What kind of women have a propensity to relationship failure and dislo

When it comes to starting a serious relationship, some women can be predicted with reasonable accuracy to cause loyalty problems down the road. These problems range from emotional infidelity to full-blown cheating, and in many cases, the warning signs are visible long before the first major crisis.

For most men, the choice of a long-term partner or wife is unconsciously tied to their own sense of self-worth. This often creates a dangerous bias: instead of objectively evaluating her behavior, background, and value system, they work overtime to justify their decision — even when clear signs of instability and potential betrayal are already flashing.

This bias is amplified by what could be called the romanticism overdose effect: an early-stage emotional high that makes men ignore red flags, reframe her problematic actions as “quirks,” or convince themselves that their situation is a rare exception. In reality, as we’ve repeatedly observed at Alpha Mastery, the opposite is true:

Over 90% of relationship breakdowns could have been prevented with better pre-screening and by accepting that “your case” is not an exception — it’s a textbook confirmation of the rule.

From a scientific standpoint, this tendency for self-deception is rooted in cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and confirmation bias. Once a man invests emotionally, his brain actively searches for information that supports his decision while suppressing contradictory evidence. Combined with the sunk cost fallacy, this can trap him in a deteriorating relationship for years.

The reality is that loyalty is not a mystery trait that “emerges” over time — it’s largely predictable from past behavior patterns, value hierarchies, and personality structure. Research on infidelity consistently shows that women with high impulsivity, low conscientiousness, high novelty-seeking, or unresolved attachment trauma are statistically more likely to cheat or emotionally disengage (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Mark et al., 2011).

Men should treat partner selection like due diligence in business. You wouldn’t invest your life savings into a company without auditing its financials, leadership history, and legal liabilities — so why do it with a woman whose emotional “track record” you’ve never examined?

High partner count

A woman’s sexual history — often referred to as partner count or body count — is one of the most emotionally charged topics in the modern dating marketplace. While the raw number alone cannot predict her loyalty or long-term relationship suitability, dismissing it entirely is naive. The key is not to judge based solely on the figure, but to contextualize it with other behavioral and psychological markers.

Several critical factors must be considered:

1. Speed of sexual initiation – How quickly did she become physically intimate after first meeting? Rapid sexual escalation with multiple past partners can indicate a lower threshold for sexual boundaries, which in turn predicts higher relationship turnover.

2. Relationship-to-encounter ratio – How many of her sexual experiences occurred within committed relationships versus casual or transitional flings? A pattern of short-term encounters is statistically linked to lower pair-bonding ability due to the way dopamine–oxytocin bonding pathways adapt to repeated novelty (Garcia et al., 2018).

3. Breakup triggers – Has she ended relationships following immediate or near-immediate sexual connections with new partners? This suggests a behavioral tendency to resolve relational dissatisfaction by looking outside the relationship rather than working through internal conflict.
   
   

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, a woman’s sexual decision-making is a reflection of her normative structure — the internal value framework that governs impulse control, loyalty, and conflict resolution. When that structure is loose, she is more likely to use sexual availability as a tool for emotional regulation or as a shortcut to escape relational problems. This is not about morality alone; it’s about strategic predictability.

A history of “easy switches” between partners is not just about her past — it signals that she has both the skill set and psychological readiness to detach from one man and attach to another quickly. This ability, while advantageous in a purely short-term mating strategy, is a risk factor in a man seeking stability, marriage, or long-term commitment.

Neuroscientific research adds weight here: repeated sexual novelty without long-term pair bonding can blunt the oxytocin-mediated attachment response, making it harder to sustain deep, enduring loyalty to a single partner over time (Young & Wang, 2004).

If a woman’s past shows frequent partner changes, rapid sexual availability, or sexual involvement as a conflict-resolution mechanism, you’re not looking at a “random” past — you’re looking at a pattern. Patterns repeat. Your job isn’t to moralize her history, but to realistically assess whether her bonding style aligns with the type of future you want.

Starting as a parallel relationship

A man should never underestimate the significance of how a relationship begins. The circumstances of the first connection often reveal more about a woman’s long-term behavioral tendencies than any verbal assurance she might later give.

From one perspective, a woman who is lying to her “so-called” ex-boyfriend or spouse — often still “living under the same roof” for financial, logistical, or child-related reasons — can create an intoxicating mix of forbidden excitement and a false sense of superiority in the new man. It can feel like you have been chosen over another man, and in the early stages this can be flattering.

But underneath this excitement lies a principle-level red flag: the ability and willingness to maintain a parallel relationship is not a romantic gesture — it’s a behavioral pattern. Men often justify it by framing the previous partner as a “toxic narcissist” or “abusive violent brute,” but this is rarely relevant to the deeper issue. If she is capable of engaging in deception, concealing an ongoing cohabitation, and building a romantic connection with you while still officially attached to someone else, then the mechanics of betrayal already exist within her behavioral repertoire.

