Inverse Relationship Between Number of Partners and Number of Children
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The average (mean) number of biological children women have by the total number of men they have had sex with since turning eighteen. To avoid racial confounding, results are restricted to non-Hispanic white women. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from the year 2000 onward. To allow family formation to have occurred, responses are restricted to women who were at least 40 years old at the time of survey participation (N = 3,845):
Kids or cocks: Choose one.
The globohomo anti-white elite and their institutions want to slut you up to lock you out–out of the future, that is.
Choose wisely–civilization depends on it.
GSS variables used: NUMMEN(1)(2-5)(6-10)(11-20)(20-500), SEX(2), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), YEAR(2000-2016), CHILDS
(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I suspect education level would be about as strong a correlation. "Higher Education" has four poisonous consequences: 1) Religious dogma, posing as "social sciences" is sometimes called "feminism", is a primary degree requirement, even if informally enforced by campus culture, 2) Student debt is, like a mortgage, upwards of $100k and unlike a mortgage, not dischargeable in bankruptcy, 3) Raises the economy's bid against the family for young women (so "educated") and 4) Places young women in high cost of family formation urban areas — so as to acquire the incomes required to paydown #3 — where all the young people she'll meet are similarly cut off from affordable nesting and are therefore locked in perpetual "courtship" behavior which, in the age of sexual liberation, means "sexual partners", each of which her instincts discover, are "sterile" — so she inexplicably "falls out of love" with each — changing partners like dirty shirts.
Just remember boys and girls, women lie about their notch count too. You can probably read "more than 20" as "more than 40."
This is unrelated to the article but I'd like to get your take on these two videos, AE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyS8wON40Y0&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohYRRiWvre0
On one of the videos, the author makes the assertion that "I don’t think diversity has a big impact on social cohesion relative to SES, Whites and non-Whites don’t differ that much in policy views, there are big subsets of Whites, based on ethnicity, who vote democrat, and there are big subsets of non-Whites, based on policy views, religion, and ethnicity, who vote republican. These are the factual views that have changed."
Can you comment, sil vous plait
Personal anecdote confirms this; The road to 40 is littered with bodies, born and unborn.
What is the source for this data?
@Sgt. Joe Friday:
While women certainly do lie, I don't think there's a practical difference between 20 and 40. We should interpret both those numbers as "effectively infinite".
As we see here, there's a step change to non-replacement from 2-5 to 6+. So 5 or fewer is the target (emphasis on fewer), and expect lying to therefore gravitate towards this range. Especially as women find themselves being shamed by men with options, their claimed number might well decrease as they get older and try to land a husband, even as their actual number continues to increase.
There's probably some lying on this survey, but expect to encounter more lying in real life, where the stakes are much greater. Some women will be consistent liars though, especially if they can convince themselves things like "only boyfriends count".
OT: SBPDL is down at the moment (going to Google login screen). sbpdl.com is still directed to Blogspot and I'm waiting on a reply from PK as to the details.
I've been thinking for a while there's VERY strong selection effects at play in our era.
Sluts: used to be, they were socially pressured into pretending non-slutness. Now they're told it's fine. So they slut it up, don't have kids, and their proportion of the gene pool shrinks, rapidly. The women who DO have kids tend to be the sober, quiet, loyal ones, producing sober, quiet, loyal daughters.
Homos: same thing. Used to be, there was very strong social pressure to pretend hetero behavior and keep same-sex behavior quiet and just for fun. Now, out and proud. No incentive to pass the genes on to a new generation. Whatever genetic component there is to homosexuality is editing itself out of the gene pool, fast.
Trannies: anybody with the slightest imbalance gets pushed the opposite way from what they used to be. Often encouraged into permanent self-mutilation. Trannies have an extremely high suicide rate.
Abortion: disproportionately used by blacks and lower-class. Abortion is basically a statement that "I don't think the world needs more people like me". Who in this world can judge them better? This is why I'm in favor of abortion staying legal, all while being horrified if anybody in my extended family had ever used it.
