The crime-genius connection in extreme IQ men

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222671325_Why_productivity_fades_with_age_The_crime-genius_connection

The biographies of 280 scientists indicate that the distribution of their age at the time of their greatest scientific contributions in their careers (age–genius curve) is similar to the age distribution of criminals (age–crime curve). The age–genius curves among jazz musicians, painters and authors are also similar to the age–crime curve. Further, marriage has a strong desistance effect on both crime and genius. I argue that this is because both crime and genius stem from men’s evolved psychological mechanism which compels them to be highly competitive in early adulthood but “turns off” when they get married and have children. Fluctuating levels of testosterone, which decreases when men get married and have children, can provide the biochemical microfoundation for this psychological mechanism. If crime and genius have the same underlying cause, then it is unlikely that social control theory (or any other theory specific to criminal behavior) can explain why men commit crimes and why they desist.

the same underlying cause being extremes of IQ

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/08/07/the-eugenic-economy/

volatile extremes

obviously they’re not the bloody same

But yes, marriage has a good effect on some people. And?

Should we reward criminals with breeding and punish genius genes?

Tesla’s highest achievement we know was done before aged 30. Clearly, something isn’t right here.

Makes more sense as a sexual selection strategy to attract a mate.

High IQ – prosocial.

Low IQ – antisocial.

Men make more money from marriage than women

http://www.mademan.com/want-to-get-rich-get-married/

I bet that red pill hurts when you take it up the ….

A new study released by the Pew Research center is suggesting that increasing number of men are getting a larger economic boost then their partners when they get married. This has changed over the last decade as women, as a sex, have increased their education level and, subsequently, their earnings. Basically: you’re much more likely to marry a rich girl than you used to be. Maybe it’s not as expensive to fall in love as we thought.

Are we gonna complain? Are we calling you all sorts of things, like parasites? No. Because that’s a cheap dig at the opposite sex and the economy is down, a family has to stick together against the world. Yet still, I get the feeling the usual suspects are going to try and claim victim here (still, despite making bank) and insult women for supporting themselves (aka responsible adulting) and contributing to the home (as men have been asking us to do now two incomes are required to live). We literally cannot win, some people will always complain whatever we do.

Naturally, this shoots their hypergamy idea (not the academic real kind but the stupid idea women only marry to gain male status) and kicks it into its own grave, so don’t expect most of the manosphere to accept the mathematical truths coming out, like the female IQ increase over men (when they take literally the same test). Hypergamy died in the last century. With love matches.

STD-free blood tests before marriage kept it good

I was rather shocked to hear from an American that some states (increasingly few) require a blood test (historically from the man, but now both parties) and a physical examination (of the man, historically) prior to granting a marriage certificate. I was shocked because 1. it’s a brilliant idea and 2. they’re phasing it out and 3. we have no equivalent in Europe…

One of my most popular posts was “Which laws kept marriage intact?” – found here. This information feeds into that topic.

Historically, all women would be presumed virgins before marriage (and in a time without ready contraception, not being pregnant was a reliable sign). However, men were presumed cads until proven otherwise  (to the father of the bride too, the patriarch) and had to prove themselves – in a way they couldn’t lie. Sure beats a lie detector. It single-handedly eliminated public health risks before they began in the population. This kept women safe from the pain, suffering of what we now call STDs, miscarriage and probable death that VD could and continues to cause on a pregnancy, as well as checking Rh factors (when negative in a female but positive in the fetus, from the father, this incompatibility causes miscarriage). Rh factors were a latter addition in need of medical forewarning (all marriages being fertile) and the original reason was to check the man was as respectable as he claimed (illegal to deceive under False Light and Misrepresentation). I suppose it would make wicked court evidence. If he visited prostitutes or slept around, he would fail the test and the marriage would be cancelled. In this way, r-types were forbidden from tasting the benefits of K-partner marriage. Here here. It’s easy to speak of protecting women and a good woman’s place in a stable marriage – but hard for the all-talk crowd to come to the logical conclusion: this means protecting them from deceptive men. Which often includes themselves. #burn #partoftheproblem

In short, women weren’t the only ones expected to prove their virtue prior to marriage. That is a myth.

lolmaletears

The manosphere manwhores don’t seem intent on covering this sort of information for some strange reason.

bbc sherlock moriarty eyebrow flash closeup lol flirt really rlly

I did a little digging for UK information and all I could find in public domain was;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268020/marriage.pdf

A few notes before I go on this paper.
Check this first line, the most vital point before we proceed.

