Smear test risks not warned

I wonder why.

Why do an unnecessary procedure, even on virgins, misinform them that they must do it and charge for something physically damaging to the future reproductive health, that they can also charge for?

Why not study or publish the negative outcomes, which are hard to trace?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831804-400-women-arent-being-told-real-risks-of-cervical-cancer-screening/

Almost like they want to hurt women and abort their babies.
I can’t find a way to link the whole thing, especially if the EU have their way.

Blood tests exist for cancer, like STDs, smear tests are outdated Victorian perversions and if you look up the law, plausibly a form of rape with an object, especially if misinformed.

https://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/miscarriage-after-a-pap-smear?page=4
If you damage the cervix, it can cause permanent harm.
Would men allow their balls to be scraped with a small serrated metal knife? oh, bleeding’s normal, it’ll heal, don’t worry!

“The overseas doctor said that was a big no’ no’ and that they never pap in the first tri-mester.” In a foreign country. If they know…

Older men (35+) see large drop in fertility

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/1703.long

The impact of male age on fecundity remains controversial. Here, a large population study was used to investigate the effect of paternal age on time to conception. All couples in the Avon Health district expecting a baby between 1 April 1991 and 31 December 1992 were eligible. Questionnaires completed by both the man and the woman at 18 weeks gestation covered specific fertility factors, e.g. parity, paternity, cohabitation and oral contraception; and non-specific factors, e.g. educational achievement, housing, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently related to conception in ≤6 or ≤12 months. Of 8515 planned pregnancies, 74% were conceived in ≤6 months, 14% in the second 6 months and 12% after more than a year. Nine variables, including the age of the woman, were independently related to time to conception. After adjustment for these, the likelihood of conception within 6 or 12 months was lower in older men. Compared to men <25 years old, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for conception in ≤12 months were 0.62 (0.40, 0.98), 0.50 (0.31, 0.81) and 0.51 (0.31, 0.86) in men aged 30–34, 35–39 and ≥40 years respectively.

That might explain Harry. And the kale smoothie diet. Good for sperm.

When people wait too long on purpose, with the right person, and find out they can’t have kids any more, I like to think it’s Mother Nature flipping them off with one hand and punching them in the balls with the other.

Why, you ask?

“the overall association with age was highly statistically significant. If the man’s age was treated as a continuous variable there was a significant linear relationship: the odds ratio for conception in ≤6 months decreased by 2% per year of age (P < 0.01) and for conception in ≤12 months by 3% (P < 0.001).”

Every year a man goes over 25, his likelihood of easy conception drops by 2%.

“These results suggest that there is a larger decline in male fecundity with advancing age than reported in earlier population studies (see above).”

That is all pretty funny considering the guys who think they have Thor-immortal sperm.

More like thaw.

“Therefore our conclusions would remain valid even if the most fertile of the older men had been eliminated from the study group because they achieved unplanned pregnancies. If the opposite bias predominated and the less fertile couples were lost from the older groups, we would underestimate the effect of age on male fecundity. It is unlikely that a substantial number of men aged ≤24 years would believe themselves to be sub-fertile….

Please call it virility. Men don’t give birth, they can’t be fecund. Just call the impotence, impotence. There are levels.

Were this true of older men, it would again lead to an underestimate of the effect of age on fecundity.”

“…However, they do not exclude the possibility that the greater fecundity of young relative to older men was more marked in the past. 

….It is also possible that more fertile men complete their families sooner, and less often try to father children in their thirties or forties.”

Burn.

It gets worse. You can’t supplement your way out of ball shrinkage.

Although most data come from elderly men changes can be detected in middle age (Erfurth and Hagmar, 1995Bonavera et al., 1997). There are a number of morphological changes in the ageing testis, including a decrease in the number of Leydig cells (Neaves et al., 1985), a decline in Sertoli cell numbers and daily sperm production (Johnson et al., 1984a,b) and an increase in the involution of seminiferous tubules (Paniagua et al., 1987). Spermatozoa from older men are less fertile after intrauterine insemination (Mathieu et al., 1995Brzechffa and Buyalos, 1997) or in donor insemination (Lansac, 1995). These observations support the conclusion that the effects of paternal age on a couple’s fecundity are real and may be greater than previously believed. After adjustment for other factors, the probability that an ultimately fertile couple will take >12 months to conceive nearly doubles from ~8% when the man is <25 years to ~15% when he is >35 years and paternal age is a further factor to take into account when deciding the prognosis for infertile couples.

Doubles in ten years. That’s worse than any female stat. It tanks!

What about the sperm?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268926297_Consistent_age-dependent_declines_in_human_semen_quality_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

Reduced fertility typically occurs among women in their late 30s, but increasing evidence indicates that advanced paternal age is associated with changes in reproduction as well. Numerous studies have investigated age-based declines in semen traits, but the impact of paternal age on semen parameter values remains inconclusive.

