Another time judging appearances turns out to be true.
Bad to the bone: facial structure predicts unethical behaviour
Researchers spanning many scientific domains, including primatology, evolutionary biology and psychology, have sought to establish an evolutionary basis for morality. While researchers have identified social and cognitive adaptations that support ethical behaviour, a consensus has emerged that genetically determined physical traits are not reliable signals of unethical intentions or actions. Challenging this view, we show that genetically determined physical traits can serve as reliable predictors of unethical behaviour if they are also associated with positive signals in intersex and intrasex selection. Specifically, we identify a key physical attribute, the facial width-to-height ratio, which predicts unethical behaviour in men. Across two studies, we demonstrate that men with wider faces (relative to facial height) are more likely to explicitly deceive their counterparts in a negotiation, and are more willing to cheat in order to increase their financial gain. Importantly, we provide evidence that the link between facial metrics and unethical behaviour is mediated by a psychological sense of power. Our results demonstrate that static physical attributes can indeed serve as reliable cues of immoral action, and provide additional support for the view that evolutionary forces shape ethical judgement and behaviour.
So Chad is a mindset?
Wait, is looksmaxing real? Like would surgery give you the mindset? Maybe?
Maybe this is why modern women prefer softer features?
The facial WHR is a sexually dimorphic trait (with men having larger ratios than women) that is independent of body size and is argued to have evolutionary origins . Consistent with the idea that evolutionary pressures account for this dimorphism, intrasex differences in facial WHRs have been linked to aggression in men, with greater facial WHRs associated with more aggressive behaviour [10,12]. For instance, men with greater facial WHRs are more likely to retaliate to perceived slights by others  and are more likely to act in their own self-interest, even if it means violating another’s trust .
Less likely to murder us.
I love when guys try to tell women what to fancy, it’s like telling them to stop liking tits. The buff look reads homo at best, dangerous at worst. Stop telling men it’s what women want. Not fat, not veiny. It isn’t hard.
Men have sex for the pleasure, women for the ego trip.
Stay with me, it’s worth it. I’m giving away Woman Inc. trade secrets here. Don’t use them for evil.
It’s erroneously claimed women fantasise about rape. Hell no. No woman has ever done that. It’s a fear worse than death for women, just ask us. Although rape can be a cause of death in women, like the stadium girl during Katrina, who was gang-raped to death (heart attack). It isn’t that… thing, by definition, as one cannot fantasise about a thing we do not want (paradox) and we see the life outcomes on actual rape victims, as bad in adulthood as if it happened as a child. Women do not fantasise about the act or the supposed sex, then. There’s something symbolic in being wanted, taken is a visual proof. We desire to BE irresistible. Look at Aphrodite, goddess of love and pleasure but not her pleasure, that of men. Men gain pleasure (now called male gaze, it’s real) even by looking at her (imagine the howling if bikinis were banned and reconcile the popularity of porn voyeurism versus imagination) and yet the Bible condemns this as the act of lechery, further, as a crime of adultery. …Why? …. Anyone?
Re Venus/Aphrodite and why cults of Satan worship her/Divine Feminine and worship with orgies as their ritual (nb. any fornication counts):
She is not an object, she is a deified subject who draws pleasure to her like a whirlpool of power. She is called vain, for being honest about her allure, she loves to be irresistible. That is what women want, not men. All witches are also enchantresses of men. Men are the source of their power, even Biblical kings. Men are made weak only by desire. the Bible warns men to forswear fornication (to retain spiritual power) and avoid seductive women entirely. Sexual desire flowed to women empowers the earth and its creatures (women) as well as its ruler (Satan). Women are not servants of the devil, though, since it’s men, who are serving their energy up, gladly. They are told they need to, they have to, that it’s good for them physically and socially. Father of Lies is whom? Look at all the lust over Hollywood celebrities and porn, two faces of the same location. Films intended for minors now have sex scenes and it’s considered normal. Men are the weak point in the species because earthliness (worldliness) is not a part of their natural energy, the lure is greater. Women already have a connection to nature via her menstrual cycles. So all major Satanist figures are men. Women have no seed to sacrifice (Onan’s sin) and no energy (active) to give.
Masculine women have sex for the pleasure, effeminate men for the ego trip. This is why slutty men and women have a cultural stigma as inferior quality in personal character, or whorish (or the rake, the cad etc), women as animal (base material nature) and men as trying to prove something about themselves by ‘notch counting’, objectifying the women out of personal insecurity (weakness, from degenerating the originally pure Jesus-like soul of the man, making soul ties that bind and curse the man’s life/witch women ‘cursing’ their prey, the Witch seducing the pure boy in the Wardrobe film, objectifying effete/weak men as animals to serve their pleasure – Circe to Pinocchio). Worldliness destroys men and nothing less. In Pinocchio, they were turned into donkeys/asses, related to horses. What does the Bible, Song of Solomon for example, say about such things? Other parts about anatomy? … I’ll let you draw your own conclusions, how they were using those boys once they became worldly… what were centaurs known for? https://www.boundless.org/relationships/solomons-line-on-premarital-sex/
That is the modern era, where male virginity is shamed. Male purity and power over any women mocked.
Meanwhile, the alpha woman is desired irresistibly (read: LOYALLY) by the alpha male, and the alpha man like a king desires only his alpha woman like a queen. His possession technically (so he has more duties) but both powerful, each body belonging to the other as the Bible decrees. Aragorn and Arwen. K-selection. Prosperous order, God’s path. Two energies made one flesh in union. The two made whole, or HOLY. Good tree producing good fruit. All myths and scriptures describe the same things.
