Explaining Adultery, parts of the Bible, disease etc.

No one has typed out an explanation of this, to my knowledge. Sure there are linguistic essays but… still.

Here’s the logical explanation of certain things. Ending with collaborating science.

Adultery is a sin because it’s a pollution of bloodlines, that’s why it’s called that but the sexual action or compulsion is already covered under the coveting commandment. Fornication between two singles, while a sin, is not polluting the bloodlines of the marital couple. It doesn’t defile the marital bed, as the Bible puts it (Hebrews 13:4). It’s “and” adulterers, they’re discrete categories. The adultery involving one married party may produce a child with defects (especially with the effect of STDs from sleeping around, which they’d bring back to the marital bed, onto their own children – and might kill them), or the child maritally or the one “extra-maritally” may eventually marry their own part-sibling and then produce defect. All the sexual prohibitions are henceforth founded in an avoidance of bloodline corruption.

They’re not being ‘lame’ and killing your ‘buzz’ man, it’s babymaking. Don’t make broken babies!

The sterile view of reproduction is like a Marxist’s view of labour – delusional.

re Deut 23:2 and the mistranslation in later editions:
Legitimacy is based on bloodlines more than marital status but under the parent-approved marriage model the former suitability led to the latter ceremony. They’d have veto power on funding the wedding and allowance of inheriting anything should the child try to brattishly insist on an adulterous match. Banishment (disowning) is the parental right should the child “dishonour” (commandment) their parent’s standards. A bastard didn’t refer to unmarried parents back then but moreso what we’d call politely a hybrid, Darwin a mongrel. Later editions mistranslated the concept of ‘bastard’ for ((reasons)). Logically, unmarried parents could feasibly marry at any point in the next 18 years and 9 months, the insult cannot be based on something so easily remedied. Instead it’s “in the blood”, it’s about the “seed”, it’s genetic. It’s the existence of the kid itself which is the affront, the offense to the holy, and that’s why ‘bastard’ is levied at the child – not the parents! They brought shame on their pre-existing family (bloodline) by virtue of their dishonourable existence, of a blemish. The OT often condemns men who mate with ‘foreign women’, the archetype of demonic seductress. That’s why usually understanding God (who forgives individuals) forbade the child to enter the church, holy ground, sacred temples, unto the 10th generation, because it was a perversion of his creation and divine, famous plan for separation of peoples; its existence was Satanic, a testament to playing God. Its existence was an insult to God, directly, it was an ABOMINATION.
Now we have the medical stats to back this up from the individualist perspective, from mental problems to organ death from child cancer, nobody mentions it…?
Why? Why not? Who’s behind that cultural ignorance?
The sins of the father onto the child i.e. you produce an unnatural thing, it suffers unnaturally.

Period blood isn’t the only unclean thing: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Semen

So bad marital discernment (selection) relates to the reprobate mind. Selection is the ONE job of men looking for a wife. The Bible gives plenty of advice on men seeking a wife, what to look for.

Cast not ye pearls among swine, neither spill your seed, it’s very simple conceptually. Don’t waste a breeding opportunity with a bad match or selfishness. You want societal shame back? Start with masculine self-control (Lev 22:4) because you’ll be healthier for it. This isn’t just spiritually good but physically too. Like don’t stick your dick in crazy. At least a woman’s period isn’t alive for all the stigma, there’s nothing to kill. God designed women to self-clean the baby oven, there’s no shame in it. Poor analogy to the modern Onans. You have a specific story about sexual continence, sexual hygiene, call it whatever, it’s being a man.

If you marry badly, that doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for her sins. You’re the man, you’re responsible, be she some Polish whore (they’re mostly marrying Arabs and Japs) or an ABG/LBFM thot (mostly autists).

Prov 22:14  The mouth of an adulterous woman is a deep pit; a man who is under the LORD’s wrath falls into it.

I’m picturing the conceited weebs who start lecturing the rest of us (projection in ego defense of their error) on how white people in the West should become more Asian. You eat the bugs first, bug boy. Such cucking is, as you can see, Biblically predicted as God’s wrath upon the reprobate mind. Insecurity breeds insecurity, misery loves company, fuck-ups want you to copy them.

If everyone fails, the sexual Marxists reason, then nobody fails!

They want no holy (wholesome, pure) group to be able to compare poorly to.

deceit, malice, envy….


why be envious of people you claim to be doing better than? Why talk about the West at all after you left? Why are you obsessing over it, if it’s inferior culturally? Racial deserters should STFU and stay in their jungle. We don’t want to hear from you, stay gone. There’s a rise in snarky gammas online giving weeb “commentary” that sounds like CCP propaganda. It’s anti-white, sod off. Why should we care what you think? You ran away from the problems, drop them. It’s like a Boomer who retired to France complaining about UK immigration. No Susan. You don’t get to.

Stats show up their forum anecdotes as fantasies. They wanted mixed bloodlines, right, they’ll be happy with the black grandkids I presume (since mixed dates other mixed, statistically).

In Deut 7:3 even the unequal yoking between the races is forbidden, before the prospect of children is mentioned.
Cultures are intended to be sovereign. Interconnection is weakness.
7:4 says how mixed marriages are insults because of cultural cucking i.e. your child will adopt foreign ways.
Learn to tell your kids no, Boomer. JUST SAY NO.

Otherwise, unchecked, they “invent new forms of evil” like the conceited weebs that are becoming the new Fedora Boy.

insolent, arrogant, boastful….

It’s like the Gap Year story that never ends.


And we’re all expected to listen to it.

One word: why?

Do evil, fine, don’t be boastful though. I shouldn’t be socially expected to listen to some woman’s sob story about how she married a Muslim either. Tough tits, bitch. You knew they was a snake. You signed up for shit. It’s like the thots joining Islamic State, I no longer feel loyal to you either. I owe you nothing.

Stop coddling them. They’re grown men rationalizing objectively, scientifically shit marriages.

And encouraging the same multicultural evil to other men, that’s gender treason. You shouldn’t enable it.

There were 10 basic rules. Multicultural tradlarpers moved, so please stop talking to us like you’re a Westerner. You’re an outsider now, ree.


Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things are worthy of death,they not only continue to do these things,but also approve of those who practice them.

Worthy of death, how would God manifest that in case of adulterous children?

Suicidal temperament, perhaps?


Cancer risks?


Our results confirm that there are ethnic and racial differences in the incidence of childhood leukaemia. These differences indicate that some genetic and/or environmental/cultural factors are involved in aetiology of childhood leukaemia.

American diet means you should compare to European whites for accuracy. Twinkies are thots, not food groups.

The highest risk of ALL was observed for children with a combination of Hispanic ethnicity and White race compared with non-Hispanic whites (OR=1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44).

They actually leave out mixed of most studies e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14559954/

unless they can rig the numbers from the small group because it’s so bad in outcome. It’s impossible to find prevalence data, why?

It’s true in other species scientifically, outbreeding depression is unholy, it defiles the wholesome in God’s eye. That invites wrath.




Mixing stunts growth, even in plants. Sure, you might have kids but great-grandkids won’t happen.

So what was the point?






Deny the lies of the spiteful mutants, anti-natalists aren’t so toxic to the zero sum of Darwinian competition. To actively encourage our genocide is evil.

Funny that the cuckservatives slagging off the Boomers want a free pass to act just like them despite decades of data now. That didn’t exist for them. You’re living in the experiment.
And yes, the Boomers should’ve been disowned by their parents for marrying wrong or too often.

They’ll deport, sorry “return” tortoises for their own good – but not humans.


The spiteful mutants of the Boomer gen became worse in the spiteful mutants of Gen Y and Z – but nobody is condemning them.

Science and Bible agree, how much do you need?

I heard a theory the trash segment of Boomers should’ve been picked off by war like Vietnam and the draft dodging is the main cause of our dysgenics. Possible and funny.

So how to know the weeb boys abroad are lying?

Weeb offspring and mental problems:


A new study of Chinese-Caucasian, Filipino-Caucasian, Japanese-Caucasian and Vietnamese-Caucasian individuals concludes that biracial Asian Americans are twice as likely as monoracial Asian Americans to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder.

A+ parenting.

