Mixed race divorce and domestic abuse

I’m back. I decided to qualify the end of the last post. For shiggles.
Yes, there is data. I’m cracking down hard on the weebs.

“Marital Dissolution Among Inter-racial Couples”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183451/

“Increases in interracial marriage have been interpreted as reflecting reduced social distance among racial and ethnic groups, but little is known about the stability of interracial marriages. Using six panels of Survey of Income and Program Participation (N = 23,139 married couples), we found that interracial marriages are less stable than endogamous marriages, but these findings did not hold up consistently. After controlling for couple characteristics, the risk of divorce or separation among interracial couples was similar to the more-divorce-prone origin group. Although marital dissolution was found to be strongly associated with race/ethnicity, the results failed to provide evidence that interracial marriage is associated with an elevated risk of marital dissolution.”

This is like saying cars don’t kill people, brakes do.

“As the U.S. population has grown increasingly diverse, it is important to update prior research to include interracial marriages involving Asians and Hispanics, especially given that they are more likely to intermarry (with non-Hispanic Whites) than are Blacks”

so if you’re so concerned about race, screeching at the weebs is your duty. Mudsharks already hate themselves. Asiaphiles are oddly proud of it.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asiaphile
“The term applies to a non-Asian person particularly a white man who has yellow fever. Thinks all Asian chicks are hot, usually can’t tell the difference between a homely and a cute one just as long as she is Asian.”

I’ve posted about that before. Dick-blind.

It’s the baby prostitute of Mean Girls fame!

Thousands of years of evolution down the drain. Bet his WW2-fighting grandparents would be proud.

“In their study of multiracial identification among those with Black, Asian, or Hispanic backgrounds, Lee and Bean (2007) found that those with Black backgrounds more consistently identified as Black and not multiracial (similar to the “one-drop” rule as applied in the past), whereas those with Hispanic and, especially, Asian backgrounds exhibited more flexibility and choice in racial/ethnic identification and were more likely to identify as multiracial. Lee and Bean (2007) concluded that these patterns illustrated the salience of the color line that continues to divide Blacks from non-Blacks in U.S. society.”

So the existential risk to team white is team yellow.
If you’re being scientific.

“The homogamy perspective predicts that interracial marriages will be less stable than same-race marriages. Thus, Black-White marriages are expected to be more likely to divorce than either Black or White endogamous marriages; similarly, Asian-White marriages are expected to be more likely to divorce than either Asian or White endogamous marriages. The homogamy perspective further leads to the expectation that the stronger the racial boundary of the two groups represented in the couple, the greater the risk of divorce. Thus, Black-White marriages are expected to be at greater risk of divorce than Hispanic-White or Asian-White marriages.”

Although there is a speculated convergence (I’d guess once you control for class/money) that is similar to mixed race IQ being the mean of both sub-par parents (and so dragged lower).

“For example, he found that Chinese-White couple divorce rates fell somewhere in between divorce rates of Chinese and White endogamous marriages.”
“Similarly, Hispanic-White and Asian-White marriages would be expected to be more likely to dissolve than Hispanic or Asian endogamous marriages but less likely than White endogamous marriages”

But that hypothesis isn’t what actually happens and it’d be a more dramatic shift if you removed the religious couples from consideration, only counting those who could be allowed to divorce.

Atheists are more likely to divorce overall, but it’s hard to find studies.
Are they more likely to race mix? Probably.

OT

“Therefore, according to the ethnic convergence hypothesis, immigrant-native marriages would be expected to have divorce risks that fall between those of immigrant-immigrant marriages and native-native marriages. Also, if Hispanic and Asian interracial marriages are less likely to divorce, this could be because so many of these marriages involve immigrants. After controlling for immigration characteristics, the effects of interracial marriage should diminish for these couples”

Another thing to control, desperation to retain citizenship.

“To assess the homogamy and ethnic convergence hypotheses, it is important to control for correlated factors. Individual-level socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are associated with interracial marriage and are important predictors of divorce.”

Gold diggers gonna dig.

“Finally, while having young child(ren) has been shown to increase marital stability, this effect often decreased as the child(ren) grew older (Cherlin, 1977).”

Babies won’t protect you (actually they stress a marriage, especially if had too soon).

“In addition to the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals, it is critical to control for couple-level characteristics.”

Dare you to count 10-score sexual attractiveness compared to their in-group.

That would burn.

“The homogamy perspective stresses that partner differences in any socially significant characteristics—not just race—may increase the risk of divorce, and spouses in interracial couples may differ on multiple characteristics. For example, Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan (1990) found that the age gap was larger for interracially married couples than other couples. Partners in interracial couples may also differ with respect to nativity and citizenship. Interracial marriages between immigrants and U.S.-born natives may be at greater risk of divorce because of partner differences in their reasons for entering the relationship.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Prostitution is a reason.

Kalmijn et al. (2005) found that larger cultural differences between the husband and wife increased the risk of divorce.

Breaking news: water, wet.

In addition, marriage to U.S. citizens may serve as a legal means to immigrate for many foreigners.

For that reason, no, it isn’t legal, and the other spouse has also broken the law by using that to gain power too. Technically the marriage wouldn’t count, since it was conditional as duress to defraud their nation (so also treason).

Such marriages may be motivated by the desire to obtain U.S. citizenship rather than love or companionship, as evidenced in many cases in France (Neyrand & M’Sili, 1998) and the Netherlands (Kalmijn et al., 2005).”

I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digger.. but she reaching for that green card n—er.

“Finally, group-level characteristics, such as marriage cohort, region of residence, religion, and women’s changing status, may be associated with divorce or separation (Trent & South, 1989). For example, interracial marriage has been more prevalent in the West than other parts of the country (Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1990), and marital instability has been more common in the West than other regions, although this relationship has varied by race (Sweeney & Phillips, 2004) and has weakened over the years (Castro Martin & Bumpass, 1989).”

Because less get married in the first place!

The majority (93.5%) of the couples in our sample were endogamous, including 77.4% White-White, 6.4% Black-Black, 7% Hispanic-Hispanic, and 2.7% Asian-Asian couples. The remaining 6.5% of couples were interracially married (including 1% White-Black, 3.5% White-Hispanic, and 1.4% White-Asian pairings, as well as 0.6% of all types of minority-minority marriages combined).

There are far more total Asian-White couples than White-Black, if you’re going to criticize anyone.

1% mulatto vs. 4.9% genetic Asian admixture. Who’s the, ahem, “race traitor?”

Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Qian, 1997), there are distinct racial/ethnic differences in being in an interracial marriage (results not shown). Blacks are substantially less likely than Hispanics or Asians to have a White spouse (10.1% vs. 23.5% and 24.6%, respectively).”

Africans aren’t stealing da white wimmin.

Statistically. This isn’t the 19th century. Your assumptions are outdated.

Over one third of interracial couples (34.5%) involved a foreign-born person married to a U.S. native compared with just 4.2% of endogamous couples.”

