Oxytocin promotes patriotism

It is the love hormone because love also means protection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029708/

“Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members.”

Have we found the hormone for the k-selected?

The higher oestrogen of women (general finding) depresses amygdala (stress) activity (this is written up on wikipedia if you want to link-follow) but oxytocin release increases amygdala stimulation over the top of the oestrogen signal, which is otherwise fine and generally neuroprotective (presumably so we don’t miscarry when a shadow looks like a guy).

So maybe the way to get women caring less about the ‘refugees’ and remember their personal safety is now their job, not a husband, is to pass out free oxytocin nasal sprays?

Or put it in the water supply?

I’m kinda serious. It’s crazy enough to work.
Compassion fatigue already set in years ago, ride the wave and reduce the maternal clucking of middle-age Boomers.

I wonder if military service induces oxytocin release for male-male bonding?

“Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.”

K-shift…?

Dare I dream?

It doesn’t mention that when ANY ingroup meets ANY outgroup, the natural result is competition because Darwin.
It isn’t a choice or a value judgement. War happens constantly, it is the norm. When modern food supply runs low, it’ll come back, roaring back, bigger and badder than ever. We’re in the experiment.
Race to survive, anyone?

You might remember there was a BS flurry in the MSM about a chemical that reduces ‘racism’ – this was it.

It doesn’t – because ‘ingroup preference’ (the positive social term, along with the lesser known and more genetic genophilia) is totally natural. They stupidly assumed they could extend the ingroup to literally everyone in the whole world. The brain resists this, that’s why they haven’t drugged us all by now.

 

Since among other findings;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122242/

It increases patriotism for one’s culture and love of one’s family.

It changed freedom of association to genetic kin and love of the flag but not corporations.
It studies Asians which is a hiccup but hormones tend to have broad effects.

The men of society love strength in their social group of other men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25193946

It also leads to monogamy and fidelity – in MEN.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23152592

Ding ding ding K-type central.

“Together, our results suggest that where OXT release is stimulated during a monogamous relationship, it may additionally promote its maintenance by making men avoid signaling romantic interest to other women through close-approach behavior during social encounters. In this way, OXT may help to promote fidelity within monogamous human relationships.”

I would bet that sluts, the promiscuous with higher and higher N counts, with damaged pair bonding, release less.

More studies on whites and women needed but otherwise, great work.
Nature is literally against these ‘social engineers’, too kind a term, for penpushers and petty meddlers.

New fave GIF, will get a lot of use.

BTW the primary source of oxytocin in humans would be ..the nuclear family. You’d have to knock that out to bring multiculturalism in.

Are humans meant to be monogamous?

Articles like these are always PC, they’re trying to defend the ‘sex positive’ line.

At least it didn’t mention bonobos (red herring) on such a loaded question.

http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html

This comment is better than the article.

I disagree with the premise. If you look at Chimps… the females sleep around so that no one can be sure of paternity and they entire group will be invested in protecting the progeny. But in those societies males aren’t invested in parenting and they themselves sleep around.

However, human males have evolved to be invested in parenting. That’s why they develop biological changes such as increasing prolactin to help them bond with the child. The greater the paternal investment in rearing the offspring the greater the necessity to ensure paternity.

Any man irrationally terrified of cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing is flashing beta (anxious-avoidant attachment style) like a neon sign, why else would he think it’s possible that a woman would want to cheat on him?
[notable exception: rape]

Nature only has two options for that– either you become a lot bigger like male Gorillas so you can fight off other males to protect your harem or you invest in monogamy. If you compare humans to Gorillas we are lot less sexually dimorphic with only about a 10% difference compared to 50% difference. For monogamy, of course it makes sense that we have developed the biology to feel romantic love. When human males fall in love their testoterone actualy decreases and female testosterone increases. Making us more similar to each other. Both males and females feel jealousy at their mate with another person. Humans have actually evolved for monogamy compared to our closest relatives.

All true. Mate guarding is proof positive of monogamy in humans.

Bravo and good tidings

Why guard when you have others and don’t care?

Infidelity would lead to tribal ostracisation, the man would probably die a genetic death if he wasn’t bludgeoned to death by the genuine spouse (rightly, crime of passion) but the female would be left either with children and no provider or the children would remain behind without a carer and fall prey to a wolf or something, those remaining wouldn’t really care for the children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect

Women have more to lose from cheating and the current law corrects this. Anyone in a committed relationship who cheats is scum anyway, who cares what happens to them?

http://www.livescience.com/www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/2428-cheating-unsafe-sex-open-relationship-%20std-risk.html

Bring on antibiotic resistance.

OT: So-called ‘dread game’ actually attracts anxious women and makes them act out, not the secure ones who care. When you pull away, they let you. It keeps the crazies.

r/K and Trivers’ Parental Investment Theory

I assume you know r/K, here is a paper direct from the source on the latter.
You’re smart enough to draw the connection here.

http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy2664/Documents/trivers.pdf

Promiscuity is bad for males.

triverspromiscuity

Science. Evolution.

