Hook-up culture’s natural outcome: rising impotence

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/22/sexual-dysfunction-cuts-risk-leaving-thousands-in-uk-without-help

Of course, they’re willing to sell you medical interventions.

Maybe snake oil?

Just don’t give up porn or stop fucking around.

Because while you’re weirdly the first active generation to have these problems EVER, it cannot be modern habits empowering, sorry, causing them.

And in the women’s case especially, it isn’t their bodies telling them (as in the men’s) that not bonding* with the sexual partner fully (emotionally) eventually causes physical problems?

Nah, can’t be. Would the sexologists of postmodern academia lie about this?

Don’t look at the conservative sex life study, whatever ya do.

Nor ask if they’re vegan. Check their hormones. Nah. Sure it’s fine.

*What would that even be called? Who ever heard of pair bonding in evolutionary mating patterns?

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

As one reviewer pointed out how sluts whip manwhores:

Often referred to as the “monogamy molecule,” vasopressin seems to be the primary cause of men attaching to women with whom they have close and intimate physical contact.

into marrying the ho.

Pro-casual sex likely to be psychopaths + Chad myths

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201902/why-are-there-so-many-jerks-in-the-world

The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/bodily-attractiveness-and-egalitarianism-are-negatively-related-in-males/

Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Political attitudes.

Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.

Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…

“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”

See the bias?
POLITICAL STUDY.

If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.

Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.

SJWs always lie.

Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.

CHECK. What did they actually test?

“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.

“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.

“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?

“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.

Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.

“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.

I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”

Good husbands are hotter.

Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.

“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03333351

Reputation is important.

Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0876-2
The Bible did say not to get drunk.

Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”

Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914003626
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”

Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.

And bullies? Insane reasoning.

The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”

Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.

“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.

The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.

The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-015-9142-5
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.

Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”

The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/consequences-for-bullies.html

“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan

“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”

The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.

Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?

Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”

Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.

Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”

Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.

Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.

Circumcision, risky behaviours studies

Almost 7000 words. That was more than I expected to type. Circumcision studies generally. A post for men.

https://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/1999/11010/Sexual_Behaviors_and_Other_HIV_Risk_Factors_in.12.aspx
“Circumcised men also reported a preference for nonwet sex. “

Men concerned about HPV-cancer link:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.24097

“In multivariable analyses, detection of any HPV infection was significantly associated with reported race of Asian/Pacific Islander…
NonOncogenic HPV infection was independently associated with lifetime number of sexual partners. Circumcision, assessed by clinical examination, was associated with reduced risk of HPV detection across all categories of HPV evaluated. HPV detection in men in the current study was strongly related to sexual behavior and circumcision status. Interventions such as circumcision may provide a low‐cost method to reduce HPV infection.”

Really?

Hey, just in case you get a broken leg, get them amputated!

Significantly higher risk of HPV detection was associated with increasing numbers of lifetime female sexual partners (OR 6.96–9.01 for nononcogenic, any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting ≥50 partners compared to 1 partner), number of female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.31–3.43 for nononcogenic, any HPV, oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting 3–30 partners compared to no female partners), number of new female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.64–2.85 for nononcogenic, oncogenic and any HPV type among men with ≥3 new female partners compared to no new partner), and anal sex with either a male or female (OR 1.40–1.45 for any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections).”

Good luck trying to find studies brave enough to look at anal sex frequency alone!
They wouldn’t DARE.

What do they care if men get cancer, right?
Penile cancer is on the rise but do anal and never use a condom because a TV told you to!

Slut shaming also applies to men. Manwhores are disease-ridden.

“For example, the odds ratios for any HPV increased with increasing number of lifetime sexual partners peaking at an odds ratio of 6.65 among men who reported 20–49 partners.”

Er…. that’s well above average.

Here the lifetime partner rate is 4 and likely lower.

“However, the few published studies reporting HPV antibody status among men suggest that a smaller proportion of men than women are HPV antibody positive, despite a high HPV DNA prevalence among men.15″

Men are spreading it.

If I had to mock this, I’d get a tranny to dress up as Lady Gaga and sing “let’s have some fun this beat is sick, I wanna touch you with my cancer stick”… if only people had a sense of humour anymore.

“Don’t think too much, no condom bitch, ’cause porn is God and anal’s quick”

If I had to write the most unPC comedy show ever. No more jokes in this piece, it takes a serious turn.

Finally, Castellsague et al.8 demonstrated a profound and significant reduction in invasive cervical cancer risk among women whose male partners were circumcised.8″

So… what about male cancer risk? Shouldn’t you study that too?
And they wouldn’t spread HPV if they didn’t catch it being sluts.

Prevention > whatever this is.
They’re basically operating on baby boys, assuming they’ll be manwhores when they’re older.
No?

http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hs16015

” Policies and programmes should thus focus on the attitudes underlying sexual behaviour. “

Normally, studies of intact men are confounded by poverty and drinking.

And being promiscuous, obviously.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3700546/

HPV16, the most prevalent HPV type in this population (9.9%), also had the highest incidence (10.9/1000 person-months). A high incidence of HPV16 has been similarly reported in other studies among both men6, 7, 9, 14 and women.26 The high rate of acquisition of HPV16 has a clear implication for increasing cancer risk among men and their sexual partners, as HPV16 is the most common HPV type found in penile cancer among men;2 cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers among women;1, 27 and in anal and oropharyngeal cancers in both sexes.3, 4

Finally!

If you’re avoiding performing oral on a woman, what makes you think she doesn’t have it in her mouth too and second, you’d better not be doing anal in that case….

Penile HPV IRs in our study were higher in the glans specimen, including the inner foreskin, compared with the shaft (HR=2.1; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.4). Our results are in contrast to the findings of a US study of 240 men.7 In this highly circumcised US population, the cumulative probability of incident HPV infection did not differ by anatomical site (44.3% in glans vs 45.4% in shaft). Among uncircumcised men, there may be a larger disparity in HPV acquisition by penile site, potentially attributable to keratinisation of the glans epithelium and removal of the inner foreskin after circumcision.”

Circumcised men aren’t less likely to catch it.

They’ll catch it somewhere more fatal. Increasing the rate of penile cancer.

Because you literally cannot catch it in a foreskin you NO LONGER HAVE.

