Aging fathers, ugly kids

That’s one solid explanation for why people are generally uglier nowadays, even the healthy weight.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916311035

Paternal age negatively predicts offspring physical attractiveness in two, large, nationally representative datasets

Freeze your sperm at 18 for optimum freshness.

Effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness is investigated in two datasets.

Various covariates are utilized.

Significant negative effects are found in both datasets.

Effects are independent of birth order.

Findings consistent with paternal age as a source of new mutations in offspring.

Abstract

The effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness has recently been investigated. Negative effects are predicted as paternal age is a strong proxy for the numbers of common de novo mutations found in the genomes of offspring. As an indicator of underlying genetic quality or fitness, offspring attractiveness should decrease as paternal age increases, evidencing the fitness-reducing effects of these mutations.

That’s a hard rectal red pill.

I’m sure the manosphere will try its hardest to ignore like the dead and defective babies.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Sins-Of-The-Fathers

The problem is, you think you have time.

Thus far results are mixed, with one study finding the predicted effect, and a second smaller study finding the opposite. Here the effect is investigated using two large and representative datasets (Add Health and NCDS),

holy Jesus a sound method

I almost fell off my high horse

both of which contain data on physical attractiveness and paternal age.

Validity! Validity! My queendom for some statistical validity!

The effect is present in both datasets, even after controlling for maternal age at subject’s birth, age of offspring, sex, race, parental and offspring (in the case of Add Health) socio-economic characteristics, parental age at first marriage (in the case of Add Health) and birth order.

The confound control is practically orgasmic, I can’t wait to see how they mansplain this one away.

That is perfect method. But it triggers butthurts and their precious feefees are hurt by the mere implication that degenerate older dads are bad for their kid’s health. Because all those upper crust respectable 1950s dads were like “60 is the new 20 lol!” Who gives a shit if your kids need you past high school? You got more priceless clubbing times you don’t remember, that’s what really matters. Not seeing your grandkids.

Class, race, sex, age at marriage, birth order, maternal age, offspring age – there’s literally nothing else to control for. Nothing. It’s flawless.

THESE. ARE. THE. STUDIES. WE. NEED.

Logically, since women are born with most of their eggs, there wouldn’t be a maternal effect. It isn’t constantly replenishing like the male gamete. Cell division’s a bitch. Male lifestyle for all his years prior

https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/dads-smoking-before-conception-harms-kids/

affects the child at conception (and even which sperm is conceived) far more than the details of pregnancy (minus pollutants it’s pretty much the same as in ancient times, the womb is not a new environment).

Maybe add child health although those studies already exist to cross-reference with attractiveness?

As in, are the girls more womanly as adults in WHR and the boys have more manly frames (broad shoulders, narrow waist, which should be a metric of its own)? Or less gender typical? Even androgynous, or fully gender-atypical?

Do younger or older fathers produce better-looking kids in the gendered sense?

[We can tell by looking at old photos but let’s pretend.]

Give me a time machine, please. The ugly wigger types hurt my eyes.

[I have also noted mannish looking sisters tend to be the older, “ugly” sister of two -coughs Beatrice- and the girly looking brothers tend to be the younger, usually gay one. Cannot unsee.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595000682

e.g.

“In addition to their attractiveness and intimidatory effects, human secondary sexual characters also provide cues to hormonal status and phenotypic quality consistent with the good genes model of sexual selection (which includes parasite resistance). Low waist-hip ratio is sexually attractive in women and indicates a high estrogen/testosterone ratio (which favors reproductive function). Facial attractiveness provides honest cues to health and mate value. The permanently enlarged female breast appears to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms. The male beard is not obviously related to phenotypic quality and may have evolved through a process of runaway intersexual selection.”

The beard can also be a sign of poor grade genes e.g. savages, wolf man. Overall bone structure uber alles.

Maybe factor in sexual activity of the father prior to conception? Especially partner count and STDs. STDs are known to harm attractiveness in the host [coughs David Beckham, most of Hollywood] so why not the offspring’s?