Zane and his co-investigator, UC Davis psychology graduate student Lauren Berger, found that 34 percent of biracial individuals in a national survey had been diagnosed with a psychological disorder, such as anxiety, depression or substance abuse, versus 17 percent of monoracial individuals. The higher rate held up even after the researchers controlled for differences between the groups in age, gender and life stress, among other factors.

1/3. Over a THIRD of them are literally mentally diseased at the intensity to diagnose.

The study included information from 125 biracial Asian Americans from across the U.S., including 55 Filipino-Caucasians, 33 Chinese-Caucasians, 23 Japanese-Caucasians and 14 Vietnamese-Caucasians.

Stop listening to spiteful mutants.

Nobody’s jealous, they’re clinically evil. Shun the reprobate mind.

High diversity, low trust society: https://web.archive.org/web/20061013041712/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html

deport the whores

nb. The edgy anti-natal rhetoric worked on the Boomers first, ask the dead half of Gen X. However, there’s more than one way to skin a cat and clearly more than one way to commit genetic suicide.

The womb is a very sophisticated form of printer. It prints people. That’s why women hate being conflated for one, it’s an appliance. Don’t defile the womb of your people, that’s treason. Do not corrupt the seed.

Plato’s natural slaves, do not follow. Degenerates are compulsive liars e.g.



Syphilis infection in sex workers ranges from 8.8–9.5% in the Yunnan province to 8% in Guangdong to 3.5% in Beijing (Chen XS, personal communication, 2010).


High levels of infection in these groups are found in most sub-Saharan African and South-East Asian countries. There is a high rate of concurrent infection for HIV and other well known STDs in patients. Rates as high as 70% of HIV infection are found in African patients with STD, whereas the rates are reaching 15–20% in patients with STD in Thailand [9,10].

Ting Tong has HIV. 1 in 5, roll the die to die. Is it really cheaper to live there with pozz med bills?

If you wanna larp as a gay guy, at least do fun things with your prostate.

If you get her a green card?


Over the course the study, Hahm unmasked some myths common about Asian Americans. She said, “There’s a perception that Asian Americans in particular aren’t practicing sexually risky behaviors.  But we found that Asian American young women are at risk of high STDs.  For instance, Asian American women had a higher prevalence of STDs than White women in both 1995 (10.4% vs. 7.7) and 2001 (13.5% vs. 8.3%).  The incidence of STDs (not diagnosed with STDs in 1995, but developed STIs in 2001) among Asian American women was also higher than that of White women.” Moreover, the power dynamic between genders became immediately clear.   Asian American women were four times more likely to have a STD than their male counterparts. “This was shocking,” said Hahm, “It was so much higher than the males.” Accounting for the gender disparity, Hahm suggested that…“Asian and Pacific Islander women also have broader interracial dating patterns than Asian American men. This might explain why these women are exposed to higher rates of STDs.”

when you mix, expect an itch

I think these findings definitely go against some prior conceptions about Asian Americans and sexually transmitted diseases. The 4:1 ratio of STDs among Asian American women to men is astounding. To see what this means, I looked up some global data of STD rates around the world, broken down by gender. In East Asia, and on every other continent, women have slightly higher STD rates than men, however nothing comes remotely close to the 4:1 ratio among Asian Americans.

It’s unclear what the study means by “power dynamic,” whether it means sexual power/demand, or power within the culture. One can speculate on a wide variety of reasons for why the STD rates are the way they are. I’ll refrain from doing so, but nevertheless I thought it was noteworthy to bring up, as a point of discussion. How does this strike you?

it means they culturally celebrate and enable whores – like the childbearing geisha

Trust no thot nor weeb.

Gender roles are good

I’ll bang this drum around both types of sexist controlling pig until I die.

Nobody’s gender role is to oppress anybody else, those people are either insecure and projecting (cough certain religions) or straight up predators. Men and women negotiate and if a man in a couple wants to cook, that’s literally none of my business.

I don’t get the American busybodies judging a marriage they aren’t in – it works, for them, so who cares?

In a couple, they negotiate. That’s it. Don’t like it? Leave. This isn’t hard. It’s the purpose of courtship. MGTOW, MRAs, SJWs make it sound hard because they’re all scared of “getting hurt”. Okay, don’t date. That’s okay. If you shouldn’t be dating, stop.

There is no ‘boss’. It isn’t work. It isn’t a master-slave situation (at least… outside of the bedroom).

Why don’t more Americans get this? Did sitcoms brainwash you that hard? No spouse is on top. They are ONE. Made one flesh. They are a unit. Don’t misquote the Bible at me.

Demur on the topic of other people’s personal lives. I’ve seen ostensibly mens blog after mens forum turn into a huge gossipfest. Huuuuge. Men gossip way more than women now. It’s ugly. It’s also a sin but w/e.

Anybody trying to claim (including virtue signalling of how Their Marriage would be so magically superior) that one Group is superior, by existing, is appealing to Communism. Sorry. Marxists aren’t superior. It’s false consciousness to claim otherwise. This is communistic thinking in the extreme, dissolving your identity into the group (ego death but bad – groupthink, hivemind, the mob) and thereby being proven Worthy and magically Superior, 5eva. You are born and what that is, isn’t an accomplishment. Men aren’t superior. Women aren’t superior. It’s apples and oranges. Nobody is superior. The concept doesn’t apply to human beings, we’re individuals (or organisms). The Gender War construct is Anti-Natal psyops from Cultural Marxism, they openly admitted they wanted to destroy the nuclear family. Considering a man and woman are required, willing it, they triangulated the genders and their willingness to cooperate with their own race (in every race). The entire world is not a tribe, there is no Best Ever Man and Best Ever Woman in the Whole World. Even if there were, they’re still gonna die. Stoicism explained this thousands of years ago. It’s futile, an ego trip. Say you reached this Peak. So what? Or more scary, now what? How lonely would that be? Nietzsche’s concept of Ubermensch is an abstraction, it isn’t an instruction manual. Americans misunderstand a 19th century philosophy book as 20th century, direct self-help (which is Freudian in origin). He was heavily, heavily sarcastic in his writings, a fact many 7/8th grade reading level Americans cannot perceive, due to the age and translation of the text.


At the fine-grained level, teasing and a kind of snorting sarcasm are among Nietzsche’s most common modes of expression. His writing is riddled with jokes and snarky comments. Unfortunately for readers, understanding the humor — or indeed recognizing when he’s having a laugh — often requires a pretty good familiarity with the history of philosophy, intellectual history, and arts in Europe up to his time. Nietzsche trained as a philologist, or what we would now call a “classicist,” and he assumes his reader is familiar with his classical references….

He was mocking the very guys who follow him dumbly, like Marx.

Poe’s law applies to old text too.

Context for:

‘It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.’

‘That which does not kill us makes us stronger.’

‘There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.’

‘Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.’

‘I was in darkness, but I took three steps and found myself in paradise. The first step was a good thought, the second, a good word; and the third, a good deed.’

true joke joke true true, respectively

The second is very morbid because have you seen some injuries men returning from battle had back then? Lame, crippled, half their face missing.

The last is the Law of Attraction, if you wanna go there. Basic stoic thought control.

‘And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.’

A hopeful skeptic.

‘You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.’

Oh but that one isn’t edgy enough, bro!

‘Enjoy life. This is not a dress rehearsal.’

Don’t die for gains in the gym.

‘To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.’

Normies but Victorian. Cuz we’re so smart, with our internet access. Our ancestors didn’t understand shit, man. Where is our Shakespeare? We don’t have one. Carry on.

Relative to the gender role thing:

‘Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal.’

‘No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.’ Don’t be a lemming, especially chasing after something that can never be real. It seems like a secular attempt at theosis.

Then again:

I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule — and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.)

Oh, the irony.

Beauty x Intelligence

Anyone who refutes the connection (caused by low genetic load) is coping.

It’s a K-selection process.

The difference is huge in both sexes, just a few points above would be major.

10+? Huge sexual selection pressure for both sexes.

Suddenly the “muh minority wage gap” complaints take on a new light, eh?

Women evolved for higher body fat percentages

obvious study is obvious

even in male mice, the estrogen that gives them fat also has a protective effect


stop acting like estrogen is a poison when it actually protects your body and makes your brain stress-resistant

Although the prevalence of obesity is higher among women than men, they are somewhat protected from the associated cardiometabolic consequences.

