“Good-looking individuals are more likely to have right-wing political views than less physically attractive people, according to a university study.
The authors of the report, Rolfe D. Peterson from the US Susquehanna University and Carl L. Palmer from the Illinois State University, examined the connection between physical attractiveness and political beliefs, applying multiple surveys measuring people’s attractiveness. “More attractive individuals are more politically efficacious than their peers and more likely to identify as conservative and Republican than less physically attractive citizens of comparable demographic backgrounds,” the report read.”
Comparable demographic background, an important control.
“Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults”
“We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala.”
“Researchers found major differences in the amount of gray and white matter in the brains of men and women of the same intelligence, suggesting that men and women may derive their intelligence in different ways.”
“”These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior,” says researcher Richard Haier, professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine, in a news release. “In addition, by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other cognitive impairment diseases in the brain”
Again, the same IQ score.
Man Card isn’t a MENSA card, accomplish something.
“Positive relationships were found between FSIQ and intracranial gray and white matter but not cerebrospinal fluid volumes. Significant associations with cortical thickness were evident bilaterally in prefrontal (Brodmann’s areas [BAs] 10/11, 47)
IQ so real you can scan someone’s brain, almost.
and posterior temporal cortices (BA 36/37) and proximal regions.
Sex influenced regional relationships;
Before any sexist bitch goes to twist this, different does not mean inferior. This is a study of intelligence, NOT stupidity.
You can’t prove a negative and individuals are not groups?
The obvious pointed out? Okay, let’s continue.
women showed correlations in prefrontal and temporal association cortices, whereas men exhibited correlations primarily in temporal–occipital association cortices.
An idiot reading that would assume women are smarter, prefrontal doesn’t always mean smarter, necessarily, it’s just a group-level skew of structural difference. However, it does explain the higher female average.
In healthy adults,
important distinction, many brain studies are conducted on the undeveloped (teens) or pathologies
neither of which generalize to a HEALTHY, ADULT population
[sorry for the smart people tuning in, idiots twist what I type]
greater intelligence is associated with larger intracranial gray matter and to a lesser extent with white matter.
Plot twist: both matter.
Almost like we evolved.
Variations in prefrontal and posterior temporal cortical thickness are particularly linked with intellectual ability.
PF – registered as female strength, generally.
PT – registered as male and female strengths, generally.
This isn’t better/worse, it’s apples/oranges.
Even race overwhelms sex as a confound in IQ (so does class, education etc).
Sex moderates regional relationships that may index dimorphisms in cognitive abilities, overall processing strategies, or differences in structural organization.”
Trans. sex differences real yo.
Overall, key word.
Moderates, may index, differences. As in, these processes still occur but like a road trip, each take different paths different enough to map but not distinct enough to be unrecognizable.
Fake masculinity is really bad for men. You can’t cheat code becoming a man.
Long-term AAS use is associated with right amygdala enlargement and reduced right amygdala rsFC with brain areas involved in cognitive control and spatial memory, which could contribute to the psychiatric effects and cognitive dysfunction associated with AAS use.
The MRS abnormalities we detected could reflect enhanced glutamate turnover and increased vulnerability to neurotoxic or neurodegenerative processes, which could contribute to AAS-associated cognitive dysfunction.
Now the right amygdala enlargement sounds like the natural conservative difference but understand it’s rooted, not in experience and genuine masculine virtue, but chemical dependence. Without the drugs, it’ll shrink right back and possibly atrophy.
This would be like congratulating a tall guy who took HGH for his superior genetics. No. It’s a superficial, fake result.
The cognitive control is impaired, that’s regression. The meat head stereotype is true, biologically. Useless.
I wonder how many male suicides were on steroids? Both groups happen to be middle-aged men in fear of the Wall.
Whatever the details, it makes them biologically vulnerable compared to their natural state, the opposite of fitness.
Ironically, they’re more vulnerable to microplastics and xenoestrogens.
To further screw the point in… that brain region explicitly mentioned?
Right amygdala rsFC study:
“In high HA scorers, we also observed stronger right amygdala rsFC with the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), which is implicated in negative affect regulation.”
It’s a girly brain thing to do with harm avoidance. [aka common sense]
“may represent a vulnerability marker for sensitivity to stress and anxiety (disorders).”
So the meat head with reduced volume (therefore not conservative*) is dumber, senses dulled by drugs and more likely to fail to get the brain signals to avoid trouble. Sounds like a future in handcuffs. They can’t perceive danger nor regulate negative emotions like anger or shame after rejection. Basically, they’re future chimp-outs waiting to happen, whatever their race**. Less able to CONTROL emotions, the broflakes.***
Hair-trigger temper calling out people for looking at him.
The guy who picks on people but never actually expects to get hit.
Will grab a woman and be shocked she slaps him. That’s the one.
*because, again “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala.”
[as referenced above]
yet they have less?
So steroids make men more left wing. It isn’t the correct area and type to be considered otherwise.
ISN’T SCIENCE FUN, FELLOW RED PILLS.
ACCEPTING FINDINGS EVEN WHEN WE DON’T LIKE THEM, BRO.
My guess is it messes with their sexual reward system and produces impotence, porn addiction, dissatisfaction.
“Infertility is defined by the WHO as the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse and a male factor is present in up to 50 % of all infertile couples. Several conditions may be related to male infertility.
Substance abuse, including AAS, is commonly associated to transient or persistent impairment on male reproductive function, through different pathways. Herein, a brief overview on AAS is offered. Steroids biochemistry, patterns of use, physiological and clinical issues are enlightened. A further review about fertility outcomes among male AAS abusers is also presented, including the classic reports on transient anabolic steroid-induced hypogonadism (ASIH), and the more recent experimental reports on structural and genetic sperm damage.”
hypogonadism = tiny balls
“In layman’s terms, it is sometimes called interrupted stage 1 puberty”
You’d have to be a moron already to think supplementing that shit makes you manly.
Nice muscles bro, shame you hit rewind on puberty!
They impair their body’s ability to naturally produce testosterone in future…. idiots.
Darwin Award category?
Big Pharma’s best customer? Like Israel’s Viagra use. Israel and America, top consumers.
“Through these connections, the ACC is thought to be involved with a number of functions related to emotion including the regulation of overall affect, assigning emotions to internal and external stimuli, and making vocalizations associated with the expression of states or desires.
The ACC also seems to contribute to the regulation of autonomic and endocrine responses, pain perception, and the selection and initiation of motor movements. Additionally, there are other areas of the ACC that are involved in various aspects of cognition ranging from decision-making to the management of social behavior.”
“A new YouGov survey, which asked over 19,000 participants from the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Denmark about both their politics and their sex lives, has found conservatives to be happier in the bedroom than liberals, with those identifying as “very right-wing” found to be the happiest.”