The mistake of degenerate ancient pagans was to make the fertility goddess a man, because they liked men. Man are not fertile. Women are fertile. Mother Earth is fertile. Material things are fertile physically e.g. Lady Luck for cash gambling. The goddess of the mint, where gold coins were made. Men are immaterial, the cerebral sex. A male fertility goddess is not worshipped for his sex (or in Zeus’ case, rape) but his virility. As mentioned before ‘the embrace of a god is always fertile’. But look what happened to the Greeks and Romans, compared to the Empires of Christian societies, where the man is pure (free of sin, free of corruption, clear-THINKING) before marriage like Jesus then devoted to the family by clear cerebral choice and oath. Patriarchies are made by controlled masculine energy (self-control > self-mastery > The Master – of the house/womb) and from this, lineages are produced, great houses and legacies, by working with the woman’s inherent materalism (taming the dragon of Medusa-like rage) or I guess woman’s prima materia, her womb. The womb is an oven in alchemy, called furnace, pregnancy is a ‘bun in the oven’. The woman (womb of man) has generative power as wet (yes – lunar cycles prove it) and earthbound by the male’s seed of heat (primal fire, desire) and air (his cerebral, immaterial nature from God, Lord of the Sky/Heavens). Earth+Water+Fire+Air = Life, through the vesica pisces portal of the vulva. …I guess I also just explained the reality of alchemy. This would be referenced in weddings, right? It’s in the Bible like ‘my cup runneth over’ as material prosperity, blessed by the grace of God, especially when one is kind to women (like Jesus!) as we see in stories* but what about the words spoken? What was chosen? Why?
SO what are the vows? Let’s test this. To husband: honour and OBEY. To wife: love and to CHERISH. If either party neglects these gender roles, the marriage and its union is doomed. The man agrees to desire her and be loyal to her. What is the most common cause of divorce? Adultery. Most common cheat? Husband. Not ‘having and HOLDING’ was he? Opposite of cherishing: rejection and humiliation. Why is Medusa angry? Rejection, broadly. Rage caused by men (here rape) kills men. It all fits. Hera, also angry. Why? Only when he cheats. Again, it all fits. The woman agrees to respect him, honour his place above her (equal yoke of protection) because that in turn protects their fruit (children) in devoted sanctity and to provide this fully, she must obey his wishes because her vantage point is material, lower -but not inferior- than his pure (before marriage, chaste, Christ-like) spiritual origin in energy terms. Woman made of rib (material) and man made of God’s ‘dust’, (air) of pure spiritual will. I AM – is God’s name, God is his Will. His Will be done. Yada yada. Aside: It’s impossible for a woman to be corrupted by the physical nor fully understand the spiritual (no female disciples). Made complementary in energies, as a couple, to produce both sexes of progeny. The success or failure of any marriage thus falls squarely on the husband’s shoulders, as it is his duty and responsibility to lead the union. The vows aren’t just words, but an oath.A commitment of the very soul of man itself. No time for careerism or time with the boys, family comes first. Prov 31, study the husband, his qualities.
And if God had a sex himself, as the creator and birther of the birthers, God would technically be a woman, by his own choice (will) of role allocation. The linguistic has caused confusion since Babel.
God concept = male if in Heavens. Creating souls. God physically = female if on Earth, creating bodies (so sent a son as progeny, a child not conceived by the materialism of sex, spiritually pure masculinity, a lamb). If Christianity’s God has you worship a total virgin, what would Satan? Satanism tries to turn Earth into Revelation’s Whore of Babylon, stealing power from God.
So if Satan had a body, Satan would also be a woman (watch Ninth Gate). Anything materialised is feminine. Naturally, God’s place is in Heaven, ‘He’ would never materialise to become a She, so it’s purely theoretical. But the Anti-Christ would likely claim to be, and hence be female.
Looks like Amber Heard. The sheer irony. Somebody tell Johnny.
Husbands are the maintaining energy between two planes of creation, with religion.
Two planes intersecting, forming a cross….
Religion gives the cross meaning.
Don’t take my word:
“What shall I say, O my son?
What, O son of my womb?“
from Prov 31, included that wording in the Bible, not really a metaphor as often claimed, it’s God speaking to you as the maker of your maker (mother, Holy ‘Father’ to, Lording over-), also Prov 31:
“Do not spend your strength on women
or your vigor on those who ruin kings.”
spend their spiritual energy materially, thereby also old slang for ejaculation much later, we had ‘spend a penny’, to urinate – the cost of public toilets. pre-dec.
“The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he lacks nothing of value.”
AND he gains AND
A husband’s devotion to his wife is his material expression of his love of God.
It’s all right there. You don’t see epic love stories of a woman’s devotion, do you?
re holy dynamic
“Many daughters have done noble things,
but you surpass them all!”
Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting,
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.” God’s creative power being a higher thing.
