Oxytocin promotes patriotism

It is the love hormone because love also means protection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029708/

“Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members.”

Have we found the hormone for the k-selected?

The higher oestrogen of women (general finding) depresses amygdala (stress) activity (this is written up on wikipedia if you want to link-follow) but oxytocin release increases amygdala stimulation over the top of the oestrogen signal, which is otherwise fine and generally neuroprotective (presumably so we don’t miscarry when a shadow looks like a guy).

So maybe the way to get women caring less about the ‘refugees’ and remember their personal safety is now their job, not a husband, is to pass out free oxytocin nasal sprays?

Or put it in the water supply?

I’m kinda serious. It’s crazy enough to work.
Compassion fatigue already set in years ago, ride the wave and reduce the maternal clucking of middle-age Boomers.

I wonder if military service induces oxytocin release for male-male bonding?

“Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.”

K-shift…?

Dare I dream?

It doesn’t mention that when ANY ingroup meets ANY outgroup, the natural result is competition because Darwin.
It isn’t a choice or a value judgement. War happens constantly, it is the norm. When modern food supply runs low, it’ll come back, roaring back, bigger and badder than ever. We’re in the experiment.
Race to survive, anyone?

You might remember there was a BS flurry in the MSM about a chemical that reduces ‘racism’ – this was it.

It doesn’t – because ‘ingroup preference’ (the positive social term, along with the lesser known and more genetic genophilia) is totally natural. They stupidly assumed they could extend the ingroup to literally everyone in the whole world. The brain resists this, that’s why they haven’t drugged us all by now.

 

Since among other findings;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122242/

It increases patriotism for one’s culture and love of one’s family.

It changed freedom of association to genetic kin and love of the flag but not corporations.
It studies Asians which is a hiccup but hormones tend to have broad effects.

The men of society love strength in their social group of other men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25193946

It also leads to monogamy and fidelity – in MEN.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23152592

Ding ding ding K-type central.

“Together, our results suggest that where OXT release is stimulated during a monogamous relationship, it may additionally promote its maintenance by making men avoid signaling romantic interest to other women through close-approach behavior during social encounters. In this way, OXT may help to promote fidelity within monogamous human relationships.”

I would bet that sluts, the promiscuous with higher and higher N counts, with damaged pair bonding, release less.

More studies on whites and women needed but otherwise, great work.
Nature is literally against these ‘social engineers’, too kind a term, for penpushers and petty meddlers.

New fave GIF, will get a lot of use.

BTW the primary source of oxytocin in humans would be ..the nuclear family. You’d have to knock that out to bring multiculturalism in.

Do men have hormone cycles?

http://www.popsci.com/do-men-have-hormonal-cycles

wide-eye-omg-shock-gents

Duh. Men are mammals. Obviously they do.

No excuse for gaslighting neither.

“Endocrinologist Peter Celec of Comenius University in Slovakia, thinks that men have a straight-up monthly hormonal cycle too. In 2002 he published a study showing that both men and women experience roughly lunar rhythms of testosterone; the levels in men’s saliva peaked dramatically on day 18 of a 30-day cycle. Celec’s findings have not been replicated or accepted in the field, yet he remains convinced: “I have searched the literature for negative findings, but I have not found anything.”

The powder-dry witticism at the end slayed me.

I won’t ruin it.

[chuckles in science]

Coffee, hormones and physical distress

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/coffee-and-hormones

superman drinking give up nope

Back to liquor then.

On some level, everyone knows coffee is bad for the body. That’s why they self-medicate later with alcohol to relax and sleep.

Perhaps this relates to mental illness in a modern population, perhaps not.

Caffeine has also been shown to increase serotonin levels in the limbic system, a relatively primitive part of our brain involved in regulating basic functions such as hormonal secretions, emotional responses, mood regulation and pain/pleasure sensations. This has a similar mode of action as some antidepressant medications.

That includes the amygdala, folks. A sense of appeasement and belonging.

