Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

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

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

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

Memorize that chart.

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

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


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

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


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

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

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

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

Good luck blaming females for that.

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

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Biology? Sorry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No such thing.

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

Not even your dick.

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

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

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

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

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

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

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

[coughs in r-selection]

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

[hums in Malthusian tones]

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

[religion is evolutionally fit]

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

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

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

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

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

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

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

Who needs gun control?

Social harm is a sensitive concept. Antisocial is the modern term for degenerate, and harmful = evil. The fact it’s used by moral relativists (the immoral) is not puzzling, they are rentseeking.

Sex and defence are vital for life, inextricable.

On the other hand, what do you think the transsexual stuff is all about?
The love of life shouldn’t stop at the waist.
Artificial wombs and sperm will make functioning human units redundant.
Welcome to the next rationale for compulsive sterilization.

Gun control makes less sense, if we had to compare.
Why?

Well, the State can’t breed for you. With the DNA database production, they might try but the resources do not exist.
The State only exists because it claims it can protect you better than you can yourself.

I’ll go into detail on a future economic post.

However.

It isn’t the sex that’s the problem – it’s responsible people bankrolling it.
To my knowledge, you have to pay for STD treatments, antibiotic shots, “education”, vaccines, abortions, and vitally, schooling, entertainment (public child-centred) and welfare to children you did not breed and who have a direct dysgenic effect on your personal fitness (ability to rear yourself and your own potential germline).
It is a replacement effort from the self-sufficient to the docile. Look at China’s pension age and demographic decline. Any society geared toward the deathstyle of atheism is doomed.
No private gun owner has forced me to buy them wood polish, if you catch my drift.

I don’t have to pay for the children of blood relations, I have no personal joy or legal control of raising them, so why complete strangers? Welfare is impossible to bridge in a multiracial society, eventually the useless eaters will outnumber the producers.

When the State absorbs the full cost of fucking and childbearing, socialism, the true cost is borne on the responsible, twice over. First, when they lose their own opportunity and second, to see it given to another, claiming to be needier.

What is need, in the paradigm of personal responsibility (empowering) and tough love?
This isn’t a Christian society anymore, this is a scientific secular one.
AKA no emotional appeals and no virtue of charity.

Why can’t we choose which causes our taxes fund? Why is a childless bachelor pressured by the ageist notion they should put children first?

The see-saw is closer to bumping over, what happens when we can’t write any more checks to breeders?

We’ll be sending them the bill. They are the future, after all. And the future is national debt in need of payment. Slavery, voluntary slavery, may return.

These societal ills would never exist without the money funding them.
Turn off the money spigot and the degeneracy dies.
All it takes is one syphilis case rotting on national TV and hook-up culture would look decidedly less sexy, contrary to what Hollywood portrays.

Legalizing all the hardest drugs (and only the hardest drugs) on condition of refusing the users medical treatment would solve this in under a year.

To correct stupid, simply take off the controls placed by the non-stupid.
High time preference kills.

The training wheels and safety bubble of modern society is its greatest blue pill.

Video: How promiscuity hurts men

Society still holds polite people to standards but they need to be tightened up.
Anyone thinking they can have it all has been lied to, male or female.
That lifestyle makes you more isolated and easier to sell things to, to fill the void love should take.

A lot of men are gonna die alone, when they didn’t expect to. This will make them bitter bachelor types. This isn’t the worst thing, it emulates post-war conditions because only those who want to breed, will be allowed. Those who miss the boat would probably make poor fathers regardless. Men refuse to drop their standards once they realize their own, aged league for marriage after dating/fucking around a lot (The Tinder Effect), spoiling them.

Part of the reason? A completely delusional hold of reality. They become feral and believe women find the aggression attractive or hostility wise or whatever is going on up there…. they’re not smart.

A fine example is shaming Southern for not being married. I don’t even like Southern but holy cow did I balk. With friends like those? Well, most of the men complaining… are super-single, they can’t even date, so if you suddenly can’t be traditional before you get married (no, all the people I’ve seen were born that way) then it’s pot-kettle-black, innit?