1.1 To be valid, all marriages which take place in the United Kingdom must be: • Monogamous

I guess that upsets the human filth who plan on getting married and cheating too, with pathetic excuses that marriage has always been that way (clearly wrong) and they ‘can’t help it’ appeals to weakness covered in the final paragraph here: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/if-you-cheat-on-your-wife-you-deserve-to-be-divorce-raped/ Pardon me for believing that men have presumed agency and legal personhood. The American legal system is based on the English common law in case you didn’t know so this all counts.

Under section 14.3.1 Voidable marriage

Under s.12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a marriage celebrated on or after 31 July 1971 shall be voidable on the grounds that:…

at the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form;

Bad news, sluts!

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

It’s almost like the marriage laws are defined (as is marriage altogether) by the K-types who enter it and specifically written by the K-Patriarchs who wanted to protect their daughters from the likes of you. It isn’t all bad however, because a similar provision is made for the protection of fiances, their sons.

or at the time of the marriage the respondent was pregnant by some person other than the petitioner

I just.... I don't even know what to....what??

Nope, a bitch about how the system supposedly favours women doesn’t fly. It’s a K-law that eliminates the r-type genes from the high investment pool of options. You’re inferior, you chose it, you made your bed. Lie in it.

I shouldn't get this happy over old papers but I do

We should look toward more of the same legal protections if we want to fix the broken modern system of marriage.

Video: Ashley Madison and the argument against female hypergamy

The women marry, but they aren’t interested in cheating or trading up. Sample size: MILLIONS.

A few real ones only made profiles to check for their husbands and never used it again. 

david tennant 10 lol laughing cracking up

Your move, manosphere. Looks like the post-marital promiscuity is all on your sex.

crying laughter lmao

Maybe don’t base your models on Reality TV housewives or club skanks?

laughing rdj crack up

Women don’t want men. Women don’t need men.
But sure, hypergamy is such a thing because men are so desirable rn.
We all want Pajama Boy, he’s so hot. You caught us.
Best husband ever, this 21st Century Millennial man.
The skinny jeans show off that tiny estrogen-grown bulge, the nasal girlish tones and smug, PC talking points make a real man.

They're so stupid it's a laughriot
n.b. The social science definition of hypergamy isn’t bullshit, but it doesn’t really exist in this century, the manosphere’s hypergamy is bullshit. It isn’t even based on marriage, you can’t test for it. It’s unfalsifiable. 

http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2012/09/hypergamic-affirmative-action.html

The manosphere rightly criticises women for their diminishing femininity, but what the manosphere does not do so well is criticise the increasing infantisation of men.  When Roosh and his followers point out that quality women are only to be found outside the U.S. he is giving the masculine version of the modern feminist lament that there are no good men at home. What many manosphere commentators fail to recognise is that the nice computer nerd is the male equivalent of the nice fat chick. The manosphere demands thinness  but criticises women for wanting its feminine equivalent. Mote, beam, eye. It’s all a bit of hypocrisy.

They are nice because they have to be, it’s fake.

Calls to take away the rights of women are really nothing more than an affirmative action program for weak and beta men. Desirable men don’t have a problem getting married.

If the manosphere and MGTOW, people dedicated to self-improvement, can’t clean house on themselves, they have no right to complain about the quality of women or the damage of feminism.

Good luck finding a better test than millions of people with the Ashley Madison desert of parched lust. Or should I say, men. Maybe start up a Stan Summers and accept nobody wants you?
To all the wannabe cheating pieces of shit out there:–

porn cheat archer

Naturally, if the fake/VirginTOWs find this, they’ll be very vocal in how this “doesn’t matter” because they “totally don’t need women”. Except, they’re like that kid or ex who feels the need to shout about how they’re ignoring you, how much fun they’re having without you and how they don’t care about what you think. Where women are all raging sluts despite the data but oddly none of these whores will sleep with them even once. Sure, guys, sure. We’re shallow. 

Men need women. For sex, but that’s still a need.
Sex is one of the most valuable things in the world. for this reason.
There are too many men competing. They want it easy, they feel entitled to other people (that’s called slavery btw).
Women, however, don’t really care about sex. Male prostitutes are used, moreover, by other men.
But sure, all these non-existent women want married men, those old, great catches with beer guts and bad teeth, hair problems and ED caused by whacking it to too much porn. It isn’t still a male issue they need to accept and correct that they married without self-control. I’m sure somehow, in some way, you can always find a way to blame women.

It’s feminism with the sexes reversed.
It’s fucking pathetic.

I knew it I'm surrounded by assholes