It’s easier to get a higher % when you already have a higher %. There are some of the hottest women alive under the carb loading fatties, sadly. Their natural curves predispose them to obesity.

Bring back keto!

The increase in cardiovascular disease risk seen after the menopause suggests a role for estrogens. There is also growing evidence for the importance of estrogen on body fat and metabolism in males. We hypothesized that that estrogen administration would ameliorate the adverse effects of obesity on metabolic parameters in males.

Having high T, lower E in a man can make fat more stubborn, the E cannot signal properly to clear it.

Thus, DIO induces sex-specific changes in glucose–insulin homeostasis, which are ameliorated in males treated with estrogen, highlighting the importance of sex steroids in metabolism. Given that altered peripheral glucocorticoid metabolism has been observed in rodent and human obesity, our results also suggest that sexually dimorphic expression and activity of glucocorticoid metabolizing enzymes may have a role in the differential metabolic responses to obesity in males and females.

So fatter women are healthier than fatter men. This makes sense because of baby weight. Women can lose it breastfeeding, that’s why we get it.

Plus we are naturally fatter. To grow the baby in the first place.

Obese for men is average for women.

General estimate, also varies by race.


Estrogens play a fundamental role in the physiology of the reproductive, cardiovascular, skeletal, and central nervous systems. In this report, we review the literature in both rodents and humans on the role of estrogens and their receptors in the control of energy homeostasis and glucose metabolism in health and metabolic diseases. Estrogen actions in hypothalamic nuclei differentially control food intake, energy expenditure, and white adipose tissue distribution.

brain stuff = bitch tits

fat boys could be ruined for life, the developmental windows have closed

they may respond like girls medically, forever

Estrogen actions in skeletal muscle, liver, adipose tissue, and immune cells are involved in insulin sensitivity as well as prevention of lipid accumulation and inflammation. Estrogen actions in pancreatic islet β-cells also regulate insulin secretion, nutrient homeostasis, and survival. Estrogen deficiency promotes metabolic dysfunction predisposing to obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes. We also discuss the effect of selective estrogen receptor modulators on metabolic disorders.

I hope the fat acceptance lot don’t find this.

But not all fat is bad, especially evolved fat on women.

It makes WOMEN healthier, but never men. Classic sex differences. Women have curves.


Adipose tissue is an organ with active endocrine function involved in the regulation of energy balance and glucose homeostasis via multiple metabolic signaling pathways targeting the brain, liver, skeletal muscle, pancreas, and other organs. There is increasing evidence demonstrating that the female sex hormone, estrogen, regulates adipose development and improves systemic glucose homeostasis in both males and females. The underlying mechanism linking estrogenic regulation in adipose tissue and systemic glucose metabolism has not been fully elucidated, but is thought to include interactions of estrogen receptor signaling events involving lipolytic and/or lipogenic enzyme activity, free fatty acid metabolism, and adipocytokine production. Thus, understanding the effects of estrogen replacement on adipose tissue biology and metabolism is important in determining the risk of developing obesity-related metabolic disorders in patients undergoing treatment for sex hormone deficiency. In this report, we review literature regarding the role of estrogens and their corresponding receptors in the control of adipose metabolism and glucose homeostasis in both rodents and humans. We also discuss the effects of selective estrogen receptor modulators on glucose metabolism.

Fat is a more active organ in women.

Men taking T can have heart risks and metabolic issues, regardless of weight.


The data suggest that estrogen use in American Indian postmenopausal women may relate to deterioration of glucose tolerance. Longer duration of estrogen use among current users may relate to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

wouldn’t the pill do the same? is that why young women are obese with diabetes now?


Normal Levels

The normal range of estrogen varies depending upon the patient’s age. Typically a women aged 20 to 29 will have an average level of 149 pg/ml (pictograms per milliliter). A female aged 30 to 39 will average a level of 210 pg/ml. And those over 40 but not in menopause will have an average level of 152 pg/ml. These average levels can vary day to day depending on each female’s menstrual cycle.

Yes, female estrogen peaks in the 30s.

The pedophiles like to try and bury that blood test fact by claiming nonsense about teens.

Stress also can contribute to a high estrogen level. 


According to a 2007 study in Endocrine Reviews, estrogen deficiency may also cause inflammation, which can also impair insulin action 11

This is a verified and trusted source

Endocrine Reviews:The Complex Role of Estrogens in Inflammation: Rainer H. Straub: (2007)

Goto Source

.According to a 2016 study in the Macedonian Journal of Medical Science, HRT could help treat insulin resistance due to low estrogen levels, although more research is needed before HRT can be said to effectively treat insulin resistance in women with low estrogen levels 13

This is a verified and trusted source

Diabetes.co.uk:Insulin Resistance

Goto Source

.are they suggesting fat people need more estrogen?

Signs of Insulin Resistance

According to Diabetes.co.uk, the signs of insulin resistance can include excessive fatigue, hunger, difficulty concentrating and weight gain

. Low estrogen levels may be associated with insulin resistance, which is also more likely to occur if you have gained excess weight or tend to carry fat in the belly area .

Diabetes.co.uk also states that insulin resistance can be improved by doing things like eating less carbohydrates, reducing calories, getting more exercise, reducing stress or even having weight loss surgery 13


symptom is hunger, treatment is eating less

WTF women need to know this, we’re not actually hungry

women are told when we’re hungry to eat or we’ll pass out

Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny

Let’s actually read this thing:



Physical attractiveness and its relation to the theory of sexual selection deserve renewed attention from cultural and biological anthropologists. This paper focuses on an anomaly associated with
physical attractiveness-in our species, in contrast to many others, males seem to be more concerned than females with the attractiveness of potential sexual partners, perhaps because humans show far more age-related variance in female than in male fecundity. The resulting selection for male attraction to markers
of female youth may lead incidentally to attraction to females displaying age-related cues in an exaggerated form.

sounds like a justification for pedophilia waiting to happen, men actually desire sexual maturity first

men also like averages better than mutants

This paper reports cross-cultural evidence that males in five populations (Brazilians, U.S. Americans, Russians, Ache, and Hiwi)

no Europe in this study, so worthless, two nations minimum are mongrelised

show an attraction to females with neotenous facial proportions (a combination of large eyes, small noses, and full lips) even after female age is controlled for. Two further studies show that female models have neotenous cephalofacial proportions relative to U.S.

Anorexia does that, called a bobblehead.

Undergraduates and that drawings of faces artificially transformed to make them more or less neotenous are perceived as correspondingly more or less attractive. These results suggest several further lines of investigation, including the relationship between facial and bodily cues

biology looks at WHR already

and the consequences of attraction to neoteny for morphological evolution.

Problem 1 America is not a country with a genetic history, they aren’t even homogeneous.

Problem 2 I had to correct numerous spelling errors in the abstract alone, so paper is trash.

Feminine face traits are already neotonous, Marquardt (pictured) measured this with computer models.

That’s the most feminine female face possible.

Who cares what Brazil thinks?

The theory of sexual selection has advanced so far in recent years that it may be time for renewed attention to the relationship between sexual selection and standards of physical attractiveness in our species.

SS is conducted by women in this species.

It hasn’t changed at all. These guys are intellectually dishonest.

Men don’t have standards. At least, it’s rarer.