Main cause of marital arguments? Money. Section of life? Career. Careerism of either party kills marriages and their sanctity but especially male careerism, it’s abandonment of the primary spiritual commitment. Now you know why the 20th century pushed it on men as desirable to abuse one’s wife and children. How so? Why the Mad Men ideal (and why make that show?)… well, neglect is a form of abuse. The children get neglected. No paternal role model, marriage has no head. A headless body flailing about. Mindless, aimless, but bodily – easily tempted and tainted by worldly things. No wits to resist, no guidance or moral authority. Household has no direction, home empties. No active, masculine energy. Employer rapes it, so Fight Club references the distinct impression that modern bosses rape their male employees of their direction, purpose and life’s energy. Wife is abandoned. Feels undesirable. Her righteous anger at this incorrectly makes him think more retreat will fix it. Man is now effete seeming, passive energy. Emasculating himself. Children sense it, act out, no moral authority will punish them effectively. Children go astray morally. Viscious cycle. Marital failure spirals. Man may leave entirely, the deadbeat or remain absent spiritually as guiding marital force. In either case, union dissolves without his steady stream of energy placed on it. Man’s energy must go somewhere, hence secretary cliche. The reason behind argument, a vow made to place energy. Woman placed in home, energy present. Void of husband? Unloved, uncherished. Nothing to give to children without personal loss (as women = passive). Feels helpless without her man, turns to spiritual intoxicants to blot out misery through the physical, her realm (alcohol, food, sex, smoking, sloth). Life outcomes of absentee parent, kids: not good. The spiritual and the material are not separate. You’re just not looking. Husband/father corrupts his wife and their union’s fruit, children, by omission – neglect and spiritual abandonment. His resentment is self-directed but acted-out in a passive way – like a woman, flees. His leading duties are neglected, so the union erodes. Like Medea, women are rageful out of revenge for being wronged. Cannot be active, becomes more passive out of spite. May be parasitic. Crazed/feared woman always made that way by men in every story e.g. bunny boiler, former mistress or wife.
It applies to a great deal of pop culture. Most people don’t see it.
ONE MORE TEST
Example? Name another cliche trope re women. Love triangle. Symbol: irresistible plus masculine, evolved competition. She gets the best mate, the one who desires her most and, here’s the purpose, would sacrifice the most for his family with her (i.e. God’s spiritual purpose of devotion and loyalty in men). So loyalty in men is praised, cowardice disgraced but there’s no female equivalent of cowardice. If you look at Hera’s rage in myth at a body-changer admitting women enjoy sex more, that’s why fertility gods are correctly women – never heard of a man have multiple orgasms. Meanwhile, a man’s pleasure in life and with wife is in the CHILDREN, his lineage and legacy. Male depression and suicide dovetails nicely with the lowest marriage (and reproduction) rates ever. BOOM.
I do wonder how many male suicides have no (surviving) children. Women simply caretake pre-existing family.
*Fact: Men unkind to women suffer materially their whole lives, self-cursed by the material and their rejection of its God-designed representatives. The material is not wrong, sick or evil per se – only perceived so by the weakness of effeminate men who cannot control/influence it and thusly, feel impotent. If you get the dragon, you did something to deserve it. If Lady Luck hates you, start being a gentleman to woo her. Civilized cultures raise men as gents and the ladies arrange themselves, reflecting like the moon to their sun, the quality and calibre of their society’s men. That’s all a society is. The quality of its procreating men, the fathers and husbands. THEREFORE, EVERY SOCIETY IS A PATRIARCHY. A strong (healthy) or weak (dysfunctional) one. Their control of that role. Is it too much, too little? Is there proper energy exchange? Chivalry isn’t historic, it describes a sophisticated power dynamic of holy energies. It was a Christian series of metaphors. Only the West nailed this, for a while. Look what we achieved with it. Then we let it slip, for domineering over the feminine to ‘prove something’ (egocentric stupidity, selfish, too desperate, ultimately impotent) or degeneracy (self-weakening of men via desires rather than morally weakening women, the soft watery mirrors of solar, fiery light). Weakened men (clue: mutilated manhood, less pleasing to women in studies) prefer to push degeneracy to entice their fellow man competition into destroying themselves.
The third piece of evidence is that the racial gaps have existed for a long time. In fact, based on the data from the tables above, the White/Black brain size gap doesn’t seem to have gotten any smaller during the 20th century.
Long before your 60s immigration acts.
The first thing to note is that brain size in the general population has a heritability of 87%. Thus, almost all the differences between individuals in brain size are caused by genes.
Secondly, we should note that racial brain size differences are present at, and even before, birth.
Keep blaming women though, that’ll help.
We need more direct studies like this. Gestation length and other variables must be accounted.
Menarche and other variables like WHR vary by race in the women too. More studies! MORE!
The manosphere is based on a myth of equalism, it was destined to fail.
Fourthly, racial brain size differences have been found all around the world. For instance, the Beals and Smith data set previously referred to features skulls from over 100 populations world wide. Many of the autopsy studies previously cited were done in East Asia, as were two of the MRI studies. This makes any gene independent cultural explanation less likely.
Fifthly, several studies have shown that mulattoes have an average brain size in between that of Blacks and Whites (Pearl, 1934; Bean, 1906). This finding has been established on multiple occasions and is what a hereditarian hypothesis would predict since mulattoes are half White and half Black genetically speaking.
Do studies for other mixes.
Sixth, many traits which tend to co-evolve with larger brains also differ racially in a way that mirrors the body size adjusted brain size pattern. Rushton and Rushton (2003) looked at 37 anatomical features which 3 textbooks on human evolution identified as tending to co-evolve in the hominid line with larger brains. For instance, larger pelvic size tends to co-evolve with brain size so that mothers can give birth to larger brained infants. Rushton then utilized 5 forensic anthropology textbooks to look at racial differences in these traits. These traits followed the East Asian>White>Black pattern in 25 out of 31 cases. The probability of this happening at random is .000000001.
WHR is important.
Follow the tag, there are racial differences in studies.
And East-Asian isn’t a race, at best it’s a sub-group, do more studies. Properly.
Asians fail more often on IVF, also posted about that.
Similarly, Rushton (2004) showed that, across 234 mammalian species, brain size correlates with longevity, gestation time, birth weight, litter size, age of first mating, body weight, and body length. Various studies have shown that each of these variables also differ between the races in a way that, based on what we find across the animal kingdom, would predict the body size corrected brain size differences we observe (Rushton, 1995; Templer 2006; Rushton and Templer, 2009;).
Longevity – must look at averages e.g. not Danes for all whites nor Japs for all Asians.