GTFO, haters. Either swallow the redpill data or quit pretending to care about the truth.

shrug lol toldyaso fuck you batemanhappy bateman

Also, evobio arguments about fertilization don’t apply to sterile sex.
For the same reason a man’s opinion on periods is baseless, they aren’t really having it.

DAT Table 7.1

If you hate the idea of marriage, you don’t deserve one

Let alone a happy one.

red dwarf useless insult condom machine vatican

And they expect the rest of us to convince them to leap in the gene pool?this is awkward

Who wants them there? They’re like a vegan at a steakhouse.

They’re like the new vegans. Rant rant rant rant rant – to the omnivores. They bore one another so must seek out the rest of us. I’ve even heard them try to argue against the Bible, because it tells you to marry repeatedly, but with God…

“Perfect love casteth out all fear.”1 John 4:18

As I noted briefly in Who do these guys think they are? there has been a new trend to start randomly pontificating at women on traditional matters by wholly modern men with no moral authority. An egregious example of this are the basement-dwelling losers with MGTOW somewhere in their screen-name who go on female issue websites and start bitching about us, to us, for attention. They aren’t even trolling, they’re probably retarded.

white male opinions do the creep

It’s quite literally mansplaining, quite by accident. A genetic suicide has no valid opinions on childrearing, male or female. Imagine if I kept blogging about how great it is to be a man, that isn’t even an opinion, it’s a delusion. A vegan has no valid opinions on the preparation of Thanksgiving turkey. It isn’t that they don’t have the right to an opinion, theoretically, but the basic conditions of merely having an opinion do not hold. They have no skin in the game. I don’t mind if they go off to their precious male-only spaces, please do go. But this new barrage of intrusion to the exact group (traditional women) you’re whining doesn’t exist? It makes all men look bad.

outgenepool

Nobody is going to tell people so actively hostile to a stable base to have kids. Even people on the fence with that stuff shouldn’t have kids. It’s the biggest of responsibilities. You can’t half-arse it. You need to go in expecting to do half the work, because there’ll be a lot more than you could ever expect, that’s called ‘parental investment’. Nobody is oppressing you, it’s the hardest job and has been for all time, whatever your sex. You’re never off the clock once you become a parent. It’s a 20 year to life investment, like a prison term, but these guys would balk at signing a two year employment contract. They are literally afraid of commitment, whatever the context. If you aren’t mature enough for that, fine, at least be mature enough not to brag about how childish you still are.

Here’s the inner monologue of everyone who hears these people;

You don’t want kids? Why should I care?
I am entirely neutral on this piece of information.

nothavingkids

Or worse;

You’re never having kids? Thank God.

The two main groups, the no-life teenage losers and on the shelf Boomers, feed one another in their hatred like a human centipede of misogynist shit (you know they think men are blameless innocent little victims on a pedestal for every count) and they wonder why they put off any sane women, to the extent they say there are no good women – sound familiar?

Bitterness is never attractive. The system isn’t against them, they could theoretically have a nuclear family. They don’t want to put in any work. They dream that a Patriarchy would just hand them a wife with no effort, like a slave driver. Since they cannot get a woman by persuasion. It’s Affirmative Action for boys who refuse to become men. Never in human history has marriage worked like that, the family unit cannot excel while one party is a user, what all abusers have in common. It’s an r-type scam, they cannot compete reproductively, so they’re trying to convince other men to simply give up. They’re jealous of Patriarchs. The future belongs to those who show up for it and that requires…?

All this complaining is convincing themselves that they don’t need to put in the work, because their dream is impossible.

Imagine a scrawny pajama boy bitching on a weightlifting forum about how weightlifting doesn’t work. You’d wanna wring the little bitch’s neck too.

A couple of choice examples I have read.

“Give a benefit of marriage/ traditionalism that I don’t have already then I will consider it”

This isn’t a business transaction. There aren’t spreadsheets to look over. Aspies are already at high odds of dying alone because they seem to think it’s a contract for their soul. There isn’t any guarantee in human relationships, in ties to people. Why are we wasting time listening to these losers when they can’t keep a girlfriend more than a matter of months? Why do you think women ask how long your longest relationship was? It’s to see if your pair bonding ability is broken.

“MGTOW is the new way.”

Cult alert. Cult alert. Cult alert.

