Commenter Max from Australia ponders an elegant mathematical formula of marital satisfaction.
If a Man and a woman both have 20 sex partners: the odds are:::
1/20 X 1/20 = 1/400
That they will both be sexually satisfied by the one they marry.
Close, but no didgeridoo!
The concept is correct. The more past partners each spouse has, the less likely they will be sexually satisfied with their one remaining lifetime spouse.
The problem with this formula is that the variables aren’t equivalent. As we know, women with a lot of past lovers are less able to be happy in marriage. Men with a lot of past lovers are better able to leave their past in the past and not get hung up on nitpicking deficiencies in their current lovers.
So a man with 20 partners is more like a woman with 4 past partners. And a woman with 20 past partners is more like a man with 100 past partners.
The sexual history-sexual satisfaction equation would then be:
1/5(1/n{man}) partners X 1/n{woman} partners = odds of mutual sexual satisfaction within a marriage.
The greater odds of a formerly promiscuous man being happy in a marriage must be balanced against the lower odds of a formerly promiscuous woman being happy in a marriage. The woman becomes the bounding variable, but the overall odds of mutual marital happiness go down a little with the man’s total former partner count. A woman with 100 past lovers has only a 1% chance of marital happiness by herself, but the chance of mutual marital happiness decreases to 0.1% if the man has had only two prior lovers.
My probability math is a little rusty, so I welcome commenters to adjust this SH-SS equation to more accurately reflect the underlying sociosexual realities.
[…] The Sexual History-Sexual Satisfaction Equation […]
Heck, it might be even more lopsided, with 20 partners in a man equivalent to something like 2 in a woman. 10x rather than 5x.
Another possibility – a man is more likely to settle down with a fertile girl who is the best lover he has ever had [often Borderline/Narcissistic Personality Disorder who has massively powerful multiple orgasms]. Whereas a woman will always be doomed to wistfully fantasizing about leaving in search of Greater Alpha Bad Boy?
There will also be a classical Game Theory “min-max equilibrium point” thingamabob at work here. E.g. an increase in, say, sexual aggressiveness and quality of love-making technique will probably come at the expense of a decreasing in stability of personality. So prudent folks choose to settle for the “Min-Max” Happy Medium?
This comes up in discussions now and then, that a woman who is crazy would also be “crazy in bed” whereas a saner woman would not. I must disagree. The word crazy does not mean the same thing in these two. You could easily argue that a woman who has mental problems will be more uncomfortable in bed, will use your requests as yet another opportunity to start a fight and portray herself as the world’s martyr. I have had good and bad sex with both stable and unstable women, I see no correlation.
agree; crazy women aren’t necessarily more fun in the sack. Depends on the brand of crazy. All women are crazy to some extent.
I have had three chicks in my life who came really furiously for me. Two were raging Borderline/Narcissistic Personality Disorder hot heads and one was a hippie chick “Dancing Bears” ex drug addict with a really bad case of Claustrophobia. And honestly, I can barely even remember any of the tens of other chicks whom I’ve fornicated with over the years. You only remember the ones who cum and cum and cum and cum and cum for you.
In my experience, if you want epic sex, then you’re going to have to put up with epic rage. Iron skillets, butchers’ knives, shit like that. Thankfully none of them ever came after me with large caliber firearms. At least not yet.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/693-2/2012-2/anatomy-of-a-debt-crisis/
Anatomy of a Debt Crisis that appears, only Julius Caesar ever understood.
“The family seemed to do all right. Their debt burden never showed. Even the last day before the bank took their house they had everything they needed. So judging by that pattern, they should have done well forever. That they were homeless the next day seems just a statistical anomaly.”
When books are written about the dollar collapse, after the dollar has been abandoned as the default trade currency due to technology making it easier to “frog leap” between currencies when making a deal, you could start the book with this little analogy.