Yeah. She a gold digger.
Isn’t that slave ownership?

Most slaves are sex slaves.
Made obvious in the final study here. What happens when a slave gets out of line?

“Consistent with the first homogamy hypothesis, interracial marriages are less stable: 13.7% of interracial couples compared with 9.9% of endogamous couples broke up during their SIPP panel.”

Duh.

“The descriptive results also confirm the second homogamy hypothesis in which mixed-race couples involving the most socially distant groups (e.g., Blacks and Whites) were most likely to break up: nearly 20% of Black-White couples divorced or separated compared with 13.5% of Hispanic-White couples and 8.4% of Asian-White couples.”

Hispanics are genetic Asian, that data is rigged.

Total Asian-White divorce should be 10.95%.

They should also break down by sex, so Asian Male, White Female or White Male, Asian Female for specific divorce risk per individual by demo.
If they controlled for IQ distance between the couples, that’d explain most of the divorce. Hard to steer a marriage when one party is pedaling backwards.

“For Asians, however, the results were consistent with the ethnic convergence hypothesis”

No you tortured the statistics into excluding most of the Asian population in America.
Shell games don’t impress me.

“Roughly 8.3% of Asian-White couples separated or divorced, a level that falls between the relatively high rates for White couples and the relatively low rates among Asian couples (1.4%).”

You said 8.4 earlier.

8.4/1.4 = 6x (times) the average intra-racial Asian divorce risk thanks to Asian-European miscegenation?
And they think that’s a good finding. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining Zhang.

So this isn’t even good for the Asians with white fever. Since they’re marrying the dregs. They can’t even say it’s better for waifu.

“This may be a consequence of potential problems facing interracial couples including stress, social disapproval, and cultural differences. Furthermore, interracial couples differ from endogamous couples in important ways that may elevate the risk of divorce (such as greater age and education differences between spouses). To test this idea, we turn next to the multivariate hazards models.”

Nothing about racism and the urge to control, how weird.

Almost like they’re encouraging mixing whatever the cost.

“In general, younger age of first marriage, age and educational differences among the spouses (particularly when the husband is more than two years younger or less educated than the wife); lower levels of education (less than college); lower income; and having no or fewer young children were significantly associated with marital instability.”

So lower quality individuals choose to mix.
Groundbreaking.
Stupidity, poverty, atheist fertility predict their divorce (and decision to have wed in the first place).

“Interracial couples tend to have higher incomes and older ages at marriage (both of which are associated with lower rates of dissolution), so these characteristics cannot explain their higher levels of divorce or separation.”

I smell bullshit.
If they wed, bed and divorce like idiots…
could they be idiots? Why u no publish IQ data?

“Although, mixed marriages are also more likely to involve larger differences in age and education between spouses (consistent with the first homogamy hypothesis), which could partially explain their higher risks of marital dissolution.”

There we go.
Backpedal central.

Almost like marrying a virtual child (age gap) is unpleasant, too.

“Unexpectedly, however, the addition of controls for nativity/citizenship status did not alter the hazard ratio associated with interracial marriage.”

Huh.

“Thus far, the results support the first homogamy hypothesis, though the support was rather weak.”

Despite your best efforts to obscure it? Sure Zhang.

Interracial marriage was positively associated with marital dissolution net of couple characteristics, but this relationship was only marginally significant (p < .10).”

Still science.

“We presented the hazard ratios for race/ethnicity only, although the full models are available to interested readers upon request.”

What cover-up?

For a laugh:


All four hazard models.

“Nevertheless, the results were consistent with the second homogamy hypothesis in that the risk of marital dissolution was highest among Black-White couples, followed by Hispanic-White, minority-minority couples, and finally, Asian-White couples.”

Kek.

“Among Asians, the hazard of divorce or separation for interracial couples fell between that of Asian and White endogamous couples but the difference from White couples was not significant, thus failing to fully support Hypothesis 4. We had also hypothesized that nativity and citizenship between spouses of Hispanic and Asian interracial couples may help explain their higher risks of marital dissolution (Hypothesis 5). This idea was not fully supported because interracial marriages involving Hispanics or Asians did not experience elevated hazards of dissolution (so there were no significant differences to explain). Nevertheless, nativity and citizenship did help explain the relatively low risks of instability among Hispanic and Asian endogamous couples. When we added controls for nativity and citizenship in Model 4, the hazards for Hispanic and Asian endogamous couples increased, thereby narrowing the difference from both White couples and interracial couples. In fact, the difference between Hispanic-White and Hispanic-Hispanic couples became insignificant after controlling for citizenship and nativity in Model 4”

In short, when Trump lets the waifus out and relieves them of their fraudulent green cards, expect a lot of divorce.
MAGA.

Then again… there are other kinks to iron out.

“Among Hispanic-White couples, Hispanic husband-White wife were no more likely to dissolve than White or Hispanic endogamous couples.”

You see why religion must be controlled for.

“The contribution of this study is that it examines the instability of interracial marriage among Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in contemporary American society, an era marked by increasing diversity and increasing prevalence of interracial marriage. Overall, although marital dissolution was found to be strongly associated with race/ethnicity, the results failed to provide evidence that interracial marriage per se is associated with an elevated risk of marital dissolution. “

No, you failed to provide evidence. You.
Shit methodology, son.

Our results do show that, on the whole, interracial marriages are less stable than endogamous marriages, even after controlling for couple characteristics.”

Uhuh.

“When we divided the results by race/ethnicity, the results were only partially consistent with the homogamy perspective.”

Despite your best efforts to minimize, consistent.
They should also study second-generation race-mixing, since the mixed tend only to reproduce with one another.

“Rather, the most consistent result was that the risks of divorce for interracial couples for all combinations (Black-White, Hispanic-White, and Asian-White) were not significantly different from those of the higher-risk origin group.”

That’s still divorce. More divorce. Quit trying to spin it.

“Even after pooling six SIPP panels together, the number of interracial couples was small, which may have contributed to the insignificant findings.”

True.

They are very abnormal, Hollywood lies.

“In our study, the effects of certain racial/ethnic combinations were similar for both men and women once controls were introduced into the models (e.g., among Asians and Hispanics).”

Appealing to “alpha” won’t work on this one.

Now for another paper I’m sure cannot be biased by one “Choi”…

Race mixing and re-marriage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300087/

Plot twist: The modern mudshark is a statistically divorced man remarrying Asian.

I wonder why they never mention this.

“The two most frequently crossed boundaries – those involving White-Asian and White-Hispanic couples – are more permeable in remarriages than in first marriages. Boundaries that are crossed with less frequency – those between minority groups and the White-Black boundary-are less permeable in remarriages than in first marriages. Collectively, these findings suggest that racial and ethnic sorting processes in remarriage may reify existing social distances between pan-ethnic groups. Racial and ethnic variations in how the relative permeability of boundary changes between first and higher-order marriages underscore the importance of considering a broad array of interracial pairings when assessing the ways in which changes in family structure and marital sorting behavior promote integration.”

