No, that’s literally the study.
“Partner wealth predicts self-reported orgasm frequency in a sample of Chinese women”
Seems quite an Asian thing, probably an outcome of cultural and genetic collectivism.
They controlled for everything else.
No, that’s literally the study.
“Partner wealth predicts self-reported orgasm frequency in a sample of Chinese women”
Seems quite an Asian thing, probably an outcome of cultural and genetic collectivism.
They controlled for everything else.
Tonic immobility occurs in other animals, there’s plenty of biological evidence.
It’s taking years to sort out the newfangled ‘rape gang’ problem with the cheapest solution, a rope, because society (politicians) continue to labour under the delusion that the likes of Ted Bundy was just a serial killer and completely skirt that ‘serial rapist’ is a thing. Most rape is conducted by serial rapists. SJWs don’t mention this for political reasons and something something “stigma”. Like pathology can’t be a ‘bad’ thing.
Because why would predators be sexual predators, and derive pleasure from more than one form of domination and suffering?
That’s just crazy-talk.
Next you’ll say there’s some type of amygdala causing the shutdown!
Don’t look in that door!
Definitely don’t go looking for forensic evidence when it comes to rapists and rape gangs, that’s for sure!
They don’t continue to offend with full malice and moreover, escalate – like a serial killer.
This doesn’t constitute reckless public endangerment for political correctness!
“I’m a man and I was raped.”
He froze and it wasn’t his fault, it isn’t a choice.
Die Hard lied to you.
Around predators (including the “human” variety) your brain does strange things.
It evolved because surviving with trauma is still surviving, biologically. Evolution is cruel.
In light of all this, consent laws definitely need amendment.
France needs an age of consent, for one.
Horniness =/= consent, this isn’t Brave New World.
Yet children are taught this. By the state. So they can blame the victim for, say, walking with a man or socializing. Summon the church elders, the slattern deserved it for feeling LUST! According to him. Don’t ask the adult man to control himself, perish the thought!
Imagine trying to argue that the other way, like if a man gets a random erection, that’s consent? Nope, the body is weird. Being “turned on” only equals knocking boots in porn. IRL it’s a non sequitur.
“Court rules he cannot be prosecuted for rape as she did not protest
The girl’s family says she was silent as she was ‘paralysed by fear’“
Coming to a bar near you
or a public street….
Why are women so paranoid?
You should be too. I find it deeply ironic the guys complaining women should feel safe with strangers (no?) often want to open-carry a gun just in case despite being better equipped physically to defend themselves without one.
Riddle me that bullshit.
This assumes they aren’t choked, as sober (no alcohol or other drugs) people often are prior to any other assault, sexual or otherwise.
However, if they’re held down by others in a gang, usually choking is dispensed with (as forensic evidence).
Why do serial predators do this?
It can knock you out, women can be lead to a rape or kill zone elsewhere or thrown in a car for slavery, looking drunk and at best from their end, it’ll weaken your body and decision-making from oxygen deprivation.
That’s how practiced they are.
The term predator is literal, they base their lives around these machinations specifically calculated to exploit your human weaknesses including politeness, conformity and friendliness. How many discussions of rape mention this fact?
If only that drunk man knew this, he might’ve been spared. We distrust nice people for this reason.
“We must learn and then teach our children that niceness does not equal goodness. Niceness is a decision, a strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait. People seeking to control others almost always present the image of a nice person in the beginning.” – Gavin De Becker
The guys online who don’t get this don’t want laws that protect them, too. Because plenty of serial rapists (unPC spoiler alert) are men – and gay. Deep down, a lot of men already know this and it’s a big factor in homoaversion. Avoiding rape, they have every right to.
Personally I don’t believe it’s fair on other prisoners to put rapists with the rest of the population.
Waiting to be a father is irresponsible, imagine my shock.
“The records showed that children born to men aged 45 and over had a 14% greater risk of premature birth, low birth weight and being admitted to neonatal intensive care compared with babies born to younger fathers.”
Geriatric fathers, yes.
If you’re past middle-age (36-7 in men) and old enough to be a grandfather.
“Infants born to men aged 45 and over also scored lower on the Apgar newborn health test, and were 18% more likely to have seizures compared with infants born to fathers aged 25 to 34 years, according to the study in the British Medical Journal.
Why not state all the findings, including compared with <25?
Boomer readership, that’s why. 60 is the new 40 though, sure.
For women, the risk of gestational diabetes was greater when they had children with older men.”
Paternal age as a medical risk factor is long known, I’ve posted on it.