In many animal species, male reproductive success is more dependent on mating success than is female reproductive success, so sexual selection commonly acts with greater intensity on males than on females (Trivers I97I, Williams I975, Clutton-Brock and Parker i992, Andersson I994). The result is that in many species, males more than females show a syndrome of traits associated with intense sexual selection.

true, women don’t have the urgency to reproduce that men do

men are selected by women though

This “sexual selection syndrome” includes behavioral traits: males are more likely than females to resort to violence against sexual rivals and to force copulations on resisting partners;

rape is only r-selected, poor quality men, high quality men compete and win

males cpmmonly expend more time and energy and take greater risks than females in courtship;

women don’t court, they are courted

these guys are hacks

males will generally court and attempt copulation with a wider range of partners then will females.

no, that’s r/K already

The sexual selection syndrome also includes life-history traits: males commonly take longer than females to attain sexual maturity

no, untrue in humans

because of the sexual competition that they face from mature males; males commonly have higher mortality rates than females as a result of intrasexual competition;

no, stupidity, the low IQ doing dangerous things

males commonly senesce more rapidly than females because higher mortality rates reduce the selection pressure for longevity.

yes men age faster

might be genetic, as recently covered

Finally, the sexual selection syndrome includes morphological traits: males are more likely than females to display anatomical specializations for intra- and intersexual aggression, including horns, antlers, enlarged canine teeth, and body sizes in excess of the ecological optimum; males commonly show greater development of sexual advertisements, both tactile (complex genitalia) and visual (elaborate and brightly colored adornments)

selected by the females

Among humans, considerable anatomical and behavioral evidence suggests that males have been subject to stronger sexual selection than females

women are the ones doing it

these people are idiots

Human males are larger than females. Human males attain sexual maturity at a later age than human females

false, women don’t finish developing physically until the twenties

miscarriages and stillbirth is higher in teen mothers compared to women in their 20s, that’s the reason we married in the 20s in the middle ages

and senesce more rapidly

logically impossible given your prior claim

men age faster because they sexually mature faster, their system is simpler

they don’t need to carry a baby, duh?

Polygyny is much more common than polyandry.

No. Citation very much needed. You can’t just claim that based on current Third World religions about a time preceding those religious legal structures.

In one respect, however, human beings reverse the usual pattern of differences between more and less sexually selected sexes-men are more concerned than women with the physical attractiveness of a potential sexual partner.

Men are more shallow, yes. Doesn’t mean they have good taste.

Although women race mix less so maybe women are shallow in different ways.

This sex difference is not limited to Western society.
Buss (i 989) reviews survey data from 37 population samples from 33 countries and finds that in every sample males are more concerned than females with the physical attractiveness of a potential mate. The average sex difference is more pronounced among the non-Western populations in his sample.

Again why care?

The attractiveness of the man usually depends predominantly upon his skills and prowess rather than upon his physical appearance.”

You didn’t ask the women. Ugly researchers claim women don’t care how they look.

It’s pure cope.

Gregersen (i983) reports similar findings in a more recent review of nearly 300 societies,
mostly non-Western and nonurbanized. In other words, human beings seem to be an exception
to the general rule among animals that male attractiveness matters more than female attractiveness. The importance attached to female (as opposed to male) physical attractiveness in our species stands in need of an explanation.

Yeah this study doesn’t apply to Europeans whatsoever, only the bad faith actors are using this.

Male attractiveness does matter more. Third Worlders aren’t sexually selecting, they’re trying to survive or forced to marry. That isn’t evolutionary, it’s societal modern pressure.

Men wouldn’t go down the gym if they weren’t competing on looks.

Many anthropologists believe

not science

that human behavior is so radically different in its ontogeny from that of other organisms that the theory of sexual selection is not applicable to human physical attraction.

….or you’re wrong? And bad at your job?

Anthropology is mostly BS, they are not evolutionary biologists.

Polhemus (i988:8) probably expresses the attitude of a whole school of anthropology of “the body” concerning the human irrelevance of the theory of sexual selection when he writes:
A male baboon has a fixed idea of what a desirable female baboon should look like…. The same general principle is true of any animal that reproduces by sexual selection. But there is an important difference between baboons and ourselves. For other animals the physical ideal is ioo% instinctively determined. Thus all baboons of a particular species pursue the same ideal…. For humans, on the other
hand, ideals of beauty are learned….

This is not science.

In a worldwide and historical framework, there is no such thing as natural human beauty.


So they’re debunking their own paper.

If beauty isn’t objective, I needn’t continue. A little, then.

If this view of the difference between human and nonhuman psychology were correct,


the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species might be merely one more consequence of our having freed ourselves from the instinctive constraints that hobble the lives of other animals. This view, however, is doubly wrong.
First, learning often plays a large role in the acquisition of standards of attractiveness among nonhuman animals. An immense literature demonstrates that early experience influences later mate choice via imprinting (Immelman I972). Imitation, too, plays a role in mate choice among nonhuman animals, and social transmission of mating preferences can even result in “fads” in mate choice that change from one breeding season to the next (Pruett-Jones i992).

Mixed race ad propaganda explained.

Second, physical attraction in humans cannot be entirely a product of enculturation. This is shown most
dramatically by the experiments of Langlois et al. (i987).
In these experiments, infants between the ages of two and three months were exposed to pictures of women rated attractive and unattractive by adult raters; infants spent more time looking at faces rated attractive. This held even across racial/cultural boundaries: for European-American infants looking at faces of AfricanAmerican women rated by African-American men and for African-American infants exposed to EuropeanAmerican faces rated by European-American men.

Everyone knows.

Thus students of physical attractiveness are asking for trouble if they start out assuming that nonhuman
animals are creatures of instinct and humans constructions of culture. A better starting point regarding the role of learning in behavior is suggested by several decades of research in comparative psychology: as a general rule, organisms have relatively “hard-wired” or canalized responses to stimuli that have had relatively unvarying fitness consequences over evolutionary time and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with positive fitness consequences and sometimes with negative. In other words, given that learning entails costs, in terms of trial and error, organisms are expected to adapt to selectively important invariants in their environments with corresponding behavioral, cognitive, or motivational invariances (Seligman I970, Johnston 1982).

These people are morons.

How can we apply this principle to the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species? Let us define the mate value of a potential sexual partner, A, as the expected reproductive success from mating with A divided by some baseline expected reproductive success. The baseline expected reproductive success might be the expected reproductive success from mating at random or from mating with an individual of maximum mate value.

r v K

As a general rule we expect that human beings, and other animals, are likely to have both relatively canalized, “hard-wired” responses to visual stimuli that have been consistently associated with high mate value throughout the evolutionary history of the species and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with high mate value and sometimes with low. In other words, standards of physical attractiveness are likely to have both species-typical and population-specific components, and variation in these components may be predictable given knowledge
of human biology and local circumstances (Symons I979). For example, since fat stores may be selectively advantageous in environments subject to episodic food shortage and disadvantageous in environments requiring considerable physical movement, one might expect that esthetic responses to fatness would vary between populations depending on social learning and on individual assessments of the consequences of being fat or thin, rather than developing in a uniform fashion within the human species.

Pro-fat argument.

By contrast, one might expect human beings to have a relatively invariant, species-typical emotional response to signs of aging, because age has a relatively invariant association with fecundity and thus with mate value.

association is weak, not causation

distinguish aging from maturation, you cannot

In a classic article Henry (i96i) reviews data on age-specific fertility rates in a wide range of “naturalfertility” (noncontracepting) populations. The levels of fertility in these populations range from a lifetime average of 6 to i i children per married female, but the shapes of the curves of fertility versus age are remarkably similar across all populations. For all populations, female fertility rates at age 30-34 are around 85% of rates at age 20-24, with further declines to around 35 % for women aged 40-44 and o% for women aged 50-54.

They don’t count teens because they are not mature to breed.

More recent work suggests that the curve of natural fecundity (potential reproduction) differ somewhat from the curve of natural fertility (actual reproduction) because the latter is influenced by such variables as age of spouse and frequency of intercourse (James I979, Menken, Trussell, and Larsen i986). Studies that control for the latter variables suggest that the decline in female Fecundity between 20 and 35 is less pronounced than the decline in female natural fertility-but the overall shapes of the two curves are fairly similar.


Most drop in conception is the men aging, paternal age.

That’s why older woman/younger man couples are more fertile.

The shape of the curve of fecundity versus age is very
different for males. Goldman and Montgomery (i989),
reviewing data from several traditional societies, report
Eertility declines to about 90% for men between 45 and
50, relative to younger men, and to about 8o% for men
over 55, after controlling for age of wife and duration of
Fecundity versus age curves thus have two important

characteristics that may help to explain the anomaly of
female attractiveness:


the curves (i) are relatively invariant in shape across populations

no, relatively means you’re wrong

and (2) show an earlier and more pronounced decline in fertility among females than among males.

Paternal age studies debunked this.