Clear rationale, nice.

Using data from 90 studies (93,839 subjects), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of male age on seven ejaculate traits (semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm count, morphology, total motility, progressive motility and DNA fragmentation). Age-associated declines in semen volume, percentage motility, progressive motility, normal morphology and unfragmented cells were statistically significant and results generally seemed to be robust against confounding factors. Unexpectedly, sperm concentration did not decline with increasing male age, even though we found that sperm concentration declined over time.

More chance of mutant sperm, future psychiatrist patient babies! Lucky you!

It would be better if they made less but retained quality than risk stillbirth.

Our findings indicate that male age needs more recognition as a potential contributor to the negative pregnancy outcomes and reduced offspring health associated with delayed first reproduction. We suggest that greater focus on collection of DNA fragmentation and progressive motility in a clinical setting may lead to better patient outcomes during fertility treatments of aging couples.

Ouch. Thirties is now aging? Well, I guess in medicine, it is.

Really, 40 is the age where male fertility tanks severely.

Like, you’d be better off not conceiving than risk the cost of a disabled kid.

http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(06)00104-X/pdf

Result(s): The odds ratio of failure to conceive for paternal age 40 years was 2.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10–3.61) when the woman was 35–37 years old, 2.03 (95% CI: 1.12–3.68) for age 38–40 years, and 5.74 (95% CI: 2.16, 15.23) for age 41 years and over.
Conclusion(s): As an increasing number of couples choose to postpone childbearing, they should be informed that paternal age over 40 years is an important risk factor for failure to conceive.

This marked maternal age effect led to the conclusion that 35 years is the “amber light” in the reproductive life of women (4).
Paternal age was long almost ignored in studies of age effect on reproductive outcomes, but its potential role has recently been investigated. Some works have shown that increasing paternal age is accompanied by greater risk of delay in achieving pregnancy, of miscarriage and of late fetal death (5–8). In a recent review of the literature, we considered that 40 years could be the “amber light” in male reproductive life, as is 35 years for women’s reproductive life (9)

Wow, five years. Almost the average difference of successful marital unions. (Wait, exactly that, the man is five years older). Now I know why it’s Mother Nature.

…. To analyze paternal age effect mediated by biological aging alone, data on medically assisted cycles provide a very interesting model

Our results provide, for the first time, strong evidence for a paternal age effect on failure to conceive that is linked only to biological male aging (without confusion with sexual activity). We observed a clear tendency to increased risk of failure to conceive, especially when the fathers were over 40 years old. Results in the first and last classes in Table 2 (older woman with young man or young woman with older man) should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of couples in these classes. We thus analyzed Table 2 by concentrating on classes with at least 30 couples. This revealed a clear increase in risk of failure to conceive with paternal age.

Our results on a paternal age effect after 40 years are in accordance with results recently published concerning the general population. In a European population-based study of
couples attempting to conceive naturally, a significant odds ratio of 2.99 (95% CI: 2.77, 7.55) for the risk of not having conceived after 12 months of attempting to achieve pregnancy was observed when the woman was 35–39 years old and the man 40 years old and over (7). A similar tendency was observed in another European study of 782 couples, which showed a decrease in the daily probability of conception in couples composed of a woman 35–39 years old and of a man in his late thirties or older (8).
It has been demonstrated that couples having difficulty in conceiving also have an increased risk of miscarriage (19).
Thus, the association between paternal age and failure to conceive raised the question of a possible association between paternal age and miscarriage. In the literature, an
increased risk of miscarriage was observed in couples composed of a woman 35 years old and over and of a man 40 years old and over (OR 6.73; 95% CI: 3.50, 12.95) (6).

What about 50+? Obvious grandfather territory.

More recently, in a large Danish cohort, a twofold increase of the risk of early fetal death was found when the father was 50 years old and over compared with fathers 25–29 years
old, after controlling for various confounders and especially for maternal age (5). In the same cohort, the authors showed a paternal age effect as early as 45 years when considering late fetal deaths.

Yet they’ll still try to blame it on the women….

….The authors concluded that elevated paternal age (35 years) increased the risk of spontaneous abortion during the first trimester and at the beginning of the second trimester, with a suggestion that the association was stronger for deaths occurring during the first trimester.

large genetic abnormalities

Interestingly, a remarkable concordance exists among all these studies, stressing the fact that older fathers (40–45 years old) have a key impact on both reproductive issues, failure to conceive, and miscarriage.

When a man conceives, his sperm quality is all he contributes. Male age will be a much larger factor than anything female, all things considered. Try making a decent omelette with stale eggs. Try fertilizing an ovum with old sperm. The single ingredient on that side of equation becomes very. very important.