So much for the benefits of slutting. Muh experience. Yes, experiencing a burning sensation.
If you want a better sex life, don’t be a manwhore.
Chastity is a virtue. Less stress when single, hot sex when married.
“In multivariable analyses, detection of any HPV infection was significantly associated with reported race of Asian/Pacific Islander…
NonOncogenic HPV infection was independently associated with lifetime number of sexual partners. Circumcision, assessed by clinical examination, was associated with reduced risk of HPV detection across all categories of HPV evaluated. HPV detection in men in the current study was strongly related to sexual behavior and circumcision status. Interventions such as circumcision may provide a low‐cost method to reduce HPV infection.”
Hey, just in case you get a broken leg, get them amputated!
“Significantly higher risk of HPV detection was associated with increasing numbers of lifetime female sexual partners (OR 6.96–9.01 for nononcogenic, any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting ≥50 partners compared to 1 partner), number of female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.31–3.43 for nononcogenic, any HPV, oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting 3–30 partners compared to no female partners), number of new female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.64–2.85 for nononcogenic, oncogenic and any HPV type among men with ≥3 new female partners compared to no new partner), and anal sex with either a male or female (OR 1.40–1.45 for any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections).”
Good luck trying to find studies brave enough to look at anal sex frequency alone! They wouldn’t DARE.
What do they care if men get cancer, right?
Penile cancer is on the rise but do anal and never use a condom because a TV told you to!
Slut shaming also applies to men. Manwhores are disease-ridden.
“For example, the odds ratios for any HPV increased with increasing number of lifetime sexual partners peaking at an odds ratio of 6.65 among men who reported 20–49 partners.”
Er…. that’s well above average.
Here the lifetime partner rate is 4 and likely lower.
“However, the few published studies reporting HPV antibody status among men suggest that a smaller proportion of men than women are HPV antibody positive, despite a high HPV DNA prevalence among men.15″
Men are spreading it.
If I had to mock this, I’d get a tranny to dress up as Lady Gaga and sing “let’s have some fun this beat is sick, I wanna touch you with my cancer stick”… if only people had a sense of humour anymore.
“Don’t think too much, no condom bitch, ’cause porn is God and anal’s quick”
If I had to write the most unPC comedy show ever. No more jokes in this piece, it takes a serious turn.
“Finally, Castellsague et al.8 demonstrated a profound and significant reduction in invasive cervical cancer risk among women whose male partners were circumcised.8″
So… what about male cancer risk? Shouldn’t you study that too?
And they wouldn’t spread HPV if they didn’t catch it being sluts.
Prevention > whatever this is.
They’re basically operating on baby boys, assuming they’ll be manwhores when they’re older.
“HPV16, the most prevalent HPV type in this population (9.9%), also had the highest incidence (10.9/1000 person-months). A high incidence of HPV16 has been similarly reported in other studies among both men6, 7, 9, 14 and women.26 The high rate of acquisition of HPV16 has a clear implication for increasing cancer risk among men and their sexual partners, as HPV16 is the most common HPV type found in penile cancer among men;2 cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers among women;1, 27 and in anal and oropharyngeal cancers in both sexes.3, 4
If you’re avoiding performing oral on a woman, what makes you think she doesn’t have it in her mouth too and second, you’d better not be doing anal in that case….
Penile HPV IRs in our study were higher in the glans specimen, including the inner foreskin, compared with the shaft (HR=2.1; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.4). Our results are in contrast to the findings of a US study of 240 men.7 In this highly circumcised US population, the cumulative probability of incident HPV infection did not differ by anatomical site (44.3% in glans vs 45.4% in shaft). Among uncircumcised men, there may be a larger disparity in HPV acquisition by penile site, potentially attributable to keratinisation of the glans epithelium and removal of the inner foreskin after circumcision.”
Circumcised men aren’t less likely to catch it.
They’ll catch it somewhere more fatal. Increasing the rate of penile cancer.
Because you literally cannot catch it in a foreskin you NO LONGER HAVE.
So it’s a trick of linguistics. There’s less disease – of the foreskin. That you lack.
This study indicates higher prevalence of sexual risk behaviours among circumcised men in each survey and a reduction in use of condoms with non-marital sexual partners among circumcised men from 2004 to 2011, suggesting that promotion of male circumcision could result in risk compensation.
Considering the high levels of sexual risk behaviours among men who are already
circumcised observed in this study, the Ministry of Health and partners need to continue
sensitising the sexually active population to use condoms even when a man is circumcised. These
messages should target both circumcised men and their sexual partners. Educating men
10 undergoing circumcision also needs to be strengthened to avoid sexual risk taking post
“Data on changes in the sexual performance or sexual satisfaction of adolescents or men following circumcision are limited and conflicting.
Not really. Sunk cost fallacy is strong.
One study conducted among 138 Korean men an unknown time (possibly years) after circumcision found that 20 percent reported decreased sexual pleasure and 8 percent reported increased sexual pleasure following the procedure.3″
“Sixty-four percent of the circumcised men who were available for follow-up at 24 months reported greater penile sensitivity after circumcision, and 54 percent reported enhanced ease in reaching orgasm.6”
That is physically impossible, nerve endings are removed and existing ones covered with scar tissue.
Scar tissue is numb.
“Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.”
Men deserve to know this.
Sounds like surgical differences. Or maybe the men reporting more sensation had a thicker foreskin, limiting sensation?
“There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.”
Possibly? The surgery is intended to remove nerves and nerve endings. It REMOVES.
It’s literally taking away the thing that makes them a man, the crown of their manhood itself, the most important and sexually responsive organ to sexual pleasure.
Circumcision could be contributing to male fertility issues.
“Laumann et al.  found that circumcised men had different sexual practices from genitally altered men. Circumcised men were more likely to masturbate, to engage in heterosexual anal and oral sex, and to engage in homosexual anal sex.
Why does the porn industry want all men circumcised, it’s a mystery.
Masturbation suggests dissatisfaction with normal, spousal sex, as do the others.
In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males .
Unusual longevity is not good, it’s a common sign of impotence, porn lies. Difficulty finishing, medically.
Preputial secretions in mice and rats are a strong attractant for female mice and rats [7-11], and may provoke the onset of oestrus in mature females .”
I’m not kidding, impotence issues in performance, it’s tragic.
In addition, if humans do secrete pheromones, I’d expect to see that impact circumcised male fertility especially.
“The study results may reflect the tendency of people to choose the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. In a survey conducted on the Internet, circumcised men were significantly more likely to use additional artificial lubricants during sexual activity (odds ratio, OR = 5.64, 95% CI = 3.65 – 8.71) .”