Promote integration…

From the male (decision) side:

So white men are the race traitors.
Interesting.

White genocide, blame Yellow Fever.

Statistically.

“Tabular results also reveal that for Hispanic and Asian women, intermarriage rates are higher in remarriages than in first marriages. One-third of Asian women wed non-Asian men in their first marriage, but over half did so in remarriage”

Because they couldn’t get a white woman (again).

Hit that Wall hard, huh? Study adiposity, come on.

And it’s obvious white fever in the Asian’s case, a third!

It isn’t the race-mixing white women.
“Eight percent of White women cross ethno-racial boundaries in first marriage, as compared with 6 percent of White women who remarry.”
They seem to learn their lesson.

Table 4 shows the college brainwashing.
They definitely won’t spy on you.
“better-educated women are more likely than their educationally disadvantaged counterparts to cross racial and ethnic boundaries in marriage”
The women are brainwashed too. But it’s also seeking IQ parity, upper-class women typically went to college to find husbands, so more studies are needed and more white men allowed in the Western universities that are their birthright.

“It is conceivable that White-Hispanic and White-Asian marriages likely become even more common in remarriage when third party controls weaken following the dissolution of a first union

They ignore their family’s wishes, bad sons should be disinherited.

and previously married individuals face experience limited availability of co-ethnic potential partners (Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013).”

LOL

Can’t get a white woman!

Right there! Ouch.

“Other scholarship claims that cultural dissimilarities between spouses increase marital conflict and instability by reducing the basis for spousal consensus and mutual understanding between spouses (Hohmann-Marriott and Amato, 2008; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013; Zhang and Van Hook, 2009).

resentment

Presumably, couples that exit minority-only interracial marriages avoid similar unions in remarriage, preferring instead to form remarry endogamously, to wed a White partner the next time around, or forego marriage entirely.”

Using white people, again. So the white people are also getting dregs in the arrangement.
It’s like the marital equivalent of busing kids in to improve test scores.

“Descriptive tabulations show that one-in-three women who remarried wed never-married husbands, but only one-in-ten first time brides wed previously married men.”

Yeah if he failed as a husband once, why bet on a lame horse?
He didn’t keep his vows the first time. What a catch! (Throw it back!)

“These analyses, which indicate whether in couples’ mixed marital experiences biased the estimates of boundary crossing in first and subsequent marriages, reaffirm the reported results.”

So in many mixed re-marriages, the previously married party is the dregs of their group.

“base the analyses on recent unions” K.

“Partly this resulted because many large government surveys, such as the decennial census, stopped collecting information about marital order.”

Because it makes men look bad.

“In the context of rising intermarriage and remarriage rates, our study underscores the importance of disaggregating marriage order to clarify whether, in what ways, and for which groups changes in coupling behavior promote integration. Collecting data that permits these distinctions is necessary to avoid conflating potentially divergent intermarriage trends in first and higher order unions, some of which are driven by racial and ethnic differences in divorce rates.”

Oh, they know.
Most starter marriages are male-led affairs, they think (wrongly, QED) they can always trade up later (not to be entered into lightly….) and abandoning wife #1 has no social consequences.
So re-marrying men are largely to blame for the huge divorce rates. Good to know.

This explains why they rarely make it male-led data.

“This pattern, which is consistent with past findings, suggests that low barriers to social interaction across racial and ethnic groups when coupled with suboptimal marriage market conditions and weakened third party control can facilitate interracial remarriages for these groups (Aguirre et al., 1995; Fu, 2010; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013).”

Random re-marriage should be illegal, it’s like flunking a driving test but serious. A society that lets adults (who should be mature enough to commit) re-marry capriciously like infinite respawns is condemning the culture, religion, spouses and children to the misery of an insecure life. What a betrayal.

They bitch about masculinity, when comes the manning-up? Men were respected when they stuck out their duties. Don’t take it on if you don’t mean it.

“Prior studies suggest that cultural dissimilarities between partners diminish grounds for spousal consensus, leading to conflictive, unstable marriages at high risk of dissolution (Hohmann-Marriott and Amato, 2008). In remarriage, previously married men and women from mixed-race unions may revise their mate criteria to avoid similar forms of partner incompatibility (Dean and Gurak, 1978).”

Except stupid white guys with yellow fever.
I wonder if they’re more likely porn addicts. That would be an entertaining study.

“Stated differently, intermarriage studies restricted to White-Black couples render an incomplete portrayal of mate selection behavior in the context of an ever more diverse society.”

They may not be getting married but they’re having more children than the white guys with Yellow Fever. It’s typical atheist sub-fertility so given the standard, limited dating patterns their grand-kids will be a quarter black.

“In similar fashion, although prior work shows that characteristics of spouses interact in shaping mate selection behavior (Fu, 2010), our data do not permit consideration of the joint distribution of spouses’ characteristics. We report analyses based on intermarriage patterns pegged to wives’ characteristics; however, auxiliary analyses based on husbands’ attributes yielded similar conclusions.”

Since the male proposes, it should be male-led data.
Look for r-selection traits and that’ll resolve most of it.

“How the mate selection behavior of widowed and divorced individuals is largely uncharted and certainly warrants investigation.”

Women are more likely to be widowed, men divorced, that’s why they don’t look for it – it makes the men look heartless.

“marriage confers legal rights and obligations, many of which are not extended to cohabiting couples (child support is a notable exception)”

It shouldn’t be, don’t have kids with someone you haven’t married first, or at least don’t expect the authority of a husband over a woman you didn’t yoke yourself to. If a man wants “his” kids so much, he should be taking primary care of them – not fobbing them off on a foreign nanny like some high-powered executive (daycare is abusive). The low IQ nanny normalization may be responsible for divorced children’s lower IQs.

“Specifically, racial and ethnic profile of former cohabiting partners are seldom recorded in US data suitable for analyzing inter-racial coupling behavior (e.g., ACS, Census, NSFG).”

coincidence

“The exclusion of interracial cohabitation will understate the extent to which couples cross ethnic and racial boundaries in forming co-residential interracial unions given that interracial unions are more likely than same-race unions to start and remain as a cohabitation (Kreider, 2000; Rodriguez-Garcia, 2015).”

Study separation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3315595/

The variable nobody wants to discuss.

“Despite the growing number of interethnic marriages in the U.S., few studies have examined intimate partner violence (IPV) in interethnic couples. This article examined past-year occurrences of IPV across interethnic and intra-ethnic couples and tested correlates of IPV specifically in interethnic couples. Data were from a national survey of couples 18 years of age and older from the 48 contiguous states. Interethnic couples (n = 116) included partners from different ethnic backgrounds, including black-white, Hispanic-white, and black-Hispanic couples. White (n = 555), black (n = 358), and Hispanic (n = 527) intra-ethnic couples included partners with the same ethnicity. Data analyses were prevalence rates and logistic regressions. The analyses showed that interethnic couples were comparatively younger and had shorter relationships than intra-ethnic white, black, and Hispanic couples.