Etc.
Basically, the next few generations – outside the migratory mob – are going to be increasingly composed of people who WANT to be moral and WANT to be married and WANT to be loyal to their own kind and WANT kids and WANT to think and prepare long-term, with all the marginal cases stripped away. I'm not religious so can't come up with a proper reference but I'm sure there's biblical lines about chaff and wheat that could be applied. That's what's going on, but genetically. A few thousand years' worth of accumulated cruft is being sifted out.
That just leaves us the problem of dealing with said migratory underclass. It's doable. It just needs a disciplined core that isn't constantly being sold out by its own leaders.
Interesting stats AE. Two observations:
1) it's gotta run the other way for certain other groups, no?
2) religion is probably a serious confounder here. Mormons, Amish, Orthodox Jews etc all have lotsa kids and one partner. Can you control for it?
Jim,
Yes, it surely is.
Sgt Joe Friday,
Yeah, women understate and men overstate. The former more than the latter, I think. But do they systematically do so within sexes? Probably not too much.
Anon,
I've had a few inquires about that. Sean Last and Ryan Faulk are smart guys so I'll make sure to give it a listen, but I'm highly skeptical at first blush. Non-whites of every SES were *way* more likely to vote for Obama in 08 and 12 than whites of every SES were.
Joe,
If youth only knew, if age only could.
Anon,
The General Social Survey.
Wency,
Right. People mock the idea of virgin desirability, but it is still there, even if the goal posts have shifted. A virgin may not be realistic anymore, but a partner count of 3 is looked at a lot differently than a partner count of 30 is, and for good reason.
Mr. Rational,
He's still active on twitter. Not sure what is going on atm.
vok3,
I've long suspected the same. The question is whether or not evolution will move "fast" enough for this to occur. The confounder is religiosity–for several generations now we have good data showing that, in the US (like just about everywhere else, I imagine) the religious tend to outbreed the irreligious, yet we are less religious than ever as a society.
Jig,
Not sure. I did a similar analysis several years ago showing the same for non-whites, albeit not as strongly, but these parameters are better. I'll take a look.
GSS had a good idea (Do these ethnic groups have too much or too little influence?), but only used this battery for 1990. (the variables have names like INFLUJEW, my personal favorite). For the record, about 20% of white guys thought that blacks had too much influence (one wonders how whites would've felt in the mid-late 90's, after years of rap and the NBA being glorified).
As for Agnostic's theory that non-whites (and non-blacks) are irrelevant, the GSS saw fit to inquire about the influence of Asians and Mexicans…..Back in 1990 (!). Given the whole black black black blackety blackety black thing that's periodically surged since the 1960's (with spikes in the early 90's and early 2010's), I'd bet that whites have consistently been pretty indifferent to non-black minorities.
It's not so much what each ethnic group does per se, it's more the ludicrously over-sized prominence of Micheal Jackson, Micheal Jordan, Malcom X, Beyonce, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Kanye, Cornel West, etc. being such a head ache. It reminds of something a lot of conservatives used to say in the 1990's: it shouldn't be illegal to be gay, but pipe down about how gay you are.
Found quite a corker on the GSS. CLOSEBLK (are you close to blacks?) with CLASS reveals that upper class white guys are the least (!) likely to describe themselves as being not close at all to blacks. The mind reels.
By definition, upper class whites have little sustained contact with most black people. It seems to me that affluent whites are guilty of two things here:
1) They impose their own moral rectitude on all other groups, since they tend to be insulated from the poor behavior of others it becomes quite common for them to grant virtue to others…..Except of course, prole whites who won't get with the program. Naturally, they can't stomach admitting their distance from proleish ethnic groups, and they double down on their resentment of prole whites instead of coming clean about the distance between their public stance WRT blacks and their private reality.