So it’s a trick of linguistics. There’s less disease – of the foreskin. That you lack.

https://paa.confex.com/paa/2016/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper1652/SRBs%20and%20circumcision%20in%20Uganda_1652_fullpaper_PAA2016.pdf

“Conclusions
This study indicates higher prevalence of sexual risk behaviours among circumcised men in each
survey and a reduction in use of condoms with non-marital sexual partners among circumcised
men from 2004 to 2011, suggesting that promotion of male circumcision could result in risk
compensation.

Considering the high levels of sexual risk behaviours among men who are already
circumcised observed in this study, the Ministry of Health and partners need to continue
sensitising the sexually active population to use condoms even when a man is circumcised. These
messages should target both circumcised men and their sexual partners. Educating men
10 undergoing circumcision also needs to be strengthened to avoid sexual risk taking post
circumcision”

If they weren’t lied to, they wouldn’t want it.

https://www.malecircumcision.org/research/social-and-behavioural-research

“Data on changes in the sexual performance or sexual satisfaction of adolescents or men following circumcision are limited and conflicting.

Not really. Sunk cost fallacy is strong.

One study conducted among 138 Korean men an unknown time (possibly years) after circumcision found that 20 percent reported decreased sexual pleasure and 8 percent reported increased sexual pleasure following the procedure.3″

“Sixty-four percent of the circumcised men who were available for follow-up at 24 months reported greater penile sensitivity after circumcision, and 54 percent reported enhanced ease in reaching orgasm.6”

That is physically impossible, nerve endings are removed and existing ones covered with scar tissue.
Scar tissue is numb.

Phantom foreskin sensation?

3 – Kim DS, Pang MG. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int 2007;99(3):619-622.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x

“Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.”

Men deserve to know this.
Sounds like surgical differences. Or maybe the men reporting more sensation had a thicker foreskin, limiting sensation?

“There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.”

Possibly? The surgery is intended to remove nerves and nerve endings. It REMOVES.

It’s literally taking away the thing that makes them a man, the crown of their manhood itself, the most important and sexually responsive organ to sexual pleasure.

http://www.thebodypro.com/content/art58409.html
https://www.poz.com/article/MSM-HIV-Circumcision-Study-Disregards-Roles-in-Anal-Sex-19575-6792
It is almost impossible to find them recording anal sex data, which harms men by omission.

http://cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Circumcision could be contributing to male fertility issues.

Laumann et al. [5] found that circumcised men had different sexual practices from genitally altered men. Circumcised men were more likely to masturbate, to engage in heterosexual anal and oral sex, and to engage in homosexual anal sex.

Why does the porn industry want all men circumcised, it’s a mystery.
Masturbation suggests dissatisfaction with normal, spousal sex, as do the others.

In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males [6].

Unusual longevity is not good, it’s a common sign of impotence, porn lies.
Difficulty finishing, medically.

Preputial secretions in mice and rats are a strong attractant for female mice and rats [7-11], and may provoke the onset of oestrus in mature females [12].”

I’m not kidding, impotence issues in performance, it’s tragic.

In addition, if humans do secrete pheromones, I’d expect to see that impact circumcised male fertility especially.

“The study results may reflect the tendency of people to choose the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. In a survey conducted on the Internet, circumcised men were significantly more likely to use additional artificial lubricants during sexual activity (odds ratio, OR = 5.64, 95% CI = 3.65 – 8.71) [16].”

That’s abnormal you shouldn’t need those, but without a foreskin there’s more friction, the prepuce evolved in men to reduce penile friction. Without the existence of lube, which might cause problems by ingredients, that suggests circumcised men would find it too painful to have sex at all. 

Great profit margins for the lube companies though.

The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man’s sexual appetite [17].

Yep, it’s a punishment.

Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman’s sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up.

Data supports this, keep reading.
There is a HUGE improvement in sexual performance for intact men.
When you ask the people judging said performance.

The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary ‘sexual’ organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman’s ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.”

“Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.”

So… the circumcised are bad in bed. No wonder American women don’t orgasm.

Objectively, the only way circumcised men can sexually perform is badly.
None of their behavioral pattern is pleasurable. None of it. Performance is judged by the recipient.

Again, everything porn tells you to do in bed is wrong.
It’s all the stuff that makes men bad in bed – that’s kinda why men enjoy viewing it, psychologically it’s telling them they’re normal by making bad performance in bed appear common and pay women to act aroused, contrary to honest data, like lonely women reading tons of romance novels and telling themselves “there’s nothing wrong with me”!

It’d be easy to test.

Do circumcised men enjoy watching intact men in porn? I’d bet not.
I’d bet they’d feel inferior. You think the industry doesn’t know that?

“While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin [21]. Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.”

Circumcision increases divorce risk.
Really.
The study mentioned is linked below, Hughes, but nobody followed up on it.

Too controversial, plus the timing of his death is ..interesting.

“During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to ‘really get into it’ and more likely to ‘want to get it over with’ (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to ‘want to get it over with’ and considerably more likely to ‘really get into it.'”

“When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).”

i.e. Don’t trust the sluts.

“The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered men other than overall rating and a higher rate of premature ejaculation in their unaltered partners (4.63, 2.36-9.07)

That isn’t premature, that’s normal. The circumcised were demonstrating a sign of impotence.

These women had fewered unaltered partners (2.47 vs. 3.78, Z=-1.68, P=0.045), which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have been a consequence of ‘premature ejaculation’.

Note the quote marks, they’re actually the normal ones.

The inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction, and ‘yet to formulate a preference’, suggests that factors of conformity may be influential.

It’s… clear-cut.

“When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them, at a mean (SEM) of 70 (31%)vs 56 (40%) (Z=2.28, P=0.01). They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower (Z=-2.61, P0.0047) and unaltered partners higher (Z=2.83, P=0.002). When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.”

Burn.

When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016).”

It cannot be more obvious.

Biology lesson:

“When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis [1] to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans [18]. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners.

The one they always preferred?

This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey [19] and in the human clitoris [18].”

Men need to be told this nerve information in biology class.
Male is comparable to female circumcision. It causes blatant nerve damage.
It destroys the experience of sexual intensity and intimacy.

It removes neuroreceptors!

“Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men [5] suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying [20].

I try to warn you.

Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing ‘informed consent’ before circumcision.”