Gestation – we know this varies.
Weight – control confounds.
Litter size – look at natural rate of twinning.
Virginity loss is r-select, do not want.
Body weight – vague.
Length – we already know racial height. Still, add to the rest, I guess.
Thus, we have six lines of evidence all of which would be predicted by a hereditarian view on racial differences in brain size. While each line of evidence on its own may not be compelling, the combination of all six seems to strongly imply that racial brain size gaps are partly heritable.
It is worth noting that the racial brain size gaps are probably not entirely attributable to genes. Some authors, including Richard Nisbett, have plausibly argued that nutrition also plays a role. However, there explanations are not mutually exclusive, no environmental variables has been shown to account for the majority of the gap, and, as we have seen, there are many separate lines of evidence indicating that genes also play a role
A confound, in weight.
I suggest seafood consumption.
There is good evidence that the races evolved different brain sizes in response to climate. Specifically, various studies have found that a population’s brain size correlates with climate related variables. For instance, Pearce and Dunbar (2011) ‘s data set produces a correlation of .74 between a population’s brain size and its latitude. Similarly, Ash and Gallup (2007) found a correlation of .48 between the size of 109 fossilized human skulls and the latitude at which they were found. Further still, Bailey and Geary (2009) analyzed 175 skulls ranging in age from 10,000 years old to 1.9 million years old and found a correlation of -.41 between brain size and winter temperature and -.61 between size and latitude (larger brains were found in areas more distant from the equator).
How dare you use science.
The weebs might reee!
Lynn (2015) used Smith and Beals data set of 20,000 skulls from 122 populations to estimate that roughly 30% of the African-European IQ gap can be statistically accounted for by brain size differences. By contrast, brain size differences would actually predict an Asian-European IQ gap 35% larger than the one that actually exists. Thus, brain size is probably one of many factors, both biological and environmental, which account for racial intelligence differences.
Stop blaming women and ‘sexism’, we aren’t omnipotent gene meddlers.
Also, genetic proof of a male wall. LOL. An explanation to why so many middle-aged men suddenly look like lesbians.
[coughs in Bruce Jenner]
And there’s no way to reverse it, before the snake oil salesmen jump up with a solution that, if it worked, would make them a billionaire.
Popping pills to get out of laziness is what lefties do.
Bold for the lazy.
“Using new tools to analyze genetic variations that accumulate with age, we can help explain how sporadic diseases like cancer or Alzheimer’s manifest,” says first author Jan Dumanski.
One such postzygotic mutation found in the cells of biological males is the loss of the Y chromosome in a degree of blood cells. Loss of Y occurs in up to 17 percent of men and is more likely to be found in older men and men who smoke. This study expands on the idea that loss of Y, already a known risk factor for cancer (10.1038/ng.2966), could be a predictive biomarker for a wider range of poor health outcomes, specifically Alzheimer’s. Why loss of Y can be linked to an increased risk for disease remains unclear, but the authors speculate it has to do with reduced immune system performance.
They should look at age groups of men.
The researchers looked at over 3,000 men to ascertain whether there was any predictive association between loss of Y in blood cells and Alzheimer’s disease. The participants came from three long-term studies that could provide regular blood samples: the European Alzheimer’s Disease Initiative, the Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men, and the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors. Across the datasets, those with the highest fraction of blood cells without a Y chromosome were consistently more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.
….Really more of an outcome of poor genetic health….
Did you test for aluminium?
Attempt chelation therapy?
Yeah, fuck the easy solution, blame the Y chromosome.
Like women don’t get it.
“Having loss of Y is not 100 percent predictive that you will have either cancer or Alzheimer’s,” Forsberg says, adding that there were men in the study who had the mutation and lived with no symptoms well into their 90s.
Were their fathers older or younger?
If paternal age is a factor in ANYTHING, it’s a risk factor for this.
Male chromosome plus mutation. Come on.
Men think they can fool women but white hairs on a ballsack don’t lie.
“But in the future, loss of Y in blood cells can become a new biomarker for disease risk and perhaps evaluation can make a difference in detecting and treating problems early.”
Forsberg, Dumanski, and colleagues will next investigate the effect of loss of Y in larger cohorts and explore in greater detail how it confers risk for specific types of cancers and disease. They also plan to look at the cellular changes caused by loss of Y and how it affects different types of blood cells.The researchers looked at over 3,000 men to ascertain whether there was any predictive association between loss of Y in blood cells and Alzheimer’s disease. The participants came from three long-term studies that could provide regular blood samples: the European Alzheimer’s Disease Initiative, the Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men, and the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors. Across the datasets, those with the highest fraction of blood cells without a Y chromosome were consistently more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.”
Should look at heart disease, primary killer of American males.
But that’s none of my business.
If men aged well, they wouldn’t need to be on supplements.
Young men on supplements is just sad, like young women getting plastic surgery.
There’s no room to move. If you can’t be all that young, what are they going to do?
Our society treats aging like cancer, it’s ridiculous Boomer youth cult propaganda to sell them supplements like detox tea and testosterone ball rub. You can’t fool mother nature.
When they actually hit middle-age, they won’t be able to keep up with that crap anyway.
Imagine most of your shallow friends disappearing because you dropped the massive timesink of gym addiction.
The Ken Doll homoerotic gym attention bros look sad after about 40.
Plus bodybuilder types know there are two types of muscle: appearance and strength. Guess which one they all go for?
The one that instantly converts to stubborn fat if they so much as look at a complex carbohydrate past 30.
The Johnny Bravo look is actually, industry secret, physically weak.
In a fight, any martial artist will tell you the bulk limits their range of motion like a fatty anyway.
