Yeah, I see it all the time. Sad!
Ah, he finally included men!
And look at that, virgin men at marriage (1 sexual partner, the marital spouse) are the happiest group of all!
Looks to be 73%! In the current year!
Logically, if you want your fellow men to be happy, you’d ask them to be chaste.
Is that in the Bible anywhere?
What would Jesus do?
Next he needs to do a divorce study and control for the other spouse e.g. yes 6% of virgin brides divorced but were their husbands virgins too? Otherwise it’s like studying half a swimming pool for depth measurements.
It is interesting he misreports this data in part, you don’t look purely at the self-reports like single data points, you compare the group by sections – i.e. all the men to men and all the women to women.
The drop for both sexes is comparable, implying the cause of both is the same (and it is, weakened pair bonding).
Men begin with more monogamous satisfaction and women a lot less, significantly less as a sex, so to compare their promiscuous ratings without controlling for that is intellectually dishonest. The drops are comparable.
Basic descriptives, so simple a 5yo could see it.
There is little difference within women to push the female-centric finding he clearly wants to.
I’m going to be skeptical on this “study” as any other.
“In this latest study, women who have had one partner instead of two are about 5 percentage points happier in their marriages, about on a par, Wolfinger says, with the boost that possessing a four-year degree, attending religious services, or having an income over $78,000 a year has for a happy marriage. (In his analysis, he controlled for education, income, and age at marriage.)”
Five percent, I hate to say it, is well within chance. It’s barely significant, almost suspiciously close enough to make me suspect p-hacking… and “about”? Science, guys. Education, class (income) and religiosity would have more of an effect, especially combined. This is important information that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. It suggests breeding is a huge factor in the choice to be pure or the resultant satisfaction.
Men, by valid comparison, have a sheer drop of satisfaction far greater than women, look at that gradient!
Dat gradient, easier to see for normies with boxes I am too lazy to go back and colour-code.
Which box is bigger? None of the inter-female drops rival than initial male gradient of 1 sexual partner to 2, I checked.
If this is glaringly obvious to anyone with the slightest semblance of mathematical training (IE I am not a sperg) on first sight, why miss it out?
Men experience a VAST drop in happiness that seems to be almost double (about TEN percent! huge!) the female 1-2 drop and he just ignores that? He goes on about the half-drop instead? Are you kidding me?
This is why sociology isn’t a real science, kids. This bullshit.
Going back, you can see why his legends aren’t labelled properly.
Yes, that is Papyrus because people who don’t labels their legends must be punished.
It doesn’t even start at zero to exaggerate sizes, get your life in order.
So why the narrative focus on female sluts? Why nary a mention of manwhores? What bias, right?
Do you care about the science of your own marital happiness or the badfeels of shame for bad choices?
“In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce”
Why hasn’t he published the data I KNOW he collected on the men? That isn’t scientific, they’re divorced FROM men, aren’t they? Or were all the divorced women he counted lesbians?
Are Americans really stupid enough to think male virgins don’t exist?! They try to suggest the virgin grooms were actually lying based on the survey writing but it doesn’t wash.
It suggests something important, however triggered broflakes might get that opening one hobbit-hole closes another.
Men happier under Patriarchy? Who’d have thunk it, right?
“And Wolfinger acknowledges that, because of a quirk in how the survey was worded, some of the people reporting one partner might have meant “one partner besides my spouse.”
Weaseling out of results you dislike?
Who wrote the survey? The spirit of Imhotep?
“The median American woman born in the 1980s, Wolfinger writes, has had only three sexual partners in her lifetime, and the median man six.”
So as science keeps telling us, men are the sluts. It’s simple mathematics.
Well, logically, how likely are chaste women to marry the slutty men in the first place? Isn’t that rather important than randomly assuming they’re all shacking up eventually to Have it all?
“They have never been interested in sex without commitment, and once married, they may be more committed to their spouses, and therefore happier.”
Study the pair bonding in their brains, I dare you.
Ah, but sociologist, useless!
Scientists should be studying virgin brides and grooms as role models of pair bonding glue to help out the other lot with specialized marital therapies but noooooooo. Heaven for-fend they admit Christians might be superior! Moral authority, with a biological basis? The sluts might have their feelings hurt!
It could be that, Wilcox told me, “having more partners prior to marriage makes you critically evaluate your spouse in light of previous partners, both sexually and otherwise.”
Yes, promiscuous men have low marital satisfaction whoever they marry, because they were sexually spoiled.
as the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen puts it, “you could have a lot of sexual partners not because you’re good at sex, but because you’re bad at relationships.”