And male enjoyment too. I think they’d wanna know.

20 is Van Howe http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/letters.html#vanhowe

Of course adult feelings are not so easily dismissed. A preliminary survey of 75 men suggests that the more men know about the important functions of the prepuce, the more likely they are to be dissatisfied about being circumcised.3 Now that an increasing number of men are learning about the prepuce and expressing this dis-satisfaction, clinicians must acknowledge that is impossible to predict how a male infant will feel when he is older. A prudent course of action would be to allow men to make the decision about circumcision themselves when they reach adulthood.”

Men need informed consent, it’s THEIR penis.

More biology!

A hypothesis is needed to explain the findings of Laumann et al in the light of the known neurohistology. We suggest that a penis with foreskin and its full complement of neuroreceptors may make heterosexual coitus more satisfying, thereby making the man less likely to seek out alternate forms of stimulation. The only portion of the prepuce remaining in a man with surgically altered genitals is the remnant between the corona and the scar. While there are some fine-touch receptors in this tissue, the most sensitive portion of the prepuce at the tip is removed in even the most moderate circumcision.2 The remaining prepuce and any remaining portions of the frenulum can be preferentially stimulated by masturbation and oral sex, whereas the sensation of deep pressure dominates during hetero- sexual coitus. The imbalance from not having the input from the missing fine touch receptors may make the experience less satisfying, causing a man with an incomplete penis to supplement his sexual experiences with other forms of stimulation.

Explaining the risky sexual behaviors e.g. objecting to condom use. It doesn’t numb them, they’re already numb.

The only reason they want more oral, anal etc is to stimulate the remaining, tiny area of foreskin!

I wonder if the number of bisexual and gay men is lower in prevalence in intact men.

To date the effect of circumcision on sexual function has not been carefully studied. In rodent studies, removal of the prepuce resulted in marked changes in the mechanics of copulation,4 the hormonal response of the female partner, and aggressive behavior. In humans, behavioral alterations have been demonstrated in the pain response of circumcised infants.5 Unfortunately, studies of men circumcised as adults have had too few subjects or differences in sensation were not well documented. Testing penile vibratory thresholds has demonstrated that men experience increasing thresholds with age,

the penis does not age well

while those with premature ejaculation have low thresholds regardless of age.5 Application of this technique could be used to demonstrate if a sensation differences exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men.”

Other studies do now.

http://cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/

“Our findings may help urologists better counsel men undergoing circumcision as adults. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function.”

Men deserve to know, informed consent.
This is based on a medically necessary population, not a NORMAL one – note.

Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.”

They note in bold: “There was no clear sample of normal, healthy, intact men for comparison. Even so, thirty-eight percent of the circumcised men were dissatisfied with the results of their circumcision.”

It isn’t surprising you couldn’t find healthy adult men willing to chop off the most sensitive part of their manhood.

Hard sell.

Hughes: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/hughes/

“John G. Swadey, MD (New England Journal of Medicine, 1987) states that circumcised men show a “somewhat higher incidence of genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis and scabies.“”

Risky behaviour.

“Our survey suggests that there is a difference between the sexuality of the circumcised and uncircumcised male during his lifetime. It also suggests that the uncircumcised male has a more favorable sexual compatibility in his marriage.

During my experiences in medicine and surgery, occasionally there arose the question of circumcision and sexual compatibility. It seemed to me that the uncircumcised male had less of a problem in sexual compatibility.”

Sadly, he died before we could see his data.
Someone else, do the study!

Do circumcised men around the world also have higher divorce rates?
Easy to observe.

The UK, latest from newspaper article:

“The latest divorce figures, released last year, revealed the divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the UK was at a 45-year low, with 101,669 divorces of heterosexual couples in England and Wales.”
And we have low circumcision rates, mostly religious.

https://circumcision.org/how-male-circumcision-harms-women/

“With circumcised partners, women were less likely to have one or multiple vaginal orgasms, and their circumcised partners were more likely to have a premature ejaculation.”

Explains why American men complain their wife doesn’t enjoy sex. It’s them.

ED is the modern PC term for impotence. 

https://www.livescience.com/15750-erectile-dysfunction-sexual-problems.html

Half of all American men 40-70 have trouble finishing (delayed orgasm), isn’t that oddly close to the circumcision rate?

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/
That is hardly getting better with age.
2011 study year-55 study age median = 1956
80% circumcised, of those born in hospitals.

Some good news.

“The new statistics showed a steep drop in the number of circumcisions performed in the United States.
The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States.”

Current circumcision rate 2006: 56.1%

Good news for men.

Other news from 2018

https://www.circinfo.org/news_2018.html

“A Federal judge in Detroit, Michigan, has ruled that the Federal United States law criminalising any form of female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional.”
“Critics have since pointed out that these observations are equally applicable to circumcision of boys and that there were also grounds for finding the FGM law unconstitutional in the basis that it denied equal treatment to males.”

They’re pushing FGM because male is considered legal.
Two wrongs do make a right?

It is thus perfectly obvious that circumcision does not significantly reduce a male’s risk of contracting an STD, and that organisations (such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control itself) who identify prevention of STDs as the most important “benefit” of circumcision, do not know what they are talking about. There is in fact evidence going back to the 1850s that circumcised men are at greater risk of gonorrhoea and other urethral infections than men with normal genitalia. It may be that the foreskin acts as a barrier to the entry of certain pathogens.”

I wonder if circumcised men are likelier to carry super gonorrhea.

Seems like it.

A study of a rural community in South Africa has found that circumcised men generally are more likely to be infected with HIV, and that males circumcised in hospitals are 20 per cent more likely to be HIV positive than those left intact. Where 24 per cent of uncut men were found to be HIV positive, the incidence of HIV among males circumcised in hospitals was 31 per cent. These findings have come as a shock to the South African Medical authorities who have been following the orders of US and WHO health officials and “rolling out” the provision of mass circumcision as a response to the nation’s AIDS crisis. As the authors of the report comment ruefully, it seems that when it comes to the spread of HIV, anatomy is less important than behaviour – exactly what critics of the circumcision programs have been arguing for years. In fact, many other studies have found that in the real world there are many regions in Africa where there is little or no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between cut and uncut men, and that in quite a few places cut men are more likely to be HIV positive.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201445

Don’t trust the WHO, they lie to you.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326040454_Factors_associated_with_early_deaths_following_neonatal_male_circumcision_in_the_United_States_2001-2010
A new study finds that in the United States approximately 20 neonatal deaths per year can be attributed to circumcision. Neonatal here means within the first 30 days of life, so the study does not count deaths that occur after the first month. This might seem a small figure in relation to the overall number of births, but what death rate would be acceptable for a medically unnecessary operation performed without the consent of the subject? The abstract of the paper follows.