“This is something else to take into consideration,” he said. “There are potential risks with waiting. Men should not think that they have an unlimited runway.”
Why isn’t male fertility and issues like impotence mentioned in biology class? Men deserve to know, it’s important life planning. Modern men don’t realise their fertility is dropping steeply until they eventually go to conceive or get a random sperm count for other reasons.
I’d go so far as to call it a public health issue.
They are not fully informed, the information is withheld from them. Where’s the full consent for that wait, if they don’t understand what it might entail?
Obviously the man commenting on the study tries to downplay it but other studies I’ve posted didn’t find mild differences, in some cases extreme (such as psychiatric risk) and that’s without looking at whether the child is mixed-race, that includes the risk even further. Good luck getting that published.
“increases in health risks might have across populations as paternal age continues to rise.”
If it’s a risk across a population, it is also a risk for the individuals within it, showing up his earlier weasel words about ‘individuals’ to be a lie. You don’t have medical complications as a population, it’s personal.
“When I talk to couples about health risks, I use the lottery as an analogy,”
You use a con about people who can’t do maths to… lie to people who can’t do maths.
“Even if your risk for something goes up 10-20%, the absolute risk for an individual
Hear that gentlemen?
Who gives a shit about your individual risk going up by 20%? Not this guy! He’d rather not offend you but let you slowly become infertile because, by the time you figure it out, you’ll be powerless to do anything about it. White men need to have fewer children, as other Guardian articles have informed us.
You aren’t entitled to oppressive white male fertility.
The researchers calculating risk across the field (here a part of gerontology) know more maths than the doctors downplaying it.
“Eisenberg and his colleagues suggest changes in the DNA of older men’s sperm might explain their findings.”
Berg-berg-berg-berg et al.
“The concern is backed up by previous work, including a Harvard study last year that found births through IVF fell as the fathers’ age increased.”
IVF isn’t magic.
“Studies have shown that advanced paternal age is associated with negative health behaviours such as smoking and frequent alcohol consumption, obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, and sub-fertility,” she writes, adding that all are linked to health problems in newborns.”
Sub-fertility, which many clueless men have and they don’t care to warn you about.
It’s almost like men evolved to have children while they were healthier.
From the BMJ article itself:
“Though the effects of advanced maternal age on perinatal outcomes have been extensively studied,
can’t blame women, credits on that excuse are maxed out
research on the impact of older fathers on the health of offspring has been limited mostly to the risk of congenital disease.345678
we’re scared of offending old guys with money
The high number of male germ cell divisions in aging fathers has been proposed to increase the risk of autism, genetic abnormalities, psychiatric morbidity, and neoplasia in offspring, but recent studies have also suggested a potential paternal effect on perinatal morbidity.691011121314
I didn’t call my article Old fathers, sick babies for nothing.
Can’t get sicker than dead or disabled.
This passes down the germline so one bad breeding decision will affect all their offspring’s fitness too (I think the children will eventually sue for epigenetic damages, on poor lifestyle choices prior to conception as well).
I’ve love to see a study comparing older fathers with younger and recording sexual history (partners and diseases) because you know that has an effect. A medical effect. They’re too chickenshit to do it (and record the same in women but paternal factors into their sperm donation are more likely modified by those behavioural factors, his baby-making factory is the testes area so its prior health and the delivery vehicle’s are especially important).
One common explanation arises from the epigenetic changes that occur within spermatocytes; specifically modifications to histone and DNA methylation in spermatozoa of older men. These alterations occur in regions of the genome that are responsible for several diseases in offspring.15 Disruption of histone methylation in developing male germ cells might be a precursor to aberrant embryonic and placental development, with studies suggesting that paternal imprinting of aging could affect both fetal growth and maternal health during pregnancy.”
Degenerate DNA gets so offended when people stop filtering about it.
No prizes why they didn’t quote this part.
I wonder if their boys (because paternal factors would be stronger to another male) are more or less effeminate than the average? Again, they don’t dare do that study.
Paternal imprinting, that’s a nice word for degeneration on a genetic level.
At least they’re acknowledging men age, I suppose.
Looking at non-Guardian approved science:
“Studies of human populations and animal models suggest that a father’s experiences such as diet or environmental stress can influence the health and development of his descendants. How these effects are transmitted across generations, however, remains mysterious.”
I’m guessing the sperm.
Just a random, wild guess.
“Epigenetic changes do not alter the DNA sequences of genes, but instead involve chemical modifications to either the DNA itself or the histone proteins with which DNA is packaged in the chromosomes. These modifications influence gene expression, turning genes on or off in different cells and at different stages of development. The idea that epigenetic modifications can cause changes in gene expression that are transmitted from one generation to the next, known as “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance,” is now the focus of intense scientific investigation.