Women in that case are trying to compensate for the errors of men.

The mechanism for the paternal age effect remains to be explained.

….Really.

Aging germline DNA is not better DNA.

Previously, as for maternal age, the genetic hypothesis had been emphasized (21, 22). After analysis of 11,535 pregnancies obtained by artificial insemination using donor spermatozoa, an increased risk of trisomy 21 for the fetus when the donor was 38 years old has been suggested (23).

A lot of my generation thinking they can wait will be sorely mistaken.

Gambling your future, literally.

It concludes

In reproduction, age must no longer be considered as the concern of the woman, but as that of the couple. Similar to maternal age over 35 years, paternal age over 40 years is a key risk factor in reproduction.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114096.php

The results showed that maternal age was closely linked to decreased pregnancy rate, which was 8.9 per cent in women over 35 compared to 14.5 per cent in younger women.

Small difference.

But the scientists also found that the father’s age was also important, not only on pregnancy rates, but perhaps more surprisingly, on the rate of miscarriage, with a pronounced negative effect once the father was over 35 years of age…

A representative of the Eylau Centre also said on an interview with the BBC aired early this morning that the likely cause of the decrease in male fertility after 35 was DNA fragmentation. He said that DNA fragmentation was not unusual in male sperm and often this is repaired “by the woman”, but when it is too fragmented it is beyond repair, leading to pregnancy failure and miscarriage, he said.

They’ll still blame the woman.

There’s a reason all of Henry VIII’s kids died childless.

Frozen sperm is only good for about ten years, by the way.

Maybe instead of proving their manliness by submitting to 23andMe, these guys should be getting their sperm quality checked and post those results.

Sperm donors have an age limit of 40.
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/2010-05-13_SCAAC_paper_-_maximum_age_for_sperm_donation.pdf

Asian-European fertility issue

Partial re-post from: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/racial-realities-mixed-race-fertility-and-neanderthals/
I wanted to expand a little because it’s ridiculous that I’m the top search result and I want to encourage public, detailed research on this topic.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/10/the-prenatal-wages-of-interracial-relationships/

Speciation is an ongoing process, it’s part of evolution, also an ongoing force. As members of a sub-species, better known as race, continue to diverge over time, the characteristic event will be infertility, fertility issues, birth defects and miscarriage. Once it is born, a failure to thrive and reproduce itself would also count as an adverse selection pressure.

My simple question: do we see this?

Oh, boy. Grab a drink, tall one.

The mixed-race dating pool is limited, to the other mixed-race, for example.
This lowers the potential fitness of the organism, compared to its parents’ baseline.

I’ll take a biomedical approach, from the limited information available.

“From EurekaAlert, Asian-white couples face distinct pregnancy risks…:”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/sumc-acf092508.php

Asians have a lower median birth weight, a racial difference as real as shorter African gestation periods compared to Whites.

“Although past studies have looked at ethnic differences in perinatal outcomes, the majority of research has focused on white- African-American couples. Few studies have focused specifically on Asian-white couples, said El-Sayed, who is also associate chief of maternal-fetal medicine.

More specifically, the researchers found that white mother/Asian father couples had the lowest rate (23 percent) of caesarean delivery, while Asian mother/white father couples had the highest rate (33.2 percent). Because birth weights between these two groups were similar, the researchers say the findings suggest that the average Asian woman’s pelvis may be smaller than the average white woman’s and less able to accommodate babies of a certain size.”

Nature is trying to tell you something there.

There is a clear natural selection pressure exerting itself.
Also, C-section birth puts the baby at a distinct disadvantage, those children have a weakened immune system, poorer health and fare worse in pair bonding.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14662-c-sections-may-weaken-bonding-with-baby/
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001973
Learning disability is on the tag list. Look for yourself.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2473493

It doesn’t decrease infant mortality and can actually kill the mother over time.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/04/one-in-three-us-births-happen-by-c-section-caesarean-births
It’s serious surgery.
“It becomes routine but it is still a major surgery. That carries a long-term effect on maternal health.”
“Compared with women having a vaginal birth, those having a C-section for the first time have… a 5.7 times greater risk of an unplanned hysterectomy”

Nature is telling you something there.

“El-Sayed and his colleagues also found that the incidence of gestational diabetes was lowest among white couples at 1.61 percent and highest among Asian couples at 5.73 percent – and just under 4 percent for Asian-white couples. These findings weren’t altogether surprising: past studies have shown an increased risk of diabetes among Asian couples, which researchers attribute to an underlying genetic predisposition. But the interesting finding, El-Sayed said, was that the risk for interracial couples was about the same regardless of which parent was Asian.”