Male partners in interethnic couples had higher rates of binge drinking and alcohol problems compared to male partners in intra-ethnic couples.

So much for happy mixing. Stock photos lied to me?

Still no mention of racism, so a white male hitting a non-white is okay if you’re married to them? Surely it’s more racist to treat them like breeding sows and sexual concubines.

Past year prevalence rates for any occurrence of IPV and acts of severe IPV were higher for interethnic couples relative to intra-ethnic couples.

Why isn’t this mentioned in Sex Ed?

Most occurrences of IPV for interethnic couples were mutual.

Obedient waifu trope is a myth.

Factors predicting IPV among interethnic couples included marital status, couples’ age, male alcohol problems, and female impulsivity.

Mounting evidence points to interethnic couples as a high risk group for IPV.

Why aren’t there PSAs?

Interethnic couples may be at greater risk for IPV because of their younger age, binge drinking and alcohol problems.

You can’t blame the drink. They drink to have an excuse.

Future research could build on this study by examining cohort effects and regional differences in IPV for interethnic couples, and the risk for IPV across interethnic couples of different ethnic compositions.”

Note: no (non-Hispanic) Asian-White data in this one tested. Hmm.

However, found this:

“Fusco (2010) used county police reports to examine interethnic and intra-ethnic couple differences in IPV for a more diverse community sample of whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Interethnic couples were more likely than intra-ethnic minority and white couples to have a prior history of IPV and to experience mutual IPV in which both partners were determined by police to be equally involved in perpetrating violence.

No world for submissive waifu.

I guess that’s what happens when you marry someone with higher T than yourself (those manjaws).

White women don’t look like such bitches now, huh?

Victims of IPV in interethnic couples were also at greater risk of being injured during the violence when compared to intra-ethnic couples.

Wages of sin?

Logically, you wouldn’t hold back with the out-group. It’s unconscious.

Diversity + Proximity = Domestic violence, in this case.

This may suggest that interethnic couples engage in more severe acts of partner violence relative to intra-ethnic couples, although Fusco (2010) did not specifically examine partner violence severity.

Wonder why.

So the white guys really do hate their waifu, deep down.
And the Asian woman does hit back (unlike whites).
Why don’t the MRAs ever mention this? Their mutual violence trope is racial, not sexual!

“Couples that included Asian partners or partners from ‘other’ ethnicities (n = 43) were also excluded due to their small sample size in the dataset.”

convenient, considering

For example, white-Asian marriages make up a large percentage of interethnic marriages (Hattery, 2009), but we were not able to include them in this study due to the small number of Asians surveyed.”

I smell bullshit. So they abuse one another but they don’t talk. To save face.

Enough for now. I’ve proven my point.

What happens to teenage rape victims?

Another reason forced marriage in a society or “child brides” are barbaric.

Plus a side track on promiscuity, statist preventable disease enabling and STD gene evolution.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X04002575

“Results
The lifetime prevalence of forced sex for females and males was 10.2% and 5.1%, respectively.

I’m disgusted by that alone.

What a “revolution”.

Feed the entitlement of (serial*) rapists.

For the overall sample, feeling sad/hopeless(odds ratio [OR] 1.9), having considered (OR 2.1) or attempted (OR 1.4) suicide, being a victim of physical dating violence (OR 2.8) heavy cigarette use (OR 1.4), binge drinking (OR 0.7), having multiple recent sexual partners (OR 8.3) and unprotected sex (OR 1.7) were correlated with a history of forced sex. Among females, associations were found among sad/hopeless feelings (OR 1.6), having considered suicide(OR 2.2), fighting (OR 1.3), physical dating violence (OR 2.1) heavy cigarette use (OR 1.8), multiple sexual partners (OR 9.3) , alcohol/or drug use before sex (OR 1.6) and unprotected sex (OR 1.5). Among males, associations were found among sad/hopeless feelings (OR 1.8), attempted suicide (OR 1.9), gun carrying (OR 1.8), physical dating violence (OR 4.3), multiple sexual partners (OR 7.8), unprotected sex (OR 1.9), and other ethnicity (OR 3.3).

Conclusions
Although a history of forced sexual intercourse affects a small number of adolescents,

10% of girls isn’t small….

1 in 20 boys neither?

it is an important public health issue. The psychological and behavioral correlates of forced sexuality

Flashback to all the statist propaganda of Sex Ed.

If we adults can’t be trusted with guns or sugary drinks because they enable bad behaviour, what about practically Tantric marital sex guides given to single, horny teenagers, along with condoms and pills?

Is that not encouraging anti-social behaviour?

The emphasis on “safe” sex is denying the legitimacy of celibacy. It assumes everyone is a slut. They can get that information online anyway. Innocence is illegal because explicit, brain-altering pornography is freely available (no credit card wall to safeguard from child access).
A single person shouldn’t be sleeping around, the touted health benefits of sex are statistically non-existent (compared to real exercise, comparing anything to a couch potato would be a benefit, that’s just bad science) and psychologically they’d be better off handling matters themselves if physically desperate than endangering everything from their marriage prospects to their mental health to their future cancer death risk.

Then there’s the rape allegation from sexual coercion, which is legally valid. How many teenagers are taught that instead of an ugly form of physical entitlement a la Brave New World?

Sex is the adult marker. Yes, it is serious and should be taken deadly seriously. The fallout of a sex life can get you killed (crime of passion is a legal defence in France).
Parents shouldn’t allow sexually active children to live with them anymore. It’s abnormal and contributes to this culture of infantile adults, with all the endorphin-producers and none of the struggle to get them. They regress and functionally retard themselves because those rewards signal the brain that it needn’t develop further, having earned the reproduction status in the tribe (and virgin genuises like Newton never really stopped growing intellectually, along with other comparable groups like monks). Children with early sexuality never catch up mentally either, for this reason. The window of opportunity is lost, it’s like trying to feed plant nutrients into a fruit that’s already been plucked. Future generations will look back in horror that we force-feed ducks to make liver paste but how much more that we encourage the most depraved degeneracy in the most vulnerable – children, which stunts their life, by outcomes? And an addiction, as freeing them?
If you’re mature enough to make babies (that’s what it is) then you have no right to intrude on your own parents. Traditional societies held this rite of passage important. Men who brag about losing their virginity aren’t taught to value purity of the body and psychological pair bonds, they’re kept ignorant of these (by vindictive sluts who want to convert others to misery) and consider themselves men for performing like prostitutes (white men, how far ye have fallen) for a near-stranger who doesn’t love them enough to give them children for it (the test of female loyalty is the investment of fertility). It’s empty. They think they’re proving how they’re independent but they still exist on their parent’s health insurance or under their father’s roof, it’s objectively pathetic. I’m surprised the Boomers didn’t give them a trophy. The Manwhore Medal.
Congratulations, you’ll make an inferior husband with every notch! – Just like the divorcing Boomers.
It is not “fun”, not sport, not exercise, not “good for you”, there is no upside to promiscuity. Scientifically, legally, it’s a con. It’s a self-numbing, self-soothing habit (which unlike masturbation, promotes disease**) that makes strangers have trouble connecting or ruin their pair bonding for the eventual marriage they, again, feel entitled to.