Another one: I knew a guy who seemed to do just fine in college. Same as everyone else. Until the day he was no longer there, because he had flunked his classes. But up until that day everything seemed the same as always.
One step more, all is fine. One step more, all is fine. Hey, seems like this will go on forever. Who cares that there’s a gaping chasm a few steps ahead? We have never fallen before. The doomsayers have been wrong every step so far….
white man’s dream country
Dang I ain’t never heard 2 minutes 2 midnight being played in a Thai go go bar before. Every man should experience LOS before it becomes completely westernized, well on it’s way sadly. The girls attitudes are changing fast from the sweet little submissive Asian dolls to demanding entitled western cunts. Great footage from the bar scene.
I fuck girls like that in the back of their cars.
The military junta should do the world a favor and send all the transvestite prostitutes to the northeastern, Cambodian part of Thailand, as forced labor. Regional aid, yes?
Thailand is a very conservative country, which may be a surprise to Westerners who have heard of the prostitution districts only. Why do they keep the transvestites around? Well, they have so many homosexual customers coming from other countries. (The West and Russia. The menues are often printed in English and Russian.) Money trumps all, it seems.
Addendum: does anyone think Thailand is worse off now that the military has taken power? They promise elections next year after they have cleared out a few things. Apparently Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was a Thai version of Obama, blatantly abusing power. Her brother Thaksin lives in exile and would be prosecuted for snatching money from government coffers if he ever came back home. He also used his position to help his wife buy public land at an auction, etc.
Yingluck Shinawatra could stay in power despite the wishes of a majority of real Thais because she was supported by her clients, the non-Thai residents in the north and northeast, who are actually of the Cambodian people. As always, the uglier, darker people are less productive and more eager to get government handouts. (These are also the ones who make up most of the prostitutes in the big cities, not real Thai. If you look at pictures, most of the prostitutes are ugly, while real Thai look much better.)
So facing a “democracy” where corrupt politicians come to power through the votes of some of your people’s leftists combined with a foreign people hungry for your people’s money, what should the military do? They take the same position as the demonstrators who asked for the replacement of mass democracy with a council of society’s best and brightest, excluding the muds and their patrons from power.
who are actually of the Cambodian people. As always, the uglier, darker people are less productive and more eager to get government handouts.
—————————————————————————————–
When Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge took over, light skinned Cambodians were singled out for special treatment. Fortunately, many of them were able to escape to their white masters countries.
White man’s dream country?
get rid of the lady boys and make more than half the girls caucasian
then maybe…maybe for some… but I never pay for sex, never had to.
The higher the man’s n-count, the higher the odds of mutual satisfaction. The man’s n-count/5 has to “keep up” with the woman’s for their to be mutual satisfaction.
Nope.
A man who’s been with 50 is very unlikely to be happy to be with a woman over the long term exclusively. He’s like a woman who’s been with 10 men.
Compare him to a man who’s been with just 4 girlfriends. He’s practically like a virgin who’s never been with any man before.
Point granted.
The “correct” equation would probably be significantly non-linear. I’m saying that at the low end of the range for male n-count (under 5?), each additional notch increases the odds the ltr will remain mutually satisfying.
There is something to Titanic’s thought though. If the woman has a higher notch count than her husband that’s an aggravating favor making for it to be more likely that the couple is unhappy.
@titanic
Agreed.
Is that the Titanic or the Olympic?
Well, if nobody else got the reference, I did. Golf clap.
i had a sinking feeling you would say that
This is a question of correlation and causation.
A man’s alphaness is highly correlated with his n count and his alphaness increases satisfaction for women but does his n count cause his alphaness.
Nope.
Alpha causes N count.
N count does not cause Alphaness in the same manner. I have seen some sneaky fuckers getting laid a lot. They’re not Alpha when it comes to the world of men.
Often these “dudes” have a trouble maintaining their LTRs.
Jesus this is so asinine
The higher a man’s count, the more likely it is he is a narcissist who views women as narcissistic supply, and the more likely he is incapable of love and has his life collapse in middle age. I’ve seen it more than once.