Dominant genes? No!

“Because of the results on Caesarean section rates they adduce that there is a pelvic size difference between Asian women and white women. Objective male observer acquaintances of mine have generally tended to back up this phenotypic difference between the populations.”

They’re shaped like pre-pubescent boys. Why else get surgery?
You should study it formally though. Asians have the lowest sexual dimorphism and it’s important to know the numbers.

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2008/10/asian-white-couples-face-distinct-pregnancy-risks-stanfordpackard-study-finds.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/

“Although births of multiracial and multiethnic infants are becoming more common in the United States, little is known about birth outcomes and risks for adverse events. We evaluated risk of fetal death for mixed race couples compared with same race couples and examined the role of prematurity and low birth weight as potential mediating risk factors.”

Miscegenation doesn’t work, even with modern medicine.
This applies to black-white pairings too.

It is a disgrace adults are marrying without knowledge of the biology involved.

“Mixed race black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight, which appear to contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth. There are likely additional unmeasured factors that influence birth outcomes for mixed race couples.”

I cannot find a stillbirth study for Asian-White pairings, I’m sorry. Is it so common they need not study it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807602/
I am looking, nobody is studying it.
I’m sorry, I am looking. It would be nicer if fewer babies were dying.

We have anecdotes?
https://www.temptasian.com/fyooz/after-3-miscarriages-the-zuckerbergs-are-finally-expecting-a-girl/
“Most people don’t discuss miscarriages because you worry your problems will distance you or reflect upon you — as if you’re defective or did something to cause this.” Mate choice is something you did. The baby didn’t choose to be conceived by you two. Part of your biology must be defective because miscarriage is an outcome of defective conception and/or pregnancy (there are many possible reasons, some environmental, a few random plus ‘stress’). It sounds cruel but yes, medically, something is wrong.

OT: Jews have a non-White miscarriage rate.
Jews invented/funded IVF because they needed it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/assisted-reproduction-and-judaism
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.529569
Israel is a eugenic ethnostate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fishel#Early_life_and_education
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182091/
“The issue of the rate of recurrent miscarriages in high-risk Jewish women is unresolved.”
I am biting my tongue.

When trying really hard, the only evidence for hybrid vigour in White Americans vs. mulattos, which they sought to prove (scientism) is “relatively small.” …Is it present or not?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14618
“this study provides evidence [DS: the evidence isn’t proof?] that increased stature and cognitive function have been positively selected in human evolution, whereas many important risk factors for late-onset complex diseases may not have been.”
That’s bullshit, everyone is getting taller and getting better grades.
May not have been? In Nature?
Listen to the twisting in this: http://www.medicaldaily.com/g00/interracial-couples-may-make-taller-smarter-children-due-greater-genetic-diversity-341348
“Meanwhile, human evolution is more focused on the ability to create healthy offspring and have them survive infancy to continue raising them.”
Yes.

…Yes, it is.

“Whether you come from a genetically diverse background or not, in the end even the most common medical ailments that affect society will affect everyone, with genetic diversity having little to no impact.”
No, genes. The most common fatal medical ailments aren’t a cold, they’re genetic-based, it’s established fact. And if it had no impact, why push it?
“It combines the parents’ genetic material, resulting in offspring that possess a unique set of genetic blueprints that increase their chances of surviving and thriving compared to a population with limited genetic variability.”
No such thing. Limited genetic variability? No such thing. Where is this thing?
They’re just talking absolute crap to cover how their study was a non-result. Every genome is unique, between twins even. Thriving and surviving varies by individual genome, that should be studied by the natal people. You know this. You hide the scant data that is there with delusions. This is propaganda. It continues:
“This encapsulates Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection,”
No, he wrote a whole book. Look at the subtitle to The Origin of the Species.
Natural selection is about death and mortality, which you have not studied. Disease is not death.
“where individuals with characteristics that increase their probability of survival”
how? like being able to give birth?
“will have more opportunities to reproduce,”
in a limited dating pool
“according to the University of California, Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution.”
If California understood evolution, it would be Alaska.
“As a result, their offspring will benefit from the variants,”
no, not if they’re the more common disadvantageous mutations or if the combination is novel and fatal
“which will spread throughout the population.”
No, you’re assuming they breed. Infertility exists, and it exists on a spectrum.

http://theconversation.com/being-south-asian-is-as-great-a-risk-factor-for-stillbirth-as-smoking-80074
There would be signs.

“This is an increased risk equivalent to smoking, advanced maternal age or obesity.”

“While other research has found the mother’s ethnicity places a role in the risk of a stillbirth, this has largely been put down to factors related to migration and social disadvantage. What our research shows is women born in South Asia and giving birth in Australia are at increased risk even when other factors are taken into account.”

