Men lose Y-chromosome with age

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160523212527.htm
That’s why they die earlier.

Really.
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.

Nobel winner.

World famous.

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.

And diet.

IMHO.

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.”

No shit.

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.

At least, appealing to that market…..

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.

Post-war population recovery genes

Men are literally replaceable and that makes them better as a sex.

Exhibit A in the scientific “Men ain’t shit” series.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081211121835.htm

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).

Inevitable.

Trump could shit gold and it’s still inevitable.

Why?

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’.

*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.

https://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/fc_concrete_technology/durability/is536-types-and-causes-of-concrete-deterioration.pdf

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.

What happens to teenage rape victims?

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

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

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

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

I’m disgusted by that alone.

What a “revolution”.

Feed the entitlement of (serial*) rapists.

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

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

10% of girls isn’t small….

1 in 20 boys neither?

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

Flashback to all the statist propaganda of Sex Ed.

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

Is that not encouraging anti-social behaviour?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A basic fact that’s been known for ages:

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

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

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

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

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

suggest that these youth have been harmed

really?

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

wow, shook

and may further place themselves in harm’s way.

Self-destruction, common reaction to abuse.

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

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

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

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

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

This is a major factor in suicide, unspoken.

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

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

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

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

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

*Their libido doesn’t disappear after one attack.

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

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

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

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

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

They grow where irresponsibility lives.

Proof:

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

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

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

(By infertility or direct mortality does not matter).

Statistically?

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

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

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

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

update:

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

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

HOW DO YOU KEEP GETTING WORSE. HOW.

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

Slutty preppers die first.

Sluts unhappy monogamously

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

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.

Pictured:

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.”

aka normal
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.

Almost like monogamy evolved or something….

http://brembs.net/hamilton/

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.