For many years, it was thought that sperm do not retain any histone packaging and therefore could not transmit histone-based epigenetic information to offspring. Recent studies, however, have shown that about 10 percent of histone packaging is retained in both human and mouse sperm.”
So …more lying to men.
Get obese, it’s fine! Drink like a fish! Your kids will be fine!
Our ancestors never knew that vice… had a price.
They didn’t have iPhones, we’re so much wiser than them.
“The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.‘”
What does that even mean? Nature can’t see what you’re doing.
Trust the “experts” who profiteer from fertility treatments and hate white men!
“”Furthermore, where the chromosomes retain histone packaging of DNA is in developmentally important regions, so those findings raised awareness of the possibility that sperm may transmit important epigenetic information to embryos,” Strome said.”
Wait, could rednecks be even smarter if they drank less?
Was Prohibition, pro-white?
““These findings show that the DNA packaging in sperm is important, because offspring that did not inherit normal sperm epigenetic marks were sterile, and it is sufficient for normal germline development,” Strome said.”
Sinner father, no grandchildren?
That is a divinely calculated revenge, all their paternal investment wasted.
“The presumption of female defect is confirmed in a letter to the Ugarit king about a woman who failed to produce any children for her husband after an extended period of time. The letter relates how the husband used the infertility as an occasion to take a second wife. It was only when he failed to produce children with the second woman that he was then considered to be the defective one”
“While monogamy was probably the norm in antiquity,”
louder for cucks at the back
“childlessness was one of the most common reasons that a man would resort to a bigynous marriage”
But God is punishing them, going around that in favour of dysgenic reproduction is a sin.
Women could divorce infertile or impotent men under the Catholic church, it was so important.
“The goal is to analyze how the chromatin packaging changes in the parent,” she said. “Whatever gets passed on to the offspring has to go through the germ cells. We want to know which cells experience the environmental factors, how they transmit that information to the germ cells, what changes in the germ cells, and how that impacts the offspring.”
I doubt it’s for the greater good.
Could addiction be genetic?
Lawyers are celebrating just thinking of it.
By demonstrating the importance of epigenetic information carried by sperm, the current study establishes that if the environment experienced by the father changes the epigenetics of sperm chromosomes, it could affect the offspring.”
A few others, while I’m here.
Your genes affect your nose shape.
Ya gotta have chutzpah to believe the science.
“The colour of a person’s hair is one of the most heritable features of their appearance, with studies on twins suggesting that genetics explains up to 97% of hair colour.”
Race explains 100%. Subrace especially.
They’re right that hair colour isn’t a matter of sexual preference …but race is.
““Pigments are far more than just cosmetic – they are important for the immune system and play a role in many diseases,” said Spector. “Understanding the genetics could lead to new therapies.”
They tried that with African heart medication, it was taken off the label.
They’d rather let black men keel over and die than admit they’re genetically different.
K-shift in mice:
“Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains’ were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.”
So you see, they can’t let men grow up. There’d be no politically useful regression then.
Buy stock in pajamas.
They can knock out that part of the brain too. They don’t mention this. This makes me suspicious.
“The findings, they suggest, could have applications in understanding a variety of psychiatric conditions where people exhibit overly dominant behaviours, or lack motivation to compete socially.”
Psychopathy and depression (or r-selection, as a trait).
Psychopaths are immune to depression. What makes others sad, makes them mad.
The study itself has nothing to do with “alpha” as Americans consider it, an alpha is never single in biology but part of a breeding pair.
The study is really about psychopathy in the extreme form (genetic engineering, useful for the military) and social dominance in prosocial, milder forms (K) which cannot be undone (even in GE mice) as a natural maturation process. Its absence of activation (say, from the amygala circuits) could explain effete males. Again, they gloss over that.
Genes influence subject choice.
Isn’t that a huge confound that should be studied?
And why force children to study languages then? Isn’t that oppression when they could study something else?
“Birney warns that the findings do not imply that it is possible to predict a student’s subject choice, or achievement, from their genome.”
trans. Don’t look in the race box, please, don’t look in the race box. I don’t want to get the sack.
“As schooling and other factors vary greatly from person to person it is unlikely that genetics is the dominant factor in A-level choice.”
The likelihood was calculated.
“The scientists found that this was indeed the case, with 50-80% of subject choice down to genetic influences.”
Academic ability …. not IQ?
How is GPA not a reliable proxy for IQ, on that point?