D.N.A.

“There is growing evidence to suggest a mother’s ethnicity influences how fast her placenta ages as her pregnancy progresses.”

Asian placenta is old, got it.

“For some women, they can go into spontaneous labour sooner. In our study, we found South Asian-born women went into labour a median one week earlier than Australian- or New Zealand-born women.”

Racial differences in gestation duration, again.

“However, for others, an ageing placenta cannot meet the fetus’ increasing metabolic needs at term and beyond. And this increases the risk of stillbirth.”

Infertility, insufficient maternal resources for the fetus. That’s a kind of infertility. Considering how skinny they are and how those female curves are supposed to feed a baby, historically, this is not surprising.
Nature is aborting babies that would starve. Before it kills the mother too.

“And the length of telomeres in placentas from pregnancies ending in stillbirth are two times shorter than those from live births. In other words, the placental cells had aged faster.”

Superior Asian genetics people might wanna cover their innocent eyes.

“Some researchers have also studied ethnic differences in placental telomere length.
In an American study, placental telomeres from pregnancies in black women were significantly shorter than from pregnancies in white women (the ethnic backgrounds of the women were not further defined in the study).”

Superior European placentas. As you’d expect for the one race hit hard by an Ice Age. Perhaps this is an unknown r/K variable.

“Whether telomeres are shorter in placentas from pregnancies in South Asian-born women is unknown.”

Oh, I think I can guess.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4272534/

“There was a high prevalence of stillbirth in this multi-ethnic urban population. The increased risk of stillbirth observed in non-White women remains after adjusting for other factors.”

Whites are different? Biologically? Shudder-gasp!

Let’s see if BMI matters.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1860462
Yes. Of course it does. They only studied high BMI though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392932/

“However, BMI does not take into account the relative proportions of fat and lean tissue and cannot distinguish the location of fat distribution”

“However, these are based on information derived from the general population, based on risk of mortality, without consideration for racial or ethnic specificity and were not determined to specifically identify those at risk for diabetes. Recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented initial findings from an oversampling of Asian Americans in the 2011–2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. These data, utilizing general population criteria for obesity, showed the prevalence of obesity in Asian Americans was only 10.8% compared with 34.9% in all U.S. adults (13). Paradoxically, many studies from Asia, as well as research conducted in several Asian American populations, have shown that diabetes risk has increased remarkably in populations of Asian origin, although in general these populations have a mean BMI significantly lower than defined at-risk BMI levels (14,15). Moreover, U.S. clinicians who care for Asian patients have noticed that many with diabetes do not meet the published criteria for obesity or even overweight.”

So we’d need to look at WHR, instead of BMI.

New Evidence on Waist-Hip Ratio Reveals Surprising Relationship to Fertility, Urges Revision of Attractiveness Theories

“In women, the connection between WHR and health measures appears to be hormonal. It is known that ratios of estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin affect all of these features. The “right” balance promotes both health and low WHR. One version of the “attractiveness theory” posits that our attraction to this body shape developed as an indicator of overall health.”

“Another crucial part of the attractiveness theory of wait-hip-ratio (WHR) is that this body shape has to be indicative of something related to fertility, or else it wouldn’t have any evolutionary value.

The key feature in a potential mate is biological fitness, that is, the potential to give birth to many healthy and successful offspring.

Desirable females, in the evolutionary sense, are those that are likely to be healthy, fertile, and robust.

Robust = pelvis, btw.
Venus was never a narrow-hipped vixen.
The body acceptance people should really focus on the hips.

A low WHR, it is thought, must correlate with fertility (ability to have children) and/or fecundity (tendency to have large numbers of children).”

There is such a thing as too low. Boyish figures have less fat, fewer curves and narrower hips.
They’re confusing women who have obesity and babies for State money with natural attractiveness, fecundity in the state of nature and blurring BMI with WHR. Nobody said unhealthy (low) WHR is wealthy, for fecundity. That’s a strawman. The hormones and other details, medical details, are better profiled in the most nubile WHR range. It is a range. Don’t line graph me, study.

It doesn’t mention race although many women in the world do not have a figure. Unless you count a figure of 1.

Hormones and junk: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/health-what-a-man-cant-resist-the-perfect-waist-hip-ratio-forget-about-breasts-says-jerome-burne-its-1440859.html

“The waist is one of the distinguishing human features, such as speech, making tools and a sense of humour,’ says Professor Singh. ‘No other primate has one. We developed it as a result of another unique feature – standing upright. We needed bigger buttock muscles for walking on two legs.”

If the waist makes the human, a lot of women are fucked.

The ideal ratio in healthy pre- menopausal women ranges between 0.67 and 0.8. In terms of the tape measure, this is produced by waists between 24in and 28in with 36in hips, and waists between 27in and 31in with 40in hips.”

