If you can’t tell this is a joke for a few minutes, please leave this life.
If you can’t tell this is a joke for a few minutes, please leave this life.
It doesn’t prove anything.
Except the degeneracy of fornication.
The premise is unintentionally hilarious. What’s the prior here? Logically?
Women are supposed to limit themselves, as if reproduction is a sin (Bible says No) and men can do what they want (Bible says No). Angels fell for fornication. It’s up there with rape. In fact…
If women are supposed to keep their legs shut for their ‘owners’ (husbands), any man who beds a woman and doesn’t marry her is a rapist.
The Bible does imply this too.
It used to be on the law books as things like Breach of Promise. Aka it used to be illegal to defraud/lie to get sex historically too. Rape by fraud would be traditional to reinstate.
She is incapable of consenting except to be wed, in a church, with her previous owner’s (father’s) permission.
They’re implicitly arguing against the Sexual Revolution. A feminist event that allows them to sleep around. Because they defend their ‘right’ to sleep around… (not endogenous, not a right).
Fallacy of Poor analogy.
They’re implicitly saying that all fornication is rape and sex is otherwise stolen from women by criminal men. We’re helpless. As in, we can’t consent to the guy using the metaphor either. It’s an argument to female hypoagency. Also sexist to men, as all rapists and aggressors who only want one thing.
Nobody is ‘lying’ either. Learn to read the research, not the commentary feed from some butthurt bloke. The lie scales are applied to both sexes (independent variables) in a given study. That is how they are constructed, literally. For comparison’s sake aka the study, it holds.
Why the discrepancy? you wisely ask.
There are fewer female sluts than male, but they put out a lot more per…. ahem, head.
Result? Men gain more ‘experience’, to put it politely.
Now, a little theory…
Remember, this studies frequency of switching. The cause can be traced back via IV to frequency of sex acts too, as the two variables are intertwined (men and women). Otherwise, logically, and sexual congress requiring one male and one female, you would expect even results e.g. men 5, women 5. Men are switching between more women, as you can see from their mean, but they are switching among the same pool of women, necessarily, whereas the total of females is much lower. The average female switches partner less, yes, but what type is the average woman? …
Told you promiscuity, the act, was the problem, and male in face. If you insist on blaming one sex, they’re at the centre of anything sexual, online and off.
If you have data, go ahead and prove me wrong, manwhores.
This is as silly as arguing cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing.
In short, this suggests, pending further results, that men use and use up a lower quality of woman before trading up socially to their final partner. Kinda like a good hand to hold in blackjack. To have and to hold.. They crave the social security like women crave the sexual kind. Hypergamy is a mass neurosis of projection, to anyone who can read.
You don’t see large groups of women on the prowl, versus Pull Nights ( lads on the pull). [SATC is fiction, globally and historically.]
Pool* = sample, arguably the SMP in practice.
Female mean = the total available females in theory, e.g. including the married, the aged, the ill and the celibate.
You see the issue? They’re all lumped together, the data isn’t stratified correctly. Deliberately.
Even a bar chart based on partner count or sexual frequency in a week would be illuminating.
However, the number of count for slutty males must be even higher, because as not-practicing women hold down the slutty average, the number of non-practicing men hold down the manwhore mean too.
Isn’t science fun?
This accurately traces the perils of lumping the sexes in together, obscuring mating patterns which crossover i.e. promiscuity. Further data computation was required to assess this question.
Obviously none of this data includes rape or other sexual crimes.
Accusing all men of being rapists is exactly as stupid as accusing all women of being whores. They’re both over-reactions designed to defame the opposite sex’s reputation from different sides (take/be taken, force/choose). Instead it cleverly plays on an old question Can a whore be raped?
Nobody mentions this. So I have to.
Considering the number of porn addicts, I don’t think that sample’s legitimate. Not to mention the way it can weaken the tissue structures e.g. prone position.
Five minutes isn’t really trying, anything less than ten is lazy.
Even the celibate religious used to train their bodies to last much, much longer (and not ejaculate, which isn’t actually the classical goal of masturbation). There are plenty of resources about training your body in this way, and yet these supposed ‘fit’ and ‘healthy’ men refuse to do it.