But won’t actually get (quality or bust).

Where did all the good women go? You made them notches. The rest of the world is laughing at America bitching about the consequence of their own causes. You want a culture of sluts, now you have shit marriages. You made your bed. America was the Patient Zero of how to fuck up an amazing civilization with degeneracy in modernity (and yes while planned you went along with it for gibs). You’ve done everything wrong but refuse to reverse it, whining that The Government should “fix it” with further incursions on responsible people’s freedoms when it’s individualism that caused it and…aren’t these guys libertarians? Highlights include bitching about abortion but wanting to keep it legal in cases of premarital consenting sex and bitching about disease rates but refusing to use condoms like a grown-up.

Are you men or not? Either you’re held responsible for your actions or not.

A basic fact that’s been known for ages:

Anyone terrified by being a parent isn’t mature enough to be having sex. If the thought of being a mother or father disgusts you, you shouldn’t be using those parts like Lego bricks (the ones that don’t un-stick) because you can’t un-make a baby.

How often does it mention that? At least, not to do anything downstairs with the opposite sex because… babies happen. They can’t act shocked when the process of baby-making produces one. That is normal.

How much of an idiot do you have to be, to deposit living sperm into or close to (anal) a vagina, and be surprised when a baby comes out nine months later? If you never want kids and you don’t get the snip first, age 18, you deserve to be laughed at. Women can’t get done age 18 but men can get it easily. It’s like something out of Idiocracy to act like your fertility is a surprise, that was a main joke at the opening of the film. You can show them all the pictures but they assume their lust can temporarily suspend the laws of biology. And they treat pregnancy as a disease, like the late-term abortion monsters. (You consented to make it, that’s all sex is, sex is not an orgasm, nobody is stopping you from having those, it even happens in sleep for both sexes. I would add that the cultural focus on orgasms is intended to weaken bonds with pressure and tire people though, it isn’t the purpose and shouldn’t be a focus if you care about health.)

Expecting infertility is abnormal. Really creepy, if you think about it.
A union of death.

Sex Ed doesn’t educate at all, it misinforms.

suggest that these youth have been harmed

really?

the overt pedos saying about raping menstruating little girls are abusive?

wow, shook

and may further place themselves in harm’s way.

Self-destruction, common reaction to abuse.

People are not sex toys or ego pacifiers, whatever Sex Ed has “taught” you.

Intimacy means a lot to people who aren’t psychologically broken. It’s serious. Only a psychopath sees people as toys.

Furthermore, the profiles of adolescent females and males who report such experiences are distinct in ways that warrant their independent examination and attention.”

Different biology, different trauma. Female virginity is more complex of course, involving fertility as the carrier sex and there’s the high risk of physical permanent damage including scarring. Given that fact, the female is historically considered worse (protect the baby-carrying sex is a survival instinct, female fertility or available brides are a vital resource of a race) but men and boys merit individual study as a sex that tries to reduce their numbers (abused) and improve their life outcomes too, while acknowledging sex differences without shame. A cultural change is needed there.

No sex without (full) consent, as this shows, that’s just rape.
It ruins lives.
Strangely, it also increases race-mixing. Stress dampens the typical aversion? Or it seems riskier? This would apply to any racial dynamics, remember, so a black girl would become more likely to sleep with a Mexican, for example.

This is a major factor in suicide, unspoken.

Slutty men and women are far more likely to be acting out their abuse in a way they feel they control.

https://psychologydictionary.org/repetition-compulsion/

It is informally known as “acting out” but instead of relieving themselves of the pain, it’s a temporary purge that brings on feelings of shame and isolation, which they’re often told means they must sleep around more. By the Sex Ed groomers.

Sex is not a suitable anti-depressant. If you must, just masturbate (needing porn is a form of impotence). There’s higher esteem and satisfaction where studied anyway, don’t expect the groomers to tell you that (otherwise how could they rape their students?) … they want to convert people to their miserable lifestyle.

Emotional distance is not normal in men, nor stoicism (philosophical stoics are very close to people) but it’s a fear of emotional intimacy, especially with the demographic of their attacker/s.

*Their libido doesn’t disappear after one attack.

**The MRAs going on about male cancer studies don’t want to research how bad the habit of promiscuity is for the health of a male body because they might have their feelings hurt. They might be judged or questioned (death before triggering?)… There’s a link between anal “sex” and various cancers, for example. Fuck like a gay man, get the same disease risk profile of one. They hardly research it (fine, die?) but penile cancers etc all rise because of fecal bacteria (you know they refuse condoms, just like a homo).

And they’re the reason syphilis is back (men are the major carrier). Hope you like your dick dropping off because you’re too manly to protect it (valid Q: who would know you use condoms unless you tell them and have you seen how many male porn stars get HIV?). Antibiotics are failing on various STDs because the Government gives them all the antibiotics they want without telling them to be less of a slut in future and, being stupid, they use them wrong – directly causing resistance. 

The State shouldn’t hand them out again because hey, you can’t be trusted to use them properly and take measures to avoid infection, so eventually they will fail because of your behaviour.

Another cause of resistance is that they often have multiple STDs (and don’t tell the other party beforehand, which is rape), that swap genes. Still the State refuses to quit enabling the walking public disease cases. The rest of us suffer.

The STDs are preferentially evolving within the male system because nobody is telling the manwhores to stop. The rest of us don’t want to die on the operating table for a large garden splinter age 44.

They grow where irresponsibility lives.

Proof:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180627160523.htm
“The analysis revealed that 9 percent of gonococcal genes showed increased expression exclusively in men and included genes involved in host immune cell interactions.”
The female expression was half that. Tell the manwhores to stop (and the slutty women obviously) or the drugs will become smothered and ineffective in the human immune system (i.e. of all of us).

The “I’m not harming anyone” libertarian argument is bullshit! We have genome data!

It’s evolving around your stupidity. To kill the species.

(By infertility or direct mortality does not matter).

Statistically?

America doesn’t need a baby boom either, you need the contraction that’s happening because few of you can get married, can afford children and raise them properly plus the Baby Boomer generation was a fluke of history (and world war dead), repeating it will constrict your society and cause more Boom problems. More people, less prosperity (see India). Picture overflowing sewers. You need to be K-selected and focus on quality while reducing foreign (genetic) competition for your domestic tax base resources (your birthright). You cannot out-breed the billions of Asia and Africa and South America. America is a small country compared to most of the globe. Thankfully, you don’t have to.