All men need is a healthy range of light muscle, which women prefer but don’t require any supplement sales.
Light muscle also provides cognitive benefits with no musculoskeletal downsides, including sag and joint pain. Bruce Lee could take a Henry Cavill any day of the week.
With the T&A they have a woman’s hourglass in profile, they gay.
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”
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.
“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.
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.
Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.
“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.”
“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.
“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.
In many of the countries that fought in the World Wars, there was a sudden increase in the number of boys born afterwards. The year after World War I ended, an extra two boys were born for every 100 girls in the UK, compared to the year before the war started. The gene, which Mr Gellatly has described in his research, could explain why this happened.
As the odds were in favour of men with more sons seeing a son return from the war, those sons were more likely to father boys themselves because they inherited that tendency from their fathers. In contrast, men with more daughters may have lost their only sons in the war and those sons would have been more likely to father girls. This would explain why the men that survived the war were more likely to have male children, which resulted in the boy-baby boom.
In most countries, for as long as records have been kept, more boys than girls have been born. In the UK and US, for example, there are currently about 105 males born for every 100 females.
It is well-documented that more males die in childhood and before they are old enough to have children.
That is prior to competition, crime, psychiatric issues including self-loathing and desire to never reproduce, as well as the sexual selection of women for a suitable man.
Externalities like the economy, racial wars, anti-natal culture notwithstanding.
The female genome is more stable, two Xs will do that. It contains more data too, the Y is smaller.
Women must be more stable biologically as the (genetic) carrier sex, another reason against female drafting. If some men die, they clearly recover (and as proven here, come back better) but when a race loses its women, it goes extinct.
So in the same way that the gene may cause more boys to be born after wars, it may also cause more boys to be born each year.
The fitter male lines are self-replacing. This is why all adult men should have been drafted. The reward of winning a war should be reproducing into your society’s future, to reward the cowards who remained behind is an insult to the brave K-types of the sex.
This is the red-pill. Men evolved to be expendable to one another in the protection of their shared racial germline.
Cowards know they’re cannon fodder. They betray their fellow man (intra-racial Brotherhood is the only acceptable collectivism). It reminds me of the Little Red Hen, and what man would want a coward in their ranks, that’s treason waiting to happen?
Or as we call them, cucks.
Behold, the back-up genetic programme: the self-culling cannon fodder.
Remarkable that genetic dead-ends appreciate the importance of marriage enough to insult all married couples as inferior (rationalization).
Also, demographic decline virtue signalling (- you can’t out-breed Asia, war is inevitable).
Asia*: highest population density, territorial expansive, fastest growing religion (Islam).
Trump could shit gold and it’s still inevitable.
More than r-selection, perhaps a feature of it.
If you’re stupid like Asians and murder your girls (glaring at India and China) then you cull the female-preferred genes among men, slowly killing your racial future because there won’t be enough carrier women to go around and the ‘problem’ will only get worse. There is no culling effect equivalent to war in women except socialist policy.
There’s your ‘war against women’. Affirmative Action for unfit male genes collapses both their group and the fit men of their race who were weak enough to allow it to happen. If every man is entitled to 1 waifu thanks to socialist compulsion (and all men, all women forced to marry by law**) but five infant boys survive due to medical technology…. 100-105=-5
Socialism’s birth policies are as dysgenic as their economics that punish effort.
This is why men shouldn’t decide who gets to breed with laws, women evolved for that task.
Socialism cannot replace sexual selection. What the internet considers it is not, reproduction is required.
A war will be mandatory if the leftover men have any hope of reproduction, by conquest and rape …..and ‘immigration’. The neocolonialism as BPS explained, of buying up properties in another homeland (r-migration for resources).
*As previously covered, most money to purchase is loaned by the Chinese Communist government. They are the true buyers overseas. Ban foreigners from literally buying your country. It’s a matter of national security. That includes the Putin-banished Russians’ blood money in London keeping the gasping death rattle of a real estate bubble alive. I’d extend this to the compulsory purchase of properties made by shell corps overseas, with unexplained funds (anti-corruption law) or belonging to dual passport holders who refuse to drop the other one (loyalty to another nation).
The concrete used in protected property basements is doomed to collapse. Like the postmodern glass monstrosities, they all crumble eventually, that’s why huge basements aren’t built in English soil. Rainy, flood-prone soil. Next to the biggest river incoming to the landmass.
And we get frequent earthquakes, of the sort that causes cracks in… concrete.
It’s a capital city so traffic causes tremors too – including planes.
Every heinous skyscraper you ever see will be self-destructing. Rich tower or council estate.
I’m literally the first person to look this up. Engineers study ENTROPY.
This error is old as Babel. We don’t need to lift a finger, ugly postmodern structures are already crumbling.
They’ll go the way of wooden castles.
Shad viewers? Anyone?
If only the Nazis had simply purchased American land, we’d be speaking German.
They’re still going to shoot you by the way. They need to outnumber you, fill University places then government positions first. If they have the land, all that’s needed are executions.
**Reducing citizens to breeding sows for the government, thanks, socialism!
Socialism is hence r-select and among other issues, assumes all men can be provider husbands, all women are fertile and all citizens are heterosexual. Socialism is doomed to fail by virtue of mathematics and basic biology.
“Results The lifetime prevalence of forced sex for females and males was 10.2% and 5.1%, respectively.
I’m disgusted by that alone.
What a “revolution”.
Feed the entitlement of (serial*) rapists.
