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

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?

Video: Virgin Shaming

I explained my take on the subject in the post Breasts are Beautiful and the history of how the flip of reverted moral expectations happened.
Nowadays, women get “virgin-shamed” more than men…. by sluts. Always by sluts, in fact, because they themselves lost something (innocence, truthfully, and pair-bonding ability, which the promiscuous lack) they subconsciously recognise is valuable to men, and since they cannot regain it, they can bully the competition into evening the playing field. This is why it’s so hard for the good guys to find women with a simply low count, women are lied to – by other women. [e.g. You have to, he’ll love you, you’re damaged]. Later on, these sluts get cut off socially, (I believe this is why) but the damage by that point is already done (usually because the bullying works or leaves a mark). It started with women, and this gave men license to do it as well (and to their own sex at ever-earlier ages). Doesn’t make it right, since unlike slut shaming, which has medical backing, everyone was born a virgin. It’s a default. There’s nothing wrong with it. Assuming a person is happy with it, they shouldn’t be pestered about that state when it’s the most intimate choice you’ll ever make, it’s a simple fact of liberty that if you wish to abstain from doing something with your body, you can.

Male virgin shaming isn’t something I’m properly qualified to discuss (being a woman). However, I think it’s a different issue to the female type because women process sex differently, intimately, and making love before our independently chosen time can screw us up for life, and to know another person, of your own sex, manipulated you into ruining something so beautiful? No wonder.

Telegony studies and the future of sperm-paternity studies

Newly discovered non-genetic mechanisms break the link between genes and inheritance, thereby also raising the possibility that previous mating partners could influence traits in offspring sired by subsequent males that mate with the same female (‘telegony’). In the fly Telostylinus angusticollis, males transmit their environmentally acquired condition via paternal effects on offspring body size. We manipulated male condition, and mated females to two males in high or low condition in a fully crossed design. Although the second male sired a large majority of offspring, offspring body size was influenced by the condition of the first male. This effect was not observed when females were exposed to the first male without mating, implicating semen-mediated effects rather than female differential allocation based on pre-mating assessment of male quality. Our results reveal a novel type of transgenerational effect with potential implications for the evolution of reproductive strategies.

Full PDF here:

Could this be the arbiter of female hypergamy? The reason women consistently underestimate their partner count? The reason for the classical association with purity in chaste women?
Certainly there is a new direction in studying maternal quality, we know for a fact that pregnant women receive stem cells from the foetus, and these usually include crossing the blood-brain barrier and becoming brain cells.

This study of blood finds male cells where they shouldn’t be in a mother, with such a heavy impact on its host it might impact organ donation.

In conclusion, we show for the first time functional evidence for transmaternal cell flow resulting in Ag-specific T-cell priming and resulting in microchimerism in mother’s offspring.

This is called fetomaternal microchimerism, where a new organism (in this case, baby) pollutes the purity of the mother’s cells (unkind metaphor but apt). The record for how long this phenomena has lasted in its host, this ‘new lineage’, is 27 years. Fertility window time.

The future direction is clear, there is a biological basis for slut shaming. As these studies scale up, the prospect of transfer is almost guaranteed, given these findings across species. For example, human trials have only included fertilizations (foetuses) thus far as previous acceptable (testable) material and not simple sperm or RNA presence, which would involve taking samples from all of a woman’s previous lovers. The lack of experiment with modern computing of samples has left the subject wide open to speculation again. Consider the societal implications, whatever the actual transfer percentage.

It might be a few errant proteins, the odd specific DNA fragments, but do you really think men won’t care?

Swedish feminists are trying to rebrand the hymen and lie about virginity

I went looking for this material because I came across a discussion including the term ‘corona’ and wondered how on Earth I could fail to know a part of female anatomy being both female and a studier of (real) anatomy.

Often known by the established term “hymen,” the vaginal corona is the subject of many myths and misunderstandings. The most important of these is the notion that a person’s vaginal opening is covered by a membrane that ruptures with, or is “broken” by, vaginal sex. This is incorrect. There is no such membrane.

It is literally right there.
You can touch it and break it.
Denying reality, as usual.

RFSU (the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education) wishes to dispel the myths and promote knowledge of the true facts. Our aim is to give you a more accurate idea of what you will find just inside the vaginal opening.