Because they can’t.
It’s harder than diet and exercise.
It involves real self-control.
And they can’t do it.
You may think I’m being harsh. Not so.
I’ve never spoken to a man (or woman) who learned to control such things, and regretted it.
In every single case, they said something to the effect of “I wish I’d learned this stuff as a teen, seriously.”
“Older men weren’t able to last longer than young ones, while wearing a condom or being circumcised didn’t boost chaps’ performance either.
Arteriosclerosis affects one particular area in men….
This is ignoring the probability of nerve damage with age (considering how many so-called men can’t leave the damn thing alone for a while).
“Another surprising finding was that the older the couple, the shorter the sex, contrary to the prevailing wisdom (probably peddled by older men),” Zietsch continued.”
The PUAs lying about older men being better in the sack are lying to themselves…
Speaking of these degenerate try hards.
He isn’t good-looking, and he’s clearly massaging those numbers. Go on then, what’s the secret?
“The cut-price Casanova also claims one of his hobbies is “upsetting women”.
And they wonder why they repel Wife Material….
And attract fake bimbos….
And eventually die alone and childless….
Evolutionally speaking, a beta with a single child is more of a success.
Not to mention the odds of him having Pelvic Inflammation, that won’t help fertility.
The gym bunny says his father had 12 children with five different women but “doesn’t know” if that has anything to do with the way he treats women.”
Their parental issues are so predictable it’s becoming a punchline.
R-types, forever fucked up.
Contrary to evidence, I saw a poseur Alt Righter describe Votes for Women (actually Universal Suffrage, poor men benefited far more, look it up) as ‘The grandest mistake of Western civilization’. Boys have no excuse to be drama queens. In fact, this is a manosphere myth, blaming women for indulging as major hypocrites themselves. Otherwise, the Sexual Revolution wouldn’t have taken 50 whole fucking years after the Vote was granted (TWO whole generations) to happen. Pun very much intended.
Actually, I can pinpoint the exact date the grandest mistake in the Occident was made, and this is easier to do with Americans (the 21st century Sodom, able to lecture nobody without eliciting a titter of disdain), since most of my readers are American…
Either fornication (premarital sex is a neutral non-judgemental feminist term, like extramarital) is a social ill or a social good. I think we all know enough of history to ascertain correctly. In which case, it is just as bad for men as it is women, and if you want to sleep around before marriage, go to a brothel. However, if you indulge, you don’t get to complain about others with the same vice. Especially when you live in and talk up the most degenerate society to have ever existed. At least no 18th century French women made a global spectacle of their arsecheeks.
Sleeping around ruins the future ability to pair bond. There is neurological evidence and this applies to both sexes because the differences between men and women are biologically lacking (I vaguely remember hearing it’s over 85% the same). This research on broken pair bonding ability and other issues with early starters can literally fill books, but the MSM isn’t allowed to report on it because the companies selling sex would lose billions. You’ll never see the manosphere address this brain damage because they are intellectually dishonest. They want to portray men as blameless saints who cause no damage, to themselves or women they intentionally ruin. They will never assess divorce risk in male sluts, even though the data is publicly available and I have invited this. Why not prove me wrong? Naturally, I could go over the data myself, but then I’d be called biased in reporting it, or accused of fiddling the figures, merely because I am female. Well, can the man who did the female divorce risk study be ignored too, on that premise? But I know that’s what would happen so I challenge any who claim such specious vacuous things without proof, as Men can sleep around as much as they want and it doesn’t make them a worse marriage prospect, to please prove it?
The SP himself admits in the comments ” The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce.” The trend applies to both sexes, quibbling over degree is deliberately obscuring the point.
We need more studies and more data. Happily, overwhelm me with good studies, please. But I don’t want men to suffer the same psychological lifelong ruin all the present data suggests.
This means that generally, the sexes aren’t different enough for it to be important. However, there are specific cases where the differences come to the fore and those are uncommon. It’s a minority issue. There’s a real issue with idiots claiming 1 discrete finding (like the OMG!!!IQ studies) is world-changing. Calm down. Replicate it with a better method and maybe…?
In answer to the question posed in the title: later age of marriage.