Ooh, salty.

We sought to quantify early deaths following neonatal circumcision (same hospital admission) and to identify factors associated with such mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent circumcision while hospitalized during the first 30 days of life from 2001-2010 using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Over 10 years, 200 early deaths were recorded among 9,899,110 subjects (1 death per 49,166 circumcisions). Note: this figure should not be interpreted as causal but correlational: it may include both under-counting and over-counting of deaths attributable to circumcision. Compared to survivors, subjects who died following newborn circumcision were more likely to have associated co-morbid conditions, such as cardiac disease (OR: 697.8 [378.5-1286.6] p<0.001), coagulopathy (OR: 159.6 [95.6-266.2] p<0.001), fluid and electrolyte disorders (OR: 68.2 [49.1-94.6] p<0.001), or pulmonary circulatory disorders (OR: 169.5 [69.7-412.5] p<0.001). Recognizing these factors could inform clinical and parental decisions, potentially reducing associated risks.”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2985419
“Permanent physical change” is also called disfigurement, in English.

“A recent judgment by a lower court in Germany brought the problem of ritual male circumcision to the consciousness of the wider public and legal academia. This essay weighs in on this emerging discussion and argues that ritual male circumcision is not covered by parental authority because it violates the human rights of the boy on whom it is imposed. It first considers and dismisses the best interest test of parental authority which, by focusing on the well-being of the child as opposed to his (future) autonomy, fails to take the boy’s human rights sufficiently into account. Instead, the essay proposes what it terms the autonomy conception of parental authority, according to which parental authority must be exercised such as to ensure that the child will become an autonomous adult. While parents may raise their child in line with their ethical, including religious, convictions, respect for his autonomy requires that this be done in a way that allows the child to later distance himself from these values; this implies, among other things, that irreversible physical changes are impermissible. This conclusion holds even if it could be assumed that the child would later come to endorse his circumcision: a proper understanding of autonomy implies that the religious sacrifice of a body part can only be authorised by the person whose body it is. Thus, ritual male circumcision is outside the scope of parental authority because it usurps the child’s right and responsibility to become the author of his own life.”

http://www.cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/5033/3371
“The statement is at pains to point out that the evidence as to the benefits and risks of circumcision is contradictory and inconclusive, and that much of it is of poor quality, especially studies claiming to show that circumcision has little impact on sexual sensation and function. The final conclusion is that while circumcision does offer some advantages, they are small, can be achieved by other, non-surgical means, and are outweighed by the risks and harms. This being the case, routine circumcision is not justified as a health measure and cannot be recommended.”

Very good news, their bold title:

… circumcision advocates have nowhere left to hide

The terms of the debate about non-therapeutic circumcision of minors have changed. The issue is no longer whether the so-called “benefits” outweigh the risks, or even whether the benefits outweigh the risks and harms. (As for the troglodytes who still mutter about pros and cons …) Coming on top of the judgement of a German court that circumcision is bodily harm and that it violates the child’s right to religious freedom, a leading legal philosopher now argues that boys have an inherent right not to be circumcised without medical need. In a paper forthcoming in Health Matrix, Stephen Munzer argues that current norms of autonomy and bodily integrity give male minors “a moral, anticipatory right-in-trust not to be circumcised without a medical indication.” Even more remarkably, it is now conceded by a prominent defender of religious/cultural circumcision that the practise is harmful and does violate the rights of the child. Writing in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Joseph Mazor acknowledges the physical and moral harms of circumcision and admits that the child has “a right of moderate strength” not to be subjected to “presumably harmful circumcision”.

Both Munzer and Mazor go on to argue that, given the importance of circumcision within the cultural/religious communities that follow this tradition, the practice should not be criminalised.

You admit it’s abuse, fuck you.

Religious rape isn’t legal either.

This is a fair point, far less important than the vital concession that circumcision is harmful and does violate the rights of the child to bodily integrity, personal autonomy and an open future. The argument about these points is over; the debate now is whether non-therapeutic circumcision is or should be illegal.

You’d have to re-write all abuse laws, NO.

No means NO.

Stephen Munzer. Examining nontherapeutic circumcision. Health Matrix 28 (1) 2018: 1-77 (in press). Full text at SSRN.

Joseph Mazor. On the Strength of Children’s Right to Bodily Integrity: The Case of Circumcision. Journal of Applied Philosophy, on-line first, 24 May 2018.

Mazor https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12275
Munzer https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3180209

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction

The United States, a nation with 4.5% of the world’s population, consumes 47% of the world’s Viagra (Pfizer’s own figures). Turns out the same nation has been circumcising the majority of its male infants for generations.”
“A new study in the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men, revealing what appears to be a significant acquisition vector. Other studies have previously observed that circumcision’s damage results in worsened erectile functioning, inability to maintain an erection, and reducing the glans sensitivity, including an overall penis sensitivity reduction by 75%. A recent study discovered that premature ejaculation is five times more likely when adjusted for erectile dysfunction and circumcision.”

Full links in that article. It’s sickening how people try to justify this.

If the kid won’t get it done at 18, why does the parent want it done against their will?
That’s assault.

75% reduction study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
5x ED more likely: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02280.x/abstract

It also relates to alexithymia, a psychiatric condition
https://web.archive.org/web/20130831161657/http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4

 Alexithymia in this population of adult men is statistically significant for having experienced circumcision trauma and for erectile dysfunction drug use.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/24/male-circumcision-the-issue-that-ended-my-marriage
God doesn’t make mistakes, circumcision is offensive to God, if anything.

An idiot theorized in “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence”, that societal violence is caused by lack of pleasure, a theory so ridiculous if one only looks at Africa – highly sexual, high rape rate, high murder rate. It’s actually IQ. Sexual and violence behaviors differ according to standard IQ deviations, it is well known most violent criminals are less intelligent, yet highly promiscuous.