That’s abnormal you shouldn’t need those, but without a foreskin there’s more friction, the prepuce evolved in men to reduce penile friction. Without the existence of lube, which might cause problems by ingredients, that suggests circumcised men would find it too painful to have sex at all.
Great profit margins for the lube companies though.
“The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man’s sexual appetite .
Yep, it’s a punishment.
Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman’s sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up.
Data supports this, keep reading.
There is a HUGE improvement in sexual performance for intact men.
When you ask the people judging said performance.
The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary ‘sexual’ organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman’s ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.”
“Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.”
So… the circumcised are bad in bed.No wonder American women don’t orgasm.
Objectively, the only way circumcised men can sexually perform is badly.
None of their behavioral pattern is pleasurable. None of it. Performance is judged by the recipient.
Again, everything porn tells you to do in bed is wrong.
It’s all the stuff that makes men bad in bed – that’s kinda why men enjoy viewing it, psychologically it’s telling them they’re normal by making bad performance in bed appear common and pay women to act aroused, contrary to honest data, like lonely women reading tons of romance novels and telling themselves “there’s nothing wrong with me”!
It’d be easy to test.
Do circumcised men enjoy watching intact men in porn? I’d bet not.
I’d bet they’d feel inferior. You think the industry doesn’t know that?
“While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin . Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.”
Circumcision increases divorce risk.
The study mentioned is linked below, Hughes, but nobody followed up on it.
Too controversial, plus the timing of his death is ..interesting.
“During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to ‘really get into it’ and more likely to ‘want to get it over with’ (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to ‘want to get it over with’ and considerably more likely to ‘really get into it.'”
“When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).”
i.e. Don’t trust the sluts.
“The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered men other than overall rating and a higher rate of premature ejaculation in their unaltered partners (4.63, 2.36-9.07)
That isn’t premature, that’s normal. The circumcised were demonstrating a sign of impotence.
These women had fewered unaltered partners (2.47 vs. 3.78, Z=-1.68, P=0.045), which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have been a consequence of ‘premature ejaculation’.
Note the quote marks, they’re actually the normal ones.
The inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction, and ‘yet to formulate a preference’, suggests that factors of conformity may be influential.“
“When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them, at a mean (SEM) of 70 (31%)vs 56 (40%) (Z=2.28, P=0.01). They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower (Z=-2.61, P0.0047) and unaltered partners higher (Z=2.83, P=0.002). When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.”
“When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016).”
It cannot be more obvious.
“When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis  to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans . This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners.
The one they always preferred?
This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey  and in the human clitoris .”
Men need to be told this nerve information in biology class.
Male is comparable to female circumcision. It causes blatant nerve damage.
It destroys the experience of sexual intensity and intimacy.
It removes neuroreceptors!
“Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts.The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men  suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying .“
I try to warn you.
“Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing ‘informed consent’ before circumcision.”
And male enjoyment too. I think they’d wanna know.
20 is Van Howe http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/letters.html#vanhowe
“Of course adult feelings are not so easily dismissed. A preliminary survey of 75 men suggests that the more men know about the important functions of the prepuce, the more likely they are to be dissatisfied about being circumcised.3 Now that an increasing number of men are learning about the prepuce and expressing this dis-satisfaction, clinicians must acknowledge that is impossible to predict how a male infant will feel when he is older. A prudent course of action would be to allow men to make the decision about circumcision themselves when they reach adulthood.”
Men need informed consent, it’s THEIR penis.
“A hypothesis is needed to explain the findings of Laumann et al in the light of the known neurohistology. We suggest that a penis with foreskin and its full complement of neuroreceptors may make heterosexual coitus more satisfying, thereby making the man less likely to seek out alternate forms of stimulation. The only portion of the prepuce remaining in a man with surgically altered genitals is the remnant between the corona and the scar. While there are some fine-touch receptors in this tissue, the most sensitive portion of the prepuce at the tip is removed in even the most moderate circumcision.2 The remaining prepuce and any remaining portions of the frenulum can be preferentially stimulated by masturbation and oral sex, whereas the sensation of deep pressure dominates during hetero- sexual coitus. The imbalance from not having the input from the missing fine touch receptors may make the experience less satisfying, causing a man with an incomplete penis to supplement his sexual experiences with other forms of stimulation.
Explaining the risky sexual behaviors e.g. objecting to condom use. It doesn’t numb them, they’re already numb.
The only reason they want more oral, anal etc is to stimulate the remaining, tiny area of foreskin!
I wonder if the number of bisexual and gay men is lower in prevalence in intact men.
To date the effect of circumcision on sexual function has not been carefully studied. In rodent studies, removal of the prepuce resulted in marked changes in the mechanics of copulation,4 the hormonal response of the female partner, and aggressive behavior. In humans, behavioral alterations have been demonstrated in the pain response of circumcised infants.5 Unfortunately, studies of men circumcised as adults have had too few subjects or differences in sensation were not well documented. Testing penile vibratory thresholds has demonstrated that men experience increasing thresholds with age,
the penis does not age well
while those with premature ejaculation have low thresholds regardless of age.5 Application of this technique could be used to demonstrate if a sensation differences exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men.”
“Our findings may help urologists better counsel men undergoing circumcision as adults. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function.”
Men deserve to know, informed consent.
This is based on a medically necessary population, not a NORMAL one – note.
“Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.”
They note in bold: “There was no clear sample of normal, healthy, intact men for comparison. Even so, thirty-eight percent of the circumcised men were dissatisfied with the results of their circumcision.”
It isn’t surprising you couldn’t find healthy adult men willing to chop off the most sensitive part of their manhood.
“John G. Swadey, MD (New England Journal of Medicine, 1987) states that circumcised men show a “somewhat higher incidence of genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis and scabies.“”
“Our survey suggests that there is a difference between the sexuality of the circumcised and uncircumcised male during his lifetime. It also suggests that the uncircumcised male has a more favorable sexual compatibility in his marriage.
During my experiences in medicine and surgery, occasionally there arose the question of circumcision and sexual compatibility. It seemed to me that the uncircumcised male had less of a problem in sexual compatibility.”
Sadly, he died before we could see his data.
Someone else, do the study!
Do circumcised men around the world also have higher divorce rates?
Easy to observe.
The UK, latest from newspaper article:
“The latest divorce figures, released last year, revealed the divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the UK was at a 45-year low, with 101,669 divorces of heterosexual couples in England and Wales.”
And we have low circumcision rates, mostly religious.
“The new statistics showed a steep drop in the number of circumcisions performed in the United States.
The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States.”
“A Federal judge in Detroit, Michigan, has ruled that the Federal United States law criminalising any form of female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional.”
“Critics have since pointed out that these observations are equally applicable to circumcision of boys and that there were also grounds for finding the FGM law unconstitutional in the basis that it denied equal treatment to males.”