Given the general rule that organisms commonly have invariant responses to stimuli that have had relatively invariant fitness consequences over evolutionary time, the first characteristic
suggests that human beings are likely to have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of aging. The second characteristic suggests that these responses are likely to be stronger in males’ evaluations of females than in females’ evaluations of males.


Men are too weak to be judged on their looks by women. Too triggered.

This does not add up to a complete theory of physical
attractiveness, of course, or even a complete theory of
age-related changes in physical attractiveness. Fecundity
is only one component of mate value. Other components
include the ability and willingness to provision offspring
and heritable viability or attractiveness (“good genes”),
and these components of mate value may also vary with
age, while sensory bias will ensure that attractiveness
does not track mate value perfectly. Nevertheless, agerelated changes in fecundity are likely to be a particularly important component of age-related changes in physical attractiveness, especially in females, both because these changes have been relatively invariant over the history of the species and because other components of mate value such as provisioning ability and inclination may be more readily assessable on the basis of behavior than on the basis of physical appearance.
There is one alternative explanation for male attraction to youthful features in females that requires a more extended treatment.

Extended? You’ve done nothing so far. This paper is filler.

Gowaty (I992:23I-40) writes:
There should be strong selection on males to control
females’ reproduction through direct coercive control of females….

It’s called marriage.

Evolutionary thinkers, whether informed by feminist ideas or not, are not surprised
by one of the overwhelming facts of patriarchal cultures, namely that men … seek to constrain and
control the reproductive capacities of women…. Juvenilization decreases the threat some men may feel when confronted with women;


many men are comfortable around women whom they can clearly dominate and are profoundly uncomfortable around women whom they cannot so clearly dominate.

r-types, not real men

The hypothesis that femininity signals ability to be dominated through juvenilization is an alternative to, but not necessarily mutually exclusive of, other evolutionary hypotheses that posit that femininity signals, sometimes deceptively, reproductive value and fertility.
Several findings seem to be at odds with this hypothesis.
Berry and McArthur (i986) presented subjects with a series of outline profile drawings representing individuals ranging from juvenile to adult and collected ratings of
perceived social characteristics of each drawing. The
drawing rated weakest and least threatening was the
most juvenile-looking. (Subjects judged this drawing to
represent a 4-year-old.) The drawing rated sexiest was

intermediate in juvenility. (It was judged to be 23 years
old.) In other words, the level of juvenility that maximizes perceived vulnerability does not maximize perceived sexiness.

Because only pedophiles like children sexually.

Real men like sexually mature WOMEN.

Kenrick and co-workers (Kenrick I994)
show that for teenage males the ideal sexual partner is
older than they are-again, more consistent with the
hypothesis that males are concerned with cues to female
fecundity than with the hypothesis that males prefer
younger, more easily dominated females. Thus current
evidence suggests that female attractiveness cannot
simply be equated with powerlessness and that something more than changes in perceived vulnerability is involved in age-related changes in physical attractiveness. However, nothing in evolutionary theory rules out the possibility that markers of female submissiveness may be attractive to men, and the topic certainly deserves more research.


There may be room for argument about why attractiveness changes with age, but, in spite of a considerable literature devoted to the claim that human sexuality and standards of physical attractiveness are culturally constructed, there does not seem to be any evidence from any society that seriously challenges the proposition that physical attractiveness is perceived to decline from
young adulthood to old age, especially for females.

Yeah, funny that? Especially but not only. Men hit the Wall too, it’s called being human.

Because women are the ones selecting, idiots. Beggars can’t be choosers. Men are sexually desperate, overall.

“The correlation of female age and sexual attractiveness is so
intuitively obvious

not science

also not causation

when is the actual study? this waffle is nauseatingly wrong

that ethnographers apparently take
it for granted-as they do the bipedalism of the people
they study-and the significance of female age tends to
be mentioned only in passing, in discussions of something else” (Symons I979:i88). Symons cites passing references to the effects of aging on female attractiveness
in ethnographies of the Kgatla, pre-revolutionary China,
the Yanomamo, and the Tiwi. Additional references can
be found in ethnographies of Trobriand Islanders (Malinowski I987 [i929], Weiner I976) and Gawa (Munn
I986) of Melanesia, Mende (Boone i986) of Sierra Leone,
and Mehinaku of Amazonia (Gregor i985), to name just
a few.


Why is this being applied to white people?

Who is this intellectually dishonest?

A number of social psychological studies (reviewed in Jackson i992) have documented such agerelated declines in physical attractiveness and demonstrated the expected sex differences as well.
Let us summarize the argument up to this point. Human beings are anomalous among sexually selected species in the importance attached to female (relative to
male) appearance in mate choice.

unproven, not science

Human beings are
anomalous in another respect as well: female fertility
commonly declines to zero long before the end of the
life span.

Biology explained this.

As a result of menopause there is considerably
more age-related variance in fecundity among adult females than among adult males in our species. The second anomaly may explain the first: the importance
attached to female attractiveness in our species may reflect the operation of adaptations for assessing agerelated changes in fecundity, a component of female
mate value.

Men aren’t the peahens of the species! LIES.

Whether for this reason or another, social psychological and ethnographic evidence provides overwhelming support for the proposition that human beings have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of males’ aging and that these responses operate more strongly in evaluations of females than vice versa.

“overwhelming support for the proposition” WHERE

you are making that up

Women assess men all the time. We’re more realistic. They try to call us fussy but a lot of fuggos survive under dysgenic conditions, it’s realistic to think most men look like a dumpster fire compared to the WW2 gen. Look at photos!

Thus far we have been exclusively concerned with changes in attractiveness with age rather than differences in attractiveness between individuals of the same age. However, if age-detecting mechanisms do not operate with perfect accuracy, then adaptations for choosing a mate of a particular age may lead incidentally to nonadaptive biases in the choice of mates from among individuals who fall within a particular age-class. In other words,


non-adaptive adaptations are impossible

clue’s in the name

what mental midgets wrote this shit?

given that attractiveness varies with age, individuals may be more or less attractive than others of the
same age in part because they have facial proportions associated with younger or older ages.

no attractiveness is lower genetic load, stfu

there are young ugly people and older hot ones

Because the retention of traits from early stages of the life cycle into later stages, relative to ancestors or to other members of the population, is known as neoteny (“holding on to youth”), the proposition above may be rephrased: given that attractiveness varies with age, neoteny may be a component of facial attractiveness.


That wall of text for MAY?


This proposition may hold with particular force for female facial attractiveness: a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or “supernormal” degree.

No, we call those sexual predators.

This is now the Pedo Paper.

Beginning with the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species, we are led to the hypothesis that neoteny may be a component of female facial attractiveness.

aka we guessed

not science

and there is no anomaly

The remainder of this paper will be given over to testing and elaborating this hypothesis.

I doubt it.

These scribbles are not scientific. You need computer models like Marquardt to measure it!

There is no breadth of jaw variation, no round or narrow eye shape, no flat or pointed nose, no mouth breadth or narrowness!

A shape subject to positive cardioidal strain (k > o) shows a downward and outward expansion in features located toward the bottom and a downward and inward contraction in features located toward the top.

aka manjaw

while the transformed faces were redrawn from the original face with the assistance of polar coordinate graph paper.

This is not a paper. It’s a joke.

These affect the relative sizes of eyes, noses, ears,
and lips. “Beginning at age 25, the eyebrows steadily
descend from a position well above the supraorbital rim
to a point far below it; sagging of the lateral aspect of
the eyebrows make the eyes seem smaller” (Larrabee
and Makielski I993:I4). Cartilaginous tissues grow
steadily throughout adulthood: ears get bigger, and
noses get longer, wider, and more protrusive with increasing age. With the loss of connective tissue, the vermilion or red zone of the lips gets thinner (Enlow I990,
Larrabee and Makielski I993, Susanne I977).
As a result of changes in hard and soft tissue with age,
it is possible to estimate ages of adults using information about the relative sizes of eyes, noses, and lips

I dunno, gamines exist as do old-looking young people.



