Reddit and eugenics denial

Okay, let’s say you’re God. Thought experiment.

You know someone will make a bad parent or the kid will be evil, do you make them infertile?

If not, you’re the Devil because you’re knowingly promoting suffering in the world.

How kind.

There’s a reason tons of Devil stories revolve around him producing evil children.

Nature wins, Nurture is largely measurement error, academic fraud and the sociologist’s fallacy of assumption (unknown therefore nurture).

https://www.nature.com/subjects/behavioural-genetics

Let’s quote n’ comment from reddit.

“Everyone disagreeing with this sort of thinking is retarded. You guys do realize that there’s millions of children starving right now because their parents were poor but still fucked?”

You have somewhat below 2 billion starving people one century ago.

Now this has tripled or nearly quadrupled, depending on who you ask.

Yeah, you’re the charitable ones. The First World is starving (I have posted on food security) but at least the populations of say, Europe, are currently sustainable.

The rest of the world? What happens when the funding stops? Oh, these wannabe Saints will just look away or blame rich people. Also, breeding kids to work while you sit on your ass is literally child slavery.

Given the boosted pop N, the average global IQ must’ve gone way down, so no, they can’t innovate their way out of it. These people would struggle to earn a dollar a day.

What’s wrong with 100% effective, reversible birth control? That’s all sterilization is. You can still harvest cells for reproduction. It simply stops accidental, natural reproduction, which is what all the shitty parents claim (to the welfare people), like they didn’t know that fucking makes brats. (underage parents should be immediately arrested as rapists, yes, a child can rape another child, obviously)

“but dont you know, its their right to breed, how fucking dare you question an imbecille electing to condemn yet another person to suffering and death without putting any thought into it?

no, it isn’t their right to breed, where is the right to breed
does an 85yo bachelor have a right to breed? can a random woman take a celebrity man’s sperm because she has a right to breed? does a 12yo girl who loves babies have a right to breed?
There isn’t even a right to sex, because it involves taking something from another person. The genetic theft of their body’s essence, a deeper rape than rape.
Thou Shalt Not Steal.

youre so disgusting, how dare you even think that they shouldnt have bred! baby killer!

entitled, they think they’re entitled to something because they see kids as a net positive since society doesn’t enforce full parental responsibilities (on both sires, half won’t do)

its absolutely amazing that people think they have right to another person. what kind of mental gymnastics are you all doing to justify that to yourself? I hope y’all remember that this is the exact same mindset that rapists have, “i do what i want and it doesnt matter what this other person wants, because my wants are more important”‘

Either way, the STD epidemic developing antibiotic resistance is properly sterilizing SJWs as we speak, the wages of sin.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/20/health/std-statistics-record-high/index.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2902038

Infertility: a preventable epidemic?” [yes I know not all, not even close to all but enough to count statistically so shh it counts for debate]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-std-epidemic-in-america-is-about-to-get-a-lot-worse

You wanted a Sexual Revolution, welcome to the foreseeable outcome to any deathstyle.

Technology can’t save you from biology.

“What would that look like? Billions in health care costs and tragic public health consequences such as a rampage of STD-caused infertility.”

t r a g i c

Narcissists can’t abuse children they cannot conceive.

“For all the lobbing about of The Handmaiden’s Tale in pop culture these days, this is one epidemic where the analogy really does fit: Although many women don’t realize it, rising STDs directly correlate as a leading cause of infertility in women.”

so much for consent, huh?
It’s almost like the old, real consent is a marriage license….

Good luck denying that in court.

It’s amazing how pro-life abortionists get when you point out they’d make bad parents anyway. The best way to fuck with SJWs is to agree with them for the most right-wing reasons humanly possible.

Low IQ can’t see the long-term consequences or implications on society, you see.

Liberal sub-fertility is a definitive feature of r-selection.

“We now have rates of babies being born with congenital syphilis not seen in decades,” says David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. “It’s a crime.”

yes, on the parents
I am not responsible for your bad tree producing rotten apples.

“It’s a failure of our health care system.”

Giving out the antibiotics willy-nilly to people with STDs caused the resistance, and not just in people with the STDs. Everyone else suffers: children, the elderly, chronic conditions, people getting surgery in the ER, everyone else pays for it.

Not opinion, a fact: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/gonorrhoea-antibiotics-world-health-organisation-who-untreatable-disease-mutates-sti-std-sexually-a7828186.html

Sepsis will return and infect those innocent mothers in hospitals.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/gonorrhea-super-sti-hiv-infertility-symptoms-antibiotic-drug-resistant-treatment-a7330801.html

It’s almost like monogamy evolved.