They’re pushing FGM because male is considered legal.
Two wrongs do make a right?
“It is thus perfectly obvious that circumcision does not significantly reduce a male’s risk of contracting an STD, and that organisations (such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control itself) who identify prevention of STDs as the most important “benefit” of circumcision, do not know what they are talking about. There is in fact evidence going back to the 1850s that circumcised men are at greater risk of gonorrhoea and other urethral infections than men with normal genitalia. It may be that the foreskin acts as a barrier to the entry of certain pathogens.”
I wonder if circumcised men are likelier to carry super gonorrhea.
Seems like it.
“A study of a rural community in South Africa has found that circumcised men generally are more likely to be infected with HIV, and that males circumcised in hospitals are 20 per cent more likely to be HIV positive than those left intact. Where 24 per cent of uncut men were found to be HIV positive, the incidence of HIV among males circumcised in hospitals was 31 per cent. These findings have come as a shock to the South African Medical authorities who have been following the orders of US and WHO health officials and “rolling out” the provision of mass circumcision as a response to the nation’s AIDS crisis. As the authors of the report comment ruefully, it seems that when it comes to the spread of HIV, anatomy is less important than behaviour – exactly what critics of the circumcision programs have been arguing for years. In fact, many other studies have found that in the real world there are many regions in Africa where there is little or no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between cut and uncut men, and that in quite a few places cut men are more likely to be HIV positive.” http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201445
We sought to quantify early deaths following neonatal circumcision (same hospital admission) and to identify factors associated with such mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent circumcision while hospitalized during the first 30 days of life from 2001-2010 using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Over 10 years, 200 early deaths were recorded among 9,899,110 subjects (1 death per 49,166 circumcisions). Note: this figure should not be interpreted as causal but correlational: it may include both under-counting and over-counting of deaths attributable to circumcision. Compared to survivors, subjects who died following newborn circumcision were more likely to have associated co-morbid conditions, such as cardiac disease (OR: 697.8 [378.5-1286.6] p<0.001), coagulopathy (OR: 159.6 [95.6-266.2] p<0.001), fluid and electrolyte disorders (OR: 68.2 [49.1-94.6] p<0.001), or pulmonary circulatory disorders (OR: 169.5 [69.7-412.5] p<0.001). Recognizing these factors could inform clinical and parental decisions, potentially reducing associated risks.”
“A recent judgment by a lower court in Germany brought the problem of ritual male circumcision to the consciousness of the wider public and legal academia. This essay weighs in on this emerging discussion and argues that ritual male circumcision is not covered by parental authority because it violates the human rights of the boy on whom it is imposed. It first considers and dismisses the best interest test of parental authority which, by focusing on the well-being of the child as opposed to his (future) autonomy, fails to take the boy’s human rights sufficiently into account. Instead, the essay proposes what it terms the autonomy conception of parental authority, according to which parental authority must be exercised such as to ensure that the child will become an autonomous adult. While parents may raise their child in line with their ethical, including religious, convictions, respect for his autonomy requires that this be done in a way that allows the child to later distance himself from these values; this implies, among other things, that irreversible physical changes are impermissible. This conclusion holds even if it could be assumed that the child would later come to endorse his circumcision: a proper understanding of autonomy implies that the religious sacrifice of a body part can only be authorised by the person whose body it is. Thus, ritual male circumcision is outside the scope of parental authority because it usurps the child’s right and responsibility to become the author of his own life.”
“The statement is at pains to point out that the evidence as to the benefits and risks of circumcision is contradictory and inconclusive, and that much of it is of poor quality, especially studies claiming to show that circumcision has little impact on sexual sensation and function. The final conclusion is that while circumcision does offer some advantages, they are small, can be achieved by other, non-surgical means, and are outweighed by the risks and harms. This being the case, routine circumcision is not justified as a health measure and cannot be recommended.”
Very good news, their bold title:
… circumcision advocates have nowhere left to hide
The terms of the debate about non-therapeutic circumcision of minors have changed. The issue is no longer whether the so-called “benefits” outweigh the risks, or even whether the benefits outweigh the risks and harms. (As for the troglodytes who still mutter about pros and cons …) Coming on top of the judgement of a German court that circumcision is bodily harm and that it violates the child’s right to religious freedom, a leading legal philosopher now argues that boys have an inherent right not to be circumcised without medical need. In a paper forthcoming in Health Matrix, Stephen Munzer argues that current norms of autonomy and bodily integrity give male minors “a moral, anticipatory right-in-trust not to be circumcised without a medical indication.” Even more remarkably, it is now conceded by a prominent defender of religious/cultural circumcision that the practise is harmful and does violate the rights of the child. Writing in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Joseph Mazor acknowledges the physical and moral harms of circumcision and admits that the child has “a right of moderate strength” not to be subjected to “presumably harmful circumcision”.
Both Munzer and Mazor go on to argue that, given the importance of circumcision within the cultural/religious communities that follow this tradition, the practice should not be criminalised.
You admit it’s abuse, fuck you.
Religious rape isn’t legal either.
This is a fair point, far less important than the vital concession that circumcision is harmful and does violate the rights of the child to bodily integrity, personal autonomy and an open future. The argument about these points is over; the debate now is whether non-therapeutic circumcision is or should be illegal.
You’d have to re-write all abuse laws, NO.
No means NO.
Stephen Munzer. Examining nontherapeutic circumcision. Health Matrix 28 (1) 2018: 1-77 (in press). Full text at SSRN.
“The United States, a nation with 4.5% of the world’s population, consumes 47% of the world’s Viagra (Pfizer’s own figures). Turns out the same nation has been circumcising the majority of its male infants for generations.” “A new study in the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men, revealing what appears to be a significant acquisition vector. Other studies have previously observed that circumcision’s damage results in worsened erectile functioning, inability to maintain an erection, and reducing the glans sensitivity, including an overall penis sensitivity reduction by 75%. A recent study discovered that premature ejaculation is five times more likely when adjusted for erectile dysfunction and circumcision.”
Full links in that article. It’s sickening how people try to justify this.
If the kid won’t get it done at 18, why does the parent want it done against their will?
An idiot theorized in “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence”, that societal violence is caused by lack of pleasure, a theory so ridiculous if one only looks at Africa – highly sexual, high rape rate, high murder rate. It’s actually IQ. Sexual and violence behaviors differ according to standard IQ deviations, it is well known most violent criminals are less intelligent, yet highly promiscuous.
However, nations of high circumcision uptake do report more violence.
It’s also a proxy for low IQ, the practice of circumcision in countries predicts lower national IQ. I wonder if the circumcised are more likely to be low IQ, a correlation?