Gould also argued “that the whole enterprise of ranking groups by degree of neoteny is fundamentally unjustified” (Gould, 1996, pg. 150).[21] Doug Jones argued that human evolution’s trend toward neoteny may have been caused by sexual selection in human evolution for neotenous facial traits in women by men with the resulting neoteny in male faces being a “by-product” of sexual selection for neotenous female faces.[22]

MAY – no proof, but it MAY! I may sprout a dick and call myself Charlie! I MAY!

so the pedo-bears are only finding this shitty paper from the 90s thanks to wikipedia [22]

talk about cherry-picking, all evobio is against this

anthropology is nothing

He’s right, Gould, but Marquardt already measured this.

Neotony – large round eyes (down to almond) – MOST important feature for this trait

Peramorphic – slanted, narrow eyes

Neotony – large forehead (3rd)

Peramorphic – short forehead

Neotony – soft gracile jaw (2nd most important feature for the trait)

Peramorphic – square or manjaw

The actual studies have been done, in computers. By real scientists.

Women also have a narrower mouth than men to match the jaw, also dimorphic.

Comparing races using ONE trait is ridiculous.

One paragraph on wikipedia is all it gets for human neotony, and doesn’t actually list the traits, distinguished from pedomorphic ones.

It doesn’t even study white countries, let alone compare European nations to one another!

Who uses this and doesn’t bother to actually read it? Mental manlets, mostly.

“My own observations in Brazil corroborate his account of sexuality in China. “

Brazilians often suggest that men in such relationships are especially vulnerable to cuckoldry and
economic exploitation.

because the WOMEN are the sexual selecting sex!

Cuckoldry wouldn’t happen without it!

What sort of weeb would cite this?

. But Symons’s (I995) recent work on this subject has persuaded me that we need direct tests of the possibility that estrogen/androgen ratios and parity have effects on facial attractiveness over and above the effects of aging.2

This is very simple. Measure women on every race in their native continent and test their saliva for T and E. No Pill users allowed, they cheat. Dare any weeb to do that study because manjaw women are higher T.

Even Asian men are reported to prefer white women!

A classic example is reported by Wagatsumc
(in the paper Jones cites). On first contact, Japanese mer
perceived white Western women as less physically at
tractive than Japanese women in most features, includ
ing skin texture, facial hair, and eye color. But the men
perceived Western women’s typical skin color as more
attractive, because it was a bit lighter than the adult
Japanese female average and, hence, close to their ideal

Oestrogen causes paler skin. That’s why they bleach.

From the Latin lover trope, even among whites, S Europeans have slightly higher T but this only works best within a race.

If there is significant interpopulation variation in fa
cial proportions, the perception of neoteny may be anal
ogous to the perception of skin color. That is, human
males may have been selected to prefer female faces:
features that are relatively neotenous, by local stan
dards, rather than to prefer certain absolute facial pro
portions. If so, males will not necessarily prefer female
features that are neotenous by the standards of every
human population.

those are pedophiles

Surely it is possible for a woman’s eyes to be too large, her lower face too short, her nose
too small, and her lips too full (imagine Betty Boop as a real woman). In fact, Jones’s data imply a ceiling effect for the attractiveness of facial neoteny even within populations.

Their example of neotony is a white woman, study ignores Europe.


So the add-on admits you can’t apply between races nor use one trait to judge everything.

That’s literally the conclusion in their own anthro paper. Do not cite this, creeps.

A species-typical male psychological mechanism that instantiates the rule “Prefer female skin that is a bit
lighter than the adult female average” (in ancestral populations relative lightness probably signified nubility, nulliparity, and high estrogen levels) would result in very different absolute skin color ideals in Nigeria and Norway

Yeah Nigerians are rejecting all the Norwegians girls as “too light”. That’s reality.

Nigerian men would perceive Norwegian women as much too light

Yet high androgen levels in women are positively correlated with reproductive system dysfunctions, and observable indices of high androgen levels-such as acne, hirsutism, and a high waist-to-hip ratio-seem to be systematically perceived as unattractive. To my eye, the faces in Jones’s figure
appear to differ more in “masculinity” than in age.

Maternal bone formation rates are elevated during pregnancy, which may permanently lengthen the mother’s face, and a growth hormone (hGH-V) is expressed in the placenta and secreted in large amounts into the maternal circulation which may permanently “coarsen” her facial features.

What is this paper. No, that doesn’t happen.

If the human male’s preference for neotenous facial features is merely a by-product, it presumably would have entailed at least some costs in ancestral populations. For example, assuming that Jones’s hypothesis is correct, an ancestral male given the opportunity to choose between two potential mates of the same age one of whom (A) had a more neotenous face than the other (B), would have been willing to pay a higher bride price for A because of her more attractive face, although B, at a lower bride-price, would have represented better value; or he might have failed to acquire B’s superior weaving skills, which would have contributed something to his fitness, and instead acquired A’s more gracile jaw, larger eyes, smaller nose, and fuller lips, which according to the by-product hypothesis, would have contributed nothing; or he might have chosen an older female with neotenous features over a younger female (higher mate value) with average features.

Genetic load explains that.

Narrow mouths are also neotony, look at babies. That’s why the lips look full.

” While this paper has emphasized the “biological” side of physical attractiveness, with the modern
theory of sexual selection as a starting point, this theory will undoubtedly have to be expanded and revised to allow for the unique importance of social learning in our species”

Nurture applied to biology, that’s why it’s wrong.

Early male death isn’t sexism

-because of course it fucking isn’t, hysterical windbags of the MRA forums, it’s basic evolution.
More male babies die too. Their genome is weaker, more fragile. Sorry Mother Nature doesn’t coddle delusions of invincibility.

“suggesting the second copy offers a protective effect.”
known for decades
how many blues would you want to build a house? fewer or more?

“which could point to pathways for extending life” not for men
it’s like anything genetic, the people in a stronger position just win harder

HBD hates men? lol no

Imagine if immortality was possible but only for women?

Because it might be so.
Maybe doppel genes are required for it. We dunno.

Women existed in the genetic record prior to men, men are the mutants of the species. As abnormal, they’d be likelier to die. It isn’t personal, narcs.

Women can self-fertilise, men aren’t technically needed. Our cells can mutate into sperm, it’s biologically possible. The cell types that can mutate are called polar bodies.

“The idea that a second copy of the same sex chromosome is protective has been around for a while, supported by the observation that in mammals – where females have two of the same sex chromosomes – males tend to have shorter lifespans. In birds, males live longer on average and have two Z chromosomes, while females have one Z and one W chromosome.”

10/10 correct

God hates men? Would explain the proclivity to violence and why in Genesis Adam was told he needs a woman. One woman.

He did not tell women they need a man.


Any claim to that effect adds to the Word and is un-Christian.

“The results reveal that individuals with two of the same sex chromosomes live 17.6% longer, on average, than those with either two different sex chromosomes or just one sex chromosome.

The team say the findings back a theory known as the “unguarded X hypothesis”. In human cells, sex chromosome combinations are generally either XY (male) or XX (female). In females only one X chromosome is activated at random in each cell.

As a result, a harmful mutation in one of the female’s X chromosomes will not affect all cells, and hence its impact can be masked. By contrast, as males only have one X chromosome, any harmful mutations it contains are far more likely to be exposed.”

Part of genetic load. Maybe why men defend their mother so?

In degenerate times, even more men would die. This explains male interest in politics, which will influence their own epigenetics in society. Good conditions/rules – more likely to survive.

“The team found that in species where males have two of the same sex chromosomes, these males live on average 7.1% longer than females. However, in species where the sex chromosome pattern is the other way around, such as humans, females live 20.9% longer on average than males.”

Mother Nature.

“But there are also other possibilities as to why the longevity gaps differ in size, including that oestrogen appears to protect the ends of chromosomes from being damaged – a process linked to ageing.”

Oestrogen also protects the brain from stress.
T-takers are literally killing themselves.

“For instance, owl monkey males live longer than females and the males play a big role in infant care in that species,” he said, noting such males have two different sex chromosomes.”

I have noted anecdotally that responsible K-type men outlive r-types of the same birth year, who often succumb to young (40-60yo) heart attacks and strokes, suddenly. If anyone has a study about r/K health outcomes in men esp. mortality, please link?

We know the children of monogamous men fare better.

I said you can’t pretend to be K, since it’s in your DNA.
Early cancer in r-types can easily be attributed to their microbiome being overloaded with STDs.