If you go into a marriage cold, you deserve to get divorced.
If you think it’s you vs. them, it’s over. It’s dead. It was never a true bond. Monogamy is pair bonding. If you can’t pair bond, you are incapable of being monogamous. If you can’t pair bond with your chosen spouse, you are incapable of a marriage with them.
They don’t even like the idea of being loyal within a marriage, as if that isn’t the entire point. Their imaginary Ideal isn’t even good enough not to cheat on…
If you can’t trust the person you’re marrying, or trust any member of the opposite sex, you are barred from marriage. Oh, you might have the paperwork, for a wedding, but you don’t have a marriage. That takes work and dedication. If you’re busy thinking of the end before you have a beginning, if you go in without the love, the fault lies with you.
If you allow the failures of your sex to turn you bitter and cynical and jaded, you are no better than the lowliest feminist.
If you spend all your time telling people how much you don’t care about something, you may as well be a goth. At least they’re honest about it.

If you give up on women, that means you give up on talking to women online or discussing women’s issues online.

After all, it isn’t your problem, is it?

I think we have a decent test for fake MGTOW in that.

STD-free blood tests before marriage kept it good

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

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

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

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

lolmaletears

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

bbc sherlock moriarty eyebrow flash closeup lol flirt really rlly

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

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

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

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

Under section 14.3.1 Voidable marriage

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

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

Bad news, sluts!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: We don’t know how a man’s sexual history affects divorce risk

It’s bloody important, don’t you think? Where’s the other side of that coin?

I think they don’t want to offend men. The James Bond Casanova Lothario ideal is too engrained.

http://atavisionary.com/how-does-a-mans-sexual-history-affect-his-likelihood-of-divorce/

I have another addition: men choose to get married. If they weren’t sure, or less certain, they wouldn’t get married.

It would be better to do a demographic comparison and the longevity of all their forms of relationships divided by sex – from pets to friends to family connections to ONS to FWB all the way up to marriage. Include porn and you’ve got a good model for avoiding the narcissistic or damaged men who would be dissatisfied with the choice they made, the unfit husbands.

Another model would be divorces to avoid longitudinal hiccups – what percentage of affairs occurred to each sex? Which one was prone to extramarital bonds? Ashley Madison didn’t bode well for men on this scale. I’d also like to see the stats on the men who re-marry multiple times, how messed up must they be?

Link: ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Gender Identity’ are meaningless

All this coming up. They’re still banging on the pedophilia drum.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/19/we-cant-protect-sexual-orientation-because-it-doesnt-mean-anything/

Not opinion, but a fact. There is no agreed-upon definition in academia.

This gets into arbitrary vagueness, it could literally be like 50 shades of grey. There could be 50 different terms for 5 things, each slightly different along a scale. The scale could be contracted or expanded, from 5 to 5 million terms, and people would still identify themselves along the Likert scale because that is how humans respond to scales in self-report. They fall prey to experimenter’s biases. Kinsey used it to justify his own fetishes. Including the mere use of Likert instead of checkboxes, intended to give firm results. How special do you feel? Do you identify as a snowflake?

In the most logical, hardest scientific terms, here would be the genuine definitions that would work in law (nothing less would work);

Sex (noun): chromosomal. Male, XY. Female, XX. Various genetic disorders would thus be accounted for under Both (still within the binary of a dimorphic species).

Gender: firstly, nothing to do with identity. Masculine, Feminine, Androgyne (both). According to Jung, everyone has both, which makes the last category meaningless, so everyone would fit into masculine or feminine based on their 51%+ score on something like…. The Bem Gender Inventory? Purely psychological, fluid and prone to change.

(Sexual) Identity: behaviour and its choice (see? nothing to do with gender and arguably, sex).

Sexual Orientation: which sex do you identify in sexual terms (physical attraction toward)? Male (sex as a noun), female (sex as a noun) or both (bisexual). If neither, you don’t have one, so it isn’t a valid question to answer, a simple N/A or blank would suffice. Note: non-physical attractions are invalid as all normal humans feel those (agape) and this is a polite descriptor of lust.

This last rules out invalid claims to orientation (based on age, a changing factor, species or other non-humans, or state of life, for example). Paraphilias (fetishes) are likewise discounted, as non-personal attractants by definition.

Social conditioning (inc. pornography) CAN change sexual orientation/identity, as most people know it:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/porn-addiction-studies-sexual-orientation-versus-sexual-tastes/

This does not bode well for the future of Sex Ed at increasingly younger ages pushing abnormative sexualities. Maybe Putin knew something we didn’t? At the very least, porn should be credit-card subscriber-based only, cut off completely from children, the entire video model is truly as addictive as alcohol or drugs (maybe 21 in places);

http://yourbrainonporn.com/can-you-trust-your-johnson

99% of these people were adults and had had time to form a proper sexuality and relationships prior to their issues. This meant, that as one neuroscientist suggested, with the right help their brains could be returned to their previous sexual identity, even if the images they had viewed cannot be completely forgotten.