I don’t know about that. Well, I will grant that it could be true about many. But I would like to see statistics about it before being certain. Personally I have slept with a whole lot of girls because I long ago started following manosphere advice, but the “life platform” advice and the game advice, really taking it to heart. It worked. But of the people I know, I am the one most concerned with other people’s well-being. When we stand around talking in a group, I am the one thinking of whether everyone is included in the conversation, and if not, I start talking with the quiet person so he won’t feel like an outsider. Things like that. No one else I know does this, no matter how many women they’ve been with.
Left a comment a couple of times to adjust the equation… but that ended up in the comment spambox or whatever.
Probably stuck in the LIFO stack and pushed way out to the harddrive swapfile at WordPress. Wait about 72 to 96 hours, and by then it might have gotten pulled back off the hard drive and have worked its way back up to the top of the LIFO stack.
…as you know better than anyone, what with your endless stream of comments.
hahaha, so true
Is Joan Rivers dead yet?That will make him happy!!
Stilicho, think long and hard about what I just said as followed immediately by what you just said. Then see whether the lightbulb goes off in your head.
I don’t know why that keeps happening. Is it just CH’s blog or all WordPress?
Try making a long post and see all your work be for naught.
A heartbreaking loss for us (giggle)
“giggle”? What are you, five? Try writing something interesting to read.
> “Try making a long post and see all your work be for naught.”
As above, that’s Stilicho’s homework problem for this evening.
It should be times 5 not 1/5 for the man. Since men’s partners count for less, a man with 2 with a 100 count woman will actually boost her chances of satisfaction from by 250% from 1% to 2.5% but drops his own by 99%!
Also I propose that the whole equation be multiplied by a factor of .5, since best case both virgin marital satisfaction is still only 50%.
It should be 5 times not 1/5. That part is correct.
But a man who’s a virgin is not going to be able to maintain a strong sexually satisfying frame in most cases. So the equation when multiplied by 5 instead of 1/5 works out well, and works only when a man has been with at least 5 girls.
Exactly, 5 not 1/5. Of course CH might be playing find-the-sperg game. Remember the April Fool’s gag a couple holidays past? Making a general point: I don’t think we should glorify sperg disparagement at all, even if manboobz fit the category. Spergs the thinker-producers are the economy or there isn’t one. Sperg the label is cathedral rot associated with fake ADHD drug dealing and ruining the reproduction of thinker-producers that don’t need debt slavery. Frost posited that the delay in fatherhood associated with spergism is due to the cock carousel and beta producer cock blocking from earlier success and better pussy (http://www.thumotic.com/delayed-fatherhood-and-autism/). I takes time to learn to be a thinking man, especially with all the pretty lies. I don’t see how Frost’s idea could be wrong. Thoughtful thinking men have the greatest mutual repulsion to welfare queens and careerist battleaxes, and hot women are most repulsed by young, naive, thoughtful nice guys. Conquorer-‘spergs’ are what bring civility to the world, and mattmidical preezijon. Will high IQ fathers ever tell their sons shit? Which is why we come here in righteous disgust.
What was the April Fools gag?
I remember the post showing “ordinary women” for readers to rate, and they were all feminists. That post linked back to a similar post from years ago showing two “women” for readers to rate, and one of them was actually a guy – they were brother and sister. (Almost all readers considered the woman more attractive. The guy just looked like a freak. The eyes definitely looked male. Curiously, Romanian women usually have eyes like that, I first thought it was a Romanian.)
But I don’t think any of those were April Fools posts, though.
Incidentally I managed to trick several co-workers last April Fools. I wrote an email about how the tennis court had new temporary safety standards while they investigated an injury – everyone would have to wear safety goggles while playing tennis the next weekend. I told them to email me back if they didn’t have goggles at home, and I would borrow some through my friend who works as a teacher. “That’s crazy!” they said. “How can they make us do that? Let’s go somewhere else!” So funny.