Ever notice chronic coffee fiends are generally very sad, lonely people?

which can lead to sub-clinical mood problems such as mild depression (aka “the blues”), low motivation, irritability, and impaired cognition.

Starbucks Zombies.

It doesn’t even give them more energy after the first week or two, they just need it to feel normal, like any addict.

I’m not saying this is urban liberals and SJWs especially…. but they tend to have spare tires that lead to this.

You don’t see many skinny SJWs who don’t abuse some substances (sugar, caffeine, alcohol).

Today’s women, yesterday’s prostitutes

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/08/05/todays-women-yesterdays-prostitutes/

I take issue with an over-reach regarding this topic. It’s rhetorical and makes us all look stupid.

Every time you hear an otherwise intelligent man discuss this topic, he will make a rare lapse and blame women. It’s trendy and edgy, they think.

i.e. the problem is women’s sexuality.

You can cut the woman part out, the problem remains.
They are discussing something where it literally takes two.

Unless they’re casually suggesting all men will suddenly turn gay?

I don’t think so.

Sexuality, period, is the destructive force. 

Anyone’s. In aggregate. Look at Africa.

Take a long, hard look.

Previous civilizations knew this. So you either bought in with marriage or forgo the benefits. Women don’t visit hookers. Which sex make up the majority of porn addicts? Perverts? Deviants? Sluts? Have you seen the paraphilia data? The STDs rising among young men, who pass it around easier for the same act, based on anatomy?
If you get to blame testosterone, well, women have that too. Some have naturally high levels. Does it excuse rape, because logically, if hormones rob you of agency I find that a rather sexist argument against your fellow man. To blame your body for the will of the mind makes a man into an animal, not deserving human rights. Women cannot attack men based on our hormones nor vice versa. If you are incapable of restraining yourself, you have no right to be beyond the confines of an asylum. The same could be argued of oestrogen but that hasn’t been linked to aggression as much as crying and craving chocolate, I think we’re safe.

History of Great Empires and their social decline?
The Greeks weren’t famous for screwing little girls.
The Romans did not have their most depraved orgies in women’s bath houses.

Which sex was at the centre of all these? The sex that to this day, holds the title of the Probable Sex Criminal? More paedophiles, at least? Can we agree that’s bad? Look at the crime data, the Right Wing say. Okay, we’ve looked by age, race, what about sex? Can we get some intellectual honesty here? Are the men involved less culpable for those crimes, as they demand female paedophiles be punished? [correctly] Does this not seem like a grand distraction to you? We have millennia of evidence on this one, unlike all other demographics.

If men (with power) get the sex they want, Empires fall. Lesson of ancient history.

You know what that means? You don’t get to blame the women. Especially since you also argue from the other side of your faces that women are weaker (physically true) and rely on men for protection (somewhat, historically, yes) – which makes women the victims of male power, logically?

You cannot argue two opposite things. They contradict, its impossible. Logic, invented by better men. Biology says men are the ones with the power, as does history. So if anyone is to blame, if either sex is ‘It’, men dropped the ball in the West. If there is an issue in the Sexual Marketplace, as the sexually dominant sex, that is the man’s responsibility.

This is not even complicated, logically. Moving on to details.

Cultural Marxism would’ve been impossible without the Sexual Revolution.

Why did the Sexual Revolution come about?

The Pill yes, but also to force women into the workforce while appeasing their men.

It was entirely economic. A quick way to make money Post-War. After all, millions of men workers had just died. Positions were available. Taxes were lacking to rebuild basic infrastructure.

Tradition, which is to say, Patriarchy, was more restrictive of male sexuality than female.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/patriarchy-discourages-all-promiscuity/

Nobody mentions this fact.

Nobody dare ask why.

So no, you don’t get to argue Down with Vagina, whatever your emotions on the subject from pure to bitter, but that everything from Tinder to porn addiction is fine because you like it. We are not F60.89 leftist hedons here. Is it wrong of me to expect some maturity, a defining trait of men previously, on this issue? Can they look past self-interest and their own throbbing…. opinions?