2) Elite whites have encounters with talented tenth blacks on campus and at the workplace, and the (assumed or actual) virtues of talented blacks are magically placed onto all blacks. So, of course, having dealings with the top class of blacks enables these whites to feel as if they're closer to blacks as a whole. Really, we all know that's bullshit, since these whites are dealing with a very select sample of blacks.
Amazing how whites of all stripes strenuously avoid sending their kids to public schools in dark areas, yet somehow the whites most able to dodge that bullet are the whites who are the most concerned about the perception that they think ill of blacks. For the record, 1.8% of upper class whites admit being distanced from blacks, while 11.9% of working class whites admit it.
Thanks AE. I have my own takes, but I'd like to wait for your response and the other experts before I make my take.
Anon,
I'm going to put a post in queue to respond in a little more depth, but this looks very much like the Ben Shapiro fallacy all over again. Yeah, blacks and whites may not be all that far apart when it comes to stated views on X, Y, and Z, but virtually every black who holds the "conservative position on X" still votes for Obama while the strong majority of whites holding the "conservative position on X" vote for Romney.
Feryl,
If you're up for it, you could take a look at how close people say they feel to blacks and juxtapose it to the racial configuration of their friends' groups (another GSS variable, I'll look it up if you're interested, I've posted on it before). My guess is white liberals are a lot more likely to say they feel close to blacks but are no more likely to actually have friends who are black than white conservatives are. They like the idea of diversity more than actually living diversity.
Mr. Rational,
Contacted PK and he said he's just doing some back end stuff, nothing to worry about.
Regarding religiosity: there's the underlying type of behavior, and there's the form it takes. Christianity is in rapid decline, yes. Religious-type thinking is arguably not. I see a LOT of parallels between white nationalism and the early history of various religious movements, for example; and it's been noted often enough that progressivism is basically religion.
More generally, I am a big fan of Frazer's "The Golden Bough" as an overarching description of patterns of human thought, and that book makes one particularly key argument from which it draws one particularly key implication. The argument is that Christianity is merely the culmination, the most refined form, of thousands of other religious customs and beliefs all drawing on the same basic sources: the cycle of the seasons and the impact of agricultural cycles on everyday human life. The implication is that the industrial revolution irreparably shattered the connection between the cycles of nature and everyday human life, and therefore also caused irretrievably disruptive consequences for patterns of human thought such as religion, and we have no way to predict what will replace the old patterns.
It doesn't mean religion itself is gone from human affairs; it does mean that the patterns of religion as they've been practiced for the past few millennia suddenly lose control over people, especially the more technological an environment they're in. What he was predicting when he wrote about this a century ago is exactly what we've seen happen.
Yeah, AE, never got a reply myself but noticed it's back up now.
vok3,
That is interesting. A generation ago, it would've had to deal with the problem of America and how more behaviorally Christian (in terms of actual worship attendance, etc) it remained through the end of the 20th century compared to the markedly more secular Europe. But the US is rapidly converging with Europe as far as that is concerned.
Wrt progressivism as the new religion, I get the parallels but of course the fertility relationship is all wrong. Progressives are a lot *less* fertile than non-progressives are, so if progressivism is the new religion, the new religion is anti-natal.
"Kids or cocks: Choose one."
For highly sexual women. For men who "pump and dump", it's "Children or c–ts: Choose one".
Jim Bowery…
" "Higher Education" has four poisonous consequences…"
As Sailer says, Who? Whom? Today's guys go for looks, intelligence, and income potential. The genie is out of the bottle.
"where all the young people THEY meet are similarly cut off from affordable nesting and are therefore locked in perpetual "courtship" behavior which, in the age of sexual liberation, means "sexual partners", each of which THEIR instincts discover, are "sterile" — so THEY inexplicably "fall out of love" with each — changing partners like dirty shirts."
Fixed it for you.
vok3…
"I've been thinking for a while there's VERY strong selection effects at play in our era."
And you conveniently or haphazardly left out another potent group.