“The costs down the road of treating these conditions are enormous with estimates in the billions. STD rates will continue to increase in the United States absent some dramatic change in how we confront these epidemics. Period.”

We’re slowly becoming the Third World, as the First dies.

“We would have very sick people who we can’t treat or get out of hospital.” 

We have death pathways for that.

Back to reddit.

“You dont get to talk about rights while happily ignoring the rights of those that are created by imbecille parents because they couldnt use a condom, or wanted a mini me. You cannot have one without the other.”

The right to breed is a full and total responsibility to what you breed. Simple logic.

You can’t shake it onto anyone else, they didn’t magically possess your genitals. This train of thought, from legal adults.

The simple way to put this issue Tesla noted? There is an inverse correlation between IQ and fecundity: the stupids are fucking.

If technology is going to save everyone in the future, you need people smart enough to do that, it doesn’t just happen.

I love the “correlation isn’t causation” crowd, I just ask them about smoking causing lung cancer, it’s just a correlation bro. They wouldn’t bother with correlations if they couldn’t seek to infer causation. They aren’t the same thing but you need point A to get to B, that’s called…. The Scientific Method!

At least, in theory.

There is also an inverse correlation between IQ and violence, especially sexual violence.

Centuries of literature supporting this. Bear in mind, IQ is how teachable you are.

Do feminists want to discuss this? Hell no, they expect rapists to respond to reason and magically float away on a cloud of logic.

“It doesn’t work as it should be like. Like most humans get to have children, weak, stupid, with a genetic disease, these bad traits no longer mean impossibility to find a partner or to die.”

pre-welfare the test used to be social 1. find someone to marry you for life, no take-backsies and 2. can you financially support yourself and kids? (“keep them”, mentioned in the vows)

“One of the problems with current evolution is the excess of tolerance.”

pop the fake money bubble and that’ll go away real quick
It’s so petulant about the State “allowing” them to have kids, the true issue: how about the State “allowing” them to rob their neighbors to support their bad fuck-ups, literally? And anyone saying the truly disabled have a good life never want to socialize with them, they think Mindy going through the bad break-up has issues. I don’t care if the local ghetto trash have 9 kids. I don’t want to pay a penny to raise kids I had no consent in making. Full choice, full duty. No consent means no money.

It’s already legal to kill the disabled, abortions and death pathways. Go after the deadbeats (the bullets in the gun, the sperm donors) and stop subsidizing mothers of future criminals. Criminology has proven this, a chemical cascade triggered by deadbeat fathers and yet the lawyers pretend these people are innocent.

You agree with Tesla if you believe there is any such thing as a bad parent.

Where’s the father? Why can’t the father pay? Isn’t that his role?

If I pay for a child, can I replace the parents? Can I go to their graduation?

State adoption is taxpayer burden.

“Candidates for chemical sterilization include:

Men over the age of 20 that rape prepubescent children. Second offense might be required just in case of wrongful conviction for first time offenders.

over 20? why the arbitrary? all rapists, m/f, repeat offence is a good test
chemical castration is the solution there, unless they move to rape with objects

this next one

Men who have children out of wedlock with 3 or more women and more than one is on welfare. May also require the offender does not have a job for more than 1 year or something or is compounded with criminal record.

“Men who have children out of wedlock with 3 or more women” – err no, fuckboys who have children out of wedlock full stop, it’s called a condom or a vasectomy, why do they always let the men off? No welfare queens without kings.

It’s also a very reasonable argument to not allow people to have children who can not care for them.

unless you’re bribing them into learned helplessness

I’m not sure what this looks like and this is what the eugenics conversations were all about in the early 20th century. Fortunately it didn’t materialize since there was some racism then. Extremely low IQ or mentally disabled should not have children, not sure if sterilization is the answer but the conversation shouldn’t be buried for fear of moral condemnation.

http://www.fox23.com/news/oklahoma/oklahoma-woman-heeds-suggestion-of-judge-to-be-sterilized/695825480

And what about the fathers?

Oh, so 50% shitty DNA is fine for the gene pool?

https://www.rt.com/uk/229303-compulsory-sterilization-woman-disabilities/

Already here, thanks progressives!

Evolutionary biology would suggest that only the strong survive and thrive or those with the most desirable characteristics procreate. The developments over the last century have provided enough excess wealth

pathological altruism

that the weak are surviving and thriving on the back of the strong.

parasitism formerly known as socialism

Idiocracy is a comedy but the potential of such a future shouldn’t be ignored. It’s certainly possible if the best of us continue to have less children and much later in life.”

reply “Are there genetic markers that predispose people to have kids out of wedlock? Be on welfare? or have a criminal record? No, there are not.”