It’s either a bad behaviour for society, or not. They’re casually arguing that promiscuity damages women, but not men? From what? Where’s the biological evidence?

Please, post it to Nature. Science. Collect Nobel in Medicine for averting disaster.

Ask the mature question.

Is the behaviour bad for the individual, full stop? Long-term? aka The Future?

All the evidence thus far says it is.

Neuroscience is catching up to bad social policy.

yourbrainonporn.com

You are harming yourselves.

Like any self-harm, first you must acknowledge a problem to fix it.

For argument’s sake, let us assume every woman in the West shut her legs tomorrow.

Okay, what happens to male sexuality then?

It’s impossible to balance a one-sided equation.

Come on, you’re smarter than this.

Expression is fine. Let’s keep it social.
The political is very personal, but the personal is not political. Unless you trust future adminstrations not to restrict your sexuality, keep it out of public politics.

There’s nothing wrong with men and women voting (see UK GE 2015, Brexit, Trump).
There’s nothing wrong with either sex owning property. If you study real history, not the past 300 years, inheritance was quite common among widows, who outlived their husbands usually. Property went to the family, blood, disregarding sex. To say women didn’t hold property is a feminist myth, and they do this deliberately, as you can’t prove a negative, and many ancient societies held them in the family too. While the men were away fighting, guess whose job it was to manage those estates? The women. To this day, women run the home. It is our domain. Now tell me who ‘owns’ it.

However, arguing against the evidence of pair bonding damage, vital for successful marriage, and expecting nuclear families to blossom out of overstimulated Pajama Boys as if by magic?

https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601

Doomed.

Random OT, sorta

Aside from strawmen, over-reactions and non-sequiturs…

Cosmetics were used by both sexes until recently, including rouge. Like today, they are medicinal. Many modern formulations are good for the skin, at least providing a UV barrier to make skin cancer less likely. Actually, men invented high heels, men wore tights/stockings first, and French poofs wore blusher and lipstick first in the West. Men also wore restrictive clothing, to suck in their guts, including corsets. Corsets (old clothes) and togas (very old clothes where breasts were exposed) are sexier than jeans and hoodies (modern clothes).
Just because a bad person does something doesn’t make it a bad idea e.g. plenty of bad people donate to charity.
The red lipstick thing had nothing to do with America, get over yourselves. It was our Queen, I covered this in detail. You followed us, America.

Low-fat diets and mannish women

http://akinokure.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/low-fat-diets-make-women-more-masculine.html

I find these diet and drinking water connections specious.

Interesting, but probably wrong.

Due to the fact both sexes are exposed. So if diet is important, men wouldn’t be turning into Pajama Boy. If the drinking water is more of a factor, women wouldn’t look like porn stars (the Hollywood model for beauty, and high-testosterone).

Nope, seems like sexual selection based on the welfare state to me.

Interesting though.

I post because the evidence is pretty clear connection insulin levels to hormone functions, but again, this also applies to men, and this CARBS CARBS CARBS diet is as bad as Atkins or PROTEIN PROTEIN PROTEIN. As if they’re all the same? Whey protein is shit, dudebros. You should know this with all your reading. It’s estrogenic. I bet this has nothing to do with their emotional issues.

Nor is a hormone good or bad. You must have balance. It’s simply bad to throw that balance off. In anyone.

Harassment still illegal but apparently women need extra protection

This is silly. I saw some anti-fems complaining about it and it made no sense

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/county-in-uk-makes-it-a-hate-crime-to-upset-women/article/2596356

It’s already illegal.

Harassment, assault, stalking.

I got a tingling sensation in my Bullshit O’Meter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Nottingham#Ethnicity

28.46% non-white.

There’s your necessity.

