Female fertility doesn’t encourage cheating

Moving on to correct an old, old error. I’m sick of seeing it. I went out of my way to find the citation to do this.

There’s one study still going round, being cited, that is absolute bull.

No, women aren’t likelier to cheat when fertile. What sort of Lilith shit is this?

Quite the opposite.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/EHB.pdf
It’s been debunked, for many years.

If you can’t read/understand beyond the abstract.

“Women’s desire for their own partners did not differ significantly between high and low fertility sessions”.

This happened when they actually tested what was only suggested (to get published) in the previous study, that has never been replicated.

If anything high fertility makes her more interested in her mate, which matches literally all the evobio on the topic, including Trivers and the fact that overwhelmingly most fathers are the biological fathers of their children. The exception is a forced match (arranged marriage) to an inferior male, see last post on ugly men. Sexual selection will occur in women, before or after nuptials, get used to it. Naturally, men denying that looks have anything to do with sexual attraction (LOL) will continue to ignore the most important variable in Darwinian theories – your genes.

Where you can go back to Peterson’s bollocks and choke on all his little blue pills.

Ugly men encourage cheating

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

If bad genes would put one sex off, it’d be the party that would have to carry them. Tend them. For decades. You know, the one putting money down if this is a gambling analogy.
Much better not to shack up with the uggo in the first place, which is what women have been doing (avoiding ugly men) since parental set-ups ended. Putting an end to arranged marriages is one of the most eugenic things to ever happen, second only to giving r-types the Pill and other abortfacients.

They’d be most likely to miscarry such children regardless, so a naturalistic fallacy doesn’t apply. This is a reversal of a dysgenic societal pressure with freedom of choice, not a natural pressure. There is a real-world consequence to mating (marrying) such low-quality men that used to be disposed of in endless wars: lower fitness than the parents, a biological death-knell.

There are more bachelors than ever because women aren’t forced to marry anyone who’d support them. If the woman can do it better for herself (given equal opportunities), the man is too poor quality to deserve fecundity. Men purchase rights to a woman’s reproductive decisions with marriage, that’s literally the whole premise. Monogamy had to be imposed to avoid unrest and rebellion against rulers, because it’s better for low-quality males (they actually get to breed and don’t ‘resort’ to rape – not an excuse) and worse for all females, since the natural exclusion (men used to be kicked out of the tribe at age) of the shit-tier doesn’t occur to the gene pool either they or their children and grandchildren will marry into… Naturally, the uggos in question hate this. Inferiority in humans is often connected to misogyny, despite how women are the life-giving, less violent and kinder sex (aliens would view those as objectively superior traits). Happy men don’t have to take anything out on women (displacement) because they are secure.

Narcissism and other personality disorder is always preceded by insecurity.

It reminds me of the bad husbands who complain of sexless marriages. Anyone with an ounce of empathy or life experience with women, happy couples, would laugh at such a concept, since sex in a marriage is a symptom, an outcome, a barometer. As in, they expect not to change but their marriage to improve, magically, for purely selfish reasons. Like it’s them + sex toy, no union, no greater labour required from the ‘master’ of the house. Rarely do the men in such marriages carry just their financial weight (the one entailed in the vows, also why pre-nups are anti-Christian since you swore until death you’d be responsible). Incompetent men used to be screened before they could marry, in the courtship stages interacting with the parents. Now, divorce is common because courtship has been shortened and too superficial. If they can’t be married, successfully, the marriage cannot continue. It’s a job. Rather than correcting their fellow men, to be capable husbands and fathers, they complain about women being shallow (projection). I suppose it’s the r-selected urge to appease other men and avoid real conflict, which they know women are too good to really instigate. Wife-beaters aren’t sneered at from sexism, it’s because a man hitting a woman knows it isn’t a fair fight. He knows his risk of death is almost nil. That’s cowardice.

Damaging the one human you swore to protect? Evil.

Hypocrisy doesn’t work long-term. Only an anti-honour culture like ours would think this.