Back to the top study:

The apparent robustness of the effect to different operationalizations of attractiveness suggests high generalizability, however the results must be interpreted with caution, as controls for parental levels of attractiveness were indirect only in the present study.

aka please don’t sue us but you know it’s true

But you can wait forever because the Jews said so!

Say, who owns all the biotech and IVF companies?

https://www.fertilitybridge.com/blog/2018/4/11/battleforivfmarketwallstreetvsprivatepractice

[chuckles in Israel shekels]

https://hmcisrael.com/specialty/ivf-israel/

“According to statistics, around 20% of couples wishing to conceive are faced with certain obstacles that inhibit a successful pregnancy.

Fertility Treatment is one of the most prioritized fields of medicine in Israel.”

Sure, you can wait for decades! Also, cut the kid when they’re born!

We need more future little Viagra users.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2648044

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7752-female-genital-mutilation-can-cause-infertility/

Does Circumcision Decrease the Fertility of Sperm in the Male?

“However, birth rates are much higher in countries where the men are predominantly uncircumcised.”

There is no question that an uncircumcised man has a cooler penis than a circumcised man in the flaccid state. For some reason, removal of the foreskin is the reason for this. There seems to be some sort of temperature sensor in the foreskin that may control penile temperature. Removing the foreskin gets rid of this sensor.

It only takes a few temperature degrees of difference to damage sperm. As the penis is in close proximity to the testicles, it’s quite likely that a cooler penis would help keep the testicles cooler (Remember that men are more potent in the colder months of the year). Under these condition, if the testicles got too cold, they can always be retracted closer to the body.

Almost like God gave men a prepuce solely for this evolutionary function in reproduction.

…Now consider this: Circumcised and uncircumcised men have the same penis temperature on full erection, as we stated earlier in this article. So, clearly, there is a specific reason why a natural-uncircumcised penis remains at a cooler temperature during the flaccid state. When the penis is erect it is no longer in close proximity with the testicles, so penile temperature should not affect the testicular temperature at this phase (be the penis circumcised or uncircumcised).

Upon orgasm, the penis tends to retract more into the pelvis (at least with my experience). Due to the friction and increased blood flow that occurred during the sexual act, it makes sense that the penis will have an increase in temperature in a flaccid state post-sex than in a flaccid state previous to the sexual act. Could this retraction be another mechanism for the “heated” penis to steer clear of the testicles?

Go there, science.

Circumcision and Male Fertility: Is There a Link?

Scientists have recently concluded that circumcision can help with infertility in males suffering from two very specific diseases.

So… not generalizable.

Some woman perv studies after all that penis talk.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513814000269

Women’s faces and voices may be cues to their reproductive potential. If so, then individual differences in indices of female fecundity and residual reproductive value, such as hormonal profiles, body composition, and age, should be associated with women’s facial and vocal attractiveness to men. However, previous research on these associations is sparse, has rendered mixed results, and is limited to Western samples. The current study therefore explored relationships between correlates of reproductive capability (testosterone levels, age, and body mass index [BMI]) and facial and vocal attractiveness in women from industrial and foraging societies. Women’s facial and vocal attractiveness was associated with each of these indicators in at least one of the two samples. The patterns of these associations suggest that women’s faces and voices provide cues to both common and unique components of reproductive potential and help explain the evolution of men’s mating preferences.

Lesson: Avoid the manjaw.

Women change their vocal pitch all the time though. European women are taught to make it lower at school (speak up = louder, lower pitch), Asians try to make it higher. The key is how they sound when hysterically upset. That’s their true level. Europeans go up, Asians down.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812000475

Attractive facial features in women are assumed to signal fertility, but whether facial attractiveness predicts reproductive success in women is still a matter of debate. We investigated the association between facial attractiveness at young adulthood and reproductive life history—number of children and pregnancies—in women of a rural community. For the analysis of reproductive success, we divided the sample into women who used contraceptives and women who did not.

So partnered, married women. Not single ones.