In an effort to crack down on the alleged “tidal wave of abuse and harassment” women face every day, the county’s police force is now considering things like catcalling and pickup lines to be a hate crime if they are directed toward a woman from a man.

They’re never directed the other way and those things are already illegal, they just made it official.
Because you don’t see it the other way, they didn’t mention it.
However, a woman groping a man on public transport? Illegal.
A woman stalker? They happen to celebrities most famously, illegal.
Women being chucked out by a bouncer for refusing to take No for a reply? I’ve seen that more often than the man equivalent because women assume they won’t be hurt or punished for doing it. Illegal, police can be called.

The law is being applied equally but the crime is not practiced by both sexes in the same manner.

includes behavior targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

antisocial behaviour
already illegal
however, hate crime is largely hinged on targeting, so yes, it would be, just like the Rotherham rapists going for white girls
it’s part of their motivation, since nobody can help what they were born
we can’t suddenly become men whatever surgery is available
the anti-fems are usually smarter than this…

Of course, that could include anything a woman deems offensive or unwanted from a man. It’s completely subjective.

Exactly. All crimes are on a case-by-case basis. We have these things called judges and juries to sort it out? Not public opinion, or even personal opinion?
Assault is completely subjective according to our law.
Men commit most crimes, this is an expected pattern that they would be the main perp. In any crime. Based on stats.

Newsweek reports that now “everything from verbal comments to unwanted physical approaches” will be considered a hate crime. Send a woman a text when she doesn’t like you? Hate crime. Tell your female friend she looks good today? Hate crime.

That’s hysterical over-reaction. From ‘men’. [or someone who panders to the insecure ones]
You are not forced to make lewd comments (always illegal) nor block someone’s physical space or prevent them from moving, say by grabbing (always illegal). Even our police cannot do those things, see kettling, they’re wearing body cams now. Pick-up endorses these things as building rapport, being an alpha dog and ‘escalating’ ‘kino’. …If the internet told you to jump off a cliff….
How could sending a text be illegal if she gave you her number? Did you take the number? Illegal.
If she’s your friend, why would she report you? How is ‘looking good’ an insult??? [This one nonsense example makes more sense further down when you see the ‘journalist’]

The MGTOW-pandering lot want something to complain about again. This isn’t even in your country. You said something had to be done post-Rotherham, this is part of it. Mind your own shit. You have riots, plural.

The only thing mentioned in the Newsweek article that even remotely sounds like it merits the time of police officers is when a man takes a photo of a woman without her consent. Depending on the type of photo and reason for taking it, that can be disgusting.

We don’t base our laws on how it sounds like to skanky Americans?
Without her consent is the entire frickin’ point. Without. As in, cannot obtain. As in, denied.

Erm it isn’t about what makes the man feel comfortable – that’s the point. If you go up to any stranger and cause public disturbance they could report you, whatever your sex or sexuality or fetishes. Begging is illegal, so is soliciting. This is in keeping with the antique laws, old as paper. We are not a high trust society. You can’t expect to be welcomed by strangers, that is unreasonable, entitled and egoistic/emotional. Women are the ones being approached, not their choice, 99% of the time it’s that way around, the ‘men’ in question do NOT listen when told by a fellow citizen to respect their right to be left in peace because of this shit they read online, and then, as these twerps remind us, all women are in physical danger of rape, so we need to be extra vigilant to potential rapists and protect ourselves.

Pick one. Stranger danger or men do their damn job if they’re claiming to be so masculine.
How do we protect ourselves? Well, we banned guns, most knives, we can’t touch one another, so words will have to do. Fire with fire.