Adolescent Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Following Human Papillomavirus Vaccination


choice quote:

Vaccine research does not present an ovary histology report of tested rats but does present a testicular histology report. 


Enduring ovarian capacity and duration of function following vaccination is unresearched in preclinical studies, clinical and postlicensure studies.

Unresearched. Injecting it into all the little girls with thick parents, unresearched whether the ovaries still operate or the ORGANS shut down. aka partial organ failure

Since this group includes all prepubertal and pubertal young women, demonstration of ongoing, uncompromised safety for the ovary is urgently required. This matter needs to be resolved for the purposes of population health and public vaccine confidence.


Feminists pushing this shit hate women.

Timely reminder for when they try to force these things on you/r loved ones.

UT Austin Researchers File SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Patent


“February 19, 2020 – Researchers from The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a critical breakthrough toward developing a vaccine for the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).”

Why DO they want so many immigrants?

case study of a 16yo girl:


and Human papilloma virus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.



We documented here the evidence of the potential of the HPV vaccine to trigger a life-disabling autoimmune condition. The increasing number of similar reports of post HPV vaccine-linked autoimmunity and the uncertainty of long-term clinical benefits of HPV vaccination are a matter of public health that warrants further rigorous inquiry.

Great news for misogynists everywhere. Real ones.

All three patients experienced a range of common non-specific post-vaccine symptoms including nausea, headache, sleep disturbances, arthralgia and a range of cognitive and psychiatric disturbances. According to these clinical features, a diagnosis of primary ovarian failure (POF) was determined which also fulfilled the required criteria for the ASIA syndrome.

Explains some women I’ve met.

ASIA = autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) 


A link between human papilloma virus vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency: current analysis.


Reviews are good.

The cause of primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) is multifactorial. Known causes include external factors such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, infections that lead to a permanent insult to the ovary, autoimmune conditions, and genetic causes. An association between the quadrivalent antihuman papilloma vaccine (HPV4) and POI was recently suggested.


The birth rate cult ought not to get their hopes up.

Q is, if the vaccine is so bad, what about the manwhores spreading the ‘organic’ version?

Credit: Master Brew

When do we outlaw sluts on population threat grounds?


An increasing number of cases of POI post-HPV4 are being reported. Possible mechanisms for the suspected effect of HPV on female reproductive function are a toxic effect or an autoimmune response. The trigger could be the vaccine immunogen contents or the adjuvants, the latter are used to increase the immune reaction.

increase, not produce

The adjuvant in HPV4 contains aluminum.

Yeah, still using it. Despite claims.

Animal models have shown aluminum exposure to inhibit expression of female reproductive hormones and to induce histologic changes in the ovaries.

I haz reasons for my quotes.

Specific genetic compositions may be more susceptible to developing an autoinflammatory syndrome after exposure to an environmental factor.

Bioweapon, by any other name.


The mechanisms responsible for POI are not yet fully understood. Although case reports cannot establish causation, awareness of a possible link between HPV4 and POI will help to identify and manage future cases that may arise.

They want people scared right now but don’t lose sight of the facts.

Don’t take any NWO shit. It’s going to be forced anyway. Rape with an object, legally.

They can claim e.g. one single paper from 2018 was “retracted” (impossible once peer-reviewed)


but that doesn’t change the hundreds of other studies documenting the same thing.

This study written by Gayle DeLong,  an associate professor at Baruch College, concluded that ‘Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot.’ 

Scientism people are stupid. You should want a follow-up.


Selective breeding is literally Darwin tho…

Am I gonna have to be the one to say this? Apparently. Ugh.

It’s no more novel than dog ‘breeds’ aka races. They also have inbreeding depression from the admixture (why it’s called mixing) and mixed race (aka mongrel) fertility issues, like ligers.

Anyone who denies this fact about selective breeding literature is literally anti-Darwin (or just plain ignorant) and against the evolutionary paradigm itself, in biology.
It’s not just in Charles Darwin’s most famous work, it’s cited in chapter ONE, you brainlets!

Teach the book in biology or none of the subject makes sense. It’s the paradigm of brain development, we can see it in scans! It’s definitely at least somewhat real when it dictates how a precious foetus develops.

Proof or it didn’t happen:

“The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.” so STFU.

pre-contents: “In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman (“Boston Journal of Nat. Hist. U. States”, vol. iv, page 468) has ably given the arguments for and against the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he seems to lean toward the side of change.”


Literally the sodding chapter, and the first one!

Also, humans are a species, stop calling us a race. Homo Sapiens is a SPECIES.

It’s a quote gold mine!
and I don’t just mean the Sub-title:


Fitness is real, yo.

“When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species. Domestic races often have a somewhat monstrous character; by which I mean, that, although differing from each other and from other species of the same genus, in several trifling respects, they often differ in an extreme degree in some one part, both when compared one with another, and more especially when compared with the species under nature to which they are nearest allied. With these exceptions (and with that of the perfect fertility of varieties when crossed—a subject hereafter to be discussed), domestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as do the closely allied species of the same genus in a state of nature, but the differences in most cases are less in degree. This must be admitted as true, for the domestic races of many animals and plants have been ranked by some competent judges as the descendants of aboriginally distinct species, and by other competent judges as mere varieties. If any well marked distinction existed between a domestic race and a species, this source of doubt would not so perpetually recur. It has often been stated that domestic races do not differ from each other in characters of generic value. It can be shown that this statement is not correct; but naturalists differ much in determining what characters are of generic value; all such valuations being at present empirical. When it is explained how genera originate under nature, it will be seen that we have no right to expect often to find a generic amount of difference in our domesticated races.”

For those who missed the obvious, mixed is not a race. They’re raceless. To argue otherwise is category error because a race is a mutually exclusive classification.

re de novo mutations:
“Some naturalists have maintained that all variations are connected with the act of sexual reproduction; but this is certainly an error; for I have given in another work a long list of “sporting plants;” as they are called by gardeners; that is, of plants which have suddenly produced a single bud with a new and sometimes widely different character from that of the other buds on the same plant. These bud variations, as they may be named, can be propagated by grafts, offsets, etc., and sometimes by seed. They occur rarely under nature, but are far from rare under culture. As a single bud out of many thousands produced year after year on the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to assume a new character; and as buds on distinct trees, growing under different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety—for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on common roses producing moss-roses—we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames.”

This shit even applies to FLOWERS.

“The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown;


no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, or in different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so;

germline mutation or not e.g. parental age factor

why the child often reverts in certain characteristics to its grandfather or grandmother or more remote ancestor;


why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex.

chromosomes and brain development

It is a fact of some importance to us, that peculiarities appearing in the males of our domestic breeds are often transmitted, either exclusively or in a much greater degree, to the males alone. A much more important rule, which I think may be trusted, is that, at whatever period of life a peculiarity first appears, it tends to reappear in the offspring at a corresponding age, though sometimes earlier. In many cases this could not be otherwise; thus the inherited peculiarities in the horns of cattle could appear only in the offspring when nearly mature; peculiarities in the silk-worm are known to appear at the corresponding caterpillar or cocoon stage. But hereditary diseases and some other facts make me believe that the rule has a wider extension, and that, when there is no apparent reason why a peculiarity should appear at any particular age, yet that it does tend to appear in the offspring at the same period at which it first appeared in the parent.

genetics are timed in expression, phenotype

he’s been proven correct ever since, it’s amazing

I believe this rule to be of the highest importance in explaining the laws of embryology. These remarks are of course confined to the first APPEARANCE of the peculiarity, and not to the primary cause which may have acted on the ovules or on the male element;

referring to gamete mutation, especially in sperm

predicting parental age factor over a century before it was mathematically confirmed

in nearly the same manner as the increased length of the horns in the offspring from a short-horned cow by a long-horned bull, though appearing late in life, is clearly due to the male element.

If Christians think humans are special as a species and foetuses while developing are too, they need evolutionary arguments for that. You’re dropping the ball by not using these facts.

Having alluded to the subject of reversion,

also regression to the mean, but Galton already covered that (legit polymath)

I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists—namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but invariably revert in character to their aboriginal stocks. Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature.”

All quotes from early chapter 1.