Introducing two-dimensional geometric morphometric methodology, we analysed which specific characteristics in facial shape drive the assessment of attractiveness and covary with lifetime reproductive success. A set of 93 (semi)landmarks was digitized as two-dimensional coordinates in postmenopausal faces. We calculated the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and regressed facial shape on facial attractiveness at youth and reproductive success. Among women who never used hormonal contraceptives, we found attractive women to have more biological offspring than less attractive women. These findings are not affected by sociodemographic variables. Postmenopausal faces corresponding to high reproductive success show more feminine features—facial characteristics previously assumed to be honest cues to fertility. Our findings support the notion that facial attractiveness at the age of mate choice predicts reproductive success and that facial attractiveness is based on facial characteristics, which seem to remain stable until postmenopausal age.

Menopause is not the face equalizer you think.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816302318

African and European perception of African female attractiveness

Dare you to do the same study with every race judging every other.

Majority of research on attractiveness is restricted to faces of European origin. The perception of attractiveness may, however, vary across communities due to variations in both facial morphology and local standards of beauty. We investigated the relative contribution of four facial markers of attractiveness based on 101 female facial portraits (standardized, non-manipulated) from Cameroon and Namibia, which were assessed by local male raters and by raters from a distant European population, the Czech Republic. Images from Cameroon include only women of Bantu origin, while Namibians are represented by women of both Bantu (Owambo/Herero) and Nama origin. While controlling for age and BMI, we explored the relationship between female attractiveness and a set of facial traits: fluctuating asymmetry, averageness, shape sexual dimorphism, and skin color (rated and measured in CIELab color space).

In the Cameroonian sample, local male raters favored lighter-skinned female faces with morphology closer to average. The attractiveness of Nama women as rated by Nama men positively correlated with lighter complexion, but this did not extend to rating by Cameroonian men. The attractiveness of Namibian Owambo/Herero women was positively associated with facial femininity and lighter complexion when judged by both Cameroonian and Nama male raters. In all samples, the attractiveness as rated by Czech men was predicted by age and BMI, but not by skin color. We found no significant association between attractiveness and fluctuating asymmetry in any of the tested samples. When controlling for age, the effect of skin color on attractiveness turned to be non-significant in the Owambo/Herrero and Nama sample, but remained significant in the Cameroonian sample. Variations in skin color thus represent an important factor of African female attractiveness within the African context, but they do not seem to affect judgements made by European raters.

They don’t want any of them.

Sensitivity to some facial markers of female attractiveness thus seems to be restricted to regional populations and/or constrained by shared ethnicity.

Paler women have more oestrogen. So duh.

Women reject old guys who’d give them dead or ugly kids:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816301283

“This finding is consistent with men’s stated preference for young, fertile women in mating and suggests that the typical pattern is generated by women’s limiting role in mating.”

aka their gender role

“older men tend to marry older women, including those who are peri- and post-menopausal”

TIL Korea is so degenerate it has slave markets. Ooof.

So much for the myth that young women have the hots for them. Yeah, I’m sure the Jap schoolgirl came onto you, right perv?

Deadbeats are the end of the West:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816303671

Research in evolutionary psychology, and life history theory in particular, has yielded important insights into the developmental processes that underpin variation in growth, psychological functioning, and behavioral outcomes across individuals. Yet, there are methodological concerns that limit the ability to draw causal inferences about human development and psychological functioning within a life history framework. The current study used a simulation-based modeling approach to estimate the degree of genetic confounding in tests of a well-researched life history hypothesis: that father absence (X) is associated with earlier age at menarche (Y). The results demonstrate that the genetic correlation between X and Y can confound the phenotypic association between the two variables, even if the genetic correlation is small—suggesting that failure to control for the genetic correlation between X and Y could produce a spurious phenotypic correlation. We discuss the implications of these results for research on human life history, and highlight the utility of incorporating genetically sensitive tests into future life history research.

I don’t think debtor’s prisons will come back – but if you breed it, you should feed it. I think the abandoned women that existed since Biblical times will just hire bounty hunters to shoot the first family deserter for a share of his life insurance policy.