Genes don’t “determine”, they predispose, and a 50% heritability rate is nothing to get excited about. GXE correlations and interactions mean the blank slaters and the absolute hereditarians are equally oblivious to how science actually works.
Clarify your argument and we might be able to set you straight. What idea do you see here that assumes absolute hereditarianism? If you take a look even the most radical hereditarian folks are way more sophisticated than your naive caricature.
And you’re wrong: 50% heritability is worth getting excited about. If IQ is 50% luck, 50% genes, then almost everyone in the top 2% of ability comes from top 15% genes. And that’s important: among other things, it implies that all of our current social policies are insane.
If you take a look even the most radical hereditarian folks are way more sophisticated than your naive caricature.
Exactly. Typical strawman argument: claiming that those who are aware of hereditary traits think that’s the only thing influencing people.
Look, Arred, is this so hard to understand? Anyone who has had pets knows they are affected by genes from their parents. In general. No one claims you can’t change their behavior by how you treat them. While they will still be affected by their genes.
Ah, why am I explaining this. Everyone knows this, it’s just that for leftists it’s an ideological demand that they ignore reality. Feelthink must trump facts.
one remaining lifetime spouse”””””””””””””
that is the flaw in the formula
cause fuck that you can never be sure of that so why give up something for that long to have it have 50 percent chance going to shit
You want to go into politics and you’re in your fifties . . . like Clooney
gregi is in his fifties? Holy fuck.
Early thirties, based on info he provided earlier (incl a short lived blog with his photo)
Now I want to see gregi’s photo. Army pic?
He looks like a cool guy. Maybe late 20s now.
Speaking of pictures, Rick Perry could easily use his mugshot in election campaigns. That would be badass.
And he a homo?
This formula is symmetric in the man and the woman partners.
Men with a lot of past lovers are better able to leave their past in the past and not get hung up on nitpicking deficiencies in their current lovers.
I’d actually wager that this corresponds to women also.
Women can let go of their past lovers with a much greater ease than men can, especially if they’re young. Men can learn this but women are almost hardwired to forget their past lovers as soon as they meet (or like in past eras, taken by ) a new alpha(s).
In the past, men where killed off by new conquerors and women were preserved for sexual/reproduction reasons by their captors.
It makes complete sense that women needed to psychologically severe any past connections to ex-lovers or kin. Those who didn’t adapt were killed and culled from breeding. You can also see: War Brides.
Off topic but hear me out on this:
This has many ties into modern dating and the current interracial trends we are seeing. One may also infer that when a woman dates a man of another race, she must subconsciously feel a primal form of Stockholm syndrome. That is one theory I’ve kept in mind ever since I’ve started to date other races of women and seeing the differences of how they act in my presence. When they do submit, it’s a lot more profound than if I dated a women of my own race. Granted this isn’t always the case, but I have noticed it far too often to ignore it.
It would be interesting to see what you other guys might add on to this.
Very interesting thought, and I immediately thought of Rollo’s Article on War Brides. Haven’t dated asians or black girls much at all so can’t say much. There is a consensus that Asian women (either by culture or biology – most likely both) tend to be more submissive overall.
Can you give some details on how exactly the submission of women of other races is more profound in your experience?
Would be worthwhile to note if there are a few black/asian guys out here who have noticed this with white women vs women of their own race.
There is a consensus that Asian women (either by culture or biology – most likely both) tend to be more submissive overall.
Culture is a result of biology.
But the right word is not “submissive”, that is feminist propaganda bullshit. They are more peaceful and more feminine – overall. Feminists hate that, so they focus on ONE factor that is more likely in a peaceful and feminine woman, namely that she is more likely to be submissive than an aggressive, masculine woman.
This is a typical leftist tactic. Private trade, with private producers, investors and owners, and people buying and working where they like? They focus on the investment part, calling the whole thing “capitalism” to enrage workers, who hate the thought of some people making money “without honest work”.