The UK used to circumcise more often until the NHS came along and didn’t allow doctors to charge for it, suddenly it ceased to be medically necessary! The foreskin is the primary erogenous organ in men, the area in adults is 3×5 inches, with 50,000 nerve endings. Minor circumcision is a human rights crisis.
“In Norway, the only country that records the circumcision status of rapists, 2% of the population are circumcised and commit more than 80% of their rapes. And, since 1991 almost all wars involved one circumcised country with some conflicts between both factions being circumcised. This includes all USA conflicts since Vietnam.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if religion had nothing to do with war, just circumcision?
No other statistical records are kept regarding the individual and social percentile circumcision status of serial killers or rapists. Yet, over 50% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by the minority of men who belong to circumcising cultures. Circumcision status may factor highly in the USA’s highest of all other country’s incarceration rate to population.”
“Original FBI’s Criminal Profilers who led the Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia know circumcision is a factor in some serial killings and partly responsible for America’s generalized asocial violence.”
“It has been inferred Robert Ressler, in an off the record comment when interviewed by Mothering Magazine’s web-editor, related the fact that the FBI realizes circumcision is a factor in violence. He explained they do not mention this because they would be considered raving lunatics and lose their jobs. Robert Ressler coined the term Serial Killer.”
“Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.”
“Illustrative to a still further degree of the point made above concerning the ineffectualness of the present penal system are the results of a comparison of the percentages for recidivism with those for long-term sentences.
Losing the death penalty is a mistake.
As may be seen above, although 56.7% of offenders are recidivistic or habitual offenders and hence incorrigible in the main, as has been mentioned above, only 16% to 23% are serving long term sentences. This fact, then, signifies that the greater per cent of recidivists are serving terms of more or less brevity. That little benefit to society may be expected from such terms is not to be doubted since sentences of three to five and even ten years are without effect upon recidivistic offenders and possess value only by virtue of segregating the offender for a while and thus sparing society a greater or less number of crimes.3‘ At best, such sentences, in so far as recidivists are concerned, constitute nothing more than a flimsy makeshift in dealing with the problem of repeated criminality. In-deed, the statistics of crime as well as the teachings of history confirm the absolute inadequacy of the present system of punishments against crime.12
Especially is this so in regard to the feebleminded recidivists who are accountable for a full 25% of the entire problem of repeated criminality and whose deficiency of intelligence effectually and completely militates against any possibility of regeneration or correction. That penalties are established by statutes and are based wholly upon a consideration of the material act constitutes an actual social injury since society thereby derives a false sense of having adequately and securely provided against a danger.
Because men are NOT made equal, biologically.
They should study criminal’s children to be sure.
In reality, it has not, for the harm is merely postponed. Commitment to prison should be determined not by the nature of the offense but by the nature of the offender, 33 and with a view toward the causes of the delinquency, the effect upon the individual, and the moral prognosis.3 4 Only in this way may adequate social provision be made for the warped, deficient, defective, and unregenerate enemies of the social order.”
Prison doesn’t work.
We know now from MRI psychopaths and other types literally gain pleasure from other’s pain and experience no/less fear and a neutral response to appeals for mercy. Something biologically less humane requires other treatment.
page 14 on the pdf looks at crime type
Married men are less likely to be criminals (selected by women)?
“Accordingly, the assumption of the stabilizing influence of marriage appears well substantiated. Or, it may be that the fundamental constitution of the delinquent is of such a nature that he is frequently antagonistic toward the assumption and maintenance of marital duties and thus fails even to experience contact with any presumably stabilizing influences of marriage. At any rate, marriage, together with any of the beneficial influences it may exert upon the individual, is of markedly less frequent occurrence among criminal classes than among the general population”
“That slightly over 50% of criminals, including even the low grade morons, are married with the consequently increased possibilities of the propagation of the species is somewhat disheartening.”
Er, why isn’t there a basic legal requirement of an IQ test to marry?
Low IQ people cannot consent. To prove they can consent.
“This equality of incidence is strongly suggestive that the criminally inclined nature, regardless of intellectual endowment, is fundamentally lacking in those personal and social requisites essential for the assumption and maintenance of marital duties. Or it may be that this marked prevalence of divorce indicates the failure of the stabilizing influences of marriage and home life because of the inherent instability of the criminal classes preventing the reception of any such benefits.”
Part of the reason bachelors are looked down on.
And divorced men.
“As it is, the percentages of actually disrupted marriages range from 29 for the low grade morons to 36% for the group of subnormal intelligence and 32% for the normal intelligence group. And when it is considered that 36% to 58% of the groups respectively are still within the age group of 21 to 30 years, it is reasonable to suppose that a contrasting of these percentages with figures for a like proportion of the geners1 population would render the above figures comparably much higher.
However, from a eugenical point of view as regards the propagation of the species, this high percentage of disrupted marriages is a most hopeful sign.”
Let idiots get divorced!
“It will be noted at once that the greater number of children and the greater number of families with children occur in the groups of deficient intelligence, particularly so in the low grade moron group. This is quite in accord with the findings of other investigators and the generally conceived opinion of the greater fecundity of the classes of deficient intelligence.61”
R-selection, lower quality per child.
“And another investigation of the Harvard Graduates of 1894 revealed 20% without children, 13.1% with one child, 18.1% with two children, 22.5% with three children, and 25.5% with four or more children. 65 This makes an average of 2.44 children for each individual, a figure which gives the college bred man of Harvard the lead over even the low grade moron delinquent. Further, it has been estimated by Kehrer that the proportion of childless marriages for civilized countries ranges between 10% and 15%,”; which means that the ordinary middle-class citizen, taking the criminalistic and the college-bred classes as the extremes, bears the burden of restocking the population.”
I bet that isn’t true now, they think they’re too good to have kids!
And that explains dwindling IQ compared to the Victorians, the middle class were less intelligent and the upper class dropped the ball. The middle class only seem intelligent due to their education.
“The above table shows clearly that the foreign-born stock does produce more than its due quota of our specified delinquents, especially so in regard to those of deficient intelligence. This is most marked regarding the low grade morons, where the foreign-born stock produces more than 235% of its due quota of offenders as determined by population ratios while the proportions for the other three groups ranges from 125% for the group of normal intelligence to 144% for the high grade feebleminded delinquents.
This finding is substantiated by the findings of the Immigration Commission of 1910.98 and also by Laughlin in his report to the Congressional Committee. 99 And similar findings have been reported by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.'” In addition, Laughlin also found that the second generation of foreign stock had an increased crime incidence over and above that of foreign stock in general, probably because that generation represents the transitional stage between the discarding of the customs of the old country and the adopting of those of the new. Undoubtedly this fact accounts for a proportion of the increased percentages in the above table. Obviously then, there is an undeniable danger in the admission of unselected foreign stock, both from the aspect of their own undesirability and from the aspect of their reproduction of their kind. Hence, there is an unquestionable and appealing need of a closer and more intelligent supervision of immigration, with more ample provision for the means of so doing.”