Patriarchs everywhere would rejoice at culling the cads. The women get a widow’s pension.

Everyone wins. Hey, you said “until death do us part”. Men used to die by their oaths.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381400052X

I have noticed that immigrant men have a higher pitch than their non-immigrant relatives.

Maybe the act of immigration impairs masculinity?

Low male voice pitch may communicate potential benefits for offspring in the form of heritable health and/or dominance, whereas access to resources may be indicated by correlates of socioeconomic status, such as sociolinguistic features. Here, we examine if voice pitch and social dialect influence women’s perceptions of men’s socioeconomic status and attractiveness. In Study 1, women perceived lower pitched male voices as higher in socioeconomic status than higher pitched male voices.

A lot of PUAs get shot down for 1. being brown and feeling entitled to a white woman, the lowest miscegenation group also further sickened by repeated forced “refugee” interactions and 2. having a high pitch voice and effete face compared to their national relatives. Compare within the white race, the “Latin lover” in Italy versus Italian immigrants raised and living in London, who sound like cartoon chipmunks by comparison.

Yes, we notice.

No, you can’t change it. We notice.

Same applies to white men who moved South so it appears to be immigration. Either being an immigrant or the act itself makes a man less manly. Most obviously, torso body fat deposition like a woman of their group and the sisters become like the men at home, more athletic.

In Study 2, women independently perceived lower pitched voices and higher status sociolinguistic dialects as higher in socioeconomic status and attractiveness.

It isn’t the money, it’s the genes.

Good genes, good brains, good money. Fixating on the money is what ugly guys do – Muslim prince to Jewish media mogul.

We also found a significant interaction wherein women preferred lower pitched men’s voices more often when dialects were lower in sociolinguistic status than when they were higher in sociolinguistic status.

Capacity to protect. Not a desk jockey. The middle-class is effeminate. They want army. No cowards.

Women also perceived lower pitched voices as higher in socioeconomic status more often when dialects were higher in sociolinguistic status than when lower in sociolinguistic status.

Women know quality, really? Almost like our lives depend on it.

Finally, women’s own self-rated socioeconomic status was positively related to their preferences for voices with higher status sociolinguistic dialects, but not to their preferences for voice pitch.

Plenty of men chose to marry down to get a looker out of their genetic league, hypergamy.

Erotic capital is worth it, as you can tell by the fertility study above, even post-menopausal they’re better-looking.

Hence, women’s preferences for traits associated with potentially biologically heritable benefits, such as low voice pitch, are moderated by the presence of traits associated with resource accrual, such as social dialect markers. However, women’s preferences for language markers of resource accrual may be functionally independent from preferences for potential biological indicators of heritable benefits, such as voice pitch.

Women…. making…. mate choices?

mutation load is important?

 

1929 elderly Americans

The humour, the dignity, the health.

I think TV + bad food causes modern ugliness, mostly.

Looking at these types of footage, they’re definitely poisoning your food.

Comment

Amazing! These people over 100, you can easily knock off 25 or 35 years. They look like “our” 65 and 70ish year olds. Must be the lack of processed food and simplicity of life.

Hedonism too, think who you compare them to, burned out hippy Boomers looked incredibly aged and haggard compared to the good old-fashioned self-controlled Boomers (who do exist, rarer). It can’t just be sun damage because these people did more outdoor, honest work and remember many STDs also affect appearance (just burning on the immune system, even if they’re treated and cleared getting any disease it’s a physical stressor).

nah, they just worked way harder then nowadays

very true they worked about a thousand times as hard as we do

Hard labour is good for young boys (teens) and men, helps them develop. Gyms don’t develop the body properly, especially with starvation diets. Compare a man in an outdoor job e.g. building with a gym rat of the same age and it’d be easily to tell who looks younger (the one that isn’t pushing his body to the limits, burning it out and using its full range of motion instead). Body builders are some of the most haggard people around.