There’s plenty of genetic research marker material on r-traits.

e.g.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/210277.php

It’s a long game.

When they don’t make themselves infertile by STDs, they abort or choose to be child-free.

Fine by us.

“So you’re really just advocating that we punish the very poor.”

why would rich people go on welfare, you utter moron

Stupid people typically play the What you really mean game because their brain can’t handle what a smart person actually said.

Fewer poor people as a % (larger total group) have committed crimes compared to the white-collar middle class. By all means, let’s eliminate classism in arrests and enforcement.

Making poor people get married could be easy, making them stay married is a trick. By all means, let’s encourage marriage and monogamy in the poor.

These people think they’re intelligent.

Those aren’t bad outcomes.

“I mean, you seem to be very into magic. Which is stereotypically filled with unattractive low status neckbeards. You would almost definately be on a list for chemical castration (get the term right) if it were ever implemented.”

Yes, genetics is magic.

Wait, stereotypes aren’t real when it comes to breeding sows and their pimps, but do exist when you wanna get on your high horse and signal?

And so what? There are people conscientious enough to do something that’s good for society, even if it comes at personal cost. Those are called K-types.

Tesla was one of those, that’s why he never had children.

This whole thing is about taking responsibility for yourself, the entire point.
You can hear the ocean between their ears.

“Doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss it, it’s not as open and shut a discussion as you think. Most would agree there are people that should not have children. So what do we do when they have children? The answer right now is nothing, we have to take care of their children with taxes and effort and pay for it in more ways than one. Children without fathers leads to more dysfunctional families and abnormal, criminal behaviors and so forth.”

Even the people who get it, don’t. We? Who is We? This isn’t my kin.

We’re in Stage 2 of 3. Boom before bust.
Their children. Children are a blood-line. That line could stop any time, any place. If the State decides to stop, the parents step in and do their job or nature does.

It’s called a bachelor tax and all the successful societies of history had it.

Men are told they aren’t responsible for their children. That’s the first point of deviance from the truth, leaving the woman holding the baby comes second.

“The developments over the last century have provided enough excess wealth that the weak are surviving and thriving on the back of the strong.” not for long, cut off the money supply and the rest will follow

It’s already happening, there will be no economic recovery, we rode the fumes of post-WW BS. Prosperity again is impossible without a burn-down of the current model for cleansing purposes.

reply “As far as responsibility goes — that isn’t simply a genetic trait, but an environmental one”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29152902

“Findings from genetic studies of personality have furthered our understanding about the genetic etiology of personality, which, like neuropsychiatric diseases themselves, is highly polygenic. Polygenic analyses have showed genetic correlations between personality and psychopathology, confirming that genetic studies of personality can help to elucidate the etiology of several neuropsychiatric diseases.”

Over time the number of genetic things is rising. We live in a dysgenic societal structure by every conceivable metric. The dam will break, it’s a matter of time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27779626

How precise is current testing model/s?

40-60% identifiable.

Biometrical genetic studies suggest that the personality dimensions, including neuroticism, are moderately heritable (~0.4 to 0.6)”

Seriously, can redditfags use fucking google? For once?

Technically, personality tests should be illegal.

“Findings demonstrate that neuroticism can be significantly predicted across ancestry,”

so not genocide

“and highlight the importance of studying polygenic contributions to personality in non-European populations.”

But in a eugenic society, are good pro-social, responsible personalities selected for?

https://www.nhs.uk/news/mental-health/neuroticism-can-be-good-for-your-health/

Yup.

this is dubbed pseudoscience as an excuse not to address the argument

the redditfag’s lalala I’m not listening

he goes on to add

“Pseudoscientific beliefs are those which appear scientific but which don’t use the scientific method ie ones where logic and reality don’t coincide.”

Nature Genetics doesn’t use the scientific method?

“The idea that genetic traits are unambiguously good or bad is provably false.”

Yeah, the genetic traits for various disabilities aren’t bad, who wouldn’t choose to have (pick a disease)?
MORAL RELATIVISM DOESN’T APPLY TO MEDICINE.

DISEASE EXISTS TO BE TREATED.

“Knowing what traits will be useful in the future and which won’t be requires both a level of understanding of biology that we don’t have”

you claim to be pro-science? really? we already know the genes for dominant conditions, we can make a start

“and the ability to predict the future which we can’t do.”

SCIENCE CAN’T PREDICT THINGS, GUYS!

yeah maybe if you’re working in climate science and spinning a baby’s toy wheel to decide the forecast

“In other words eugenics is a totally crap idea.”

I don’t understand it so stupid? [appeal to incredulity]

Truly, these are our intellectual betters.