For a boy aged 10-14, with no previous sexual experience, there is no reset button. [DS: this is because the brain kills off or ‘prunes’ the disused connections] We could have future generations of young men who objectify women and have totally unrealistic ideas of sex and in some cases men who will have their brains re-wired by extreme imagery to the extent that they could be a risk to the women and children around them. We shouldn’t put our heads in the sand and await for some true scientific evidence. We need to do something now.

Who does that sound like?

Is this a better test (than erections) for sexual orientation?…………

It is a dangerous practice and any parent who encourages their child to indulge (separate from the debatable issue of masturbation), is frankly guilty of child abuse (as all future centuries will see it, like we see cocaine in Coca Cola for Victorian children now or other hard drugs in ‘cough medicines’): http://yourbrainonporn.com/why-shouldnt-johnny-watch-porn-if-he-likes

There’s a kicker though. The capacity of our teen to wire up new sexual associations mushrooms around 11 or 12 when billions of new neural connections (synapses) create endless possibilities. However, by adulthood his brain must prune his neural circuitry to leave him with a manageable assortment of choices. By his twenties, he may not exactly be stuck with the sexual proclivities he falls into during adolescence, but they can be like deep ruts in his brain—not easy to ignore or reconfigure.

Sexual-cue exposure matters more during adolescence than at any other time in life. Now, add to this incendiary reality the lighter fluid of today’s off-the-wall erotica available at the tap of a finger. Is it any surprise that some teens wire semi-permanently to constant cyber novelty instead of potential mates? Or wire their sexual responsiveness to things that are unrelated to their sexual orientation? Or manage to desensitize their brains—and spiral into porn addiction?

http://yourbrainonporn.com/pair-bonding-101-beware-novelty-as-aphrodisiac

Loneliness can make a person more addiction-prone (as a self-soothing or self-medicating behaviour?)

In short, the same reward circuitry in their brains that makes them want to fall head over heels also leaves them especially vulnerable to addiction. In contrast, most rodents don’t like alcohol. They have to be bred specially to use it. But both prairie voles and humans will drink, suggesting that similarities in their reward circuitry make possible a strong buzz.

…Bottom line: Drugs can hijack the bonding mechanism, and register as a sort of love-substitute.

I’ve never known a lonely man who didn’t have a self-soothing behavior to try and compensate (a lot of alcoholics, some porn addictions, a few other drugs, a LOT video games as a secondary ‘hobby’ – when it’s a time sink like TV) and periods that reminded them of their loneliness acted as weakness triggers to engage.

…It’s almost as if the reward circuitry of a pair bonder has a “little hole” crying out to be filled by a pair bond (even if the individual never bonds). In the absence of a mate, a pair bonder will look around for something else to fill that “hole.” Obviously, we humans often try to fill the “hole” with lots of friends, serial affairs, porn, drugs, alcohol, devotion to a guru or a cause, or whatever—all of which furnish, or at least promise, some neurochemical satisfaction.

The important point is that the brain mechanism that primes a pair bonder to bond is mechanical, not rational.

So no, they aren’t ever choosing to do these things. That is not a plausible answer. Addiction muddles the concept of motivation.

…Note: Pair bonding is not a moral strategy; it is a mating strategy, and arises from a subconscious brain mechanism. The vole example demonstrates that bonding is not a cultural phenomenon…..

Please read The Mating Mind for details.

According to biologist David Barash, normal pair bonder “sexual behavior is neither especially frequent nor especially fervent.”

Manosphere is wrong on marriage again….. (priorities change when children arrive).

The fact that pair bonders stay bonded without constant sexual fireworks suggests that the bond itself is normally rewarding.

K-types ahoy.

All of this means that much of today’s sex advice won’t work well for lovers who want to remain paired.

Including the manosphere (short-termism), while encouraging married men to cheat and bemoaning high divorce rates.

As far as male N sexual partners, more monogamous men (lower count) are happier:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/guys-where-do-you-fall-the-monogamy-spectrum because the novelty factor isn’t guiding/controlling them (impossible perfectionism, hedonic treadmill, they can literally never stop because boredom becomes akin to death).

But hey, they don’t want to be told that because they’ve already screwed up and out of spite they want other men to screw up too, much like slutty feminists who encourage good girls to go bad…. (In sum: the r-types deserve one another).

As the previous link makes clear, in behavioral context, it makes them less human (more like a hollowed-up sociopath they admire);

Such effects impact relationships. Constant novelty is one of the prime reasons Internet porn is a superstimulus for the brain. Erotic training that relies on novelty as aphrodisiac can condition users such that familiar partners quickly lose their luster—confining users affected to shallow hook-ups. Also, the non-climax aspects of sex (skin-to-skin contact, kissing, comforting stroking, playful behavior, etc.) may be too unfamiliar and subtle to register as deliciously rewarding. Unfortunately, these are the very behaviors that soothe the brain and help couples strengthen their bonds.

If you have any doubts as to the damage of these early influences, look up “psychological imprinting porn”