Like, what is the line here? No singles allowed? Really? Society never operated like that. What are they thinking because it seems to be a feminazi=single train of thought and most of the world just finds that weird.

Or is it that they won’t listen to a woman until she rushes a man, ANY man with a functioning pee-pee, to the altar, because clearly such a woman would be a good person, a balanced person and have her head screwed on straight?

Women?

Good women are rarer than ever before so most will marry.
There will always be exceptions, but the same could be said of good men. It’s a slim margin of “Never found the right one” and they shouldn’t be shamed for it. But by the time a man’s clock loudly ticks at around 40, he’s old enough to be a grandfather and no sane woman would prefer him. Money can’t make up for autism and schizophrenia rates, sorry?

The sexual revolution was great for men. Young men. It ages old men out by the ick factor. Ick, he could be my dad.  Ask any divorced man on the dating scene. In the olden days, maybe a compliment… maybe. Nowadays? Who wants to be the trophy wife of a creep? Who wants to know he’ll die decades before us and we’ll be alone in the very years we need a spouse the most (after kids moved out)?

That’s how women think.

Assortative pairing evolved for very good reasons.
Men ignore it at their peril.

Divorces are caused by many things but disconnect in life stage is huge.
Ideal age gap is five. F-I-V-E. Lowest odds of divorce I saw were male is 5 years older than the female. Same age is acceptable, a couple of years more preferable. The woman needs to respect his maturity but not lose that cultural connection of growing up with the same references.

Jordan Peterson: “Sex is dangerous”

There are people who don’t know this?

Have you read any history books, ever?

Where did syphilis come from, huh?

The original position of misogyny is that women carry disease.
Women are evil for making us lust (dude, look away).
Now we know it’s quite the reverse, women are more exposed to male vectors.
Women suffer higher infertility and more reproductive cancers than men.
However, men still need high awareness of the risk, a very real, fatal risk.

Here’s a law, which I’m gonna call Scholar’s Law:

If you assume the opposite of any typical Boomer position, it is likely to be correct.

e.g.

Technically, sex should classify as the most extreme sport, if we are foolish enough to consider it as exercise at all!

The Spanish Flu pandemic was also caused by soldiers. Slutty, slutty soldiers. I’m sure the weakened immune systems didn’t allow their vaccines to mutate….

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-swine-flu-vaccine-1976-casts-a-giant-shadow-5788

They cared more for their boots keeping clean than their penis.

Link: Sex is not the answer

Chastity has long been known, the physical temperance.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/sex-is-not-answer-for-outsider.html

Sex (as such, in isolation from married love) leads merely to the desire for more sex. Sex is  – like many intense pleasures, such as heroin – addictive. Furthermore, also like heroin, sex induces tolerance, requiring escalation of dose. In those in whom frequency has reached a maximum, there develops a decadent need to push boundaries and transgress – in order to maintain the desire and the response.

Sex isn’t like eating, it isn’t a right (entitlement is pride) or necessary and it isn’t an empty or meaningless pleasure.
It literally changes your brain.
amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601
Lust is trained to increase only by repetition, it’s insane to claim otherwise. It’s impossible to sate. Our hypersexualised culture, which puts it on billboards before tots, is inducing more to get you in more fiscal and moral debt. How to self-soothe? More porn! Porn teaches you to be voyeur, to seek out deviant materials with no end (hurtcore) and saps the very energy you’d need to fix your life. It’s the hobby of wastrels.
Without porn, without that legal prostitution, men and women would actually love each other! Instead, they’re trained to view the other and themselves as an assembly of body parts and ranked according to the number of things their grandmothers would be ashamed of trying.

Even men are now pressured to ‘try’ everything in baby steps, or you’re a loser/bigot. It started with blowjobs (inferior to full sex and previously almost unheard of), then suspiciously Peter Pan-like women giving them, then threesomes, then anal, and now ‘going gay’. What? Are men too stupid to see where this is going? It is quite obvious by now, they want to lead you away from anything healthy and nuclear family. If everyone’s a deviant, nobody is!