The guy quotes wikipedia and the Flynn effect, which admits it lies.

Scientism is a cult.

“However based on how we believe evolution works it is physically impossible for us as humans, at this point in our developmental stage to determine how, or why select traits have evolved over other. Especially considering that we can’t even prove the origins of our existence. Point is it’s not pseudoscience just because it isn’t proven.”

theories don’t exist?

Creationism rhetoric?

Back to the STD thing, do you believe evolution indulges in population culls?

“The stars are aligned for us to get this done. For a modern, industrialized wealthy nation to tolerate the continued transmission of this disease should be unacceptable. We don’t have to have it here.”

Tolerate? Yes. Who brought these diseases back? They had to come in from somewhere. Where’s the origin?

“It is unconscionable that in the last several years that STD control programs around the country, city and state level have been emasculated in terms of the resources that we have,”

The programmes intended/funded to produce less disease made more, much more and drug-resistant.

We should convict the people who ran it.

The investment actually broke the law.

If the apps are a public health risk, why are they legal?

“And that’s what happens with drug-resistant bacteria. So not only do you have this issue where we’re seeing more cases of infection, now we’re starting to see and get concerned about growing resistance to the treatment that we have.”

You can deny evolution but you cannot deny the consequences of evolution.

Stupid people lose.

You should be able to sue anyone for harming your body.

That includes male or female, and STD.

back to reddit for a time

“Ensuring that people have options goes a lot farther than simply writing off people who make mistakes.”

No, a mistake is spilling milk, not making another human life.

You do have options: if you have sex, you are responsible for consequence, you consented.

“People with no conscience or concern for their community are not good people.”

Antisocial people are literally the ones in all our horror movies.

The anti-natal will die.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2263631/Sterilised-10-minutes–regret-rest-lives-Thousands-women-using-new-NHS-device-banish-fear-pregnancy.html

It’s already happening.

That could be made compulsory in gang rapists.

It isn’t compassion to spare people with real problems, it’s guilt and it increases suffering logically. Stop guilt tripping healthy people.
“Her body, her choice” is strange wording, not in rape cases, it isn’t. And her fuck-up, her funding. [and his]

Think of how thi$ State happened.

Technically, we’re just making the lower quality breed too much for cannon fodder for the next Malthusian trap so its dysgenic while they’re alive but – given low fitness (they can’t grow food or do simple jobs like the old useless idiots) it’s eugenic once society turns again in the next economic collapse, famine, war, disease, or all four.
The over-breeding is to off-set ever-increasing national debt, it’s divided per head, that’s why Labour never wants to fix it. It needs voters and it needs collateral to borrow money to fund academia to tell you they’re good.
They’re only laughing because they can’t see the gravy train slowing, being low IQ useless people. Laughing as they choke the golden goose of their food supply.
When the music stops?
Same level of dense goes for smug Guardian readers thinking they can out-signal demographics, if Christians win, they’re fucked; if Muslims win, same result. No more pride parades or talk of rights without the Englishman.
As long as we the logical limit the damage to normal IQs, their deaths will be a greater economic relief than all the losses, including those huge families that could be taken down in one swoop of black death or something like it. On a long timeline, it’s assured.
Have you seen the hygiene of the public-shitting Asian? Without the spicy food, they’d be dead from poisoning long ago. We evolved for bland food because it kept us alive and food kept good better in colder climes. Lots of mouths to feed isn’t our way with low infant mortality.
Their position is weak, actually, many openings.
Socialism needs more and more voters until they all starve and die of disease, see the Chinese pattern (or Poland). It’s the rule of history in politics. As the NHS dies, a famine and then a food-borne disease seem likely.
History is mirrored like that.
The useful idiots don’t understand that when national debt contracts, their bill will be called due. They believe the white socialists when promised a free feast.

That’s fine, we can throw them in debtor’s prison or make them work off the debt (the Empire regains slavery).
Socialism weakens its people by making them other-reliant, dependent like a child, when over generations, they fail and die. Red Scare was about this, weakening patriotism, weakening the People it claims to support (no, it’s middle class statist whores who want to live off the workers as the new masters, we call this a Government job).
Why do Communists need a ruling class? Why need a government? You’re equal, right?

and what’s more patriotic than stealing from someone born on the same soil?
On some level, the stupid sense they are blind to reality.
Expect nasty surprises. We try to warn you because we actually care, we want to fix things now.
This is about as likely as Hollywood giving up the coke-whores.

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?

STDs and child disease

I was reading this

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/oct/16/itvs-victoria-illustrates-how-19th-century-sexism-helped-syphilis-to-spread

because I wrote that piece on syphilis.