And immigration doesn’t actually help, Magic Dirt doesn’t fix their tendency to over-breed.

The guys going on about the Spartans can’t sit out in the cold overnight once but never talk about the boy rape by “mentors” (it was Ancient Greece), not being able to choose who you marry (class was important) or being forbidden from living with your own wife until age 30 so… we’ll pass on that system. While making men full citizens age 30 is a good idea neurologically, for voting especially, the sexual stuff is creepy. Plus, you’d 100% be drafted. Sparta was a military force, you can’t be a Spartan male in lifestyle and not be drafted. Usually these same guys getting misty-eyed about Brotherhood (military cult dogma) also bitch about the idea they might be drafted as “sexist” – yes, but in a good way. Men evolved to fight. Men are better equipped to defend themselves. Women are needed so the nation doesn’t die biologically (whatever the outcome) and many women don’t reproduce either (social reasons) but men always fought one another as a rite of passage for a wife and few ancient men bred, your odds are better nowadays. Why complain you have an advantage (self-defense) and the state knows about it? Would you rather be a woman, and physically weaker? Are you sure?

(Physically weaker and more likely to be sexually attacked, 10% lifetime rape risk up top, great combo – there’s your ‘hate crime’).

update:

I didn’t know this existed already until I looked but fuck you America.

http://advocatesaz.org/2012/11/20/std-awareness-antibiotic-resistant-syphilis/

HOW DO YOU KEEP GETTING WORSE. HOW.

“and when the disease goes untreated, it can cause severe, possibly fatal, damage to the nervous system.”

Slutty preppers die first.

Triggered degenerate Boomers

Not to be confused with salt of the earth Boomers I hardly ever need to discuss, who aren’t hypocrites and expected their kids to listen when they gave sound health advice.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/11/young-people-drunk-acohol-millenials

Normally when you see this line.

What’s wrong with young people today?

The next sentence better be fucking good.

The Groaniad today continues:

They don’t get drunk any more

WTF.
It’s a new low in moral decay that the elders are trying desperately to corrupt their children.
Alcohol is ridiculous (social media rep), expensive, a stupid (not glamorous) legal dark grey area and an addictive distraction from the important business of networking (which we wouldn’t have to do if you didn’t import competition and switch to offshore training).
We’re told to “protect ourselves”, cannot own a gun or knife or spray in public and given the most common date rape drug is alcohol, why bother?

[see end for that topic]

Nobody wants to be blamed for their own rape or other abuse, especially in this multicultural Hell of rape gangs expressly targeting the white (what hate crime?) and drunk (predators love legal nitpicking). Clubs are losing popularity because women hate hunting grounds. Clubs exist for men and the lowest kind. Pubs more popular than ever, for comparison. Low odds of rape, groping, grinding and (especially Third World) harassment there. Naturally, the club creeps use alcohol as their excuse too. Scientifically false, drunk people can behave impeccably, as you’ll notice the second the police turn up. Other sedatives are not a free pass on assault either.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/placebo-week-getting-drunk-beer-alcohol-expectations-92254

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2634499.stm
“We have made people’s memory worse by telling them that they were intoxicated even though they had nothing stronger than plain flat tonic water with limes,” said co-researcher Maryanne Garry.
So an intake of so-called moderate alcohol wouldn’t be wise either, before someone chimes in.

Think of it as a precautionary legal defense from rapists who take advantage of slow law changes (no major interventions since Queen Victoria’s reign, and on gin) and the crawling consideration of the latest neuroscience. Sugar isn’t cocaine and alcohol doesn’t turn a law-abiding citizen into a rabid rapist, men are not naturally rapists. Nor does it bring that out as an animal instinct, society conditions excuses. You can’t take from a bank drunk and say Muh It Doesn’t Count as robbery, neither can you “take” a human being in rape and victim-blame for the “hate crime” of being white and attractive (note: imagine the pedophiles and other dedicated rapists in response* to that). This is why we need studies, psychology is not common sense. They don’t dare mention where alcohol is consumed (privately, at home) and why (visibly valid concerns about public safety relating to the new low trust society).

It isn’t about women trusting strange men (and why the hell should they? when has that ever been intelligent historically?? and do they trust their fellow random men either?*) it’s that throughout society, there is no trust. Again, why should there be? Burden of Proof. So much rape and abuse isn’t recorded or reported due to political fears of revenge that there are active reasons to distrust, fuck your snowflake feelings on the subject. Why do these broflakes feel entitled to trust they didn’t earn? Normal people (i.e. not manwhores) have lower openness scores. It’s like the funniest red handed moment “how dare you notice I only want one thing and am willing to take it unwillingly, I wanted to rape you if I could get away with it but you hurt my narc feelings, I demand satisfaction”.

Unless you’d prefer women be armed? That would be better.

Predators believe only they are real – their urges, rights etc.
The prey isn’t allowed to plan, complain or have equal HUMAN rights.

*Rapists are as real and sneaky as serial killers, simply different types of predator.

**I bet they don’t let male salesmen into their house, the paranoid sexist pigs. Straight men in gay bars don’t dare get drunk, I rest my case.

Etiquette needs to return, no talking to strangers is basic.

Teen films are fiction, there’s a crime about every five minutes, it’s normalized. Forcing someone to consume alcohol, by coercion or “slipping” covertly, aside from being illegal (directly responsible) if they have any medical issues from it you didn’t know, is poisoning. Then there are the various chemicals in alcohol that are well-known as rape drugs specifically e.g. GHB in wine. Then there’s finally on this point how women are weakened more by alcohol than men so any arguments to “she was with it” ring false from simple sex differences and accurate biology (no woman can handle alcohol, none, it’s a Hollywood myth based on the 30s vamp who’d take one single shot of a hard liquor and stop there).

Why don’t the would-be (totally not definitely never) rapists want people to defend themselves in their company by remaining of lucid consciousness? If they’re so concerned with “false” allegations? Makes you think.

Surely you’d want all women in the club not drinking so when they consent to you, it’s legally kosher. Unless of course, you’re “taking advantage”, and want them insensible, the politest term for rape we have.

And if you only sleep with brain-impaired strangers, don’t you expect allegations?
Why can’t you get your “fun” from sober people?

They try to blame the victim a sneakier way (planning legal defense months before the act itself isn’t odd?) by asking a false dichotomy and presenting a cliche anecdote that acts like the sexes are biologically the same, namely, what if they’re both drunk? The one who physically initiates is the rapist, obviously. Actus reus, look it up, idiots.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actus_reus

They think they’ve got an AHA! moment on the “both drunk” condition but it’s the simpleton logic of pointing to a car pileup after an accident and claiming all of the cars in question caused it. Non sequitur much?

And define drunk? Given sex differences, you’re still stupid.