However, nations of high circumcision uptake do report more violence.

It’s also a proxy for low IQ, the practice of circumcision in countries predicts lower national IQ. I wonder if the circumcised are more likely to be low IQ, a correlation?

The UK used to circumcise more often until the NHS came along and didn’t allow doctors to charge for it, suddenly it ceased to be medically necessary!
The foreskin is the primary erogenous organ in men, the area in adults is 3×5 inches, with 50,000 nerve endings.
Minor circumcision is a human rights crisis.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august312012/circumcision-violence-rm.php

“In Norway, the only country that records the circumcision status of rapists, 2% of the population are circumcised and commit more than 80% of their rapes. And, since 1991 almost all wars involved one circumcised country with some conflicts between both factions being circumcised. This includes all USA conflicts since Vietnam.

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if religion had nothing to do with war, just circumcision?

No other statistical records are kept regarding the individual and social percentile circumcision status of serial killers or rapists. Yet, over 50% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by the minority of men who belong to circumcising cultures. Circumcision status may factor highly in the USA’s highest of all other country’s incarceration rate to population.”

“Original FBI’s Criminal Profilers who led the Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia know circumcision is a factor in some serial killings and partly responsible for America’s generalized asocial violence.”
“It has been inferred Robert Ressler, in an off the record comment when interviewed by Mothering Magazine’s web-editor, related the fact that the FBI realizes circumcision is a factor in violence. He explained they do not mention this because they would be considered raving lunatics and lose their jobs. Robert Ressler coined the term Serial Killer.”

Same: http://www.academia.edu/7151881/Circumcision_Serial_Killing_and_Criminal_Behavior_in_American_Medical_Violence

“Serial killing as we know it today began in the last two decades of the 19th Century. – Robert Ressler, FBI.[2]”

Same time circumcision picked up. Complete coincidence.

Related: https://www.thelocal.no/20131112/norway-to-legislate-on-circumcision

I wonder why….

What about studies on white men?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.”

Crime and IQ

This is oddly missing but said
“In arguing that IQ is a significant cause of crime, the researchers cite studies to indicate that criminal populations generally have an average IQ of about 92, 8 points below the mean.”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=183065

1929 paper:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2123&context=jclc

“Illustrative to a still further degree of the point made above concerning the ineffectualness of the present penal system are the results of a comparison of the percentages for recidivism with those for long-term sentences.

Losing the death penalty is a mistake.

As may be seen above, although 56.7% of offenders are recidivistic or habitual offenders and hence incorrigible in the main, as has been mentioned above, only 16% to 23% are serving long term sentences. This fact, then, signifies that the greater per cent of recidivists are serving terms of more or less brevity. That little benefit to society may be expected from such terms is not to be doubted since sentences of three to five and even ten years are without effect upon recidivistic offenders and possess value only by virtue of segregating the offender for a while and thus sparing society a greater or less number of crimes.3‘ At best, such sentences, in so far as recidivists are concerned, constitute nothing more than a flimsy makeshift in dealing with the problem of repeated criminality. In-deed, the statistics of crime as well as the teachings of history confirm the absolute inadequacy of the present system of punishments against crime.12

Especially is this so in regard to the feebleminded recidivists who are accountable for a full 25% of the entire problem of repeated criminality and whose deficiency of intelligence effectually and completely militates against any possibility of regeneration or correction. That penalties are established by statutes and are based wholly upon a consideration of the material act constitutes an actual social injury since society thereby derives a false sense of having adequately and securely provided against a danger.

Because men are NOT made equal, biologically.
They should study criminal’s children to be sure.

In reality, it has not, for the harm is merely postponed. Commitment to prison should be determined not by the nature of the offense but by the nature of the offender, 33 and with a view toward the causes of the delinquency, the effect upon the individual, and the moral prognosis.3 4 Only in this way may adequate social provision be made for the warped, deficient, defective, and unregenerate enemies of the social order.”

Prison doesn’t work.

We know now from MRI psychopaths and other types literally gain pleasure from other’s pain and experience no/less fear and a neutral response to appeals for mercy. Something biologically less humane requires other treatment.

page 14 on the pdf looks at crime type

Married men are less likely to be criminals (selected by women)?

“Accordingly, the assumption of the stabilizing influence of marriage appears well substantiated. Or, it may be that the fundamental constitution of the delinquent is of such a nature that he is frequently antagonistic toward the assumption and maintenance of marital duties and thus fails even to experience contact with any presumably stabilizing influences of marriage. At any rate, marriage, together with any of the beneficial influences it may exert upon the individual, is of markedly less frequent occurrence among criminal classes than among the general population”

R-types.

“That slightly over 50% of criminals, including even the low grade morons, are married with the consequently increased possibilities of the propagation of the species is somewhat disheartening.”

Er, why isn’t there a basic legal requirement of an IQ test to marry?
Low IQ people cannot consent. To prove they can consent.

“This equality of incidence is strongly suggestive that the criminally inclined nature, regardless of intellectual endowment, is fundamentally lacking in those personal and social requisites essential for the assumption and maintenance of marital duties. Or it may be that this marked prevalence of divorce indicates the failure of the stabilizing influences of marriage and home life because of the inherent instability of the criminal classes preventing the reception of any such benefits.”

Part of the reason bachelors are looked down on.

And divorced men.

“As it is, the percentages of actually disrupted marriages range from 29 for the low grade morons to 36% for the group of subnormal intelligence and 32% for the normal intelligence group. And when it is considered that 36% to 58% of the groups respectively are still within the age group of 21 to 30 years, it is reasonable to suppose that a contrasting of these percentages with figures for a like proportion of the geners1 population would render the above figures comparably much higher.
However, from a eugenical point of view as regards the propagation of the species, this high percentage of disrupted marriages is a most hopeful sign.”

Let idiots get divorced!

“It will be noted at once that the greater number of children and the greater number of families with children occur in the groups of deficient intelligence, particularly so in the low grade moron group. This is quite in accord with the findings of other investigators and the generally conceived opinion of the greater fecundity of the classes of deficient intelligence.61”

R-selection, lower quality per child.