I’ve noticed women who exercise like men started to look like them, and older. Much older than other girls/women their age. Drinkers too, across the sexes. Everyone knows about druggies.

It’s not just hard labor. They knew how to manage life and didn’t try to over complicate their lives. They had real values, not perfect but, real as oppose to the moral relativity of the day.

I’ve noticed real Christians have a glow of health that others don’t, including CHINOs and Churchians. A good way to spot.

The more sallow a young person is, the likelier they are to be atheist. I don’t know why. It also applies to the fake moniker “born again” cultists, the people who hide behind a cross and hope you won’t know they’re wearing sheep’s clothing. Ex-sinners are not superior to the people who were never malicious enough to do bad things, daily, for years, America. Karma is an idea you’ll also find in the Bible, you don’t get to ignore it.

Anyone who wasn’t fit and healthy was dead, today half the population is dying but kept alive through advances in medicine.

….True.

Most refreshing of all, that adds to the dignity, they aren’t dressing like teenagers or trying to act cool or younger than they are. I think those Boomers will go down in history as the clown ones nobody should emulate.

Only a person who wasted their life wants to be 21 again.

It’s easy for idiots to point and laugh at these people, but someday, we’ll all be old, if we’re lucky.

No, in the Olden Days, most girls didn’t marry creepy old men

http://madeofwynn.net/2013/09/23/misuse-of-the-word-medieval-part-13-most-girls-married-old-guys/

It’s a bit weird for certain circles and people (you know who) to salivate over this prospect like it meant what they think it means (sex, proximity, choice) and furthermore, to infer that what is old is good, from a time when leeches and the Iron Maiden were in use.

The Data

  • 71% of marriages had spouses within 0–5 years of each other.
  • 88% of marriages had spouses within the acceptable “not creepy” range.
  • 17 was the average marriage age for women.
  • 36% of women married under the age of 15.
  • 23 was the average marriage age for men.
  • 20% of men married under the age of 15.

Young women – and young men.

It’s a creepy old man (30-40 considering the ages we define as Old, properly adult) wanting to marry someone so young thing that weirds people out. Like, might hang out at the school gates and kidnap your daughter kind of weird. As if they can’t handle an actual woman with mature expectations and want to pervert an innocent’s understanding into deviant abusive stuff.

In addition, these couples do not have their first child until the wife is at least 16 years old, if not 18–25.

They had standards. Marriage didn’t mean sexual access, especially where young marriage was common, in royalty.

Often they could just appear at functions together and live in different places (or different bedrooms) for a number of years. The women had to mature enough (16-18) that childbirth wouldn’t kill them. Yeah, that. Fucking pedophiles advocating this don’t give a damn about that.

There could be a couple reasons for this. Régine Pernoud notes that 12 was generally considered the age of legal consent for girls and 14 the age of legal consent for boys, though local custom could set consent at a later age.

This doesn’t require that 12 and 14 were expected ages for sexual activity, so the data would support the suggestion that young marriages were not consummated until both parties were older.

Key word – consent.

If your wife didn’t consent to consummate, (or marry you, if that was a choice) then you couldn’t rape her. The wedding night thing is more modern as a stupid expectation (you’re too tired to do much) when the ages were brought forward or they needed to explain the early pregnancy. There would be social consequences considering her youth and weakness (women also being considered like children in this time period regardless of age), especially if it was done with great violence (it would need to be, so basically rape).

I didn’t look at the background of most other marriages, but from the time between marriage and first births, this seems to be pretty typical. Marriage age and age of sexual activity may not have been the same thing. Unfortunately, I haven’t yet found anything from scholars to give more guidance on the best way to interpret this information.

It’s a thing feminists use to make men look evil. The worst part is that evil men pretending to be good (it’s good for society, as they say they don’t want their daughters to do it though) advocate what is tantamount to child rape (they give excuses). We know from medicine and anatomy and physiology that childhood is completely real, provable in forensics and can be measured to the last detail and psychological maturity, such as for consent, takes longer to form. Logically, the age of consents should be pushed back at least until the age of majority (usually 18) but that would make sense so I don’t expect governments to implement it. Lower ages of consent give pedophiles various excuses.