A range.
…How many Asian women have a 36″ hip?
The fat ones I’ve seen were pufferfish.

“come puberty, the sex hormones start directing it differently.”

sexual dimorphism

“Oestrogen, the hormone of female sexual characteristics, concentrates it on the buttocks and hips while the masculinising hormone testosterone encourages fat to form around the waist.’ At the same time testosterone encourages fat to be burnt off the buttocks while oestrogen takes it off the abdomen.
These characteristically feminine fat stores are used in the last months of pregnancy and during breast-feeding. This is another reason why women who are seriously underweight often stop menstruating – they would not have the resources to support a pregnancy or a baby.”

Confetti time.

“Women with a low ratio, Professor Singh says, tend to start ovulating younger, and those with a high ratio find it more difficult to become pregnant and tend to have children later. [not by choice]
Although a high waist-hip ratio most commonly goes with being overweight, it can also be found in women of normal weight who have high testosterone levels – a condition that is also associated with being hairy, infertile and having a ‘male’ body shape.”

Manly body, fertility problems. Study it. Avert tragedy.

“In a survey of 106 men aged 18 to 22, the favourite was a female of average weight with the classic hour-glass figure. Not only were such women rated as young, sexy and healthy, they were also seen as ideal for childbearing.”

Again, sexy is different from beautiful.
Porn is a lie.

“The young men regarded the underweight women – defined as women of 5ft 5in weighing less than 90lb – as ‘youthful’ but not particularly attractive, especially for childbearing.”

To prefer the obese over the mannish figured for motherhood is huge.
Youthful is code for making them feel like a pedophile.

“In Professor Singh’s other surveys, men of all ages agreed with these findings – thus bearing out her theory of the waist-hip ratio.”

Women dropped the corset to signal they weren’t just baby-making machines.
It’s hard to test low-WHR women in a world of obesity.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4953-barbie-shaped-women-more-fertile/

“Women who were extremely underweight or overweight were not included.”
Study them separately?
Porn is making you drawn to infertile women, with boy hips. Conditioning.

WHRxfertility
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904003617
“Figures of average weight and a WHR of 0.7 were rated as most attractive and healthy.”
It is important.

I want to see a study that looks at racial WHR against pregnancy issues.
Is that so hard to ask?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381200044X

“These data indicate that BF% appears to be a strong cue for attractiveness and that the impact of WHR and BMI on attractiveness is dependent, in part, on BF%. The appearance of body fat may provide disruption in the visual cues of both shape and size of the female body, potentially impacting behavior.”

Speciation is determined by biological compatibility in sum. This includes many factors. On none I have seen do Asian-White hybrids succeed over their parental groups’ averages; even IQ gains, if true, would be worse for the individual’s own fertility rate.

The only other thing I could think of is a study on STD rates between couples.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2117964
http://sti.bmj.com/content/87/Suppl_2/ii14
http://www.expat.or.id/medical/stds.html
“The association between travel and STDs has been known for centuries”
What’s the Asian version of burn the coal? Pick the chopstick, get ripped?
http://global-disease-burden.healthgrove.com/l/24974/Syphilis-in-Southeast-Asia
Prevalance: “fairly common.”
The wages of sin. You can’t blame the white man.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02438113
Syphilis present in Asian archaeological samples.
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2060294/young-women-among-sufferers-japan-records-huge-spike-syphilis
“Endemic syphilis”
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1952297-overview
http://sti.bmj.com/content/76/6/415
‘referred to as “the intraracial network effect,”’
Oh, that’s why they don’t study it.
“suggest that assortative mixing prevents the spread of STI to other subpopulations.”
“A number of studies in the literature, many of which did not measure biomedical markers of STI, suggest that mixing across subpopulations may contribute to spread of STI in the population, particularly across subpopulations.”
If you increase the microbe’s exposure to different parts of the human genome, it will evolve faster. Simple?
Age groups can be a larger factor, since the older immune system is weak and better for the microbe.
“In a recent study conducted in Seattle we found that most of the disease burden for gonococcal and chlamydial infections in both high prevalence and low prevalence subpopulations was attributable to mixing within the subpopulations”
I think we’ve found the reason white women mix out the least. Same reason we don’t like to eat meat raw – to avoid disease.
‘the proportion of infection attributable to indirect mixing, or so called “bridge populations,”
So it is attributable and naturally must inform sexual behaviour.
“While we found that sexual mixing between particular racial ethnic subpopulations increased the risk of STI significantly, the proportion of the population engaging in sexual mixing, and the numbers of sex partners reported by individuals engaging in sexual mixing across racial-ethnic subpopulations were too low for this increased risk to play a major part in disease burden.”
Hybrid vigour, guys!
The risk isn’t the major part, it’s fine! Water’s fine!
“The literature on racial-ethnic differentials in STI rates and the role of racial ethnic mixing on the spread of STI is emergent; many questions still remain unanswered.”