And another investigation of the Harvard Graduates of 1894 revealed 20% without children, 13.1% with one child, 18.1% with two children, 22.5% with three children, and 25.5% with four or more children. 65
This makes an average of 2.44 children for each individual, a figure which gives the college bred man of Harvard the lead over even the low grade moron delinquent. Further, it has been estimated by Kehrer that the proportion of childless marriages for civilized countries ranges between 10% and 15%,”; which means that the ordinary middle-class citizen, taking the criminalistic and the college-bred classes as the extremes, bears the burden of restocking the population.”

I bet that isn’t true now, they think they’re too good to have kids!

And that explains dwindling IQ compared to the Victorians, the middle class were less intelligent and the upper class dropped the ball. The middle class only seem intelligent due to their education.

The above table shows clearly that the foreign-born stock does produce more than its due quota of our specified delinquents, especially so in regard to those of deficient intelligence. This is most marked regarding the low grade morons, where the foreign-born stock produces more than 235% of its due quota of offenders as determined by population ratios while the proportions for the other three groups ranges from 125% for the group of normal intelligence to 144% for the high grade feebleminded delinquents.

This finding is substantiated by the findings of the Immigration Commission of 1910.98 and also by Laughlin in his report to the Congressional Committee. 99 And similar findings have been reported by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.'” In addition, Laughlin also found that the second generation of foreign stock had an increased crime incidence over and above that of foreign stock in general, probably because that generation represents the transitional stage between the discarding of the customs of the old country and the adopting of those of the new. Undoubtedly this fact accounts for a proportion of the increased percentages in the above table. Obviously then, there is an undeniable danger in the admission of unselected foreign stock, both from the aspect of their own undesirability and from the aspect of their reproduction of their kind. Hence, there is  an unquestionable and appealing need of a closer and more intelligent supervision of immigration, with more ample provision for the means of so doing.”

You lost the war.

You know you did.

A second consideration evident from the above table is the increase among offenders of individuals having one parent foreign-born and the other native-born. The percentages given above nearly double that for the general population. Various investigations have shown that there is a decided tendency for the home of mixed parental nativity to produce delinquents.”°

No, it’s because they’re mixed race.

That went off on a tangent but a potentially relevant one.

Protective disgust

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-filthy-firstthe-common-disgust-disease.html
Shaming someone for being evolved is really counter-intuitive.

“By analysing participants’ responses, researchers were able to identify the six common categories of disgust, which each relate to regularly occurring types of infectious disease threat in our ancestral past. Historically for example, eating rotting food could have led to diseases like cholera, close contact with unhygienic people could have transmitted leprosy, promiscuous sexual practices could have put an individual at risk of syphilis and contact with open wounds could have led to the plague or smallpox infection.”

Syphilis was germ warfare from American Indians, actually. Modern.
And basically all infectious diseases qualify as STDs. Depending how they’re caught.

“The results confirm the ‘parasite avoidance theory‘, in which disgust evolved in animals, encouraging them to adopt behaviours to reduce the risk of infection. This behaviour is replicated in humans where disgust signals us to act in specific ways, which minimise the risk of catching diseases.”

Slut shaming is just civilized. It’s the reason the disgust-numb largely died out. Dead amygdala, dead host. e.g.
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/130/7/1715/327525
“However, very much unexpected was the disproportionate deficit in recognizing disgust, which was significantly larger than the deficit observed for recognition of fear.”

Disgust is a survival instinct, not to have it is biologically wrong. It’s as wrong as a psychopath with no conscience (they also feel no disgust at violent or diseased stimuli, this is why they’re promiscuous). Something is missing.

A grid-down would be funny because all the rich sluts on anti-virals would look like something from a zombie movie. STDs mutilate the appearance and without modern meds suppressing it, it would ruin the face.

Hell, a weakened immunity from a minor blackout would cause a vulnerability in the immune system to allow any former diseases to seize control (old age also does this). Sluts never survive dangerous turns of history for that reason, picked off by the wages of sin. People have forgotten, not really informed by ‘educators’. Brummel died in an asylum, a disgrace.

“Interestingly, the survey results showed that there were gender differences in reactions to the disgusting scenarios that were presented, with women rating every category more disgusting than men. This is consistent with the fact that men are known to indulge in riskier behaviour than women, on average. The categories women in the study found most disgusting were risky sexual behaviour and animals carrying disease.”

Science confirms what all women knew – male sluts are more disgusting than female sluts.

Women need to be discerning as a sex, this isn’t surprising. Birth defects, miscarriage and infertility aren’t fun.

This corresponds to an evolutionary view of the emotions which are for action; emotions make us do things that put us in a better state with respect to our survival and reproduction.”

We spot them.

And we shun them.

K-select women especially.

“Researchers say the findings could be used to develop instruments for measuring disgust, to investigate how disgust might vary across cultures and to understand how moral disgust, for example, relates to disease disgust.”

It’s been done.

Relevant, sexual disgust at stupidity.

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/men-who-have-tattoos-think-it-impresses-women-study-says-it-doesnt/

Low IQ markers are repulsive, really?

Women answer politely to conform about attractiveness, hook them up to lie detectors and they’d say they hate tattoos.

I’ll post it separately.

Hot v. Beautiful

Nope, hot does not exist.

That’s Hollywood and porn brainwashing.

It didn’t exist fifty years ago.

There was sultry or alluring but it was a type of beauty, as it should be.

e.g.

That’s natural (whereas mainstream ‘hotness’ is normally plastic surgery, which a biologist has no valid comment on as a fashion trend).

Natural always wins. It’s the genetic billboard.

Nowadays, men are programmed to find the cheap sexual signals of desperation attractive.

Cheap is the correct term because there’s little to no investment required.

It’s obvious with celebrities.

Jessica Alba. Note the manjaw. Hot?

Markle. Again with the manjaw. Hot?

What are you being told to select by media?

The Jewess Johansson, post-nosejob. Hot?

The Jewess Jolie, same. Again, post-surgery and owns a manjaw. Hot?

There’s a reason he didn’t name names or dare show photos.
Hollywood only hires the whores, with manjaws. There’s no control group.

Another chameleon face to illustrate the point:

Which one of those four pictures is hot and how many are beautiful?

I’d say one “hot” and zero beautiful. The hotness is confounded by make-up and hair dye, which he didn’t mention!