You don’t deserve shit. Like, does a fat SJW deserve a 6ft model with a 6-pack because she got bullied for years? Exactly, it’s shit, you know it’s bullshit, sit down and stop.

You cannot be entitled to a human. They’re autonomous. An atheist cannot expect a Christian. A slut cannot expect a virgin. You get your level. That’s the red pill – you deserve what you get.

So technically, unequal pairings encourage cheating. Common sense?

Circumcision and sensation

Male circumcision, loss of sensation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902

“Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis.”

Arguably the most important structure.

Of the female partner’s (sub-par) experience

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x/epdf

The difference in sexual behavior in men is the real reason.

Rise in ED in other studies, check.

Rise in masturbation (read: needing porn), oral, anal and anal with other men, all expected.

Needing lubricant is the big deal, that fact alone would increase the risk of STDs it supposedly prevents.

Women, and adult men who knew both, preferred the natural, complete set.
Well, yes, that’s how we evolved, well done.

Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/6/1649/2919231
Miscarriages occur in teens too so I dunno who is dumb enough to rely on this one variable alone.

37 is the age when maternal age starts to matter for women (depending on family history) if you look at the shift in gradient on the charts (barely any change before) but 40 is the huge risk age in both men and women, as in this study.
“However, the increase in risk was much greater for couples composed of a woman aged ≥35 years and of a man aged ≥40 years.”
Is Human Reproduction not a prestigious enough journal?

The 37/40 thing:
Age and the Risk of Miscarriage
It isn’t sufficiently studied in men but data on paternal age as a factor keeps coming out.
Looks like you can’t just blame the woman again. Takes two to make a baby.
“a dramatic rise starting after age 37, with the steepest increase occurring after age 40.”
“The man’s age matters too. Having a partner over the age of 40 significantly raises the chances of a miscarriage.” Nature doesn’t like old, mutant sperm either.
“Over half of miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities.” It isn’t a bad thing, really.
“On average, a woman in her early 20s will have chromosomal abnormalities in about 17% of her eggs” So that’s a really terrible metric considering humans are human. There is always risk.
It’s worse in men than women, so I’m hardly favouring women by opposing this reductionism.
“And as men age, chromosomal defects and point mutations–changes to a single nucleotide in their DNA–become increasingly common.”
Where minors are raped and studied, they tend not to do well either.

Memorize that chart.

A teenager is as bad (at-risk) as a woman with an additional two decades.
You’re still debating less than one percentage point of difference though. Are you autistic?

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


Note: Again, 37 is the magic number.
“While IVF helps many couples overcome their fertility problems, it largely cannot overcome the age-related increase in genetic abnormalities. Without genetically normal sperm and eggs, a viable pregnancy is impossible.”
“Despite this problem, several studies involving couples discordant for age now paint a clear and consistent picture: older prospective fathers raise the risk of miscarriage by about 25-50%. One study found an a 60% increase in the odds of a miscarriage if the father was over 40. Another found a roughly 25% increase in the risk of miscarriage for fathers over the age of 35.”

I guess the Have it All guys can’t read.


As you can clearly see, getting a teenager up the duff would actually be worse.
All things considered.
There are plenty of studies on this but what’s the point?
They basically show the same thing.
No doubt they’ll try to cherry-pick something else to draw focus back onto Boo Women.

A little more then I’ll give up and hope men who value their health listen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809297/
“Trends towards increasing paternal age are being observed in the UK as well as USA, due to delay in marriages for attaining better socio-economic stability.”
Fucking feminists. /sarc

Advancing paternal age has been shown to result in subfertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, late foetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight), birth defects (cleft lip and palate, congenital heart defects), achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfect , Apert’s syndrome, schizophrenia, childhood cancer (brain cancer, retinoblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) and adult cancer (breast, prostate and nervous system).3 Possible mechanisms for these problems include single gene mutations, autosomal dominant diseases, structural abnormalities in sperm chromosomes (e.g., reciprocal translocations) and multiple genetic / chromosomal defects. DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36 – 57 years was found to be 3 times that of men less than 35 years”

Good luck blaming females for that.