You lost the war.
You know you did.
“A second consideration evident from the above table is the increase among offenders of individuals having one parent foreign-born and the other native-born. The percentages given above nearly double that for the general population. Various investigations have shown that there is a decided tendency for the home of mixed parental nativity to produce delinquents.”°
No, it’s because they’re mixed race.
That went off on a tangent but a potentially relevant one.
Of course, that was always the intended purpose of them, plenty of men are easy to influence, just look at pornography and all the unnatural acts it has made seem normal. There’s your flat birth rate. Then look how masculine the women look as “standard” from Jessica Alba to the Blurred Lines girl. Maybe we could get them under the Trades Descriptions Act? “I ordered a purebreed, not a mongrel. Fast shipping though but send it back.”
These guys think they’re really choosing. Look at various white models and look how much fake tan they put on compared to their real, pale photos. The difference is shocking. You’re not allowed to admire a white model unless she’s painted orange!
The illusion of sexual choice. They are deliberately making these women look less naturally attractive so you’ll directly compare to women with a similar skin tone who also wear a lot of make-up. Look at what passes for “porcelain” in foundation shades, it’s a push to shame anyone with fair complexions into changing that.
And what chemicals are even in fake tan?
I’ve seen race-mixing white guys try to claim their kids are white or get this, “honorary white” like WTF does that mean? Pay the toll, nobody is obligated to mix with your kids and statistically, they won’t! Trying to convince yourself “they count” is way too late to be thinking about it.
What about Jews with white or yellow fever, are they anti-Semitic?
Are homosexual men misogynists?
Why aren’t Grindr and Tindr combined, isn’t that sexist?
It’s the current year.
[they will, eventually]
Apparently your sexual orientation is a choice?
Shouldn’t we rewrite laws to account for that fact?
That’s so progressive it’s a circle, circular reasoning.
I’d bet money they also count Muslim as a race, and that’s partially what this is really about.
How dare you make a personal choice with your body!
This is society’s business! No privacy!
Everybody belongs to every body else!
You must perform like a whore for anyone willing to fuck you.
Sexual disgust is OUTLAWED.
No means you’re a bigot. Standards are oppression. /s
They’ve been doing this propaganda for over a century, come now.
Free apps aren’t free, they’re psyops. They’ve been gathering information in experiments to manipulate you, the intended purpose of any info gathering.
This is also AA for ugly people.
Big Pharma profiting from the public disease risk is a bonus.
It works by foot in the door, you’d give someone a “chance” if it’s “just a date” but if confronted with the logic that dating eventually leads to breeding, marriage and children, that definitely clarifies preferences.
Who wants to break it to them that Richard Spencer actually prefers Asians to his fellow hu-whites? Libertarians are basically guaranteed to have an Oriental fetish, I wonder if it’s a low-level autism thing. I’d read that study. You thought the anime and cartoons did them no harm but woops, psyops telling them Asians are feminine despite shrill harpy manners in marriage browbeating the husband and bodies like little boys. It’s called priming.
Why don’t you have to list race and religion like sex and age in these apps? These are the questions that open a window into their strategy. They don’t want to match you, it’s white erasure.
Remember, white women are the least likely race and sex to miscegenate, no prizes for guessing who this is primarily aimed at but the surest way to weaken their resolve is to distract the white men with “exotic” women. Disheartened and freshly insecure, they make easy prey.
Multiculturalism is quite overtly cultural and genetic rape. It’s becoming obvious to anyone looking, they’re as good as saying you must breed with your conquerors.
I find it odd we fixate on the likes of Bond girls (Mary Sues mostly) when Bond is psychologically more disturbed than a woman trying to choke him with her maternal thighs or whatever. He’s the active party, right? You could accurately describe his adventures as The Wandering Ballsack. It’s the height of 60s Boomerisms, all he does is consume and fuck around. Nobody talks about it in the context of psychiatric issues except Craig who brilliantly, when asked if there was anything real men could learn from Bond and apply in their life, replied “No. Nothing”.
Bond is the epitome of a vapid man, who only cares about cars, clothes and indulgence. He’s late-stage Roman empire. This isn’t fucking Shakespeare.
Craig couldn’t be more different from him in real life if he tried;
Bond was skewered greatly by early seasons of Archer, Bond is so weak he can’t stop drinking “or the collective hangover might kill me”. Is bravado now the substitute for genuine toughness in men? Apparently so.
It makes memes like this really fucking cringeworthy.
It hurts to read this shit. All he does is shoot things.
Bitch, he couldn’t turn up to an office job at 8am sober.
Except for token gay subplots stinking up the franchise, am I right?
If that rings a bell –
Two can play at that fucking game. Hurts, doesn’t it?
If your role model has a completely hollow life, what the hell is going on?
“Let’s not forget that he’s actually a misogynist.” “I still think he wants to f*ck anything with a pulse.” “…I don’t give a f*ck.”
He’s 100% English, we hate Bond as the American’s ideal of what a man should be. It’s Hemingway with a different accent, remember he shot himself. It’s a suit and a penis, how insulting. Fleming knew his audience were gullible for some vanity and validation and this was in the 50s, by publication date, supposed heyday of the real thing? We love Craig because he gets how ridiculous it all is. There’s practically a fourth wall break and a wink.
He’ll brain a guy with a kitchen sink and smirk at the camera.
The smirk isn’t “I can get away with this”, it’s “can you believe idiots look up to this shit”?
You can easily live like James Bond these days if you get into a lot of credit card debt. He’s Zoolander with flashy murder gadgets. He’s a massive special snowflake, the world needs him, specifically, to save it. Why not #006 or #008?
In general, in real life, most men aren’t special. They can’t even save themselves from a death spiral of degeneracy. It’s ancient wisdom the wastrel (hedon) has a wasted life, male or female (before you ask).
A role model for men is not a narcissist who goes around shooting people, that’s a TV news story set at a school waiting to happen. Nowadays Bond would be social media famous like old unhinged RDJ and on a public sexual harassment watch list. This guy literally interrupts a woman in her hotel shower, (he broke in) you’d never see that scene play out the other way around. My personal favourite is the almost autistic scene where he looks in on her getting ready, what if she was replacing a tampon or something?
Who looks up to a guy like that? Seriously?
Craig is sick of being treated like a massive jerk.
Could you imagine the boundaries he must have with other men?
There’s no way he wouldn’t be bisexual, don’t lie to me Hollywood.
A man who screws anything that moves is bisexual, it’s a fact.
He doesn’t even hit on a man, not even for work purposes to get info?