Nor did he mention male beauty, which obviously does exist.

I see it all the time.

e.g. Jakob Hybholt. This is a real man. He exists.

Men in studies have different risks of abusing their spouse (aggression) based on their facial features. Again, something you’d think he’d mention?

At least “handsome” (a word that used to be applied to women too) versus “sexy”.

Adonis versus Hercules. Any man who’d get insecure about this is deluded.

We don’t get insecure about Athena and Aphrodite. Typical model versus lingerie model.

But they’re both forms of beauty. Neither is better and it really is a spectrum because both must be fundamentally fit (Darwin) and hence, beautiful. So two sisters, one can be hotter (the “hot one”) and the other more pretty, hot features age badly after ten years as fertile markers and pretty remains constant as a purer genetic quality, easier to pass on to male and female offspring too. Hotness has no history as a concept, as he alludes it’s based in 60s advertising. Surgeons can fake “hot” but never beautiful because it’s genetic and individual. The 60s allowed people to display “hot” but again, that’s a fashion trend, our bodies didn’t magically change.

This evobio guy makes a basic error – you can”t assume modern male preferences are historic.

In fact, basic pop culture evidence from the past century suggests otherwise.

“Hotness” is easier to market.

You can buy hotness, beauty is genetic.

He blatantly lies “the majority of human cultures have been polygynous” is a lie.
A Cultural Marxist myth. Look at a family tree, we have them stretching back a thousand years.

He could possibly get away with polygamous if you included sex slavery (rape).

That is bad evolutionary biology. Sexual selection must be a choice to be valid.

Most tribal humans were monogamous and this is why the sexes are born approximately at 50/50, we keep digging up archaeological evidence of couples. Also, savages are not models of civilization, they keep trying that on.

He could mean serial monogamy if the spouse dies (divorce or breaking up doesn’t actually count as this) but he doesn’t.

Most men are not r-selected, he lies again. If so, all men would visit brothels instead of the omega minority. Parental investment outcomes show this strawman single mother scenario leads to death and dysfunction.

Mathematically, he is lying there. Monogamy is better for male DNA.

No sexual selection without natural selection, many feeble, weak r-selected males died off and now we have “crime” in society because they’re still bluntly, stupidly trying to compete without the reward in a society structure. Wars were invented to cull them but we had to mess that up too with draft qualifications and nukes. Without the dregs of men (see: where have all the good men gone?) removed, they are free to multiply with the dregs of women, producing more dregs than ever before. Previously, those women would die alone with no suitable man.

It’s like pulling up weeds.

Idiocracy could only happen when war ceased being common. Who dies first in battle?

Reproduction is the reward (not sex), for survival.

He hints at the rapist strategy of extreme r-types but dances around it. If men would find sex “difficult to resist” and could overpower a woman, surely that suggests…. that her choice didn’t factor into it?

That’s why he refuses to discuss rapists, which are not a viable strategy actually*. He’s pretending there’s a selection without choice, I’m sick of these slutty intellectually dishonest assholes acting like they’re the model of humanity.

*Women can easily not carry to term by starvation, various herbs in every location, punching themselves in the stomach. Why do you think traumatized women stop feeling hungry? Anti-rape baby instinct!
Witches provided abortifacient herbs.

Men aren’t “wired” any way, that’s sexist and poor science (it’s a limited metaphor not used in this field) and it’s the naturalistic fallacy. Most men are faithful and generally good. They have a natural disgust for easy women.

Broadcasting hotness – is not a thing. That’s sexual desperation, a personal choice, not fertility. Plenty of American men willingly prefer infertile women and women who look like it (swollen breasts as if already pregnant, narrow hips, muscled suggesting high testosterone and manjaw, short legs like a child). Those are typical r-types, both trying to avoid pregnancy.

So as far as an evolutionary biologist is concerned, that sexual interaction doesn’t exist because it’s a dead end.

It’s like counting homosexual sex – that doesn’t lead to babies either!

There’s no life created, it’s nothing to them. Except maybe a disease risk, funny he doesn’t mention STD-caused infertility….

You cannot switch reproductive strategy, it’s neurobiological, ask Anonymous Conservative. Your amygdala volume cannot magically change on a dime.

This guy keeps lying.

You cannot have it all, spoiled rabbits.

There’s a reason manwhores, when they marry, tend to get divorced (or cheat). It’s them.

Neither can you turn a ho into a housewife, same reason. It’s them.

This is why the evolutionary types are distrusted in academia, you must prove you’re not one of these guys that is totally excusing half the promiscuity that is completely novel to society now (with fake history) while claiming from the other side of their face that the other half is impossible (women aren’t sluts – but men are sleeping with them somehow) because of babies that don’t exist. (Pre-marital birth rate says different).

Other, lesser mammals were polygamous, not humans!

He doesn’t tell you this.

It would be akin to saying humans can self-clone because you used to be an amoeba, it’s bad science.

Read The Mating Mind for good evobio.

The concept of “hotness” (sciencey) isn’t mentioned.

This guy might as well be an astrologer. This is cold reading a modern culture and trying to re-write history.

He also misrepresents Freud. Madonna/Whore is a specific complex and has nothing to do with that.

NOTHING.

Madonna is marrying a woman for reputation then cheating on her with whores because the male is too immature to view the mother of his children as a viable sexual and romantic outlet, abandoning her emotionally and sexually in fear. The complex is the split (between socially attractive women to other men and baby-making women at home) and it’s as bad for you as a split personality. That’s it. That’s the complex. It describes a common form of impotence.

They can’t get it up for the wife they chose, assuming childbirth gave her cooties.

Nothing to do with evolution. This guy is full of shit.

Simple question: what is “hotness” without porn?

Do you even know? (no) That’s the purpose of sexual programming. The mind control nobody talks about. Insulting the father figure and telling him housewife types are boring in bed. Old as the musical Grease.

comment

I’m surprised by this conversation between Joe and Bret. I’ve asked multiple men before if they could see someone as only aesthetically pleasing but not sexually pleasing, and they never could (including my boyfriend.)

True, they were lying, assuming the other could.

Women, on the other hand, always could.

Women are more attuned to appearance in general.
Men don’t notice cuticles.

I can find a man or woman aesthetically pleasing, without seeing them as sexually pleasing. Seems like most men either find them sexually pleasing or they don’t.