Obviously promiscuous people are bad in bed, why run from a good thing? It can’t always be the other party’s fault, can it? Just survey promiscuous women, (they have) and you’ll find they don’t even orgasm once. There is a notable deficiency in sexual skill (prowess) compared to those same women with other, less slutty men.
Almost like monogamy evolved or something….
If only we had a parental unit investment formula…
“Moreover, this analysis is not peer-reviewed; it’s just a blog post.”
Yeah, submit it to any journal and they’ll insist on seeing your data, like how I want to.
Something doesn’t add up. One man ‘researches’ how women keep being the problem despite ignoring male data on contributions to the by default mixed sex problem….. hmmm….. and also ignoring other much bigger causes of divorce such as adultery and domestic violence…. where’s the red pill data on those? Why doesn’t it exist?
If you really want a controversial study, cross-cultural study of marital and sexual satisfaction versus castration status (circumcised or unmutilated) includes measures of sexual and bodily insecurity and mental proclivity to adultery.
Picture a boulder in a pond if you reported the truth on that one.
Something that’s never been human has never been good.
I find it equally dodgy when Christians claim to be talking to angels. Said angels aren’t right in front of them, physically. How does that work?
This is why every Christian should be forced to read about demonology and yes I’m serious, otherwise it leaves them like a sitting duck. A gullible duck wearing a sign saying EAT ME.
Imagine going bird hunting and having no idea what a bird looks like or how it acts. How can you spot something to avoid it if you don’t know what it is?
If you look at the Satanic materials, they summon demons to help them with various tasks and the Solomonic keys describe this perfectly in many ways, by going into detail about what each demon helps with as a specialty. Every time you encounter one of these idiots playing with fire, they claim it cannot be evil because it helps them…. That’s the hook. They help a little while and slowly mislead and deceive and then you’re dependent. It’s evil genius. “Don’t trust something if you can’t see where it keeps its brain” is good advice, whatever Rowling intended.
Satanic books actually warn how tricksy these spirit guides are and how to potentially thwart them and what to never let them do. So by banning Christians from these materials, it’s like throwing a kid into a fire fight when he isn’t allowed a gun. My cynical side says this disarmament is deliberate.
People normally do all that channeling bullshit because they’re hoping something good is out there. Good things have no reason to contact humans. Energy vampires, a New Age term for how demons ‘feed’, live off humans as host and that’s without going into possession cases. Picture Borg.
Even if something good were to contact a human, the “cost” of help would be too heavy on the human, so a good thing would never agree to make the trade (so you cannot sell your soul to an angel).
Think of a human soul like an eternal energy generator and that’s the basic motivation of why a demon or Satan or whatever else in the spirit world would want it. Allegedly. It frees them up by giving them power, via slavery. That connection begins before death, causing the person to be weaker (parasited host) but feel stronger (a temporary ‘gift’ to make them useful conduits, moth to a flame charm brings in yet more victims), while to all the world, they don’t seem to age well or lose something you can’t put your finger on (if you lack discernment).
Humans later made spirits (such as those who sold themselves) don’t really remember their living years anyway because you’re theologically dead a lot, lot longer than you’re alive. Demons know this. Imagine if lending someone a dollar you found on the floor today (something they could get for themselves if they looked) guaranteed you a million dollars every day from tomorrow onward.
The only way to promote atheism and make people do these trades is by making them think the spirit is worthless – because it doesn’t exist. How to do that? Cut them off from the perception of it via hedonism. By being so fully in their body, called the base chakra for a reason, they become numb to spiritual matters and divine truth and conversely, all enlightened people shun hedonism for that reason, they know it pollutes their connections. They can try to be spiritual but a hedonist will only experience it secondhand, cheaply and misinterpreted (as the Ape of Thoth) and as materialism (virtue signalling). They’ll run around in circles following self-improvement fad after fad, bingeing and always hungry like the Asian concept of a hungry ghost, their spirit is empty. They die by self-destruction over years, bringing forward the worst parts of themselves. Self-corruption, truth be told.
Demons feed off the stress of this moral decay. Look into Lord Byron’s life and how he ruined everyone around him. Night Watch had a great scene where the subject of a curse was like a vortex of pain, it made me laugh because it’s true. If you even believe in luck and no gods, it’s true.
The vanity of diet, dress and exercise are the new ‘virtues’.
We live in the Vapid Epoch. People who think of looking good and being evil.