As well as causing infertility, syphilis can induce miscarriages and stillbirths. Some children born to syphilitic mothers will never show any signs of infection. Others die in infancy or develop serious health complications.

And antibiotics are failing.

And it struck me, wait, that continues on. It never disappeared.

Except women are still the ones blamed despite men counting more partners in studies (most sluts are men, mathematically and willingness plays into this) and there are links to psychiatric conditions.

No pill for ruining your legacy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/herpes-virus-may-be-trigger-autism

Top of my mind.

“It’s a very important paper,” says Karen Jones, a behavioral neuroimmunologist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved with study. “It’s also really important to remember that not every mom who has HSV-2 is going to have a kid with autism.”

The idea virgin brides will prevent any STDs or medical grievances is absurd.
Chastity applies to men as well for good reason. Purity is physical?

This idea either sex can both have their cake and eat it is childish. Have it All is a lie sold to weaklings. Adults make difficult decisions, you don’t pop into the Perfect Husband/Wife mold overnight, it takes years and plenty of omissions!
To put your future wife and children at risk like that when sex toys exist should count as abuse, since abused children have similar problems, including catching the diseases of the parents.

http://bigthink.com/videos/kathleen-mcauliffe-and-impact-of-disease-on-sexual-attraction-and-fecal-transplants

The microbiome sexuality link remains strong.
Any sex, but especially anal.
Wow, I wonder which sex was brainwashed into being obsessed with that?

The focus on women is based on the fact we carry, we aren’t the source of the problem.
That’s medically impossible to be both cause and effect.
Fresh infections cause the most damage. Whose fault is that?

But gay penguins adopt!

Why do you think this makes homosexuals look less like predators?

If you look them up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad%C3%A9lie_penguin#Reproduction

Young Adélie penguins which have no experience in social interaction may react to false cues when the penguins gather to breed. They may, for instance, attempt to mate with other males, with young chicks, or with dead females.

On account of the birds’ relatively human-like appearance and behavior, human observers have interpreted this behavior anthropomorphically as sexual deviance. The first to record such behavior was Dr Levick, in 1911 and 1912, but his notes were deemed too indecent for publication at the time; they were rediscovered and published in 2012.[17][n 1] “The pamphlet, declined for publication with the official Scott expedition reports, commented on the frequency of sexual activity, auto-erotic behaviour, and seemingly aberrant behaviour of young unpaired males and females, including necrophilia, sexual coercion, sexual and physical abuse of chicks and homosexual behaviour,” states the analysis written by Douglas Russell and colleagues William Sladen and David Ainley. “His observations were, however, accurate, valid and, with the benefit of hindsight, deserving of publication.”

They blame global warming.

It makes frogs gay too?

unpaired = r-selected

Reminder: compulsive masturbation is a paraphilia-related disorder.

(keyword: auto-erotic)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926239908404008

The subgroup of males with both PAs and lifetime PRDs (n = 123) self-reported the greatest number of lifetime SIDs, the highest incidence of physical and sexual abuse, the fewest years of completed education, and the highest likelihood of current unemployment or disability.

Oh look, a male promiscuity study – the promiscuous are losers!

no experience in social interaction” – in humans, that is abuse experience
a strangely common prevalence in homosexual adult males

Why not test IQ too?
Impulse control is tied to it.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9900-3

Why is this relevant?

Well, pedophilia has already been claimed as NOT a paraphilia.

Like homosexuality before it. I guess it’s just a coincidence most pedophiles are homosexually-oriented men.

The present article examined the question instead by comparing the major correlates and other features of homosexuality and of the paraphilias, including prevalence, sex ratio, onset and course, fraternal birth order, physical height, handedness, IQ and cognitive neuropsychological profile, and neuroanatomy.

You could just study it directly.

e.g.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769077/

Various ‘preferences’ and sexual interests have fallen in and out of being defined as paraphilic, for example, up until 1973 homosexuality was classified as paraphilic under the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders)-II. Its subsequent removal led to some arguing that if homosexual orientation is not in itself abnormal, then the inclusion of other sexual behaviors classified as paraphilic cannot be justified as a concept and should be removed entirely from future editions

Paraphilia essentially means anti-Darwin, that was the purpose of the concept.

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-03599-001

 Besides homosexuality, the DSM also listed sadism, masochism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, pedophilia, and fetishes as mental disorders.

Yah.

Members of the activist committee believed that the law and psychiatric diagnosis were and should be independent.

Nay.

Our hope was that one day the entire group of sexual disorders would be dropped from DSM, at least those currently listed as the paraphilias.

Thanks, Silverstein!

I’m resting my case gently so you can do your own research.

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