That includes telling a creepy stranger who clearly only wants a free hooker and to comment on your body like parts at a butcher to go fuck himself. Men don’t like being treated this way either, they find it humiliating, demeaning and emasculating.* Real life is not porn. There is no entitlement to sex. They could just leave a card and say nothing but where does it call that illegal? Nowhere! Instead they want to reduce the rights of women in the First World. Unmarried women, because it’s less likely they’ll get beaten up by relations, but I’ve seen it tried on married ones too. Those people are trash. Do not defend them, even vicariously.
Those photos are often posted online, another crime. Upskirts on porn sites for example. Faces are shown, identifying information like locations and bus routes. Do most men wear skirts? No, but I’m sure the law would also be applied to upskirts of a man in a kilt if you want to get decked by a Scotsman. Please, go ahead, internet toughie.

There was no intent to disrespect the unknown woman, but now, just because a man took the photo, that could be a hate crime.

Yanks and your emphasis on bloody opinions. High off your own gas. That sounds like a great legal defense, I didn’t mean to. Truly, superb. I didn’t mean to corner her and grab her and refuse to leave her alone when asked. There was no intent to disrespect in any of that behaviour, judge.

Filming in public is illegal, I covered this with pick-up artists filming in London.
Photos can be incitement of harassment or simply derogatory, libelous to the reputation. Especially with lewd comments. Getting the picture? Actions have consequences. If it gives you a sexual thrill from a stranger, it’s probably illegal e.g. frottage. Your ignorance of our law does not excuse that.

All those whiny outrage feminist articles that most people laugh off as first world problems are now influencing actual criminal law.

Look up the actual criminal law.
Fucking spergs. Shoot these people with the anarchists, they’re a waste of air.
Protecting people is so bigoted! ~ retards

If a Muslim comes up to your 9 year old niece and asks a lewd question, this law would protect her. We don’t have guns and almost no right to physically defend ourselves. What else is there, darling?
It’s a reaction to the cultures they freely admit are truly misogynistic. As in, women as cattle-whores. With no choice, so keep trying it on. Any unchaperoned woman is fair game to rape. Okay, side with those people, but don’t pretend your incentive is First World freedoms.

There is no arguing against this if you look it up. Journalists do research, not this vacuous bitching.

Shockingly, domestic abuse won’t be considered a hate crime, even though it is an objectively offensive crime, because it has its own established procedure. Go figure.

Number one. OPINION IS NOT LAW. Ahem.

It won’t be considered a (new) crime (on the books) because it’s already a crime with all the full statutes to cover it, isn’t that TERRIBLE?!

Checkmate, feminazis! You already protect women in the comfort of their own home!

what wtf wut confused shocked are you seeing this omfg how

Also, men are protected from being battered by their spouses too! Because that happens and the law recognizes it! The UK legal system hates men and this is PROOF! ahahahahaha!

“Understanding this as a hate crime will help people to see the seriousness of these incidents and hopefully encourage more women to come forward and report offences.”

Guess the perps. Why would they be afraid of reporting white men in their own country?
Because it isn’t mostly white men committing these crimes.
It’s those who prey on white meat. Sure, screw the harassers whatever their race, same with all criminals, but sexual crime isn’t fine if the perp is a white male. There are no Get Out Of Jail Free cards, unless you’re really arguing for some kind of institutional, legally valid white privilege?

“Women and girls face a tidal wave of abuse and harassment every day. Our law has to send a clear signal that this is not acceptable. It is a crime.”

That woman quoted as if she is wrong, is correct. It’s a re-codification and clarification of the law, this happens locally all the time (case law?). I may think hate crime logic is flawed, severely, but if you’re gonna have it, it’d be a good idea for places like Sweden or Germany to take it up, don’t you think?
The purpose is to DETER more serious crimes, by people who already don’t respect the law of this country.

…who could that be?????

It protects the white women because the men aren’t doing it.

omg really wtf go away no audrey

This will become common, and necessary, as things get worse.

Sure, blame us. Blame the victims. You want tradition, though, right? As long as you don’t have to get off your arse.

It must be nice to have so little actual crime that the police can focus on such things.