GPA is basically just the PC term for IQ. Mathematically.
Reminds me of Taoism.
Taoism doesn’t actually have sexual practices (however some have twisted it to try and claim they do) for that reason. It is the spiritual overcoming the physical. To “de-base” yourself again completely extinguishes the work already built on. Monasteries and nunneries were rooted in this idea.
The wise men don’t want to be drained (and by strangers) and be thrown off with bad karma (like a creative block or stumped feeling, apathy or obstacle event). Action —> Result. You choose one, you choose the other.
Historically a promiscuous man is considered weak in all religions (except Satanism, you’ll note*) because the male path of enlightenment involves impulse control, that’s the male power. Think of a military general. A promiscuous woman gives up something that is (because of her chosen condition) worth nothing, quite a disgusting notion to people who believe in sanctity, and promiscuous men also don’t value their energies as special either, so their own influence disappears from themselves like morning dew (and they typically blame women for ‘tempting them’, projecting the problem is typical). This leads to a permanent dissolving of willpower (death of will) eventually, they call it “player burnout” online but it’s really like tapping your own veins and draining your blood then wondering why you’re weak. Idiots with scant self-awareness had little influence to spare in the first place, and so drain themselves into a curious blend of melancholy, apathy and furious self-pity faster than other, hardier men. Celibate men were respected in saner times because they had power (of the self) and this produced a laser-like focus and it’s no coincidence so many geniuses did their best work while surrendering sexually to no women.
How much bland art was clearly made by a degenerate who slept with the subjects?
How much great art was made by homosexual men, who couldn’t possibly be tempted by a woman? (or married hetero men for other reasons).
How does the art of each make you feel? Typically, the first makes people feel unclean but the latter a strange purity.
Women seen as inspiration on a collective level strengthens a man.
To surrender sexually to an improper woman or to be an improper man individually is draining (like the trail of bad luck following degeneracy that can even be seen in statistics like suicide risk). At best, the man tries to take on a female role (Lord Byron hoovering up muse figures, Wilde the same with men) and this is repellent to those who believe that men should be masculine (most men, back then) and stand firm in their principles. This is the ultimate cause of those principles and as you can see, it isn’t a double standard at all. If women aren’t meant to sleep around, that implies directly men aren’t meant to either, otherwise they’d have to become homosexual. Patriarchies protect men from wasting themselves by masturbating inside various women (it’s a loveless union) although when it overdoes this or for unclear reasons lost over time, the subjects assume it’s keeping them away from the “fun” (a child’s assumption) because they don’t understand the risk or threat to themselves. It goes beyond themselves individually too; to family name, personal social reputation, family estate and fortune, future marriage prospects, shaming their friends with bad company and associations and so on. At minimum, it lumbers others with awkwardness, selfishly. A man’s responsibilities in society forbid dalliance with the underworld elements. It always resurfaces somewhat with the degenerate, sin sticks to them, however they might appear unscathed to shallow people. If everyone ate from the cookie jar, the tragedy of the commons would pretty much provide what we consider a Third World society. It would be unruly and the individuals selfish, feral and uncivilized. We’re well on that course because, since women can’t rein the men in (and some are Satanic, hating men and encouraging their destruction**) then who is supposed to play father to men who shunned that powerful leadership role of their own sex? Men are too PC with one another and standards died as a result. It’s a youth cult that makes them wish they were Peter Pans, never changing or learning or taking on duties, stuck in a hedonic purgatory, like being dutiful is shameful and up is down. The manchild doesn’t rebel so this shift was planned. Where is the honour in such people? Natural slaves.
They don’t have dignity to value themselves beyond a performing phallus, integrity to choose their hobbies and friends wisely, they don’t know the value of hard work (bitching on twitter is not work) nor the satisfaction of being useful to your kin and the relief that duty brings the salt of the earth character.
They assume everyone is jealous of them (projection) because they cannot comprehend how lower impulses can disappear entirely when you realize their illusory nature (best known in Buddhism but Jesus embodies it too).
Most modern men would surrender to Satan in the desert after one hour for a glass of cold water and a shiny car.
No wonder women don’t respect that and ignore it for distractions like career, hoping it’ll go away and they’ll police their own standards in their sex eventually. Like, stop wearing your trousers round your ankles, for one. That’s an easy one. Women by definition cannot play father to a man and guide him like this, playing mother is enabling (and sexually repulsive) and the smarter ones don’t want to encourage it unless they hate men.