Half of these “creepy” marriages bore no heirs, and in those that did, the wife was of an age we would consider sexually responsible by modern standards.

The virgin fetishists always raise their ugly head in these discussions and expect they’re the norm. Imagine being one of those people who gets off on ruining purity, how awful. Seeking out good in the world to destroy it, would make anyone balk. They want social sanction, even encouragement, to hurt children.

In 20% of marriages, the wife was older than her husband. In most she is 1–3 years older, but in a couple, it’s as much as 8. I mention it simply because I’ve never seen this information included in a study before.

Don’t tell the idiots who believe age is like a use by date. I hope age is cruel to them.

Christine Klapisch-Zuber says that “literature of the fabliaux widely exploits the theme of unequal ages in marriage between a graybeard and a tender young thing.” [2] This appears to be the best answer to the stereotype. Fabliaux or satires usually depict events that were seen as unusual, strange, and undesirable by a medieval audience. When a modern audience no longer has the same point of reference as the original audience, many of these become mistaken for the norm, and a stereotype is born.

rdj claps applause mhmm

Perverts even in the Middle Ages. When you’re weirder than torture, congrats. I recall seeing some, they were depicted as despicable lecherous pigs with scraggly beards and grope hands. Like Fagin.

In modern times, people still prefer 20s and early 30s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage

Healthier children this way too. Going back…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

Arguably, this is why the West developed.

Women married earlier for protection and a lower risk of death. Hardly a stellar choice we want to emulate.

….by the end of the 18th century it had risen to roughly 26 years and continued to climb with the celibacy rate as a result of falling infant mortality rates, declining famines, and other factors…

And when times got really bad, no marriage at all.

… in the decades after the Great Famine, the age of marriage had risen to 28–29 for women and 33 for men and as much as a third of Irishmen and a fourth of Irishwomen never married due to chronic economic problems that discouraged early marriage…

While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 for women and 27 for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[15] and the percentage of Englishwomen marrying fell from over 90% to just over 80% through the 17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26

There are lessons here. Don’t ask a gross old guy who puts off women his own age anything about marriage or little girls.

The rise of Christianity created more incentives to keep families nuclear; the Church instituted marriage laws and practices that undermined large kinship groups. From as early as the fourth century, the Church discouraged any practice that enlarged the family, like adoption, polygamy, taking concubines, divorce, and remarriage.

Adoption – of bastards from a promiscuous manwhore. Anything that redirected attention and family resources (part of the bargain of marriage) were forbidden.

Ideally, the ages match, and we saw this as the world developed

as Christianity expanded men married increasingly earlier and women married increasingly later

Basically, the manosphere is wrong on pretty much anything regarding wives and LTRs.

the chance for women to earn money in the one hundred and fifty years after the Black Death was attractive, with less competition for jobs; as much as half of women in the North willingly worked to earn money for marriage while their Southern contemporaries were married or widows before turning to work and unmarried young women only worked as a last resort, lest her honor be put at risk

In the last decades of the century the age at marriage had climbed to averages of 25 for women and 27 for men in England and the Low Countries as more people married later or remained unmarried due to lack of money or resources, and these averages remained high for nearly two centuries and averages across Northwestern Europe had done likewise.[42]

So when I see some loser approaching middle age salivating over the prospect of a naive schoolgirl for a supposedly docile wife who won’t complain or know to complain when he’s a bad person or a terrible husband (purpose of vows), this question is often a good test for creeps.

If I hear “Women should…..”

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

It’s like a feminist saying Men should. Don’t. Nobody needs to do anything, who made you Pope?

Data diving: 2TB of antique papers available for free download

http://blog.archive.org/2013/04/11/450000-early-journal-articles-now-available/

Pre-1923.

“Early Journal Content is a selection of pre-1923 materials from more than 350 journals and includes articles in the arts and humanities, economics and politics, and mathematics and other sciences.”

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