Totally normal and biological. Evolution is amazing.
(Oxytocin also promotes patriotism, for those paying attention).
Totally normal and biological. Evolution is amazing.
(Oxytocin also promotes patriotism, for those paying attention).
Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.
Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”
“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!
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.
“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.”
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.
It is the love hormone because love also means protection.
“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.”
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;
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.
It also leads to monogamy and fidelity – in MEN.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Promiscuity is bad for males.
GTFO, haters. Either swallow the redpill data or quit pretending to care about the truth.
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
Let alone a happy one.
And they expect the rest of us to convince them to leap in the gene pool?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The manosphere manwhores don’t seem intent on covering this sort of information for some strange reason.
I did a little digging for UK information and all I could find in public domain was;
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!
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
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.
We should look toward more of the same legal protections if we want to fix the broken modern system of marriage.
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.
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?
All this coming up. They’re still banging on the pedophilia drum.
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:
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);
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?
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.
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”