It sounds like the nasal tone of a bitchy pajama boy. I could also go into a Swiss bank wearing a ski mask and holding a black water pistol. I don’t because that is a stupid thing to do. Do not act like a rapist if you are not a rapist. If women must protect ourselves, the law must support us in that endeavor because the men forsook their sex’s historical duty.
If women are victims, should the police laugh it off? But when the NYE attacks happened it was all “they’re hurting our women! we must stop this! we need more laws!”

The real question: why do you assume your behaviour toward women would get you into legal trouble?

Wouldn’t the judge let you off, if you truly did nothing wrong?
It’s like the ones who say I just wanted to buy her a drink as if that was really It and spiking drinks doesn’t happen. Women are not under any obligation to accept attentions from men, it is dangerous. That’s why men threaten women with rape online, when we can’t even see who it is but they can see us. Playing I’m Not Like the Other Guys snowflake routine doesn’t work, because you are a stranger. The rapists say that too. The ones so nice they have to remind you/tell you how Nice they are, because you can’t be trusted to form that opinion by yourself. Nobody should be given the benefit of the doubt where matters of physical safety are concerned. This isn’t even a sexual point, it’s common sense.

Freedom of association. Freedom. As in, everyone. Nothing to do with voting rights (suffrage was universal, not female) or emotionality (ostrogen is not the emotion hormone, if anything that’s testosterone with clear forensic links to crime and mental instability). There’s really no such thing as too much oestrogen in women, and in men it’s actually too little testosterone, rather than oestrogen, causing their health problems. HBD doesn’t care about your feels. “Estrogen is partly responsible for creating healthy sperm” #science

Do you remember what the excuse was, of the Rotherham rapists to the police?
They’re our girlfriend.
How was this possible?

They picked her up. Between ‘home’ and school. Pick-ups. Literal. In taxis. 

They go on to mention an online poll, about online stuff.
As if that has anything to do with this.
Online. Aka not in public. Not a law. Not even English.

Then-

That actually makes this law misandrist, since only men can be the perpetrators even though women are guilty as well.

It doesn’t say that and case law, a single case, could easily disprove it. With the help of the Equality Act, you silly Yank.
‘That’ says nothing but triggered opinion. You and your specious non sequiturs.

As we’ve seen time and time again from outrage feminists [American] on social media [online], any criticism of a woman is misogyny [patently false]. That would make this article misogynist [if you say so?], but I wouldn’t be prosecuted [but…you just said… it broke a law] — not just because I don’t live in Nottinghamshire [you don’t need to, it’s called a holiday?] — but also because I’m a woman. [nope, a lesbian would also be guilty of harassing women, you utter prat]

This guy (sperg logic, more masculine) is as retarded as Lindy West.
Even she wouldn’t go that far into Whataboutism derailment combined with What IF.
I often slag off male opinions on this topic when they’re wrong, because men are usually the only ones discussing these things. This is an example of a dippy conservative cuck, shilling for shekels like the best Jezebel tarts.

Wait, so all this being triggered is still from a woman, objecting to misogyny objections, even though there’s no feminists in sight?

….Wow America. You used to be cool.
She’s actually siding on the same side as ISIS, because America.

Kevin-Hart-Really-o rlly lies

It’s like a Yank right-wing Claudia Boleyn, she assumes that anything protecting women is automatically bad and wrong based on her political position (more insulting, as true conservatives do not hate women) but actually Claudia is more logical than this person.

It’s almost as if we abandoned our moral standards and manners, and then panicked over their absence and are now trying to bring them back in the form of legislation.

WE?

OUR?

Whither this liberal universalism henceforth stench?

Who is dis bich?

Let’s take bets, shall we?

Well, that explains everything.

Well, that explains everything.

Her message is Don’t listen to stupid women – unless they’re me.

She’s jealous of the women who actually get hit on, regardless of the danger involved. No wonder she hates feminists. Narcissism of small differences, isn’t it?

Spot the difference.

Spot the difference.

We have a self-hating women vying for male attention by insulting herself like a male feminist/self-hating beta and a man-hating woman who wants to fuck men out of revenge by taking their own money to make it possible.