For the overall sample, feeling sad/hopeless(odds ratio [OR] 1.9), having considered (OR 2.1) or attempted (OR 1.4) suicide, being a victim of physical dating violence (OR 2.8) heavy cigarette use (OR 1.4), binge drinking (OR 0.7), having multiple recent sexual partners (OR 8.3) and unprotected sex (OR 1.7) were correlated with a history of forced sex. Among females, associations were found among sad/hopeless feelings (OR 1.6), having considered suicide(OR 2.2), fighting (OR 1.3), physical dating violence (OR 2.1) heavy cigarette use (OR 1.8), multiple sexual partners (OR 9.3) , alcohol/or drug use before sex (OR 1.6) and unprotected sex (OR 1.5). Among males, associations were found among sad/hopeless feelings (OR 1.8), attempted suicide (OR 1.9), gun carrying (OR 1.8), physical dating violence (OR 4.3), multiple sexual partners (OR 7.8), unprotected sex (OR 1.9), and other ethnicity (OR 3.3).
Although a history of forced sexual intercourse affects a small number of adolescents,
10% of girls isn’t small….
1 in 20 boys neither?
it is an important public health issue. The psychological and behavioral correlates of forced sexuality
Flashback to all the statist propaganda of Sex Ed.
If we adults can’t be trusted with guns or sugary drinks because they enable bad behaviour, what about practically Tantric marital sex guides given to single, horny teenagers, along with condoms and pills?
Is that not encouraging anti-social behaviour?
The emphasis on “safe” sex is denying the legitimacy of celibacy. It assumes everyone is a slut. They can get that information online anyway. Innocence is illegal because explicit, brain-altering pornography is freely available (no credit card wall to safeguard from child access).
A single person shouldn’t be sleeping around, the touted health benefits of sex are statistically non-existent (compared to real exercise, comparing anything to a couch potato would be a benefit, that’s just bad science) and psychologically they’d be better off handling matters themselves if physically desperate than endangering everything from their marriage prospects to their mental health to their future cancer death risk.
Then there’s the rape allegation from sexual coercion, which is legally valid. How many teenagers are taught that instead of an ugly form of physical entitlement a la Brave New World?
Sex is the adult marker. Yes, it is serious and should be taken deadly seriously. The fallout of a sex life can get you killed (crime of passion is a legal defence in France).
Parents shouldn’t allow sexually active children to live with them anymore. It’s abnormal and contributes to this culture of infantile adults, with all the endorphin-producers and none of the struggle to get them. They regress and functionally retard themselves because those rewards signal the brain that it needn’t develop further, having earned the reproduction status in the tribe (and virgin genuises like Newton never really stopped growing intellectually, along with other comparable groups like monks). Children with early sexuality never catch up mentally either, for this reason. The window of opportunity is lost, it’s like trying to feed plant nutrients into a fruit that’s already been plucked. Future generations will look back in horror that we force-feed ducks to make liver paste but how much more that we encourage the most depraved degeneracy in the most vulnerable – children, which stunts their life, by outcomes? And an addiction, as freeing them?
If you’re mature enough to make babies (that’s what it is)then you have no right to intrude on your own parents. Traditional societies held this rite of passage important. Men who brag about losing their virginity aren’t taught to value purity of the body and psychological pair bonds, they’re kept ignorant of these (by vindictive sluts who want to convert others to misery) and consider themselves men for performing like prostitutes(white men, how far ye have fallen) for a near-stranger who doesn’t love them enough to give them children for it (the test of female loyalty is the investment of fertility). It’s empty. They think they’re proving how they’re independent but they still exist on their parent’s health insurance or under their father’s roof, it’s objectively pathetic. I’m surprised the Boomers didn’t give them a trophy. The Manwhore Medal. Congratulations, you’ll make an inferior husband with every notch! – Just like the divorcing Boomers.
It is not “fun”, not sport, not exercise, not “good for you”, there is no upside to promiscuity. Scientifically, legally, it’s a con. It’s a self-numbing, self-soothing habit (which unlike masturbation, promotes disease**) that makes strangers have trouble connecting or ruin their pair bonding for the eventual marriage they, again, feel entitled to.
But won’t actually get (quality or bust).
Where did all the good women go? You made them notches. The rest of the world is laughing at America bitching about the consequence of their own causes. You want a culture of sluts, now you have shit marriages. You made your bed. America was the Patient Zero of how to fuck up an amazing civilization with degeneracy in modernity (and yes while planned you went along with it for gibs). You’ve done everything wrong but refuse to reverse it, whining that The Government should “fix it” with further incursions on responsible people’s freedoms when it’s individualism that caused it and…aren’t these guys libertarians? Highlights include bitching about abortion but wanting to keep it legal in cases of premarital consenting sex and bitching about disease rates but refusing to use condoms like a grown-up.
Are you men or not? Either you’re held responsible for your actions or not.
A basic fact that’s been known for ages:
Anyone terrified by being a parent isn’t mature enough to be having sex. If the thought of being a mother or father disgusts you, you shouldn’t be using those parts like Lego bricks (the ones that don’t un-stick) because you can’t un-make a baby.
How often does it mention that? At least, not to do anything downstairs with the opposite sex because… babies happen. They can’t act shocked when the process of baby-making produces one. That is normal.
How much of an idiot do you have to be, to deposit living sperm into or close to (anal) a vagina, and be surprised when a baby comes out nine months later? If you never want kids and you don’t get the snip first, age 18, you deserve to be laughed at. Women can’t get done age 18 but men can get it easily. It’s like something out of Idiocracy to act like your fertility is a surprise, that was a main joke at the opening of the film. You can show them all the pictures but they assume their lust can temporarily suspend the laws of biology. And they treat pregnancy as a disease, like the late-term abortion monsters. (You consented to make it, that’s all sex is, sex is not an orgasm, nobody is stopping you from having those, it even happens in sleep for both sexes. I would add that the cultural focus on orgasms is intended to weaken bonds with pressure and tire people though, it isn’t the purpose and shouldn’t be a focus if you care about health.)
