HPV contaminating gyms, doctor’s tables and virgins

Figured I’d linked this. Not clickbait.

What happens when you let the sluts run rampant.

https://theluxuryspot.com/new-hpv-warnings-you-can-get-it-at-the-gym/
https://www.thehealthsciencejournal.com/germs-in-the-gym/
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a19929167/hpv-without-having-sex/

School gyms too, health hazard. It can even be on the floor.

Study link from women’s health:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/164.htm

“Researchers analyzed 51 studies on HPV transmission, and they noticed that the virus was found in the genital tracts of 51 percent of female virgins. This left them asking: If not through sex, how are people contracting it?”

VIRUS.

Plus the speculums they can’t actually clean?

“The second possibility makes us even more squeamish. You might be able pick up HPV by coming into contact with an infected surface at the doctor’s office or in public places like the gym. If the examining table or bike seat you sit down on in your booty shorts hasn’t been properly cleaned, you could be at risk.”

Why did people wear so many layers of clothing in public?

History was so weird. And gloves! How absurd!

Who wears gloves, the Queen? She isn’t long-lived, is she?

I’m just picturing the HPV strains of Hollywood and its forced kissing, on and off screen.

Video: Virgins, post-Revolution

That isn’t possible at all.
The Sexual Revolution was designed to reduce the pool of suitable wives.
And to a lesser extent, the suitable husbands (no cheating, no regret, can be satisfied sexually).
Virgin shaming, as it’s been dubbed, is the entire purpose.
This ‘defense’ against slut shaming is based on two lies 1. promiscuity is good for individuals and/or society and 2. sex is a sport, it is athletic and you must do it frequently and well then brag about it or you are missing out on the human experience or you’re less than human/adult. Those are both evil ways to think, if you look. Many of feminism’s problems would dry up if neither of those cruel mindsets applied to people.

It’s like introverts and extraverts, both groups will always exist.
They shine in different times but now society is larger, populations denser and we’re supposed to stay civilized.

When society favours one, things go wrong. Naturally, the sexual experiment has shown all those pesky religious types were right – adultery is up, children have more psychiatric issues than ever, various fetishes are normalized, deviants such as pedophiles are gaining acceptance in tolerance, and undeniably, there are now STDs which cannot be treated. This is a regression, society is devolving and going backwards.
Those with a natural sense of temperance and what’s been called sexual modesty, and it is natural and good to be modest (we evolved for small tribes after all) will naturally feel disgust to those.. lacking.
Those lacking it won’t understand it, and choose to project their feelings of confusion and shame onto those who feel an emotion they cannot, labeling it wrong and unnatural to soothe their conscience (it’s really prostitution the longer you think about the requirements, all intended to serve).

This is the one type of freedom that is bad for humans. Always has been. The neuro-pull is too strong.
It might be acceptable – if contraception didn’t exist.
However, sexuality is the most destructive force in society and contraception makes this more toxic.
Sex is neither a need nor a right. Never has been. It is a drive and desire.
Society must never confuse the words. This is the big lie.
It doesn’t help that a cynical society only sexualises (even children) to sell you things, to use this weakness against your best interest.

Video: Virgin before marriage or not?

Literally the best video I’ve ever seen on this topic.

Pair bonding is chemical and sex-based.

That glue is meant to be for marriage and pair bonding is impaired in both sexes.

The haters will be jealous you aren’t rushing to the divorce courts.

Cheating risk is lower too.

It’s all around better.

I disagree with the idea that she isn’t superior. Morally, she is superior. She demonstrated the virtue of chastity, that makes her superior. She just doesn’t use it as an excuse to treat normal people like dirt, which is arrogance.

Related.

Link: “How do I know if I’m a virgin?”

Don’t laugh, it’s a good question. No judgement here.

I was linked to this by a girl concerned about an arranged marriage.

It’s accurate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/how-do-i-know-if-im-a-virgin/

I’m posting it here because there are many attempts by ‘men’ to lie about ‘deflowering’ girls, describing levels of blood loss that would cause her to pass out and require a transfusion in A&E. Or they give vivid, almost Mills & Boon level erotic descriptions of what ‘breaking’ her felt like.

go away leave ew eurgh gimme space tony stark no gross

They are lying. 