When I use the word evolution, or related TECHNICAL words like race, my definition is correct because I read the literature which explains what these things mean.

Arm yourself with the truth.

Read the book.

Short and tall women are slutty

h/t Dutton

I wish they’d look racially, but this explains the r-selected LBFMs.

Tall women I have noted, like Tilda Swinton seem to be left-wing in an openly aggressive, manly fashion.
Short women tend to be left-wing in a subversive fashion, i.e. infantilising rape gangs and cheating on their simp of a husband as a “poly”, the type to know they can’t play the tall woman’s game of leftism so fakes femininity to extract resources (from State, Church, simp). Assuming a short woman is more feminine is statistically wrong. She’ll be more likely to cheat from insecurity.

re Keller, M. (2013). The Genetic Correlation Between Height and IQ. PLOS ONE.
I already knew taller men are smarter and kinder to women, they’re protective. That’s why women like them, not the height per se.
Short men view women as social competition so are more likely to bully, gaslight, verbally abuse and hit them. They think domination makes up for lack of dominance. It’s moral cowardice, “pick on someone your own size” as they used to say.
Nature made taller men healthier because they’re generally better people.
Misogyny is a known factor of inferiority and most of them (with vitriol aimed in-race) are shorter than the women or average man, so subconsciously hate their mother.
Height in a man is broadly like a human’s peacock tail. It develops as a signal of genetic quality which cannot be faked and demonstrates low mutation load. There’s plenty of time before the growth plates fuse to get adequate nutrition and exercise so either their parents hate them (and parents hate more ugly children or products of other unions) or they are burdened with so many mutations it’s a small wonder they weren’t miscarried (and probably would have been without modern medicine).
One big reason modern humans are uglier is IVF, the other being maternal care for parents who simply don’t deserve it.
Read into that what you will.
Maybe the solution is more abortion, but more eugenic abortion.

Average height women have “more reproductive success” (Nettle, 2002) – cited top paper.
This also applies to the third world (they cite). Perhaps the fetish for pedomorphic women (short women, short limbs) is an r-select feature?
Men always prefer women a few inches shorter than them as a norm (so probably same class, assortative) but “markedly” short (as the paper puts it) is abnormal and suggests r-type breeding preferences (young and done, no investment).
Tall women are less symmetrical, although the way they write that sentence up is vague to spare blushes.
Medium height women have “highest mate value” – more studies needed on this. What does that actually mean? Just fertility? Beauty? Personality? IQ? What? Good family?
Jealous women were “taller or shorter than average” – damn, dare you to do a cross-racial study, that would be funny. 
So if you don’t want a harpy guys, select an average height woman (for her own race, presumably, also your own?).

If you wanna be cucked, women, marry a short man,

-or men, marry a short or tall woman.

Short is clearly a non sequitur to feminine, as it states short women are more jealous (along with tall women) of “feminine” beauty.

Average women are more repulsed by masculine women but… isn’t everyone? Can you guess my height by that?

I actually thought that was just everyone.

A few screencaps:

  • Humans are K-selected as a species, believe nobody who says otherwise. No, men are not meant to “sow oats”, it’s degenerate. The quality men don’t do that. Reputation evolved to explain this commentary on your genetic quality.
  • K-types are MORE reproductively successful in the long run, as you’d expect. Evolution is about the long run and who actually reproduces, not just “screws” in completely sterile fashion.
  • Married isn’t always better for the children if the parents (or one) are unstable, in loyalty or sanity.
  • Problem children come from problematic parents.
  • If your child is a slut, it’s your fault.
  • Sex is a physical distraction from growing up mentally, usually escaping from childhood trauma.
  • r/K isn’t really a choice, it’s mostly genetics. Posing as the other type won’t work.
  • 65% genetically heritable. Your kids will be just as slutty as you are, whoever you marry.
  • Hot women can hold out for marriage. Not – cannot.
  • Women are more than morally offended when you treat them as promiscuous (when they’re not) because you’re also calling them ugly.
  • If you want a spouse who can pair bond neurologically and raise your children as a good role model, don’t marry a former slut.
  • Better spouses are genetically fitter spouses (average women, tall men).

Video: UK disease vectors and plague

Reminder: applies to all infections, not just sexually exclusive ones.

The prohibition on sodomy also applied to sodomy with women for the same reasons. It’s the same exact act, normalised in Jewish entertainment.

Sexually, it’s always men who are the main vectors of any disease (for many reasons, including going out more, washing hands less). Until literally a few years ago, biologists assumed the male urethra was always clean (immunoprivileged, like the eyes) – until they actually checked it... Turns out no vital pipe is clean, if you’re being a slut (sorry, “sexually active”). Men are the main vectors of any condition, and with HIV, ebola, this obvious “corona” (really pneumonic plague*) virus going round, knowing who’d be the likeliest carrier socially could save your life.

R-types are known for being happy Typhoid Marys, it isn’t just bug chasing “gift givers”, they can consciously pass on lesser conditions from spite (usually homoerotic, so other men are largely at risk). Even with a simple stomach bug or a norovirus, they’ll have an impulse to “meet up with old friends” so delay those ‘invitations’ past the incubation window and they’ll suddenly lose interest.

(Borderline and sociopathic women also do this, but usually it’s men).

Making people sick gives them a thrill of power over your body. And it’s mostly legal (with certain STD exceptions, that are ABH here up to GBH dependent).

*The Chinese gov keeps writing COD as ‘pneumonia’ because it isn’t corona. It’s plague.

The Black Death came from Asia too. Do your research. This is why they refuse to share DNA with Australia – it isn’t corona. Just a theory, but it’s the only thing that fits their paranoia. COD docs are legally binding.

They never did find a cure for plague, it’s almost Biblical.

B-b-b-but muh appeal to authority?! – some moron



A few days ago:

Yersinia pestis, the cause of plague, could be weaponized.

Unfortunately, development of new vaccines is limited by lack of correlates of protection.

aka unlike other diseases, they can’t pump out a plague vaccine on the pipeline

We used pre- and post-vaccination sera and peripheral blood mononuclear cells from a flagellin adjuvanted F1/V vaccine trial to evaluate for protective markers. Here, we report for the first time in humans that inverse caspase-3 levels, which are measures of protective antibody, significantly increased by 29% and 75% on days 14 and 28 post-second vaccination, respectively. In addition, there were significant increases in T-cell responses on day 28 post-second vaccination. The strongest positive and negative correlations between protective antibody levels and gene expression signatures were identified for IFNG and ENSG00000225107 genes, respectively. Flagellin/F1/V subunit vaccine induced macrophage-protective antibody and significant CD4+ T-cell responses. Several genes associated with these responses were identified that could serve as potential correlates of protection.

Paper for compulsory vaccination… just like Spanish Flu.
Fun fact: Most of those who died were vaccinated.

But wait, why would you need a vaccine for a bacterial infection?

Don’t ask questions citizen, just take the injection.


Pneumonic Plague Is Diagnosed in China

Memoryhole absolut.


It turns out, I have been researching this stuff for my health.

The Twenties are gonna be funny.

What would happen to their economy if we knew the truth?

Even if it were coronavirus:


The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) from Wuhan is currently causing concern in the medical community as the virus is spreading around the world.1 Since its identification in late December 2019, the number of cases from China that have been imported into other countries is on the rise, and the epidemiologic picture is changing on a daily basis. We are reporting a case of 2019-nCoV infection acquired outside of Asia in which transmission appears to have occurred during the incubation period in the index patient.

Asymptomatic, Typhoid Mary types.

Late December 2019.

You know what spreads great during the invisible stage? Plague. Just sayin’.

What’s more likely? A disease magically changes on an almost daily basis* – or the Chicoms are lying?

*According to the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, redditfags! They’re throwing shade in academese.

I hate being smarter than everyone but I waited for them to release the truth, sportingly, and they didn’t so screw you, China.




If AA wants a wild ride, check homosexual studies of paraphilia if you can find them – inc. sadism (especially rape, interest in actual rape), cross-dressing, pedophilia (attraction to minors) and bestiality. When surveyed, interest in death and necrophilia is also reported but it’s hard to find that stuff online. Most serial killers are homosexual. (and also circumcised)