You go guy, right?
Statistically, it would be mostly Bond Boys, actually.
I picture Milo in the role, he fits well.
Male honeypots aren’t sleeping with women.
Oh but Monroe’s glamour is tacky, are you kidding me? At least nobody took that seriously, it was fun play acting. If you listen to her interviews she was intelligent. Picture up top, reconcile with her infamous, “If you aren’t committed, don’t bother” speech. These guys twist it but women know that’s the rationale. Women know their worth. Men are wasting their time on external objects and bullshit posturing, while calling the women superficial. I don’t know a single woman who wants to go into debt for a slightly shinier car but okay.
Madonna/Whore comes from the male inability to reconcile the woman he loves with the woman he fucks. They view the wife like a replacement mother and feel disgust or rejection of their desire projected onto the wife, especially if she’s dutiful – they see her fussing over the business of the home and childcare. They disgracefully think lust and love are meant to be separate and always kept separate (this stupid false belief literally causes men health problems inc. impotence and it’s also why they marry sluts). It’s like they think they’re corrupting her with their conjugal rights. It becomes a serious turn-off, like she’s tainted or impure for desiring him (repulsed by her lust) or it isn’t “safe” to sexually express – with their SPOUSE. Husbands CANNOT repress their sexuality and basically rob their wives of that cherishing experience. It ruins marriages, sex is the glue that holds marriage together and while ebbs and flows are normal, either depriving the other, while bad, isn’t as bad as seeking it outside the union (always adultery). That’s a divorce category because it ruins the union, spoils the trust, the connection itself is divorced between the parties. No splitting or the woman senses this and retreats, in passive femininity and trust (how women solve problems), assuming he needs his own space, he’ll come back soon and then he feels abandoned when actually, she’s waiting for him to be the Man first. Because he is. A wife is the most sexual woman. It’s the total experience including fertility, modern men fear the completion of the cycle is the “wrong” thing but actually it’s postmodern sterile sex that’s incomplete* sexuality (and likely causes most of the psychiatric issues associated with promiscuity). Men experience the fulfillment of their sexuality when they become a father, this is why their hormones change for about a year after the wife gives birth!**
Husbands also stop flirting with their wife in modern times, a fact I am certain is a divorce risk… like, no? Why would you think that’s a good idea? The Bible says if you don’t get everything at home you’ll be tempted outside it. Flirt with your damn wife, women are verbal creatures! Women need that verbal affirmation, or society will replace it. Missionary work, crash dieting, various passive-aggressive unconscious punishments that take her energy outside the union and onto worldly things (so not cheating but damn close and it seriously raises the odds she’d escalate to that).
Women get (passive) the verbal (flirting) then men get the physical (sex).
It’s a very simple process and I have to keep explaining this to people. This is old common knowledge. Usually there’s nothing actually “wrong” in the initial stages of marital “problems”, they just don’t flirt! It doesn’t occur to them!!
It isn’t something you do for courting or that kids do.
It’s verbal glue.
You have fewer arguments. Seriously. This is so simple so a therapist (if they know) will NEVER EVER tell you because it’s FREE. Free puts them out of a job.
A husband who wants his wife to be less sexual shouldn’t have married her, frankly. And he can’t expect her to degrade herself, (stares at America) sexuality isn’t doing everything, that’s a sign of a problem where the lust is covering it. There isn’t any shame in marital sex, American Christians need this hammered into their skulls. It isn’t dirty if you’re married. Sex is marriage glue. Repeat this until you know it in your bones.
*Imagine you kept eating and eating and eating food but were never satisfied and actually got more frustrated. Congratulations, sexually, that’s hook-up culture. Nobody says this because they don’t want to offend the single or infertile but sorry, that’s evolution. It’s like saying we need air to breathe, it could offend people with breathing problems but so what? Doesn’t change the fact.
Ancient times measured sexual encounters as satisfactory based on whether or not they were “fruitful”. They knew. Those were incredibly patriarchal societies, well, this is the kernel of truth behind all patriarchy.
You don’t see the father of five wishing he had two.
It’s also why broody men in our culture are shamed as patriarchal.
**And miscarriage or infertility can provoke divorce. In biological terms, you fall in love for two years to conceive and then the parental bond is the heightened connection, the sight of proven fertility, parental oxytocin from interactions. I wonder if childless marriages (by choice) are also a divorce risk, I’d assume so since it replicates infertility.
Random but I wonder if a Roe v Wade repeal would include the Pill abortifacient? Biologically, it must. It’s a chronic Morning After pill, another chemical abortion. Both are given to minors, more grounds.
They’re trying to imply there’s something innately wrong with the female form.
Oh, but men are attacked, are you sure?
When are you saying Men’s Health covers should be banned like Page 3?
Sex itself is nothing to be ashamed of (and prude isn’t an insult, it’s a virtue) but fornication is the thing you’re all too cowardly to mention because the real reason – your shame – is down to how you still do it. So you blame women as Lilith the succubus for tempting you.
Jesus said the man is responsible for his own eyes and his own hands and his own manhood. No woman can ruin your manhood, you sin against yourself.
Who’s got hypoagency on sexual matters?
Sex isn’t a sport or a hobby. Babymaking is serious.
What’s next, Muh Darwin? So high-T women are excused and low-T men aren’t?
They hate female sexual pleasure and resent it, even in married, chaste women. Chastity is physical self-control. That’s all. It’s self-control according to your station. You’re encouraged to have sex with your spouse if married. These “men” want to cuck others to deprive husbands the pleasure of their own wives!
For a man to be bad in bed is deliberate. Not listening to basic instructions on small changes is spite, it’s wrath. Studies show ONS women orgasm less. Women are avoiding bad lovers (casually or as husbands) and they are angry about this. They want to feel superior to women by getting their pleasure and sadistically depriving additional pleasure, over masturbation, for depriving her. This includes cruel comparisons to other women.
Christians must talk about this.
There are husbands who do this and wonder why their wife leaves. She held up her end of the conjugal bargain, a husband has a duty to perform too. He has a duty to give her carnal pleasure they agreed not to seek elsewhere.
“to love and to cherish” isn’t limited to cuddles
Immodest men for male chastity? I don’t think so. Then how is no slutting possible when you only remove half the sexual equation? You’re being hypocritical and irrational. Lust is a vice whoever you are but simply wearing a bikini doesn’t mean anything about a person’s behaviour.
Adam was a slut because he walked around completely naked.
Men walk around shirtless all the time in this heatwave and as a woman I know they want to keep cool – the same reason women strip off! Boobs get hot! Thighs heat up! Mini-skirts are ventilation! Women medically have a higher body fat percentage for our size! All things being equal, we must show more skin proportionately or get heat stroke and possibly die!