It just makes you look bad and worse, ignorant of basic anatomy.

Trigger warning: the gore women have to put up with for life but men get all squeamish about because you’re softer than us.

Less known is the fact that ‘inadequate’ lubrication (caused by the man being bad at it) can cause microtears from the friction in the vagina (internally) and that may be causing the blood sometimes seen (still, not much, barely like ‘spotting’ for a period, don’t look that up). That’s a reason to be ashamed of yourself, not proud, and certainly never bragging, pay her medical bills and spend the next year minimum making it up to the poor girl, since it can cause serious scarring, increased risk of catching STDs by the internal wounds and fertility issues (this also happens in rape, so yeah, be very very nice since conditional instructions are a basic part of consent).

This video gets all of it right bar one thing.

Virginity does exist. That’s an SJW lie. Simply the common premise based on a Hollywood trope is wrong. The anatomical one. Virginity isn’t anatomical. No animal has anatomical virginity to my knowledge, that wouldn’t make any evolutionary sense and they would’ve gone extinct. The cellular shedding required of the reproductive tract would build up and cause a lethal infection.

Virginity is behavioural. More specifically, an omission of behaviour. Hence, men can be virgins.

It is cruel and evil to base a test of human value on anatomy, that nobody can help. Imagine if women judged men entirely on their foreskins. Imagine it. You’d be pissed. Imagine if you could be killed for lacking a foreskin. Whatever the reason you don’t have one. This is one of the rare times the broken feminist clock is right, that’s barbaric.

So why do we women have a hymen (some of us, others aren’t born with one)?

It protects the area during development. You know how little kids tend to stick any random object up their nose?…. Yeah…..

I’m not completing that sentence for you.

How could we prove that hypothesis?

Easy – does it thin over time? As in, it becomes less protective the likelier you are to require the tract for reproduction?

YES! And nobody seems to mention this. It thins over time. So an adult virgin woman may look anatomically indistinguishable from a massive slut of the same age. The only thing that really wrecks a hymen, stretching it or changing blood flow patterns until it recedes? Child birth.

So really it has nothing to do with sex per se, but whether you’ve pushed another human out there. Which is… fair enough, actually.

No celibacy or virgin shaming

http://sluttygirlproblems.com/guide/deal-sexual-pressure/#.Vkt0zrfhDZ4

It’s bizarre to mock people for the default, something they were born as. Shaming virgins for NOT doing something has never made logical sense, except to make sluts feel better about their non-sexual desirability and scupper the competition by making them conceal their advantage.

This doesn’t solely apply to traditional women, either.

I don’t know any masculine men who define their masculinity by their sex lives.

Honestly, not a one. They have other stuff going on, and whatever happens there, they don’t kiss and tell and keep that stuff private – one reason people respect them.

As one guy put it a tad bluntly, ‘dogs rut and they aren’t men either’.

Reminded me of the foolish definition of man as bipedal and featherless so some smartass philosopher plucked a chicken and said “Behold! A man!”

It’s the one biological function people feel the need to brag about, but it makes them look bad.

Life outcomes of age at first sex suggest age of consent too early

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/10/18/timing-of-first-sex-has-far-reaching-relationship-effects/46256.html

The ‘too early’ group did just as poorly as the so-called ‘on time’. However, on-time is defined as a legal construct, it’s arbitrary and artificial.

This suggests the common age of consent (16-18) is set too early and should be enforced better without exception (based on age similarity, for example).

Considering longer schooling into the 20s forbidding the time for family rearing, failure to thrive/immaturity and longer time to rites of passage like moving out, a later age of consent too would make logical sense, especially in light of the psychiatric (personal) and societal damage (communal ripple effect) of being too early.

btw study applies to men and women

We need to break out of this feminist Sexual Revolution delusion that sex is always cheap, easy, harmless fun with no serious consequences – in spite of all the mounting evidence to suggest otherwise. Everything we do young has a later effect on our life, good or bad, how can something as big as sex be any different?