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/study-physiology-and-political-psychology/

Atheism (cultural) and nihilism (angsty teen reduced version) are the minimum working hypotheses of Huxley for lazy people. You don’t need to try and be good if there is no good.

Scientifically, credit goes to Freud for libidinal energy, the life force.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/freud/

And Jung for sublimation, what we’d call genius productivity.

There are, he held, an indefinitely large number of such instincts, but these can be reduced to a small number of basic ones, which he grouped into two broad generic categories, Eros (the life instinct), which covers all the self-preserving and erotic instincts, and Thanatos (the death instinct), which covers all the instincts towards aggression, self-destruction, and cruelty.

Thus it is a mistake to interpret Freud as asserting that all human actions spring from motivations which are sexual in their origin, since those which derive from Thanatos are not sexually motivated–indeed, Thanatos is the irrational urge to destroy the source of all sexual energy in the annihilation of the self. Having said that, it is undeniably true that Freud gave sexual drives an importance and centrality in human life, human actions, and human behavior which was new (and to many, shocking), arguing as he does that sexual drives exist and can be discerned in children from birth (the theory of infantile sexuality), and that sexual energy (libido) is the single most important motivating force in adult life. However, a crucial qualification has to be added here—Freud effectively redefined the term “sexuality” to make it cover any form of pleasure which is or can be derived from the body. Thus his theory of the instincts or drives is essentially that the human being is energized or driven from birth by the desire to acquire and enhance bodily pleasure.

It builds societies. The childless don’t care.
Many geniuses, where not celibate or married (chaste), were ruined or driven mad e.g. Hemingway, Byron, Edison, largely due to a certain out-of-control fault in their personality.

Sexuality is the most destructive force known to man. It reduces empires to ash.

Slaves weren’t usually brought in for labour but rape. Men always ruined themselves.
Stories of decadence and moral decay are always led by men, by the phallus e.g. pederasty.

Vice has become virtue, sex as exercise, it’s obscene.
Virtue is seen as Freudian repression, a twisted denial of the ‘goodness’ of pleasure.
Look up the raging pervert Kinsey for how that turns out. Degenerate is simply the original term for antisocial.

The whore is worshiped and any form of purity must be corrupted in the name of mature ‘experience’. Virginity is seen as a badge of shame, teenagers compete for racking up numbers an Old World prostitute would blush at.

The young are sold down the river by the lecherous old, who naturally want to predate on them. Yes, have it all, ignore all the statistics that fucking around young messes you up for life. Pair bonding, who needs that prison? Wow, why are young fuckboys so angry and desperate and lonely? They’re following their naturalistic fallacy wherever it points (women who do it are no better but follow men in the trends, if men had standards they’d adapt).

When Christians, including die-hard Catholics, make excuses for fornication, we’re all fucked.
If your politics does not extend to your sex life, you don’t really believe in it. Personal life used to define your principles e.g. I am a monk, therefore I am celibate. The hypocrisy of this age is sickening, to believe in nothing but claim superiority while debauching the same society you chide.

For example, why do family films show more than a kiss between adults?
Look at the commotion caused by The Kiss film. Scandal. When society was strong.

It’s weak, we are a West of weakness and made of weak people. They have weak impulse control and this ruins their life, as they deserve.
The alcohol advertisements have taken over where the tobacco ones left off.
The myth of Prohibition glamour made all ‘parties’ since more akin to orgies. Thanks, Mafia!
Replacing vice with vice and creating our own ills. We don’t deserve to be saved.

Show me a slut (either sex) who isn’t a wretch.

Oddly, you’ll never find a fulfilled, perfectly contented one.
Supposed bon vivant Casanova was miserable. Anyone’s happy that drunk.

“Sexy” is no longer rude, it’s meant to be a compliment!
It’s like the anal butthole problem (buttholes have never been sexy), since when is ‘I want to use you like a hooker’ a good thing?

School lied, it doesn’t make you popular, quite the opposite. Nobody wants a ‘friend’ they can’t trust around a spouse, another friend of the opposite/same sex or a sibling/parent. Adults used to have public conduct and standards of propriety. Men are little better than the women and in many instances worse (howling at people in the street). This is the First World? Our ancestors died for that?