Male Notchcounters–The pickup artists (professional and amateur), along with men who simply do not want any steady girlfriend, are also a major root cause of these issues regarding the demise of Western Civilization, i.e. declining rates of (white) marriage and fertility. The jig is up for "players" like Roosh and Roissy. They are hitting the middle aged man wall and must rebrand themselves to keep relevant. Roosh in particular wrote several books for a targeted audience with the intention to make money and grab that 15 minutes of fame. This grifter focused on the idea that men could have sex with exotic women without consequence, and inevitably Christian single men were drawn to his lure–we are men, there are fallen women in this world, we can have sex with them and leave them because they are fallen women, we do not have any responsibility because we are men and they are fallen women, we will be forgiven by marrying (near) virginal women. Had Roosh and men of his ilk been properly brought up by their parents, he would refrained from "pumping and dumping", embraced Christianity, and wrote about how men ought to save their brethren from a life of misery and despair by chasing unchaste women…from the jump.
Supposedly they found the loophole–men need not be moral when women are immoral. This philosophy has led Christian men in particular down the path of ruin, a road that he helped to pave. BUT…men as the allegedly wiser sex ought make the "prudent decision" NOT to have sex with loose women or have sex outside of marriage. So those men whose purpose is procure as much poon as possible are solipsistic while lacking impulse control.
Stated another way–Men like Roosh hunt after "easy bar girls" and work to pry open "hard core virgins". These "alpha men" are jaded and bitter because the jig is up for them; they rutted like an animal and neglected to develop meaningful relationships. Their conduct is like a looter and vandal in a troubled society. Did they take the high road? Save themselves for their future bride? Absolutely not. They, along with those men who focus on "pumping and dumping" sans the advice of prowlers like Roosh and Roissy, are essentially a slave to their most base and vulgar urges.
The problem I have with these kinds of measurements is that they never have a correction for attractiveness of the women. If women sleep-around/cheat in proportion to their options, then all these graphs are just measuring the difference in behavior between attractive women who can sleep around and ugly women who can't. This puts a damper on the tradcon message of just finding a "good" woman if good is just code for ugly.
Corvinus,
Can't speak for Roosh as I've never followed him, but Heartiste (a Roissy by any other name still smells as sweet!) argues that large numbers of loose women are an almost inevitable consequence of female empowerment. Simplifying greatly, his fix isn't getting women to change–at least not directly–it's getting men to change. I think he's on the mark there.
Anon,
That probably mostly washes out here. I'd bet the number of partners (for women especially) doesn't track that tightly with their physical attractiveness. I bet women in the 6-7 range probably have the most partners on average.
AE…
"Can't speak for Roosh as I've never followed him, but Heartiste (a Roissy by any other name still smells as sweet!) argues that large numbers of loose women are an almost inevitable consequence of female empowerment. Simplifying greatly, his fix isn't getting women to change–at least not directly–it's getting men to change. I think he's on the mark there."
It's noble how much you white knight for Roissy. He is getting men to change alright–from being men who curb their rutting instinct to men who screw anything that moves. Roissy's "insight" into the female persuasion is primarily the means by which men get as much trim as possible without the responsibility of marriage and parenting. But I get, he is the Alt Right's house n—-r.
"That probably mostly washes out here. I'd bet the number of partners (for women especially) doesn't track that tightly with their physical attractiveness. I bet women in the 6-7 range probably have the most partners on average."
Here is a study on the matter. Interesting results about men in particular.
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/sex-and-relationship/140218/less-attractive-women-more-likely-to-cheat.html
1. "People satisfied with sex in their relationship were more likely to engage in infidelity, perhaps suggesting they felt more positive about sex in general and would seek it out regardless of how they felt about their main relationship."
2. "Another predictor of infidelity was attractiveness. A person's own attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among women but not men – meaning less attractive women were more likely to have an affair."
3. "A partner's attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among men but not women – meaning men were more likely to be unfaithful when their partners were less attractive."
4. "A person's history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair, while the opposite was true for women."
The exception to this pattern is single moms who have many children by multiple men.