Unable to be openly religious, we observe the rituals with a hollowness bordering on parody, a final blasphemy. We fast and call it “good” but what is good? We may abstain from meat and call it cruel but think nothing of our daily cruelties against our fellow man, our pettiness and spite. We wear fine clothes on spirits of sackcloth. It’s a grandiose lie intended to deprive us of the most vital parts of ourselves and consequently, our lives.
How can people who mock the concept of evil’s reality be anything less?
Don’t let the Devil in with his sweet lies, all religions contain this essential truth.
Give the Devil one lever and he can lift the world. Shiny world, festering underbelly.
Mystical Christianity has a gnosis of its own, it isn’t witchcraft (it’s monotheistic FFS) and you don’t need ‘guides’ other than the Bible. Denial of these inherent elements of the religion will only cause well-intentioned if naive people to turn away and seek false versions like a golden calf.
I write this down, knowing it’ll be mocked by some, because it’s rarely written down, considered obvious by those who already know (such as myself). However there are newly awake people who wish to know like this man so… here.
This has been my candle on the matter, light yours to it or not.
I don’t give a damn. Your soul is your own damned business, chap.
It’s unusual how this is all starting to come out. All cases can’t be true but some cases are hard to deny.
The simplest test is to ask the psychic to view their guide and call on Jesus, with full conviction and while holding a Bible, to show its true face.
Where they’ve had the balls to do it, I’ve never known it go well for them.
Jesus is an enlightened spirit so this shouldn’t harm a positive guide in the same mould, right?
Can psychics be Christian? Prophecy is a gift in the Bible but they don’t need “guides”.
It’s also more of a sudden revelation and considered unpleasant as a spiritual fruit due to the content, which is seldom nice.
The people who try to summon angels are idiots. The point of life is to live and do the hard work yourself. Serving it up on a plate treats you like a child. They say where is my ship coming in and refuse to go to a port. You’ve got trials, pass more of them and you’ll see good results. It isn’t difficult to understand.
There’s your karma, by the way. It can block you and your connections or help you like a river flowing (you’ve seen Donnie Darko, right?)…
Generally, if you feel stuck, there’s something you’re still doing that’s really bad for you and future You can’t exist until you stop it. This is why therapy works as the basic principle. You need to shed the skin, call it Sin or Pain.
I don’t do the Youtube role model thing because I’d be a charismatic leader, I’d be bloody good at it and those are prone to corruption. Same reason I take no money, keeps me honest.
Name the beast, financial genocide.
C and D for debt and $200.
Occupy types and Fight Club lovers don’t understand the word usury is the old word for debt and should, hence, be laughed at.
Inflation isn’t normal, with increasing luxuries and supply, deflation should be the norm, currency mimicking surplus and prosperity. Then the banks would owe you money for loaning it to them, yes, ANY money placed in a bank is legally loaned for them to invest on your behalf, we are all investors without liberty. The most indebted people in the world run the banks and we must make them pay.
We are not in debt.
They took it into their system, promising interest (profit) and we want it AAAAAALLL back in one gigantic lump sum in a real, national currency that is valid (no usury). A bank by the People, for the People.
Their certificates of their indebtedness to the Western Peoples hold no value per se and should not be respected as “currency”. Faceless money-printers should be forced to stand on public trial, for warmongering and other crimes.
They don’t control the value of that currency because they don’t have a real job to produce value, the power is ours. The workers. Even Communists can get on board with this plan.
p.s. We’re all entitled to the option of Sharia-compliant (no interest) loans.
Of course, that was always the intended purpose of them, plenty of men are easy to influence, just look at pornography and all the unnatural acts it has made seem normal. There’s your flat birth rate. Then look how masculine the women look as “standard” from Jessica Alba to the Blurred Lines girl. Maybe we could get them under the Trades Descriptions Act? “I ordered a purebreed, not a mongrel. Fast shipping though but send it back.”
These guys think they’re really choosing. Look at various white models and look how much fake tan they put on compared to their real, pale photos. The difference is shocking. You’re not allowed to admire a white model unless she’s painted orange!
The illusion of sexual choice. They are deliberately making these women look less naturally attractive so you’ll directly compare to women with a similar skin tone who also wear a lot of make-up. Look at what passes for “porcelain” in foundation shades, it’s a push to shame anyone with fair complexions into changing that.
And what chemicals are even in fake tan?
I’ve seen race-mixing white guys try to claim their kids are white or get this, “honorary white” like WTF does that mean? Pay the toll, nobody is obligated to mix with your kids and statistically, they won’t! Trying to convince yourself “they count” is way too late to be thinking about it.
What about Jews with white or yellow fever, are they anti-Semitic?
Are homosexual men misogynists?
Why aren’t Grindr and Tindr combined, isn’t that sexist?