Expecting infertility is abnormal. Really creepy, if you think about it.
A union of death.
Sex Ed doesn’t educate at all, it misinforms.
suggest that these youth have been harmed
the overt pedos saying about raping menstruating little girls are abusive?
and may further place themselves in harm’s way.
Self-destruction, common reaction to abuse.
People are not sex toys or ego pacifiers, whatever Sex Ed has “taught” you.
Intimacy means a lot to people who aren’t psychologically broken. It’s serious. Only a psychopath sees people as toys.
Furthermore, the profiles of adolescent females and males who report such experiences are distinct in ways that warrant their independent examination and attention.”
Different biology, different trauma. Female virginity is more complex of course, involving fertility as the carrier sex and there’s the high risk of physical permanent damage including scarring. Given that fact, the female is historically considered worse (protect the baby-carrying sex is a survival instinct, female fertility or available brides are a vital resource of a race) but men and boys merit individual study as a sex that tries to reduce their numbers (abused) and improve their life outcomes too, while acknowledging sex differences without shame. A cultural change is needed there.
No sex without (full) consent, as this shows, that’s just rape.
It ruins lives.
Strangely, it also increases race-mixing. Stress dampens the typical aversion? Or it seems riskier? This would apply to any racial dynamics, remember, so a black girl would become more likely to sleep with a Mexican, for example.
This is a major factor in suicide, unspoken.
Slutty men and women are far more likely to be acting out their abuse in a way they feel they control.
It is informally known as “acting out” but instead of relieving themselves of the pain, it’s a temporary purge that brings on feelings of shame and isolation, which they’re often told means they must sleep around more. By the Sex Ed groomers.
Sex is not a suitable anti-depressant. If you must, just masturbate (needing porn is a form of impotence). There’s higher esteem and satisfaction where studied anyway, don’t expect the groomers to tell you that (otherwise how could they rape their students?) … they want to convert people to their miserable lifestyle.
Emotional distance is not normal in men, nor stoicism (philosophical stoics are very close to people) but it’s a fear of emotional intimacy, especially with the demographic of their attacker/s.
*Their libido doesn’t disappear after one attack.
**The MRAs going on about male cancer studies don’t want to research how bad the habit of promiscuity is for the health of a male body because they might have their feelings hurt. They might be judged or questioned (death before triggering?)… There’s a link between anal “sex” and various cancers, for example. Fuck like a gay man, get the same disease risk profile of one. They hardly research it (fine, die?) but penile cancers etc all rise because of fecal bacteria (you know they refuse condoms, just like a homo).
And they’re the reason syphilis is back (men are the major carrier). Hope you like your dick dropping off because you’re too manly to protect it (valid Q: who would know you use condoms unless you tell them and have you seen how many male porn stars get HIV?). Antibiotics are failing on various STDs because the Government gives them all the antibiotics they want without telling them to be less of a slut in future and, being stupid, they use them wrong – directly causing resistance.
The State shouldn’t hand them out again because hey, you can’t be trusted to use them properly and take measures to avoid infection, so eventually they will fail because of your behaviour.
Another cause of resistance is that they often have multiple STDs (and don’t tell the other party beforehand, which is rape), that swap genes. Still the State refuses to quit enabling the walking public disease cases. The rest of us suffer.
The STDs are preferentially evolving within the male system because nobody is telling the manwhores to stop. The rest of us don’t want to die on the operating table for a large garden splinter age 44.
They grow where irresponsibility lives.
“The analysis revealed that 9 percent of gonococcal genes showed increased expression exclusively in men and included genes involved in host immune cell interactions.”
The female expression was half that. Tell the manwhores to stop (and the slutty women obviously) or the drugs will become smothered and ineffective in the human immune system (i.e. of all of us).
The “I’m not harming anyone” libertarian argument is bullshit! We have genome data!
It’s evolving around your stupidity. To kill the species.
(By infertility or direct mortality does not matter).
America doesn’t need a baby boom either, you need the contraction that’s happening because few of you can get married, can afford children and raise them properly plus the Baby Boomer generation was a fluke of history (and world war dead), repeating it will constrict your society and cause more Boom problems. More people, less prosperity (see India). Picture overflowing sewers. You need to be K-selected and focus on quality while reducing foreign (genetic) competition for your domestic tax base resources (your birthright). You cannot out-breed the billions of Asia and Africa and South America. America is a small country compared to most of the globe. Thankfully, you don’t have to.
And immigration doesn’t actually help, Magic Dirt doesn’t fix their tendency to over-breed.
The guys going on about the Spartans can’t sit out in the cold overnight once but never talk about the boy rape by “mentors” (it was Ancient Greece), not being able to choose who you marry (class was important) or being forbidden from living with your own wife until age 30 so… we’ll pass on that system. While making men full citizens age 30 is a good idea neurologically, for voting especially, the sexual stuff is creepy. Plus, you’d 100% be drafted. Sparta was a military force, you can’t be a Spartan male in lifestyle and not be drafted. Usually these same guys getting misty-eyed about Brotherhood (military cult dogma) also bitch about the idea they might be drafted as “sexist” – yes, but in a good way. Men evolved to fight. Men are better equipped to defend themselves. Women are needed so the nation doesn’t die biologically (whatever the outcome) and many women don’t reproduce either (social reasons) but men always fought one another as a rite of passage for a wife and few ancient men bred, your odds are better nowadays. Why complain you have an advantage (self-defense) and the state knows about it? Would you rather be a woman, and physically weaker? Are you sure?