You don’t see men heating up their hands between their thighs.
It’s stupid to equate nudity with sex.
Porn has brainwashed you. They don’t even want to ban it.
If society is too hypersexualised (it is), you would.
Ah, but hypersexualisation means seeing all nudity as sexual and all attractive people as promiscuous. It changes your perceptions.
Attractive women are least promiscuous, they don’t need to be.
Ironically, the biggest prostitutes do it for ego. That’s right, by their actions, the men who criticize all women as whores are simply projecting. You’re jealous of the hookers who can charge while you prostitute yourselves (read your Bible) for free.
It is a sin against their own body so you have no right to care personally. The things strangers do has nothing to do with you.
It’s defamation to call a stranger a slut when you don’t know if that’s true but hey, they don’t care. They don’t care if it’s true. They know it’s a lie. It’s a lie intended to coddle their feelings.
Witch finder generals. Just as bad as the SJW Nazi hunters who see them in toast. I despise the slutty Republican pretending to be Christian over the hooker he’s visiting and threatening. There is less honour in faking good than being openly bad.
Chastity is an act, not an item of clothing.
Most sluts actually cover up so you have trouble spotting them. Audrey Hepburn, attempted homewrecker. She hated heels.
How do you expect the Marilyns to cover up? Can’t hide their silhouette, their walk and their feminine energy. Women like looking feminine, nothing shameful in that.
Do we shame men wearing suits?
No, it’s hatred of something pure. Something you aren’t allowed to touch or corrupt.
Everyone believes in degeneracy but it isn’t the nude body, it isn’t healthy sex and it isn’t erotica. They don’t own those sacred things (plenty of Papal art is erotica).
“I don’t think there is necessarily a connection between admiration of the female form and sluts, one can be a beauty model without being promiscuous.”
Judging by appearances is stupid.
Non sequitur after non sequitur after non sequitur.
Don’t “behavioral change” argument me.
Where’s the incentive not to fornicate if you’ll be slandered as one anyway?
These men don’t shame real sluts in their life. They treat them like ladies to get a leg over.
Why didn’t you shame the sluts who wanted to sleep with you?
That’s the real problem. They only object to sluts who aren’t slutty enough.
“We are assured, however, that the women of the East prefer the uncircumcised”.
All women do if they aren’t brainwashed, there are satisfaction studies to prove it.
Another thing that destroyed modern masculinity. You could never convince an adult man to slice off a huge piece of his manhood (you measure the area of skin removed once spread out) especially the part that’s most uniquely male and sensitive.
Ah, the projection is funny to watch. The woman who slept with two men including them is a “whore” but the speaker at 20+ is as morally, spiritually pure as virgin snow. Pull the other one.
Having a tendency to ruin themselves on cheap types and, once burned out, wonder why they hate decent people as boring and resent good women and marriage.
Orgastic impotence (bad sexuality) intrudes too. Plenty of fuckboy types write long articles online that just telegraph to anyone with a functioning upstairs brain that they’re sexually damaged and incapable of intimacy, physical or emotional (typical of narcissists).
As it applies in the context of relationships in modern times, Madonna-whore complex generally manifests itself after marriage or the birth of a child as Dr. Suraci explains:
“A man may think of his wife as a mother and not an appropriate sex partner.
He is accustomed to having intercourse with a sexy woman and his wife does not fit the bill.
She is now the mother – Madonna. Unconsciously, she may remind him of his mother who cannot be a sexual being,” he said.
You should be able to divorce for that, the husband has duties. Sexual performance and sexual fidelity, physically and emotionally.
According to Dr. Joel Block, Ph.D., a psychologist who specializes in couples and sex therapy, some of these men have a difficult time committing:
“They “stray” to keep their vulnerability in check.
Cannot have emotional intimacy.
They are usually unconsciously fearful of getting too attached. Having a woman on the side gives them a better sense of control. With all this effort, many guys do start seeing their women, especially in long term relationships, resembling their mom”, he told Alternet.
Then they complain when she files for divorce from the biggest baby.
Ask yourself why cheating is the most common reason for divorce.
Well, it’s better than stoning, isn’t it?
While Stefan is going on about the importance of marriage, special attention needs to go on the basic common sense DON’T CHEAT.
However, Dr. Kanaris says that the disorder is exacerbated in a variety of ways, not necessarily just through affairs, but essentially manifests through the male diverting sexual energy away from the primary relationship
That’s what adultery is.
– such as toward pornography or erotic massage.
Still cheating, seeking physical satisfaction elsewhere. How would they feel if the other spouse did it?
“Although epigenetic changes are usually temporary, they involve alterations in the proteins that bind together the long strands of DNA. Thus, they can sometimes be handed down to offspring. According to the hypothesis, homosexuality may be a carry-over from one’s parents’ own prenatal resistance to the hormones of the opposite sex.”
Great man, unusual number of homosexual offspring.
“The initial benefit to the parents may explain why the trait of homosexuality persists throughout evolution, he says.”
Evolution presumes the fit ones will breed more (reducing the downside loss to zero as 52:48 female to male birth ratio) and there’s no parasitism between high and low fitness.
There are other studies along these lines e.g. a review
It’s always the men being the most degenerate, generic finding of sexology.
And they wonder why they die sooner.
Big winners, bigger losers.
“This article reviews the evidence regarding prenatal influences of gonadal steroids on human sexual orientation, as well as sex-typed childhood behaviors that predict subsequent sexual orientation.”
But it doesn’t work the other way around, parent forcing a Barbie on your son.
And it isn’t 1:1, kids will play with most things if allowed.
“The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood, as well as in sexual orientation in later life, at least for some individuals.”
Yay, we can blame men! – feminists, if they had any balls
“It appears, however, that other factors,”
“in addition to hormones, play an important role in determining sexual orientation.”
“These factors have not been well-characterized,”
Pathogens, billions of pathogens.
“but possibilities include direct genetic effects, and effects of maternal factors during pregnancy. “
You can try blaming the woman but you’d be wrong. If women were responsible, nobody would be straight because everyone has a mother, and therefore a cause. We wrongly assume anything “wrong” with a baby is the mother’s fault. This is like blaming your food poisoning on the oven rather than the handling before that stage (paternal factors, research the other half too, paternal factors!) or once it comes out.
Paternal degeneracy would be an interesting factor. A very interesting factor.
Are promiscuous men* likelier to have gay sons, easy observational study.
You’d essentially be testing for r-selection. Homosexual men are extreme sexual r-types: high volume, low discrimination, nomadic patterning…
“Although a role for hormones during early development has been established, it also appears that there may be multiple pathways to a given sexual orientation outcome and some of these pathways may not involve hormones.”
Where’s the science, right?
How would it occur from father to germline like an STD, mother to child or both?