From a psychological standpoint, attachment and conflict resolution strategies are highly stable traits over time. According to longitudinal studies on relationship transitions (Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000), individuals who initiate new relationships before fully exiting old ones have a significantly higher likelihood of repeating the same pattern in future partnerships. In evolutionary psychology terms, this is a high-mating-effort, low-pair-bonding strategy: maximizing partner options while minimizing periods of being single.

The sobering truth: if she once declared the same intense emotions, loyalty, and commitment to her previous partner — and is now doing the opposite behind his back — there is no logical reason to assume she will not eventually apply the same mechanics to you. Your “special” circumstances are not the exception; they are often the exact conditions under which betrayal thrives.


If you enter her life as the parallel man, you are by definition her lover during at least some overlap period — and lovers have an expiration date. Regardless of the narrative she gives, starting as “the other man” is not a rare exception that proves her virtue; it’s a preview of the likely ending.

Lying habits

When it comes to lying, many men compartmentalize the behavior of the woman they’ve chosen. They will go to extraordinary lengths to justify her lies — whether those are to girlfriends, coworkers, family members, exes, or even random strangers. They excuse it in context: “She only lied because she had to,” or “It wasn’t really a lie, more like protecting herself.”

This is a dangerous psychological self-deception. The mechanics of lying are independent of the target. Once the capability exists, the object of the lie can change — and eventually, that object can be you. By blurring the line between truth and falsehood, a man denies himself the most obvious reality: the woman has both the cognitive skillset and the moral flexibility to manipulate truth when it suits her.

At a principle level, this should be made brutally clear: habitual lying is not about the specific situation; it is about the absence of a higher moral normative structure that prohibits lying per se. When a woman lies with ease, she is demonstrating that truth is not bound to a higher value or code — it is a tool to be bent for convenience.

From a research perspective, chronic deception correlates with high Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), which in women is strongly linked to relational manipulation and short-term mating strategies. In relationship science, people who score high on deceptive communication patterns have lower relationship satisfaction and dramatically higher infidelity rates (Mark, Janssen, & Milhausen, 2011).

This is why the man’s own standards matter. If your personal stance on truth is loose, you can still have a purely transactional arrangement with such a woman — just don’t expect marriage or long-term family life to be safe territory. But if your principles are rooted in loyalty, responsibility, and moral absolutes, then her casual approach to truth is not just a difference in style — it’s an existential incompatibility.

The correct framing is not “Will she lie to me?” but rather “When and to what degree will she lie to me?” Once you accept that the skill and willingness to lie exist, you cannot remove yourself from the list of potential targets.


A woman’s relationship with truth is not context-dependent; it is value-dependent. If she does not submit to a higher principle that makes lying morally unacceptable, then lying is not a bug in the system — it is the system.

In conclusion

When it comes to predicting the unfaithful nature of a female partner, the combination of pure statistics and evolutionary psychology makes the situation far more predictable than most men want to believe.

From a pattern-recognition standpoint, there are three key criteria that are strong indicators of future infidelity or relationship chaos — and they can often be detected before the relationship even begins:

1. High partner count with short time-to-sex
   If a woman openly admits to a high number of past sexual partners — or hides it but her actions suggest it — and if her average time from meeting to sexual intimacy has been short, then a mindset has already formed that permits such behavior. When this has been repetitive, the brain’s neuroplastic adaptation (Doidge, 2007) essentially normalizes rapid partner turnover. The “barriers” to switching partners are lowered permanently.
   
   

2. Starting your relationship as a parallel relationship
   Many men romanticize their own case: “She was with him, but she fell in love with me — I’m different.” In reality, the mechanics are the same. The probability is high that she once expressed identical passion and devotion to that other man. The fact that she could emotionally and physically engage in a parallel relationship is not circumstantial — it’s characterological. Studies on mate poaching (Schmitt & Buss, 2001) show that women who have initiated relationships while still involved with another partner are significantly more likely to repeat the pattern in the future.
   
   

3. Lying to others, not just to you
   If she lies easily to third parties — coworkers, friends, exes — this is not just “white lie” territory. It demonstrates an existing pathological ability to manipulate truth without moral friction. High levels of everyday dishonesty correlate strongly with low agreeableness and high Machiavellianism, both of which are linked to a greater incidence of infidelity (Brewer et al., 2015). The critical insight is that the object of the lie is interchangeable; today it’s someone else, tomorrow it’s you
   
   

From the AlphaMastery standpoint, these traits are not “red flags” in the casual dating sense — they are structural indicators. A man’s error is rarely in failing to spot them; it is in convincing himself that his situation is an exception to the rule.

The reality: if the capacity for these behaviors is present, it is not a question of if it will be deployed against you — it is only a question of when and under what pressure.