“The present study has demonstrated that the paternal age more than 35 years was an independent risk factor associated with spontaneous first trimester miscarriages. In order to eliminate the effect of maternal age, which is itself a known risk factor, we selected women between the age of 20 – 35 years, as this is considered to be ideal age for child bearing.”

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


The reproductive system needs time to become stable, women take longer to physically mature (completed by the late twenties).

Paternal age is a factor in disease and infertility, independently.

“They recommend counselling of men more than 40 years of age when seeking pregnancy.
I’m not gloating, my heart goes out to men who waited too long and have to raise, at best, a sickly child. They need to be warned of the risks of waiting just like women do.

“Kleinhaus K et al have studied various age groups and have found father’s age more than 40 years to be significantly associated with spontaneous miscarriage.13 Slama R has also studied age ranges and have found that risk of spontaneous miscarriage showed linear increase in the hazard of spontaneous miscarriage in male age between 20 and 45 years. They also observed that hazard ratio was highest with male age > 45 years compared with 18 – 24 years (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.01 – 3.44).1 Others have used paternal age between 30 to more than 50 years.”

The male system matures before the female, (18, mid-20s). If we’re being nubile about social policy, the wife should be older slightly.

So the ideal female age for motherhood is 20-35, but as we see here, ideal male age for fatherhood is 18-24, up to 30 if we’re pushing it. You’d expect the male age to be earlier since they have more DNA damage over time and shorter lifespans combined with earlier physical maturation.

Biology? Sorry?

Freezing sperm doesn’t last by the way. They go off.

“Studies on paternal age and fertility suggest that male biological clock does exist. Similar to women, advancing paternal age results in negative effects on reproductive outcomes.”
“Klonoff-Cohen also found decreasing pregnancy rate with male age. Pregnancy rate was 53% for men less than or equal to 35 years, 35% for 36 – 40 years and 13% for men > 40 years.”
Again, 35 seems to be the turning point for male infertility. Almost equal to the female 37 downturn but the male peak is earlier because the (greater) damage is cumulative (see next quote) and gamete production is ongoing.

Why do you oldies wanna marry young unless you’re admitting there’s a deleterious effect to counteract?
In future, more studies will look at differences in the under-35 men, between, say, 18-24, 25-29 and 30-35.

We postulate from these studies that damage to sperm accumulates over a man’s lifetime. Sperm making cells continue to divide throughout the man’s life, increasing the chances of mutations. Impaired DNA replication and repair mechanisms and increased DNA fragmentation.
DNA damage could also result from reactive oxygen species formed by alcohol, nicotine and drug abuse.”
The wages of sin.
“According to Aitken RJ’s study, male genital tract infection can result in DNA damage in male germ cells and therefore, increase the rates of miscarriage.”
Oh look, male chastity was logical.

“CONCLUSION
Paternal age more than 35 years was found to be an independent risk factor in spontaneous first trimester miscarriages.”

They haven’t really studied younger in sufficient detail to claim that’s fine though, findings like those mentioned above show <30 is ideal in both sexes, to start.

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/65/705193
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125283/
“In this Opinion piece we argue that the tendency of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to cause infertility is likely to reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the pathogens. We use an evolutionary perspective to understand how STI pathogens may benefit from reducing fertility in the host and what clues the mechanisms of pathogenesis can offer to the evolution of this ability. While we concentrate on human infections, we will also briefly discuss the broader context of STI-induced infertility in other species.

STIs are a common cause of human infertility worldwide…”
No, men can’t sow any wild oats.

No such thing.

“Reduced fertility and an increased risk of complications during and following pregnancy both contribute to reduced reproductive success in the host—and may benefit the sexually transmitted pathogen by destabilizing partnerships and increasing promiscuity.”
The microbes in your urethra are thinking for you.

Not even your dick.

