To avoid getting caught up in personal definitions of what number constitutes a “slut”, let’s rephrase that into, “women with higher numbers of sexual partners are more likely to cheat during long-term relationships.” Is there an actual correlation between high-number women and cheating? Strangely enough, I believe there is. But I don’t believe that one causes the other. Rather, I think there is a third correlation factor at work here:
Impulse Control
Impulse control is a personality trait that has proven to be even more predictive of future success than IQ. The Stanford Marshmallow Experiment tested young children for their ability to resist temptation (to eat one marshmallow immediately) in exchange for for a longer-term reward (waiting 15 minutes for two marshmallows.) One third of the children were able to wait, which demonstrated that age/maturity is linked to the ability to delay gratification.
IC also seems to be a uniquely human trait. We can teach a dog to wait for a reward. But given the opportunity (and lack of external pressure in the form of a trainer), the dog will take the treat. A dog cannot comprehend on his own how to delay gratification for the possible greater reward later.
External pressures are how society, parents, and any authority figures control our behavior. Laws, police and fear of retribution keep most of us in line. Before that, our parents enforced rules such as curfews for our greater (and usually long-term) good. We are rewarded at work for doing our job and punished by being fired when we fail. These are external pressures. In the past there were significant societal pressures on women to restrict their sexuality. This didn’t mean that women who married as virgins in the past (or women today in other cultures or highly-religious women) are automatically low IC. It just means they are submitting to the external pressures.
Therefore, IC is of even greater importance when external pressures to control are low. (Sound like the modern SMP?) We’ve removed the external, societal pressures on women (and men) to control sexuality. To compound matters, our society does a good job of encouraging low IC behavior with easy access to credit, and constant media messages to spend, enjoy life now, don’t delay gratification. “If it feels good, do it!” is the message of the day. The delayed adulthood of many young people is just another symptom of this attitude. Why settle into a career and drudgery now? Live at home, spend freely, enjoy life while you’re young.
Interesting info, but what does any of this have to do with sluts? My theory is that sluts are very frequently low IC. I don’t think it’s a great leap in deduction to say that low IC women would also be more likely to cheat, but they also have a lot of other traits that make them less desirable as long-term mates. Low-IC people are more emotionally volatile; they have trouble controlling their emotions in relationships and life and are more prone to outbursts and general “drama.” A low-IC person would be that drama-queen girlfriend, flipping out for any transgression real or perceived. It would be the wife who hides her addiction to the home shopping network or the one who becomes obese when her metabolism slows down with age, and she can’t give up the french fries and ice cream habit. And, of course, the club-slut who gives in to the slightest whiff of game…and then goes on a week-long, Facebook tirade when she realizes she’s been played…again. It isn’t that these people don’t learn. It’s that they feel an impulse, and they generally give in. Unfortunately, the world has no shortage of new impulses.
So, sluts are bad long-term bets, right? Not quite. There is a caveat to tossing all higher-number women into the low-IC/slut pile: not all of them are low-IC. In fact, I’d say that any real correlation is actually pretty slight. There are plenty of woman who consciously *choose* casual sex for valid reasons. In fact, many of them are high IC in most areas of their life, quite capable of delaying gratification for their longer-term goals. They save for retirement. They wait for things to go on sale before making a reasoned purchase and they pay cash for it. They achieved, or are on their way to achieving their educational and career goals. These are not the girls you see wearing Jimmy Choos on a shopgirl budget. Cougars like high-libido/low-drama cubs, career women might choose a simple FWB, and I personally know girls in college who choose casual sex instead of serious relationships that would interfere with their career.
The problem with relying solely on the “number” to determine a good long-term prospect is that it’s just one indicator. Better indicators include ability to budget, stick to a diet, and giving up small “feel-good now” items for a greater long-term goal, such as giving up going out partying and choosing night school instead. There are plenty of low-IC women who are comparatively quite chaste. They may just lack the opportunity or desire to pursue sex, but give into impulses freely otherwise.
And lest you think I’m picking on women with all this “IC” stuff, realize that all the downsides to being in a relationship with a low-IC woman are just as bad with men. Low-IC men probably cheat just as often (if not more often) than women. Number is not normally a good indicator of IC in men, but I believe it can be a very valid indicator if a man is very attractive, wealthy enough to compensate, or has tight game. Remember, it’s his ability to *choose* to delay gratification that is the key, not just that he can’t get what he wants.
(It could also be that “number” and “tight game” are just gender-appropriate proxies for testing for IC in the SMP.)
What does this mean for all us mere mortals trying to make sense of who is relationship-worthy and who isn’t? The rule is…it’s never as simple as it seems. The answer is going to be about doing the work of looking at the whole person, his/her behavior patterns, personality traits and thinking long-term about them instead of giving in to the impulse of relying on one factor for judging people.