(Physically weaker and more likely to be sexually attacked, 10% lifetime rape risk up top, great combo – there’s your ‘hate crime’).
I didn’t know this existed already until I looked but fuck you America.
Ah, he finally included men!
And look at that, virgin men at marriage (1 sexual partner, the marital spouse) are the happiest group of all!
Looks to be 73%! In the current year!
Logically, if you want your fellow men to be happy, you’d ask them to be chaste.
Is that in the Bible anywhere?
What would Jesus do?
Next he needs to do a divorce study and control for the other spouse e.g. yes 6% of virgin brides divorced but were their husbands virgins too? Otherwise it’s like studying half a swimming pool for depth measurements.
It is interesting he misreports this data in part, you don’t look purely at the self-reports like single data points, you compare the group by sections – i.e. all the men to men and all the women to women.
The drop for both sexes is comparable, implying the cause of both is the same (and it is, weakened pair bonding).
Men begin with more monogamous satisfaction and women a lot less, significantly less as a sex, so to compare their promiscuous ratings without controlling for that is intellectually dishonest. The drops are comparable.
WAS THAT SO HARD???
Basic descriptives, so simple a 5yo could see it.
There is little difference within women to push the female-centric finding he clearly wants to.
I’m going to be skeptical on this “study” as any other.
“In this latest study, women who have had one partner instead of two are about 5 percentage points happier in their marriages, about on a par, Wolfinger says, with the boost that possessing a four-year degree, attending religious services, or having an income over $78,000 a year has for a happy marriage. (In his analysis, he controlled for education, income, and age at marriage.)”
Five percent, I hate to say it, is well within chance. It’s barely significant, almost suspiciously close enough to make me suspect p-hacking… and “about”? Science, guys. Education, class (income) and religiosity would have more of an effect, especially combined. This is important information that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. It suggests breeding is a huge factor in the choice to be pure or the resultant satisfaction.
Men, by valid comparison, have a sheer drop of satisfaction far greater than women, look at that gradient!
Dat gradient, easier to see for normies with boxes I am too lazy to go back and colour-code.
Which box is bigger? None of the inter-female drops rival than initial male gradient of 1 sexual partner to 2, I checked.
If this is glaringly obvious to anyone with the slightest semblance of mathematical training (IE I am not a sperg) on first sight, why miss it out?
Men experience a VAST drop in happiness that seems to be almost double (about TEN percent! huge!) the female 1-2 drop and he just ignores that? He goes on about the half-drop instead? Are you kidding me?
This is why sociology isn’t a real science, kids. This bullshit.
Going back, you can see why his legends aren’t labelled properly.
Yes, that is Papyrus because people who don’t labels their legends must be punished.
It doesn’t even start at zero to exaggerate sizes, get your life in order.
So why the narrative focus on female sluts? Why nary a mention of manwhores? What bias, right?
Do you care about the science of your own marital happiness or the badfeels of shame for bad choices?
“In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce”
Why hasn’t he published the data I KNOW he collected on the men? That isn’t scientific, they’re divorced FROM men, aren’t they? Or were all the divorced women he counted lesbians?
Are Americans really stupid enough to think male virgins don’t exist?! They try to suggest the virgin grooms were actually lying based on the survey writing but it doesn’t wash.
It suggests something important, however triggered broflakes might get that opening one hobbit-hole closes another.
Men happier under Patriarchy? Who’d have thunk it, right?
“And Wolfinger acknowledges that, because of a quirk in how the survey was worded, some of the people reporting one partner might have meant “one partner besides my spouse.”
Weaseling out of results you dislike?
Who wrote the survey? The spirit of Imhotep?
“The median American woman born in the 1980s, Wolfinger writes, has had only three sexual partners in her lifetime, and the median man six.”
So as science keeps telling us, men are the sluts. It’s simple mathematics.
Well, logically, how likely are chaste women to marry the slutty men in the first place? Isn’t that rather important than randomly assuming they’re all shacking up eventually to Have it all?
“They have never been interested in sex without commitment, and once married, they may be more committed to their spouses, and therefore happier.”
Study the pair bonding in their brains, I dare you.
Ah, but sociologist, useless!
Scientists should be studying virgin brides and grooms as role models of pair bonding glue to help out the other lot with specialized marital therapies but noooooooo. Heaven for-fend they admit Christians might be superior! Moral authority, with a biological basis? The sluts might have their feelings hurt!
It could be that, Wilcox told me, “having more partners prior to marriage makes you critically evaluate your spouse in light of previous partners, both sexually and otherwise.”
Yes, promiscuous men have low marital satisfaction whoever they marry, because they were sexually spoiled.
as the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen puts it, “you could have a lot of sexual partners not because you’re good at sex, but because you’re bad at relationships.”
Obviously promiscuous people are bad in bed, why run from a good thing? It can’t always be the other party’s fault, can it? Just survey promiscuous women, (they have) and you’ll find they don’t even orgasm once. There is a notable deficiency in sexual skill (prowess) compared to those same women with other, less slutty men.
If only we had a parental unit investment formula…
“Moreover, this analysis is not peer-reviewed; it’s just a blog post.”
Yeah, submit it to any journal and they’ll insist on seeing your data, like how I want to.
Something doesn’t add up. One man ‘researches’ how women keep being the problem despite ignoring male data on contributions to the by default mixed sex problem….. hmmm….. and also ignoring other much bigger causes of divorce such as adultery and domestic violence…. where’s the red pill data on those? Why doesn’t it exist?
If you really want a controversial study, cross-cultural study of marital and sexual satisfaction versus castration status (circumcised or unmutilated) includes measures of sexual and bodily insecurity and mental proclivity to adultery.
Picture a boulder in a pond if you reported the truth on that one.