Nationalism, the idea that your people should look after its interests and preserve its identity, which all peoples have always had to do if they wanted to survive? They call it “racism”, focusing on only one part, namely the awareness of racial differences.
Resistance fighters opposing the pro-Zionist occupation in Afghanistan? Call it “terrorism” to ignore all the regular fighting, information campaigning and societal organizing by the resistance.
Stockholm Syndrome? Nah, I have never sensed that. I have been with every race of chick repeatedly and they all just seem to be hoez
the real question is how much lotsa cockas can a woman have before she is unwilling to settle for a beta. as the frequency of big dicks approaches infinity her ability to be happy with her average beta husband becomes 0. in physics this would model like Hookes law. heh. where you take the average penor size times the number of guys shes been with. (sum of penis sizes/numper of peni) times number of guys. as this constant grows above the average size of peni then her ability to become happy approaches 0. so basically if a ho slept with 20 men but they were all 3″ that would give her hookes constant of about 60. whereas a woman sleeps with 200 guys and the average size is 8, then her constant is 1600. which means that the chick whos slept with 20 guys is about 26 times more likely to be happy with an average beta then the one who has slept with 200. heh.
You know, attractive women with low n aren’t going to find a man with an n much higher than hers attractive. She’s not promiscuous by choice. Promiscuity is not a trait she’s going to tolerate in husband material.
Completely agree about Gals with 4 = Guys with 20.
I maintain the best way to spot the low mileage girls is to ask about their dad. For some reason girls brag about sex to their moms but keep it from their dads. Must have something to do with slut shaming that would inevitably come from a moderately involved dad.
And further if you ask, “hey ever follow some advice your dad gave you?”. Its a lock if she says yes that the girl cares about her dads opinions. Notice I say advice not “orders”, “indoctrination” etc… this will weed out all the lawyer-gash riff raff that really want to show up their dad… And hey they will show him how much of a slut his little girl is.
It makes me think that the heavy influence of Single Mother households influence Guys to grow up to be White Knights and Girls to Grow up to be Jezebels.
And to XX Genetic posters… yes I know NAWALT
This is a common tip in pua/game forums: listen to how a girl talks about her father. If she complains to you about her dad, that generally means trouble ahead for you. This is true whether the complaints are unjustified (she is damaged by default) or justified (her parents have damaged her).
“Promiscuity is not a trait she’s going to tolerate in husband material.”
This reeks of either trolling or being thickheaded, but on the off chance its neither consider this:
Women worry about whether their man of choice will divert resources away from them towards other (younger, more attractive) women during the long term, but the actual number of past partners of the man they choose is not a problem. If anything, it will re-enforce his alpha characteristics in her mind.
How many dates it took on average for men to get a woman to sleep with them should be factored in, and how many blowjobs in a bar bathroom she has given while drunk as well.
and if she was in gang bangs and how often,
has she ever had sex with another woman
If she is white, how many non-whites did she have sex with
All those things matter, even how long her relationships tend to last on average
how many tattoos she has, et cetera…
Tattoos on women are a disease, and graters are the cure.
To me it should be two equations: Women happiness={Nm/(Nw+1)^2}A
Men happiness: {H^3/(Nw*Nm+1)} where A= Alphaness H=Hotness( women)
Nm= men’s past sexual partners, Nw=women’s (real) past sexual partners
1/(5*N) in general case where N. Remember, these are odds. It just so happens, M and W were equal to 20 in the example, thus (1/5*20*20).
Meant to say N equal to number of women slept with times number of men slept with for both partners combined, it really doesn’t make a difference because of associative property. I was thinking that a power law might describe more accurately the “decay” of a woman as a function of number of men she has slept with.
Hey Scray, in response to your response to my question about mixed sets. Most likely I’ll be out solo in either a club or a bar.
Question was how do you run mixed sets?