sure, but you’d think at least some women would recognize it. Has anyone here has a real (not online) female friend tell them they want a dominant man? Or are we just second guessing the entire female sex?
Not quite yet. But soon.
http://youtu.be/v0gyCcmxltI
@ tito
what else can be said, if the entertainment media culture and fashion industry don’t give the command, the girls will do exactly what they know to be harmful to themselves, but much more importantly, to society as long as al the other girls are doing it.
this is the issue.
_______________________
Thing is, not all the other women are doing it, in fact it is a very low %
@ Susan
HUS may be lacking in a variety of ways, and it’s definitely not everyone’s favorite flavor. But one thing it is not is an echo chamber.
__________________
I am proof of that!
My biggest arguement with the people here is, I understand that there are women who are a disgrace to themselves the way they indiscriminatley fuck any man who will fuck them, most of those women had problems socially and probably mentally before they ever got laid for the first time….I do, however, also know for a fact that not-all- “sluts”- are- like- that. Sometimes it is the guy who gets used. Some of your readers, Susan, can not admit that. They can not admit that some women are still quality people even if they have had sex with an above average amount of men.
I think I read here that the average woman has had @ 4 or 5 partners. You admit to somewhere @ 8 or so… Doesnt matter. Obviously you are a good woman and your past has not harmed you. 50 men as a number for a woman under 30 tells me there is a big ole red flag waving.. 20 at 40 is a whole different ball game. Some of your readers fail to grasp that idea as possibly being true.
Even Mike has stated if all the other aspects of a woman is in line he might look past her past. Others, not so much.
I didn’t kiss a girl or do anything else with girls until I was 23. I went thru several droughts after that but now at 29 my game is to the point I’m no longer worried about celibacy.
That said, dealing with women is hard work and it generally doesn’t bring pleasure to my life. There’s also the reputational risk any relationship entails. The pros and cons, the profit and loss is mostly loss.
I’d equate it to a houseguest that begs for an invite to your party then complains the food is cold.
What do women want? Who knows.
What do I want? I want positive dealings with women, adding value to my life, not subtracting.
GudEnuf
man, ALL the women I know and have known in my life respond better to dominant men than to passive men, and SOME of them say it out loud, and ALL of them have told me so when I asked directly once I had trusted relationship, and SOME of them said it loud when I busted their balls about them treating passive guys like they were garbage.
So in my sphere of reality its a solid fact with a few exceptions and not the other way around.
Yohami:
Your experiences are biased, because the way you flirt screens for women who like dominant men.
I hurled no insult. I apologize if you took offense. “Trust me, I read it on the internet” was perhaps snarky, but I later clarified my statement with less snark, showing no insult was intended.
A debate is stating a premise and providing supporting evidence. You posted that Italy supported your claim. I refuted it and provided Japan and Germany as further evidence. You rightly brought up interesting points about the state of economies in Germany and Japan which should be discussed further, but that’s all the real debate that has been going on.
The rest of your commentary has been to ignore, dismiss or twist my fair and honest arguments, rather than debate them.
As for intellectual dishonesty, I wrote:
How can you read that statement and pull “I have personally seen none of those listed claims in my relationships.” out of it and claim that’s my only rebuttal? I doubt it was lack of comprehension. You chose to ignore my plain argument, take it out of context, then mock me for a blatantly absurd argument I did not make. You are not a fool. You are intellectually dishonest.
I think anyone reading my posts could see they are frank and honest. I make no personal attacks. There is no “massive attitude” on display. I disputed your conclusions on a factual basis, not based on principle. For you to claim otherwise is another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Claiming that promiscuity causes economic stagnation is indeed an extraordinary claim, in my experience at least. Stringing together seemingly ‘logical’ correlations does not mean your conclusion IS correct, only that it is POSSIBLE it is correct. I’ll grant that it is POSSIBLE that promiscuity could cause economic stagnation. However, until you can provide supporting evidence, I disagree that it is probable or even likely.
My promiscuity costs me and those I am promiscuous with very little economically. The cost of condoms and regular STD testing are it. No unwanted pregnancies, no rape charges, no prison terms, no lower birth rates, no economic stagnation that I can discern. However, I do have a lot of great sex.
Thus, this diagram is interesting to me as a thought exercise and not much more.
What do I want? I want positive dealings with women, adding value to my life, not subtracting.
My advice is that if your truly crave this. And I mean craving it with every fiber of your being every cell of your body. Don’t settle for less.
The same way Game teaches you to move into the next target that doesn’t respond do the same with women that don’t add you value. It takes time and you might had to say no to many hotties, but eventually it pays off. Good women are out there the thing is it takes dedication and patience to find them. And don’t get me wrong I don’t blame any man that gets tired of kissing frogs trying to find the princess, it is a hard job, but if you really want to, is possible.
“There is absolutely no question that feminism is the engine behind promiscuity, but it was more than the women’s movement, it was also technology in the form of the Pill. Those two developments in the 60s, as well as Roe v. Wade, created a perfect storm of social change that unleashed hypergamous female sexuality.”
For someone who hated Roissy so much, you sure have adopted a lot of the thinking that he first brought to the Net (not to mention some terms like “rationalization hamster” and “gina tingle”).
Once more into the breach,
Insult = “This graph is a poor thought experiment at best. ” This is showing up with a poor attitude, or at least a hostile one. This blog is like my living room, and you are a guest in my home. You may respectfully disagree with me all you like, and I welcome that. Unless you are a behavioral economist, you are not qualified to pass judgment of this sort.
I asked you point blank which of the following “arrows” you require evidence for:
Promiscuous sex (PS) increases the risk of STDs.
PS increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy.
Unwanted pregnancy increases the incidence of abortion.
Unplanned pregnancies carried to term are often funded by the state.
Boys without fathers are at risk for dropping out of school.
Boys without fathers are at risk for criminal activity.
Habitually promiscuous women marry later, or not at all.
Marrying late is a concern for women re fertility.
Couples marrying late are likely to have fewer children.
Habitually promiscuous women are less likely to stay married.
Habitually promiscuous men are less likely to marry.
Divorce is expensive.
You didn’t respond, though I was prepared to spend two hours providing links for any of the above. In fact, as Keoni said, these truths are self-evident. Only the conclusion is predictive, and I argue that it is amply supported by the evidential arguments above.
You said:
and
Again, you began with inflammatory hyperbole. Not exactly the opening salvo of an honest and informed debate.
Ah, now I see. You’re a manwhore, and you’re defensive about your own role in this scenario. A scenario which is well under way. It is very telling that you only express concern for what promiscuity costs you personally. In fact, you help perpetrate a culture that devalues relationships and partnerships, one that sees declining rates of marriage and childbirth, increasing infertility, rampant growth of STDs and record numbers of OOW births, along with 1.2 million abortions per year.
But hey, I’m glad you’re getting off! I actually have no problem with your lifestyle, but it’s bad news for the U.S. in the long run.
I’ll stop here. By all means have the last word.
@Passer By
I have always adored Roissy’s brain, and his way with words. I do not admire his character.
I showed a group of a dozen young women the original movie Swept Away by Lina Wertmuller. The male in that actually makes a woman his love slave and slaps her around. She loves it. When the movie ended, the girls were all so turned on and horny I feared the Boston male population wasn’t safe that night.
1 2 3 … 6 »
{ 2 trackbacks }