Culture Will the Coronavirus Threat Lead to Female Infidelity? - Alternatively: Cucks gives THOTs another excuse for being THOTs.

Original article:
Martin Graff Ph.D.
The coronavirus has impacted on society and affected our behaviour in many ways from an increase in our use of social media keep connected to friends and loved ones, to keeping socially distant when we venture out. However, what effect could the virus have on our sexual behaviour? More specifically what affect will it have on our likelihood of seeking out additional sexual partners outside of our current relationships? In order to understand the possibility of this happening, we need to outline the evolutionary advantages of pursuing such sexual strategies.
There is an imbalance between the sexes in the amount of effort expended in reproduction. For example, male reproduction requires relatively little effort over and above a few minutes of sexual contact, whereas female reproductive investment requires nine months or longer. Given this imbalance, men are potentially able to increase the number of offspring they sire by mating with a large number of women. For women, because of a reproduction period of nine months, an increase in number of sexual partners would not, therefore, result in an increase in the number of offspring over and above the number they could have by staying with just one partner. However, women do engage in extra-relationship affairs for a variety of reasons. For example, ensuring reproductive success in their offspring from mating with men with superior genes to their current partner, or acquiring extra benefits such as gifts or status by liaising with more resourceful men.

The threat of disease
However, in a time of threat from disease, female infidelity may be driven by an additional factor. Genetic immunity from disease is obviously necessary for the wellbeing of a women’s offspring, yet because there are no real obvious visual indications of genetic immune functioning in men, beyond perhaps appearing to be in good health, it may be difficult for women to select men on this criterion. The only way in which women can attempt to increase the probability of strong immunity in their offspring in a time of infection in the environment, is to engage in a multi-male mating strategy, which would provide the genetic diversity afforded when their children are fathered by different men, and make it more likely that at least some offspring will possess the necessary genetic immunity to protect them. Therefore, the threat of disease in the environment may increase the likelihood of women seeking sexually diverse mating strategies driven by such bet-hedging behaviour.

However, it is also important to point out that such a mating strategy is not without its risks—for example, it could result in loss of reputation and disapproval, rejection by a present partner or in some cases physical attack.
The evidence
The question of whether women who have a history of susceptibility to illness respond to this threat by seeking genetic variability in their offspring and report a desire for a higher number of different sexual and dating partners was investigated by Sarah Hill and her colleagues, who examined the effects of the threat of disease on women’s desire for greater variety and diversity in sexual partners (Hill, Prokosch, and DelPriore, 2015).

The researchers performed five different experiments, and in each of these their female participants were presented with information describing an environment with a heightened threat of disease, while the researchers measured their perceived vulnerability to disease, and other questions which sought to assess their preference for a sexual strategy characterised by pursuit of a diverse array of sexual partners.
The first experiment assessed female participants’ ideal number of sexual partners both now and at other occasions in the future. The second experiment investigated female desire for sexual novelty and whether this was related to certain threats from disease. Experiment three looked at the impact of the threat of disease on the number of partners chosen by women in a typical dating situation, with experiment 4 assessing the extent to which the findings might also be similar in men. The fifth experiment attempted to employ a measure of immunocompetence (history of illness in childhood) and examined whether this could also be related to women’s desire for different sexual partners, and furthermore if it was related to a greater need for appearance enhancing products such as makeup.

In all of the experiments, the researchers found that perception of disease had an effect on women’s desire for variety in their sexual partners. In other words, they found that those who indicated a vulnerability to illness reported an increased desire for a greater number of diverse sexual partners. More specifically, the findings indicated that these responses only emerged when the threats of disease posed a serious threat to their survivability and that of their offspring. These effects were not observed in response to other emergencies such as sudden notices of increases in academic standards expected. Furthermore, they also found that the same results were not observed in situations of non-sexual context such as the purchase of makeup. Such effects were applicable only to women and were not evident in male responses.


The evidence from this study does seem to imply that women’s sexual behaviour varies in situations of perceived threat of disease, in as much as women report a greater desire for sexual diversity, which in some cases may result in infidelity, which may be applicable today during the current pandemic. However, it is also important to note that there are a few factors which might limit the findings of this study. Firstly, the researchers measured vulnerability to disease more by perceived infectability as opposed to germ aversion. Women who score high on germ aversion scales indicate rather more cautious and orthodox attitudes and behaviour when faced with the threat of disease (Murray et al, 2013). Secondly, the researchers also note that in their studies, the descriptions of the scenarios suggested that the level of a disease was expected to rise, although did not suggest that there was an immediate risk of contagion, which are clearly two very different situations. Furthermore, such sexual strategies may be more likely to be employed by women who are or who perceive themselves to be especially vulnerable to disease. Clearly, more research is required to address these issues.


References

Hill, S. E., Prokosch, M. L., & DelPriore, D. J. (2015). ‘The Impact of Perceived Disease Threat on Women’s Desire for Novel Dating and Sexual Partners: Is Variety the Best Medicine?’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 109. (2), 244–261.
Murray, D. R., Jones, D. N., & Schaller, M. (2013). ‘Perceived threat of infectious disease and its implications for sexual attitudes.’ Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 103–108.
 