If miscegenation were unhealthy, we’d know, right?

Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/6/1649/2919231
Miscarriages occur in teens too so I dunno who is dumb enough to rely on this one variable alone.

37 is the age when maternal age starts to matter for women (depending on family history) if you look at the shift in gradient on the charts (barely any change before) but 40 is the huge risk age in both men and women, as in this study.
“However, the increase in risk was much greater for couples composed of a woman aged ≥35 years and of a man aged ≥40 years.”
Is Human Reproduction not a prestigious enough journal?

The 37/40 thing:
Age and the Risk of Miscarriage
It isn’t sufficiently studied in men but data on paternal age as a factor keeps coming out.
Looks like you can’t just blame the woman again. Takes two to make a baby.
“a dramatic rise starting after age 37, with the steepest increase occurring after age 40.”
“The man’s age matters too. Having a partner over the age of 40 significantly raises the chances of a miscarriage.” Nature doesn’t like old, mutant sperm either.
“Over half of miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities.” It isn’t a bad thing, really.
“On average, a woman in her early 20s will have chromosomal abnormalities in about 17% of her eggs” So that’s a really terrible metric considering humans are human. There is always risk.
It’s worse in men than women, so I’m hardly favouring women by opposing this reductionism.
“And as men age, chromosomal defects and point mutations–changes to a single nucleotide in their DNA–become increasingly common.”
Where minors are raped and studied, they tend not to do well either.

Memorize that chart.

A teenager is as bad (at-risk) as a woman with an additional two decades.
You’re still debating less than one percentage point of difference though. Are you autistic?

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


Note: Again, 37 is the magic number.
“While IVF helps many couples overcome their fertility problems, it largely cannot overcome the age-related increase in genetic abnormalities. Without genetically normal sperm and eggs, a viable pregnancy is impossible.”
“Despite this problem, several studies involving couples discordant for age now paint a clear and consistent picture: older prospective fathers raise the risk of miscarriage by about 25-50%. One study found an a 60% increase in the odds of a miscarriage if the father was over 40. Another found a roughly 25% increase in the risk of miscarriage for fathers over the age of 35.”

I guess the Have it All guys can’t read.


As you can clearly see, getting a teenager up the duff would actually be worse.
All things considered.
There are plenty of studies on this but what’s the point?
They basically show the same thing.
No doubt they’ll try to cherry-pick something else to draw focus back onto Boo Women.

A little more then I’ll give up and hope men who value their health listen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809297/
“Trends towards increasing paternal age are being observed in the UK as well as USA, due to delay in marriages for attaining better socio-economic stability.”
Fucking feminists. /sarc

Advancing paternal age has been shown to result in subfertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, late foetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight), birth defects (cleft lip and palate, congenital heart defects), achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfect , Apert’s syndrome, schizophrenia, childhood cancer (brain cancer, retinoblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) and adult cancer (breast, prostate and nervous system).3 Possible mechanisms for these problems include single gene mutations, autosomal dominant diseases, structural abnormalities in sperm chromosomes (e.g., reciprocal translocations) and multiple genetic / chromosomal defects. DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36 – 57 years was found to be 3 times that of men less than 35 years”

Good luck blaming females for that.

“The present study has demonstrated that the paternal age more than 35 years was an independent risk factor associated with spontaneous first trimester miscarriages. In order to eliminate the effect of maternal age, which is itself a known risk factor, we selected women between the age of 20 – 35 years, as this is considered to be ideal age for child bearing.”

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


The reproductive system needs time to become stable, women take longer to physically mature (completed by the late twenties).

Paternal age is a factor in disease and infertility, independently.

“They recommend counselling of men more than 40 years of age when seeking pregnancy.
I’m not gloating, my heart goes out to men who waited too long and have to raise, at best, a sickly child. They need to be warned of the risks of waiting just like women do.

“Kleinhaus K et al have studied various age groups and have found father’s age more than 40 years to be significantly associated with spontaneous miscarriage.13 Slama R has also studied age ranges and have found that risk of spontaneous miscarriage showed linear increase in the hazard of spontaneous miscarriage in male age between 20 and 45 years. They also observed that hazard ratio was highest with male age > 45 years compared with 18 – 24 years (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.01 – 3.44).1 Others have used paternal age between 30 to more than 50 years.”

The male system matures before the female, (18, mid-20s). If we’re being nubile about social policy, the wife should be older slightly.