Of course, those valiant keyboard alphas decrying Western degenerate sexual permissiveness would never wish for the solution to be implemented (a change in social standard where marriage comes first). They’re as bad as male feminists in their two-faced faux concern.
This has been requested for a while but I think it’s such a simple case of provable linguistic (written evidence!) fraud I hadn’t bothered. Until I saw what they’re using it for.
Inspired by this new form of child grooming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420203/Are-gender-fluid-demi-girl-intersex.html that outright lies about the basic meaning of words and asks intimate questions of minors that would get anyone else arrested.
The form of gender they use applies to grammar (words, objects), not people.
e.g. la baguette, une baguette
Even then, this refers to masculine or feminine pronouns.
It comes from ‘genus’, a biological taxonomic classification, causing some confusion with sex.
To make medical documents more polite, gender slowly replaced sex (noun) in many parts of the West, especially America. It also prevented those idiots who write in things like ‘yes, please’.
Hence in America, you see a new definition added, which is the same as sex.
Considering who English really belongs to (the English people), the American terms do not have definitive supremacy, that would be cultural appropriation, although culturally they are considered relevant (to deconstruct in debate and ignore).
Note how, even in the MW dictionary, this novel form is the secondary meaning.
Compare with the English definition of the English word.
This is the dictionary that recently included emoji. They cave.
Yet we see an interesting pushback by the etymologists.
Grammar is pushed down (as it’s less frequently used in this manner) and it reads “Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.” An acknowledgement that they are not, in fact, synonymous. The use is social, not factual.
It is only considered comparable, by definition, in sum (as a mass or count noun). As in, gender taken as male or female cannot apply to individuals.
We see another guideline for this colloquial usage (casual, informal) in “typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones”, a snide passing reference to its use in psychology (generally true) and sociology (generally bollocks).
Many people are unaware of this but all sciences (and soft sciences) have their own dictionaries. These are not the true or common meanings, they are niche and limited to discussion within the field itself. Hence the importance before any debate or academic discussion of Defining One’s Terms.
Let’s keep this above board, shall we? Gold standard.
“Non-technically, a synonym for sex” – the psychological definition of gender.
What does it means then, technically? As a variable?
Gender is simply the degree to which one is masculine or feminine. That is it, in psychology. That is 100% true and I’ve never seen anyone dispute it.
Bem’s Gender Role Inventory: http://personality-testing.info/tests/OSRI/
The confusion began with the fraud Kinsey, who conflated it with sexuality in his methodology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
Yet sexuality is a behaviour, under sexology, and gender is innate (lack of gender is impossible) mode of cognition with the slightest fluctuations over lifespan.
Under ‘sex’, for clarification:
“Either of the categories of male and female or the sum total of biological attributes” – the psychological definition of sex.
Psychology: sex = male or female. Physiological. Based on anatomy and biology (chromosomes).
Psychology: gender = masculine or feminine. Psychological. Based on cognition (motivation) and behaviour.
I’m more willing to trust the psychologists on matters psychological, aren’t you?
As the APA admits despite the pressure to cave to sociology in ‘gender’, sex is strictly biological.
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. These are the psychological definitions of psychological constructs.
Onto the murky unfalsifiable (unscientific) world of sociology.
Under ‘gender’. When I searched, no less than eight pages came up, most nothing to do with the word. It’s like they’re trying to hide something…
It doesn’t actually have a clean, given definition of gender, which isn’t alarming at all considering how often they use it for rentseeking. This is the closest thing it has.
The definition, if it exists, lives behind a paywall.
Under ‘sex’, this is the closest.
Apparently, in sociology, sex actually means sexuality. Kinsey, it seems, was a sociologist.
Fine, I’ll give them one more chance.
The closest I can find to either, among the fog of gender bias, gender oppression and the like, is this.
An opinion piece.
Often confused or used as if the terms were the same, sex and gender are in actuality different designations of human behavior based on physical capabilities and social expectations.
Fine so far… not (external) expectations, it’s endogenous cognition, but okay…
Unless you wanna argue that monkeys and other non-human primates, that exhibit the same gender differences, have verbal expectations and Patriarchy: http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/
Sex is related to the biological distinctions between males and females primarily found in relation to the reproductive functions of their bodies.