Back to booze

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-01-alcohol-dna-cancer.html
Alcohol causes permanent DNA damage and while older people may not care, we’re clued-up enough on science to care an awful lot. It may even pass down the germline (epigenetics).
https://newatlas.com/alcohol-cancer-dna-damage-stem-cell/52813/
Why?
Well, since we’ll be working our entire lives (retirement is a temporary fad) then staying working fit is imperative.
comment
“It concerns me how much people over a certain age brag about their alcohol intake like they don’t have a problem.”
Yes, agree, let’s all aspire to be like the alcoholic divorcees!
Definitely not addictive, is it? They can give up any time they like.
They wanted clean living kids, they got them. If they’re so triggered by the fact their children are literally better than them, their narcissism is not our problem.
Opposing the degeneracy when we see the Bacchanalian wages of it, how absolutely awful of us.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/millennials-oppose-carousing/

You’re not James Bond, we can now get those martini ingredients in the average Tesco…. Express.
We don’t want to be a burden on the State if we can possibly help it (we know about elder abuse) and neither should they?

https://drugfree.org/learn/drug-and-alcohol-news/alcohol-most-common-date-rape-drug-law-enforcement-officials-say/
https://efficientgov.com/blog/2018/04/04/what-is-the-most-common-date-rape-drug/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/sep/22/alcohol-date-rape-drug-facilitated-sexual-assault-dfsa
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071020113144.htm

It does count, and anyone who says otherwise is a willing mark in a game of Spot the Rapist. It’s a chemical that impairs the brain from threat recognition and literally weakens the physical ability to resist (fend off). It’s also most common in male rape, regardless of victim age. The law requires adjustments.

Alcohol, DNA mutation and evolution

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/alcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet

Michael Douglas’ cancer was probably caused by alcohol.

All alcohol causes permanent DNA mutation. Over time it builds up.

Researchers have identified multiple ways that alcohol may increase the risk of cancer, including:

Alcoholic beverages may also contain a variety of carcinogenic contaminants that are introduced during fermentation and production, such as nitrosaminesasbestos fibers, phenols, and hydrocarbons.

Is there a racial difference?

You bet.

Can a person’s genes affect their risk of alcohol-related cancers?

A person’s risk of alcohol-related cancers is influenced by their genes, specifically the genes that encode enzymes involved in metabolizing (breaking down) alcohol (13).

For example, one way the body metabolizes alcohol is through the activity of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, or ADH. Many individuals of Chinese, Korean, and especially Japanese descent carry a version of the gene for ADH that codes for a “superactive” form of the enzyme. This superactive ADH enzyme speeds the conversion of alcohol (ethanol) to toxic acetaldehyde. As a result, when people who have the superactive enzyme drink alcohol, acetaldehyde builds up. Among people of Japanese descent, those who have this superactive ADH have a higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those with the more common form of ADH (14).

Another enzyme, called aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2), metabolizes toxic acetaldehyde to non-toxic substances. Some people, particularly those of East Asian descent, carry a variant of the gene for ALDH2 that codes for a defective form of the enzyme. In people who have the defective enzyme, acetaldehyde builds up when they drink alcohol. The accumulation of acetaldehyde has such unpleasant effects (including facial flushing and heart palpitations) that most people who have inherited the ALDH2 variant are unable to consume large amounts of alcohol. Therefore, most people with the defective form of ALDH2 have a low risk of developing alcohol-related cancers.

However, some individuals with the defective form of ALDH2 can become tolerant to the unpleasant effects of acetaldehyde and consume large amounts of alcohol. Epidemiologic studies have shown that such individuals have a higher risk of alcohol-related esophageal cancer, as well as of head and neck cancers, than individuals with the fully active enzyme who drink comparable amounts of alcohol (15). These increased risks are seen only among people who carry the ALDH2 variant and drink alcohol—they are not observed in people who carry the variant but do not drink alcohol.

Few epidemiologic studies have looked specifically at the association between red wine consumption and cancer risk in humans.

Millennials oppose carousing

Millennials think getting drunk is ‘pathetic’ and ’embarrassing’

Binge-drinking. Old term for binge-drinking.

Not that alcohol is completely out of the picture, but if you go beyond tipsy in public, you’ll be ostracized. Maybe the same evening, not that you’d remember. It’s not just work events, it’s seen as irresponsible because other people must babysit you.

Mocktails taste better, are cheaper and you actually remember the social event while looking cool, because you aren’t drunk.

It isn’t hot when your grandparents or even great-grandparents do/did it.

“Today in research that makes us feel like old, drunken messes, apparently young people don’t think getting drunk is cool. In fact, they think it’s ‘pathetic’ and ’embarrassing’.

the hostility of that apparently
whew

Eventbrite’s nationwide survey of 1,023 millennials found that alcohol consumption is on the decline in the younger generation, with millennials only consuming an average of five units a week. Only 1 in 10 of those surveyed said they view getting drunk as cool. The rest listed the act of getting drunk as ‘pathetic’, ’embarrassing’, and ‘belonging to an older generation’. We repeat: Ouch.

generally a waste of money
Consumption too conspicuous.

The survey found that in general, getting hammered is no longer something to be proud of among millennials. No longer do young people brag about tactical chunders and passing out with their trousers half way down their legs. Instead, 70% of those surveyed said they’d rather brag about how long it’s been since their last drink, rather than how much they last drunk.”

It isn’t glamorous. It never was, we see through marketing.
Men are not Bond, and women don’t look good either.
Social media makes this very apparent. Cringe.

“In short: Millennials really aren’t that excited about booze anymore, and they think you’re a bit uncool for throwing back shots at every opportunity.”

One round of shots, maybe, for who wants to. Possibly two. But I’ve seen older people try and shame younger about not wanting to drink and it’s just really sad and wrong.

It’s the Boomer Mad Men thing, I guarantee it. Wearing a tie doesn’t make you any less the pathetic alcoholic.
Think of the celebrities who still do it, all trash. Worse, clubber trash. The kind to brag about bottle service (it’s a bottle, calm down). We’d be more impressed by luxury mineral water.
To be perfectly frank, watching aged hippies get sloppy, throw up on themselves and get seductive with people young enough to be their children is enough to put anyone off, really.

Link: ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Gender Identity’ are meaningless

All this coming up. They’re still banging on the pedophilia drum.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/19/we-cant-protect-sexual-orientation-because-it-doesnt-mean-anything/

Not opinion, but a fact. There is no agreed-upon definition in academia.

This gets into arbitrary vagueness, it could literally be like 50 shades of grey. There could be 50 different terms for 5 things, each slightly different along a scale. The scale could be contracted or expanded, from 5 to 5 million terms, and people would still identify themselves along the Likert scale because that is how humans respond to scales in self-report. They fall prey to experimenter’s biases. Kinsey used it to justify his own fetishes. Including the mere use of Likert instead of checkboxes, intended to give firm results. How special do you feel? Do you identify as a snowflake?