The only way in which women can attempt to increase the probability of strong immunity in their offspring in a time of infection in the environment, is to engage in a multi-male mating strategy,

Yeah, it's great to have sex with plenty of people in a time of disease. Great thinking, nature!

The guy who wrote this, sounds like a car salesman.


I'm going to guess the link between what he says and what the study is about is barely related.
 
Horseshit science. The "multi male strategy" may lead to better genetic luck, but they're engaging in serious cause / effect confusion here. Animals don't fuck multiple males in order to have a better chance of passing on their genes; animals that fuck multiple males anyway are more likely to pass on their genes.

This is practically Lamarckism. Giraffes don't have long necks because their ancestors, planning for their descendants to eat higher leaves, intentionally selected mates with longer necks. Ancestral giraffes were more likely to survive and succeed in mating if they could reach higher leaves.

Beyond this 19th Century twaddle, obviously, "in order to get pregnant with offspring who will survive the wu flu" is incredibly unlikely as a motivator for any real woman to cheat.

So the only remotely arguable version of this would be "women who cheat may have more kids survive to adulthood thanks to covid," which ignores many related factors such as the instability of extramarital affairs, the relative intelligence and wisdom of faithful versus unfaithful wives, and the increased chance to get sick in the first place.


I'm sure there will be plenty of moralfag outrage in this thread, but what's truly offensive here is the garbage science on display.
 
However, it is also important to point out that such a mating strategy is not without its risks—for example, it could result in loss of reputation and disapproval, rejection by a present partner or in some cases physical attack.

It's not important to point this out at all. Everyone already knows this. There is a very good reason why women are generally averse to multi-male mating strategies even though they do provide some benefit to their offspring.
 
So the only remotely arguable version of this would be "women who cheat may have more kids survive to adulthood thanks to covid," which ignores many related factors such as the instability of extramarital affairs, the relative intelligence and wisdom of faithful versus unfaithful wives, and the increased chance to get sick in the first place.

It also ignores the basic idea that even if women have some sort of instinctive desire to cheat during a time of pandemic, most of them are probably going to be on birth control when they do it because they would naturally want to hide their affair from their partner.
 
I didn't read this article, because it's not worth the time :
If anyone is dumb enough to think the virus is or ever was a real threat, probably hasn't been looking at the riots.
No one gives a shit about it anymore, but for politicians trying to ruin their economies.
 
Is there any point in articles like these beside giving people bad vibes?
I mean sure we eat the bait because we give brain-time to skim over them and mock them, but in general. I don't know man.
I think the point is to validate people that makes bad decisions. Millenials especially seem to need encouragement just to breathe, and to be told that the selfish thing they just did was in fact the right thing to do, regardless of conventional wisdom and what "society" thinks.
 
The only way in which women can attempt to increase the probability of strong immunity in their offspring

Yeah, the Tinder profiles are full of women whose bio says "fun single girl looking for hot guy to increase the probability of strong immunity in my offspring".
 
Women's Online Dating Profiles 2016-2019: "If you're a Trump supporter, fuck off, I want nothing to do with you!!"
Women's Online Dating Profiles 2020: "lulz it's just a virus bro, cum fuck me!!"
 
They want to destroy even the very concept of family.

What better way than by encouraging infidelity, the one thing that actively destroys the vows of marriage?
 
Última edición:
My feelings on the situation:
01c.png
 
I didn't read this article, because it's not worth the time :
If anyone is dumb enough to think the virus is or ever was a real threat, probably hasn't been looking at the riots.
No one gives a shit about it anymore, but for politicians trying to ruin their economies.
I want the lockdown back tbh. I miss being the only car on the road.
 
Now tell me this isn't the face of a man that can only gain sexual gratification from watching his significant other fuck anything with a pulse.
1591803320750.png


For the betterment of society we really do need to start killing off liberal white and (((white))) men.
 
Now tell me this isn't the face of a man that can only gain sexual gratification from watching his significant other fuck anything with a pulse.
Ver archivo adjunto 1365365

For the betterment of society we really do need to start killing off liberal white and (((white))) men.

Or just creampie their wives to create more resilient offspring.
 
Now tell me this isn't the face of a man that can only gain sexual gratification from watching his significant other fuck anything with a pulse.
Ver archivo adjunto 1365365

For the betterment of society we really do need to start killing off liberal white and (((white))) men.
Martin Graff is a Principal Lecturer in Psychology at the University of South Wales, an associate fellow of the British Psychological Society
Being a psychologist is bad enough, but a British psychologist! Scientology was right about psych, and somehow look so very sane compared to our currently dominant ideologies. I'll take Xenu over gelded tranny child prostitutes any day.

dr graffs graft.jpg
So he's a shitlib grifter. Imagine bragging being on the BBC, The Guardian, Huffpost, or Daily Mail. "The slimiest of propaganda rags let me wipe my ass on the page! I've hit the big time, Gladys."
 
Atrás
Top Abajo