Implicit admission of non-gonadal sex differences.
Wait for it…
Biological sex is usually stated as if there are two, and only two, distinct bodies: male and female. But, in fact, there are gradations between male and female accounting for at least five sexes.
There it is.
That’s why psychologists laugh at sociologists and get offended (fairly) if you confuse the two. Why not four? Why not six? Opinion. Pure, contrived, subjective bullshit.
It goes on in such an embarrassing way a small child could call their bluff.
Sex is not a clear-cut matter of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that produce females and males. All humans have hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone, but they are found in varying and changing levels ( Fausto-Sterling 1999 ; Kimmel 2004 ). Men as well as women have breasts. Some men have bigger breasts than some women and some men get breast cancer….
I think the medical field would dispute. This is an irrational definition.
That’s like saying, chickens have legs, you have legs, you are a chicken.
If you stay on the SJW haven of wikipedia:
Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.
The pedophile who forced two brothers to engage in sex play and kept photographs.
The academic ‘authority’ for the type of ‘campaign’ above.
Gender was seen as a role because behaviour is easier to measure and harder to fake, it isn’t all of what gender entails, but the final product of the motivation and thought process that leads to decision making and external action, and takes after behaviourism, which was popular at the time. Nowadays, we can watch that thought process in real time, synapse to synapse, yet these people cling to their nonsense words like Christians to the Holy Spirit. Gender is their Ghost of Patriarchy.
It is easy to fake what kind of special snowflake one is. Pink? Purple? Blue? Tri/bi/a/fluid? Cultural Marxism wages a battle of acceptance in popular culture for these linguistic falsehoods, contrary to reality but believed in fervently by its worshipers. At least Christians aren’t claiming the Holy Ghost is a science and bleeding the taxpayer.
You can actually blame the feminists themselves for making it up. Their supposed support for their word definitions are… themselves. It’s circular reasoning at its ugliest.
The psychological definition of gender has historical eminence, as noted:
Why would they do this? Why would they lie?
The definition of a nuclear family becomes amenable to distortions.
All this talk of sex and sexuality is bluster, a ruse to prevent discussion and even definition and scientific study of masculinity and femininity. Feminists (sociology’s nu!gender theorists) are deliberately failing to cover masculinity unless preceded by the word ‘toxic’ but it is the word femininity which goes unspoken like Lord Voldemort. Femininity, that they fear to even discuss, that they shroud even in their dictionaries and insular definitions.
Here is something I have done you might want to try if you don’t believe me.
Homework: when confronted with a (3rd wave) feminist, let them finish, let them wind down and look serious and concerned. With a grave expression, say something like “I have a question, since you’re a feminist, you must be an expert… What makes a feminist, feminine?
*mic drop, as they twist themselves into a pretzel of logical fallacies*
When they desperately ask you a question on a tangent or to change the subject, ask the very simple question again, emphasis how simple it is and watch them trigger themselves into an amygdala hijacking rage. They don’t know. They don’t know what femininity is. This is their weakness, publicly exposed. That’s why they chose to call it that, hoping nobody would ever ask. They claimed the ground they feared others would use to strengthen the hearth of the nuclear family.
It’s been a pleasure shitposting with you.
The basis for the modern myths of sexuality, and informing the Sex Ed screwing up modern children.
The biggest myth being SEX IS ALWAYS GOOD. The core programming directive sounds odd spoken bare, doesn’t it?
Another being SEX IS A RIGHT WHATEVER YOUR AGE AND YOU CANNOT CONTROL YOURSELF/IT. Reminiscent of a possession metaphor.
A third example being PERVERSIONS ARE NORMAL. Which is the opposite of statistical meanings of the word normal, he was trying to make them socially acceptable. All of them. Freud defined pansexuality and it means an attraction to everything (animals, children, corpses). Despite how modern neurobiology shows tastes in arousal are mutable by porn use, something they argued was impossible back then because they’re liars.
I’ve posted about Kinsey before. Search the tag.
Others followed in his criminal footsteps, notably Dr Money, the man who forced two brothers to engage in sex play and took photos…. and started this whole tranny mess.