So the ideal female age for motherhood is 20-35, but as we see here, ideal male age for fatherhood is 18-24, up to 30 if we’re pushing it. You’d expect the male age to be earlier since they have more DNA damage over time and shorter lifespans combined with earlier physical maturation.

Biology? Sorry?

Freezing sperm doesn’t last by the way. They go off.

“Studies on paternal age and fertility suggest that male biological clock does exist. Similar to women, advancing paternal age results in negative effects on reproductive outcomes.”
“Klonoff-Cohen also found decreasing pregnancy rate with male age. Pregnancy rate was 53% for men less than or equal to 35 years, 35% for 36 – 40 years and 13% for men > 40 years.”
Again, 35 seems to be the turning point for male infertility. Almost equal to the female 37 downturn but the male peak is earlier because the (greater) damage is cumulative (see next quote) and gamete production is ongoing.

Why do you oldies wanna marry young unless you’re admitting there’s a deleterious effect to counteract?
In future, more studies will look at differences in the under-35 men, between, say, 18-24, 25-29 and 30-35.

We postulate from these studies that damage to sperm accumulates over a man’s lifetime. Sperm making cells continue to divide throughout the man’s life, increasing the chances of mutations. Impaired DNA replication and repair mechanisms and increased DNA fragmentation.
DNA damage could also result from reactive oxygen species formed by alcohol, nicotine and drug abuse.”
The wages of sin.
“According to Aitken RJ’s study, male genital tract infection can result in DNA damage in male germ cells and therefore, increase the rates of miscarriage.”
Oh look, male chastity was logical.

“CONCLUSION
Paternal age more than 35 years was found to be an independent risk factor in spontaneous first trimester miscarriages.”

They haven’t really studied younger in sufficient detail to claim that’s fine though, findings like those mentioned above show <30 is ideal in both sexes, to start.

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/65/705193
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125283/
“In this Opinion piece we argue that the tendency of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to cause infertility is likely to reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the pathogens. We use an evolutionary perspective to understand how STI pathogens may benefit from reducing fertility in the host and what clues the mechanisms of pathogenesis can offer to the evolution of this ability. While we concentrate on human infections, we will also briefly discuss the broader context of STI-induced infertility in other species.

STIs are a common cause of human infertility worldwide…”
No, men can’t sow any wild oats.

No such thing.

“Reduced fertility and an increased risk of complications during and following pregnancy both contribute to reduced reproductive success in the host—and may benefit the sexually transmitted pathogen by destabilizing partnerships and increasing promiscuity.”
The microbes in your urethra are thinking for you.

Not even your dick.

This does explain gay culture. Wow, gay germ theory gets everywhere. This also explains their fetish for fluids and pozzing parties. At least they’re somewhat aware of it.

“Not only are highly promiscuous individuals exposed to a higher risk of acquiring STIs, but STIs may also actively generate hubs of transmission in a vicious circle of promiscuity and infertility: in traditional societies,”
It’s anti-natal and terrible for society.
You can’t leave behind a life of sin.

Also liberal fertility rates make a lot more sense right about now. It is a bug, and it is a feature!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pass-it-on-children-can-inherit-herpes/
STDs can be passed on at conception, which explains the first trimester paternal age miscarriage finding, the older you get, the more diseases infect the body.
A direct study hasn’t been conducted yet – sexual infection history and miscarriage.
Could it find funding?

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/12/stis-may-have-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
“Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.

In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.

[coughs in r-selection]

But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog.

[hums in Malthusian tones]

The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful.

[religion is evolutionally fit]

[K-types FTW and for discrimination based on self-protection]

While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties.

[stop paying for their babies and STD treatments? FIRSTLY?]
[kinda like how prison was meant to keep you from breeding – a genetic death penalty – until you dummies invented welfare for their women and conjugal rights, making the whole thing useless]

The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.”

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

The social/cultural clearly comes after the rest. Like, the die-offs?

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

Some miscarriages caused by genetic defect

Darwin was right, what a shocker this one is.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171002145008.htm

Allow me to explain.

There are three selection events in humans.

  1. Pre-birth, failed by miscarriage. Many go this way.
  2. Birth itself to infancy. Many went by malnutrition, starvation, abuse, maladaptive development or illness.
  3. Reproduction. Nowadays, this tends to be how people go. Better written up as genetic suicide, when intentional.

Parental age (both genetic contributors) does affect risk, yes, but genetics research does NOT want to EVER acknowledge the varying benchmark of genetic quality to begin with. There are teenagers who miscarry for this reason or produce children with defects, the risk is always there with every conception that the conception event goes awry, it’s simple maths. The possibility is always there.

It really goes by family. If the people in your family could be first-time parents successfully in their 30s/40s, you’re fine, the overall genetic quality level is good.