It’s the current year.
[they will, eventually]
Apparently your sexual orientation is a choice?
Shouldn’t we rewrite laws to account for that fact?
That’s so progressive it’s a circle, circular reasoning.
I’d bet money they also count Muslim as a race, and that’s partially what this is really about.
How dare you make a personal choice with your body!
This is society’s business! No privacy!
Everybody belongs to every body else!
You must perform like a whore for anyone willing to fuck you.
Sexual disgust is OUTLAWED.
No means you’re a bigot. Standards are oppression. /s
They’ve been doing this propaganda for over a century, come now.
Free apps aren’t free, they’re psyops. They’ve been gathering information in experiments to manipulate you, the intended purpose of any info gathering.
This is also AA for ugly people.
Big Pharma profiting from the public disease risk is a bonus.
It works by foot in the door, you’d give someone a “chance” if it’s “just a date” but if confronted with the logic that dating eventually leads to breeding, marriage and children, that definitely clarifies preferences.
Who wants to break it to them that Richard Spencer actually prefers Asians to his fellow hu-whites? Libertarians are basically guaranteed to have an Oriental fetish, I wonder if it’s a low-level autism thing. I’d read that study. You thought the anime and cartoons did them no harm but woops, psyops telling them Asians are feminine despite shrill harpy manners in marriage browbeating the husband and bodies like little boys. It’s called priming.
Why don’t you have to list race and religion like sex and age in these apps? These are the questions that open a window into their strategy. They don’t want to match you, it’s white erasure.
Remember, white women are the least likely race and sex to miscegenate, no prizes for guessing who this is primarily aimed at but the surest way to weaken their resolve is to distract the white men with “exotic” women. Disheartened and freshly insecure, they make easy prey.
Multiculturalism is quite overtly cultural and genetic rape. It’s becoming obvious to anyone looking, they’re as good as saying you must breed with your conquerors.
They invented their own rape culture.
Indecency in the 1930s. I’m put off my ice cream by some of the things I’ve seen men get away with on beaches.
Who could’ve predicted that socialism might fail?
I notice they haven’t studied whether the race you are impacts how much treatment you get. I’ve noticed white people being denied various things (by non-white doctors, usually) but rolling out the red carpet for anyone swarthier than tan (especially if they’re from the same country, then they throw everything in the book at them).
The NHS will be killed by the nepotism of giving out expensive treatments to people who don’t need it like candies.
R-types literally believe in endless resources, availability never ends.
Places like India have Third World health because of doctor nepotism.
We live in a society (yes, going there) where we fund all the whore pills, abortions and STD antibiotics a little degenerate’s heart desires but god help you if you’ve got a non-sexual infection or cancer, then you’re suddenly low priority. Why fund a child’s cancer treatment, we need to give the local club manwhore a fuckton of free “sexual health” services because he refuses to wear a condom! Let the WW2 veteran die in a corridor on a waiting list because some irresponsible slattern wants her third abortion.
Seriously. Why are sexual health concerns given unwarranted priority?
The NHS should care about patients over PR.
How is that ethical?
PC medicine is bad medicine. People must be held responsible for deliberately making their health poor again and again and again and again, at least to prioritize people who didn’t choose their situation.
For example, a diet of curries will cause a lot of health problems. Why isn’t this medical fact common knowledge? It isn’t PC to ‘shame’ people for…. provoking known disease in their bodies. That’s also a factor in earlier male deaths in India, by the way. Mainly as a leading cause of male obesity, look around. Does lying help them live longer? No but it allows the system the excuse to expand and become more toxic on the host society.
Stop swallowing propaganda.
The NHS isn’t free, it’s taxpayer funded and doesn’t even provide full coverage (to foreigners reading, they frequently deny service, which as you can guess is often politically motivated).
If anyone else charged for a service then failed to fully provide it, they’d be arrested. Not Our NHS!
If you speak of their “professionals”, that decapitate babies, in anything less than saintly tones, you’re an evil bigot.
BUT – there’s nothing to complain about, is there, here take these happy pills! You don’t need them though!
Our death pathways are the envy of the world – if by world you mean Hitler’s Germany.
Health “care” is newspeak.
We even have Death Panels deciding who deserves to live and die! So proud.
The best system in Europe by outcomes is the Netherlands so don’t swallow the propaganda because they have a free system of choice but have to buy personal insurance (which makes more sense than paying for some stranger’s ambiguous coverage and having uncertain coverage for your own situation and further, funding “treatments” you find pure evil).
Picture the medicine shortage as the economy goes sideways with correction.
What cannot last, won’t.