Corruption is the rotten apple spoiling the barrel. When it comes to rampant hypersexualization in society, consider the source. Do you think various pajama boys would get away with it, if they didn’t get the biological kick of orgasms as a reward (from porn or a woman in person)? What you reward, you encourage. We encourage indolence, insolence and weakness (this was the intentional product of the ‘Sexual Revolution’ in destroying Western Men). A man loyal to more than one nation is a traitor, what is a man loyal to more than one woman?
…Useless to either, at best. A burden, like an overgrown child.
Like the self-proclaimed family man avoiding his wife and children for a ‘mistress’. I’m sure that doesn’t mess them up at all….
Male power involves as much discernment as the female, for different reasons, throughout all religions. Chastity benefits men in their personal life more than women although it is a virtue for both (power for the male, discernment for the female). Lust is a deadly sin especially for men although modernity has encouraged you to forget this and disturbingly, treat it as the ultimate virtue of a man (to lose himself). They never expressly say what form Satan assumed in the desert to tempt Jesus, I assume female (although the energy of all Devil figures is very destructive and not at all nurturing). I think the #MeToo stuff is triggering the weaker men because it exposes their loss of control which they had believed was cunning concealed from women. Logically, they claim they want tougher punishments on all criminals, including hanging and I’m sure they’d change their tune if it involved their mother/sister/daughter. To personally identify with various types of rapist (including those who target men or boys) shows how weak the modern character is. Everyone gets tempted by things from time to time. So what?
It’s a test, you’re supposed to be strong. These are the defective ‘beautiful ones’ who believe gym gains and sickly cologne make up for their defective and subhuman nature. Metrosexuals don’t survive various societal corrections. Their first impulse on seeing beauty is corruption and degeneracy, much like the rapists they empathize with (instead of their victims like a man with a conscience would).
If you transported them back to the 50s they sexually fantasize about, where the streets were apparently full of young, thin and femininely dressed women, they’d be Ted Bundy. “But they looked really sexy!” level of retarded entitlement. They actually think tease is an insult (women are supposed to look like it) and temptation is an excuse for crime.
Your lust is your business. Picture a fat person blaming cake. Just because you’re triggered doesn’t give you any rights or privileges to get what you want. If so, every time I walk past a jewelry shop and they don’t shower me in diamonds, they must be taunting me. I want it, they’ve got it, what’s the problem? Why can’t I always get what I want? (Women want more from life than men so this is a very good example, nesting instinct means men would still come out with less). It’s just an excuse for anger, popping off like an irritable toddler, it’s the sexual equivalent of road rage. (Ragequitting from women, expressed in hatred of becoming a husband, is actually funny to women – they’re complaining they’d make a bad husband who’d make a bad choice of wife). Mantrums are embarrassing, they’re announcing, proudly how unfit they are. It’s like misogynistic Trigglypuff. They act like women are chasing after them down the street with a veil and false pregnancy positive.
If it’s so bad, get castrated. Honestly, if being horny provokes so much suffering or you are so self-destructive as to hand a rope to a misandrist in fucking one. Chemical castration seems to be a popular option nowadays. They assume women and their hormonal profile don’t feel temptation (HA) and by the time they come to the truth that the problem is them (and not all men) they want to switch back because men get away with more weakness (boys will be boys, weak men turn a blind eye to one another). Eventually they’ll get swept up in a war, probably civil war.
nb *Because Satanism isn’t a religion, it’s anti-religion, it intends to destroy men by encouraging their weakness and worst impulses. Rationalizations are the best way to accomplish this, stupid men are very gullible to any idea that makes them feel strong or impressive, because this way they can delude themselves and appear to have their cake and eat it.
**Remember when the SJWs openly screeched that Trump supporters wouldn’t sleep with them? It’s the witch with the poison apple, come on. It’s the only way they can corrupt and influence men, wasting their energy that could be put toward MAGA and other greatness.
Explaining shit like that.
There’s wasting time, then there’s a Margaret Thatcher colouring book.
Why do they think female rapists exist and the Bible says to avoid seductive women? Whether you think you want them or not, they’re sexual predators. Of course they’ll ruin your life if you let them, that’s what predators do! Stop encouraging them.
This post also clarifies this section of the Bible.
God made femininity and not to have something to shame or corrupt.
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.
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.
Bring back the DOUCHE.
The advert in the page before designed for “real hard wear” and includes no fewer than 6 attachments and a carry case, I can only assume to bring it on sleepovers. Innocent 1930s sleepovers. It even runs on AC, what a marvelous application of the (still-living) Tesla’s legacy. I would love to know his opinion of these massagers.
“robust, on sound engineering lines”
The 1930s, ladies and goys.
By all means, let’s go back to 40s or 50s.