If they’re honest.

An erection is a solid binary.

If they don’t find them sexually pleasing, they don’t find them aesthetically pleasing either. ‘I would fuck it or I would not fuck it.’ Lots of guys can’t seem to appreciate attractiveness without it being of a sexual nature. This conversation seems like it’s on similar lines as the question I’ve asked people before and yet both men were able to grasp it. Good on them

Men who can are called gay.

That’s why I laughed when they tried to compete by claiming they could do it.

Sluts are shamed because the entire tribe pays for it. Male or female.

Men have to pay with resources taken from the family or possibly a war in revenge for stealing a woman.

Then there’s disease risk, a major source of the shame is avoiding death and defects.

Many STDs are just passed by social contact and as a touchy species, viruses spread easily with hugs, kisses, grooming common to mammals.

comment

I personally think the people who use the word hot to describe women are immature and shallow. I have noticed that the more people use words like that to describe people the worse off our future will be.

It’s so cringe-worthingly American, isn’t it? They sound like rappers.

Not just women, if all a man can be is hot, he must be a real loser.

It’s the one thing you can call a vapid moron. “At least he’s hot”.

Women use it this way primarily, it’s our new ‘nice’. It’s a backhanded compliment, like telling someone they could be a stripper. (Tatum)

comment

These people are so condescending and boring

They think they’re important. E-celebs, aw. Adding nothing to history.

He totally ignored the data on how much women value looks.

comment

Are these two fools trying to pass off this non-think as if it were based on biological fact? Women have a much greater capacity for sex than men.

Shh, don’t tell them! (They won’t listen anyway, they actually think sex is a male thing).

Imagine if men had multiple orgasms and no refractory period, chaos!

It’s like how they say women get triggered easily but if you insult Rick & Morty…

You don’t see many unstable women threatening to rape men online but okay, women are the mad ones. Okay.

“Free love”

Pre-WW2, oral was looked down upon because yeah, huge disease risk.

Porn lied. There’s also a spate of “straight men” with gay diseases because they’re obsessed with anal.

It doesn’t matter who you’re doing it with, it matters what you’re doing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6467611/Four-emerging-STIs-afford-ignore.html

Why adultery got the death penalty, really.
“Which makes anyone cheating on a faithful partner even more repulsive. Imagine staying faithful and your sleazy partner brings this home.”
You can sue them, too. It just isn’t the same as destroying a marriage.

Don’t you feel free, being cucked?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/30/free-love-polyamory-modern-couples

For once, the comment section has sufficient experience to call bullshit.

Vapid men, vapid sexuality. What do you expect? Literal commitment-phobes.

If Holmes had been married/divorced as often as Musk (5 including the secret divorce), there’d be tons of memes and comparisons to Elizabeth Taylor and how sad it is they ‘can’t hold down a man.’ At least hold men to a standard? Any standard!

Men fail at sex and relationships constantly. Admit it.

Elon Musk failed as a man and James Bond is a violent alcoholic.

The world is different than what movies and reddit tell you.

This “free love” bullshit is a sales pitch for guilt-tripping good women into becoming free hookers, using the feminine urge to please and marry well as a weapon against them. The best trick the “sexual revolution” pulled off was convincing women it was for them. Who is praised for being a slut in this ‘culture’?

Ruin the men as husbands, leaders, and the whole family unit fails too. There’s no female equivalent of deadbeat because there doesn’t have to be – getting to the men suffices. Tell men a wife who loves them and a legacy of children will drag them down and white men won’t be a problem in the future, they’ll go extinct. You can’t have patriarchy without patriarchs. 

The term cuckold or cuckquean must be used where appropriate too.

The men rationalize it like they’re deep for being shallow and the women…. are coerced into going along (hey, isn’t that rape?) when adultery voids any ‘marriage’ legally. Polygamists don’t mention that.

Any man who’d be the town bike should expect to be rejected (to ask someone to be your sex toy is ultimately demeaning) – however, promiscuous pop culture tells them on the contrary, STDs and issues with your mother make one more desirable!

And when women IRL avoid them, go out of their way to avoid providing even a phone number, it isn’t the way nature avoids that futile encounter in all her wisdom, it’s that the women are “shallow” or “flakes”. Sure. Sure they are, stud. Evolution must be wrong, not you!

It’s a fact men nowadays see an attractive woman and assume she is sexually available – regardless of her marital status, religion or simple preference. That is intensely creepy, it’s Brave New World. Further, many expect crass sexual attentions are a compliment (porn brainwashing) and that they feel entitled to coldly fuck at least some of the women they are aroused by, as if being attractive has a price where you owe sexual services to anyone who notices. Gee, why don’t women try to be attractive anymore?

Why were women far more attractive when that was assumed to earn monogamy? When it was respectable instead of shamed? Mystery there.

If you think this disloyalty doesn’t relate to low trust, you haven’t been paying attention.

It’s like the guys who say women who reject them must be rejecting them personally… and to prove how “nice” they are, get angry. You’ve proven they were correct to avoid you, you’re unstable, that’s proof.

Nobody wants to be the low bid in the auction.

Denying the impulse to pair bond is cruel and sex solidifies that bond biologically.

If you’re happy, you don’t shop around.

e.g.

I’ve yet to see an open relationship that isn’t painfully dysfunctional. I’m sure it probably exists, but it very much seems the exception.

Yeah …and they’re literally killing people.

Pathogenic etiology cancers, the main reason teens from the Free Love era are suddenly dropping like flies.

Naturally, true cause isn’t on the death certificate.
They want to be whores and manwhores, but they don’t want their grandkids to know.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867418303635
“We conducted the largest investigation of predisposition variants in cancer to date, discovering 853 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 8% of 10,389 cases from 33 cancer types.”
So far.

The wages of sin seem to be paid to the Reaper.

And don’t call the swingers, swingers. The PC term is sexual snowflake.

You’d think the slutty billionaires in Silicon Valley would fund STD treatments. All the billions mean nothing in an early grave.

The disconnect from reality is fatal.

Like how the cohab slut arrangement isn’t like “kept women” prostitution, keeping a “mistress” (from brothel madam) in an apartment, whether you call them a girlfriend or not. No wonder “try before you buy” leads to divorce.