This does explain gay culture. Wow, gay germ theory gets everywhere. This also explains their fetish for fluids and pozzing parties. At least they’re somewhat aware of it.

“Not only are highly promiscuous individuals exposed to a higher risk of acquiring STIs, but STIs may also actively generate hubs of transmission in a vicious circle of promiscuity and infertility: in traditional societies,”
It’s anti-natal and terrible for society.
You can’t leave behind a life of sin.

Also liberal fertility rates make a lot more sense right about now. It is a bug, and it is a feature!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pass-it-on-children-can-inherit-herpes/
STDs can be passed on at conception, which explains the first trimester paternal age miscarriage finding, the older you get, the more diseases infect the body.
A direct study hasn’t been conducted yet – sexual infection history and miscarriage.
Could it find funding?

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/12/stis-may-have-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
“Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.

In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.

[coughs in r-selection]

But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog.

[hums in Malthusian tones]

The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful.

[religion is evolutionally fit]

[K-types FTW and for discrimination based on self-protection]

While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties.

[stop paying for their babies and STD treatments? FIRSTLY?]
[kinda like how prison was meant to keep you from breeding – a genetic death penalty – until you dummies invented welfare for their women and conjugal rights, making the whole thing useless]

The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.”

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

The social/cultural clearly comes after the rest. Like, the die-offs?

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

No, Peterson, no

I tried watching some basic videos I’d never normally click on as a test.
Topics I knew from reading and speaking to experts.
This was the average level of offender. Little scientism neat stories there.

Raises no eyebrows with the Pitbull IQ host who talks too much.

LISTEN AND BELIEVE.

ANYTHING I LIKE IS EVOLUTION.

What is free will, the law or the naturalistic fallacy?

This is him without prep, he only sounds smart when he’s prepared for the conversations.

Jordan Peterson either thinks he’s smarter than he is (read more) or he’s trolling internet intellectuals for shekels, knowing they won’t look it up because who cares about the truth? I bet 2.

He is not an evobio guy, you’d be better off asking Richard Dawkins!
Someone, on Twitter! Please!

The men wouldn’t have been allowed close enough to GET rejected.
Society invented courting and bachelorhood to keep order, once all males were allowed to survive for labour.

Hypergamy doesn’t even mean what these people think, it’s a marriage construct. Nothing to do with sex, especially sterile sex. Biology of fertility and children (evolution) doesn’t apply to the infertile or sterile. STDs don’t apply to monks for the same reason. Where do they get it???

Marriage construct because marriage is how you access resources? Duh?

We have twice as many female ancestors because 1. they did less stupid things, 2. they were more connected to tribe, 3. no intersexual competition that ends in death, 4. no survival based rite of passage (throwing them out when of age) and 5. no need to display to the opposite sex. Most men would have died beforehand or been killed in the attempt to access them long before social rejection was possible. Tribes were NOT PC. There was NO benefit of the doubt, especially for a stranger trying to access the nubile, do not be dense. Men were known to be rapists and that is why rape developed as a strategy, the losers who wouldn’t be permitted mating opportunities any other way. The contempt for everyone in that. Our disgust is a wholesale rejection of our being.

This age is incredibly eugenic because the rapist types are usually sterile/frigid/impotent, pick a term, the kids don’t breed/are aborted or the woman is on the Pill. This is the most eugenic time period in living memory, and in all of human history. It’s a cleansing. Trust Malthus to take out the trash that appears successful in false conditions (socialism). Liberals aren’t even breeding, smart ones!

He’ll never ever talk about that. He would drag his raw balls over broken glass first.

Women would get a say, but more the parents. It wasn’t just the father. Brothers might take the father’s place, say, for a fight, but the mother held sway over the brothers. Experience and blood connection counted.

Mother Nature is a eugenicist. It’s about quality and survival.