In the most logical, hardest scientific terms, here would be the genuine definitions that would work in law (nothing less would work);

Sex (noun): chromosomal. Male, XY. Female, XX. Various genetic disorders would thus be accounted for under Both (still within the binary of a dimorphic species).

Gender: firstly, nothing to do with identity. Masculine, Feminine, Androgyne (both). According to Jung, everyone has both, which makes the last category meaningless, so everyone would fit into masculine or feminine based on their 51%+ score on something like…. The Bem Gender Inventory? Purely psychological, fluid and prone to change.

(Sexual) Identity: behaviour and its choice (see? nothing to do with gender and arguably, sex).

Sexual Orientation: which sex do you identify in sexual terms (physical attraction toward)? Male (sex as a noun), female (sex as a noun) or both (bisexual). If neither, you don’t have one, so it isn’t a valid question to answer, a simple N/A or blank would suffice. Note: non-physical attractions are invalid as all normal humans feel those (agape) and this is a polite descriptor of lust.

This last rules out invalid claims to orientation (based on age, a changing factor, species or other non-humans, or state of life, for example). Paraphilias (fetishes) are likewise discounted, as non-personal attractants by definition.

Social conditioning (inc. pornography) CAN change sexual orientation/identity, as most people know it:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/porn-addiction-studies-sexual-orientation-versus-sexual-tastes/

This does not bode well for the future of Sex Ed at increasingly younger ages pushing abnormative sexualities. Maybe Putin knew something we didn’t? At the very least, porn should be credit-card subscriber-based only, cut off completely from children, the entire video model is truly as addictive as alcohol or drugs (maybe 21 in places);

http://yourbrainonporn.com/can-you-trust-your-johnson

99% of these people were adults and had had time to form a proper sexuality and relationships prior to their issues. This meant, that as one neuroscientist suggested, with the right help their brains could be returned to their previous sexual identity, even if the images they had viewed cannot be completely forgotten.

For a boy aged 10-14, with no previous sexual experience, there is no reset button. [DS: this is because the brain kills off or ‘prunes’ the disused connections] We could have future generations of young men who objectify women and have totally unrealistic ideas of sex and in some cases men who will have their brains re-wired by extreme imagery to the extent that they could be a risk to the women and children around them. We shouldn’t put our heads in the sand and await for some true scientific evidence. We need to do something now.

Who does that sound like?

Is this a better test (than erections) for sexual orientation?…………

It is a dangerous practice and any parent who encourages their child to indulge (separate from the debatable issue of masturbation), is frankly guilty of child abuse (as all future centuries will see it, like we see cocaine in Coca Cola for Victorian children now or other hard drugs in ‘cough medicines’): http://yourbrainonporn.com/why-shouldnt-johnny-watch-porn-if-he-likes

There’s a kicker though. The capacity of our teen to wire up new sexual associations mushrooms around 11 or 12 when billions of new neural connections (synapses) create endless possibilities. However, by adulthood his brain must prune his neural circuitry to leave him with a manageable assortment of choices. By his twenties, he may not exactly be stuck with the sexual proclivities he falls into during adolescence, but they can be like deep ruts in his brain—not easy to ignore or reconfigure.

Sexual-cue exposure matters more during adolescence than at any other time in life. Now, add to this incendiary reality the lighter fluid of today’s off-the-wall erotica available at the tap of a finger. Is it any surprise that some teens wire semi-permanently to constant cyber novelty instead of potential mates? Or wire their sexual responsiveness to things that are unrelated to their sexual orientation? Or manage to desensitize their brains—and spiral into porn addiction?

http://yourbrainonporn.com/pair-bonding-101-beware-novelty-as-aphrodisiac

Loneliness can make a person more addiction-prone (as a self-soothing or self-medicating behaviour?)

In short, the same reward circuitry in their brains that makes them want to fall head over heels also leaves them especially vulnerable to addiction. In contrast, most rodents don’t like alcohol. They have to be bred specially to use it. But both prairie voles and humans will drink, suggesting that similarities in their reward circuitry make possible a strong buzz.

…Bottom line: Drugs can hijack the bonding mechanism, and register as a sort of love-substitute.

I’ve never known a lonely man who didn’t have a self-soothing behavior to try and compensate (a lot of alcoholics, some porn addictions, a few other drugs, a LOT video games as a secondary ‘hobby’ – when it’s a time sink like TV) and periods that reminded them of their loneliness acted as weakness triggers to engage.

…It’s almost as if the reward circuitry of a pair bonder has a “little hole” crying out to be filled by a pair bond (even if the individual never bonds). In the absence of a mate, a pair bonder will look around for something else to fill that “hole.” Obviously, we humans often try to fill the “hole” with lots of friends, serial affairs, porn, drugs, alcohol, devotion to a guru or a cause, or whatever—all of which furnish, or at least promise, some neurochemical satisfaction.

The important point is that the brain mechanism that primes a pair bonder to bond is mechanical, not rational.

So no, they aren’t ever choosing to do these things. That is not a plausible answer. Addiction muddles the concept of motivation.

…Note: Pair bonding is not a moral strategy; it is a mating strategy, and arises from a subconscious brain mechanism. The vole example demonstrates that bonding is not a cultural phenomenon…..

Please read The Mating Mind for details.

According to biologist David Barash, normal pair bonder “sexual behavior is neither especially frequent nor especially fervent.”

Manosphere is wrong on marriage again….. (priorities change when children arrive).

The fact that pair bonders stay bonded without constant sexual fireworks suggests that the bond itself is normally rewarding.

K-types ahoy.

All of this means that much of today’s sex advice won’t work well for lovers who want to remain paired.

Including the manosphere (short-termism), while encouraging married men to cheat and bemoaning high divorce rates.

As far as male N sexual partners, more monogamous men (lower count) are happier:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/guys-where-do-you-fall-the-monogamy-spectrum because the novelty factor isn’t guiding/controlling them (impossible perfectionism, hedonic treadmill, they can literally never stop because boredom becomes akin to death).

But hey, they don’t want to be told that because they’ve already screwed up and out of spite they want other men to screw up too, much like slutty feminists who encourage good girls to go bad…. (In sum: the r-types deserve one another).

As the previous link makes clear, in behavioral context, it makes them less human (more like a hollowed-up sociopath they admire);

Such effects impact relationships. Constant novelty is one of the prime reasons Internet porn is a superstimulus for the brain. Erotic training that relies on novelty as aphrodisiac can condition users such that familiar partners quickly lose their luster—confining users affected to shallow hook-ups. Also, the non-climax aspects of sex (skin-to-skin contact, kissing, comforting stroking, playful behavior, etc.) may be too unfamiliar and subtle to register as deliciously rewarding. Unfortunately, these are the very behaviors that soothe the brain and help couples strengthen their bonds.

If you have any doubts as to the damage of these early influences, look up “psychological imprinting porn”