“I’m on Instagram because of peer pressure” reads her Instagram bio.
Yes, her politics are informed by similar concerns.

She is living proof that she is wrong but sees no contradiction.

Women don’t think like me. aka I’m special. You’re a woman. Technically. Proving women can and do, in fact, have differing opinions. Like men. I’m careful to say feminist when I mean feminist, not woman. It’s silly to assume someone always takes a position for sexual attention (like White Knighting) as if there are opinions you can’t hold for logical reasons, but in this case…

Why do I think she’s attention-seeking for her career?
Well before, a few years ago, she was covering such important political topics as milk.

http://townhall.com/columnists/asheschow/2012/08/13/when_did_milk_become_bad_for_you

I will refrain from the obvious joke about guzzling approval.

She also cosplays. According to search engines.

I wonder, if a Muslim were to harass her in this costume, whether she’d be asking for it?

Tbf, she denies it. I doubt that’s her arse neither. Otherwise she’d know about harassment firsthand.

Whatever, point still stands. If that was her in the picture, feel free to harass her whatever she is wearing or doing or even if she asks you to stop, because women are never legitimately the victims of bad men since feminists exist.

All men are good and would never harass, stalk or rape women!
Ignore those pesky crime data reports!

That isn’t just as retarded as the All Victim narrative!
No Victims, heard it here first.

*http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/06/this-is-what-happened-when-a-woman-catcall-men-5233425/
They only included the ones in this reel where men liked it. Try it in real life. Ask random men to smile in the street and watch their Wow you creep reaction. Whoever does it. Have a load of regular feminists go up to men and paw at them, building kino. I said if they wanted to ruin Roosh V, they’d follow him around copying him. Forever. And distribute his step-by-steps in public flyers. Well, if it’s legal and morally acceptable, no problem right? So they can’t complain when other men hit on them because that’s misandrist. Men get to hit on whoever they want, including other men. Watch what happens when we take the brakes off gay rapists.

harassment

No, that is exactly what men do nowadays. They call it banter or lad culture, it isn’t. They walk up to women and speak like that, like they’re in porn. I find recording them makes them go away because they know there’s something to be ashamed of. This law is supposed to make them confine that stuff to anonymous internet comments where it’s less likely to escalate and easier to prove. Young men talking the way rappers only used to get away with in music videos.

It’s an American expectation based on tipping culture, antidepressant culture with pills to make you smiley and the power dynamic of servers. A random woman in the street is not angling for a tip, any tip. A neutral expression is not sad. I once heard a model describe it thus when recounting one instance, “No, I won’t smile at you because I’m not serving you. In fact, I’m better than you because you need my approval and you’ll never have it.”
If women don’t smile at you, maybe you’re the reason?

Any random person talking to you in public is weird. Doesn’t need to be sexual.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/northerner-terrorised-london-by-saying-hello-20151001102473

the world is not America
women do need protection, that isn’t saying men do not
also, women need a labour ward, is this sexist?

these people are still crying sexism for any acknowledgement of differences but also trying to argue the feminist crying is wrong because logic and differences? Idiots.

Study: Anxiety distorts perceptions + hormone hell

I wanted to help a special someone out by handing them information they’re too proud to ask for.
You’re welcome.

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/39/15324.abstract

It makes you perceive neutral stimuli as negative.

Explains a lot.

Speaking of physical causes of psychiatric matters, I bring you from the cutting edge…

http://www.yourhormones.info/hormones/cholecystokinin.aspx

There is also evidence to suggest that cholecystokinin may have a role in anxiety and panic disorders. This is an effect of cholecystokinin released in the brain, not an effect of secretion from other parts of the body.

The brain is a strange organ.
I proffer a starring role in treatment-resistant PTSD. Think about it, when the brain is cured, the gut link is still damaged, re-affecting the brain by proxy. I have a …. gut feeling…. (sorry).