Human genocide and rape after war aren’t accounted for either, despite occurring in chimps so he does know, I can assure you. Plenty of men are poor quality, stop stroking their cock Peterson. We aren’t “meant to” evolve for anything, ask JF, a biologist. It’s such a romantic view? What a strawman. Courtly love is recent you dumb fuck? Like I could disprove that with wikipedia, it’s mostly a French thing too, what, did nobody else evolve? Was the memo to the whole species written in Frog?

The sneaky fucker thing is rape because they have to present themselves dishonestly, knowing their poor quality. They want to force acceptance. You’ll always have the stupid ones as exception thinking it’s about body language or some shit like “alpha dominance” *cough* but even they know to hide, it’s instinct and hardly a social thing, they would sneak into the tribe once the real men were away hunting and the females were vulnerable. They rarely interacted with the men. They’d also be deadbeats after any rape, classic r-type. A male just wanting sex and no investment is not viable, in society, to society, to women or in biology.

This is painful to watch.

Mammals are different. Harlow’s monkeys?

Taking a real thing, interesting and twisting it into shit. It’s like modern art with science. I hope you’re not paying this man.

Of course heroes exist but they hardly bred more than average, Genghis Khan was a rapist. This is known. The shitty males weren’t romancing themselves with stories, what are you on, Jordan? What are you smoking?

We tell stories about bad people far more than good ones. Fairy tales? Old ones?

Beta male has three meanings

  1. shit internet one, means nothing. Used here.
  2. Evobio, deference but not sexual, social with sometimes sexual outcomes, it’s seen in the military and chosen, earned. Royalty’s ancestors were at some point battle victors.
  3. Sexual attractiveness, subpar but chosen nonetheless. This is sometimes used to refer to parents, a little inaccurately. Evolutionally, breeders win. All parents are in the running for alpha but it’s based on quality. Beta bux is not true, as I’ve linked to studies before. Parental Investment shows that doting fathers have better odds than the sneaky fuckers who call themselves alpha but are truly deadbeats. You could relate it to masculinity but it isn’t bravado or aggression, those are low class status signals to get attention. Masculinity has always been the Patriarch, the father figure who stays and is a good man. Greece fell because Zeus fucked around, pagans are scrubbers.

Male feminists (SJWs) have many issues, I cannot list them all here.

They hate themselves, it needn’t be about the women, that’s why they often wanna become women. Trying to gain trust based on lies is the act of a sexual predator, which most douchebags viewing this would call alpha “game” (the game is lying) because they believe all the tropes about cavemen in cartoons, when rapists were brained with a rock (yes, I agree, let’s do that again). You are not smarter than them larping Johnny Bravo. Did anyone respect him?

Video: Trial by sex

Like divorce is new.

The Victorian emphasis on female frigidity (aside from being an excuse to outsource orgasms to competent machines) was actually more of an over-reaction to the common claim of male impotence.

Female frigidity really doesn’t mean much in a society that doesn’t value the female orgasm, Victorian men had a love/hate relationship with anything that connected their wife to their faking-it mistress. At least, it isn’t necessary for conception. Historically, it’s meaningless.

This has yet to appear in a Game of Thrones episode but it should.

Jordan Peterson: “Sex is dangerous”

There are people who don’t know this?

Have you read any history books, ever?

Where did syphilis come from, huh?

The original position of misogyny is that women carry disease.
Women are evil for making us lust (dude, look away).
Now we know it’s quite the reverse, women are more exposed to male vectors.
Women suffer higher infertility and more reproductive cancers than men.
However, men still need high awareness of the risk, a very real, fatal risk.

Here’s a law, which I’m gonna call Scholar’s Law:

If you assume the opposite of any typical Boomer position, it is likely to be correct.

e.g.

Technically, sex should classify as the most extreme sport, if we are foolish enough to consider it as exercise at all!

The Spanish Flu pandemic was also caused by soldiers. Slutty, slutty soldiers. I’m sure the weakened immune systems didn’t allow their vaccines to mutate….

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-swine-flu-vaccine-1976-casts-a-giant-shadow-5788

They cared more for their boots keeping clean than their penis.