That sentence makes no logical sense. If it’s inside the opening it can’t be a closure membrane. And true facts? As opposed to which other type?

At first it reads as semi-legitimate talking about the natural variance from woman to woman but then it starts the long drive into crazy town.

Since the vaginal corona isn’t a brittle membrane the sensation when you first stretch out the mucous tissue folds – whether you’re inserting a tampon, masturbating or having insertive sex – is a highly individual experience. Some people feel no pain at all, while others, with a thicker vaginal corona, have reported some pains. There may be minor ruptures in the mucous folds that hurt, and sometimes there may be a little bleeding.

I hope I don’t need to point out the many contradictions therein.

Can the vaginal corona “break” when you ride a bike or a horse?

No. Since the vaginal corona isn’t a brittle membrane, physical exercise doesn’t break it. The vaginal corona is located 1–2 cm inside the vaginal opening – in other words, entirely within the vestibule. A whole bunch of things (vaginal discharges, hormonal changes, menses, masturbation, sex) can wear the corona away more over time, living your life among them, but that’s not about breaking anything.

Doctors the world over would disagree with you. Tampons and horse riding are the top reasons it can be partially stretched (as they admitted) or completely torn. Using pseudo-medical terms like rupture doesn’t change what physically occurs.

The various myths and the incorrect assumption that there is a covering membrane have given rise to expressions such as “breaking the hymen” and “deflowering.” These usually refer to a person having their vagina entered for the first time, either by themselves or by having sex with a partner. What’s actually there is the vaginal corona,

But you said at the top that the corona is just another name for the hymen, so breaking the hymen still happens, whether you call it a rupture or not, and it’s still “actually there”

consisting of elastic folds of mucous tissue, which can’t be ruptured or broken in one fell swoop by a penis or any other object inserted into the vagina.

Yes. Yes it can. Ask a straight man, that’s kinda what the penis is for, evolutionally, to gain access to the vagina.

When the mucous tissue is stretched, minor ruptures sometimes develop and may smart a little. These soon heal, usually within 24 hours. The folds of the vaginal corona are located 1–2 cm inside the vaginal opening, so penis length is irrelevant.

Penis length is irrelevant only if you are a lesbian.
Either these breakages “heal” or “wear away”, which is it? You can’t have both. One is up, the other down.
Anyone using the terms partner (instead of man/woman) and this, new, “corona” – feminist.

Virginity is a vague concept based on perceptions and myths, chiefly concerning female sexuality, that RFSU (or Scarleteen!) would not wish to endorse. For one thing, virginity is often associated with a heteronormative view of sex restricted to vaginal intercourse between man and woman (in other words, insertion of the penis into the vagina). For another, in many languages and cultures, virginity is synonymous with innocence, the opposite of which is guilt. There is no guilt involved in having sex, and no need to feel guilty about it. [DS: I could think of a few examples.] What’s more, such myths are used against women in particular [victimhood bells ring out]; for instance as an excuse for spreading rumors and committing sexual assaults.

We sometimes receive questions about how to know whether or not you are a “virgin.” You are the only person who can decide that. [not a gynaecologist?] Different people have different ideas about which sexual acts constitute a “loss of virginity.” Some people restrict it to vaginal intercourse [often correctly], while others count other activities as well. [those people are not hetero and will presumably never have sex with the opposite sex but the idea of being even technical virgins forever is too mentally scarring for them so they say ‘me too’!]

The worst part is the poor women who will believe this out of innocence.

Is it possible to see or feel whether a woman has ever had sex?

No. Looking at a penis or a vagina, it’s equally impossible to tell whether that person has ever had sex. Neither a gynecologist nor a sex partner can tell whether you’ve had vaginal, oral, anal or manual sex (unless you have become pregnant or contracted a sexually transmitted infection). No one else can detect whether you’ve had sex.

Actually you can contract STIs without having had sex, little known fact. Using infected towels on the privates or unclean speculums, for example. If a woman’s hymen is completely intact (as it has always been, that individual shape or thickness), it’s highly likely she is a virgin, although it may heal back to its former state at first, another little known fact. But hey, they said there’s no such thing as a membrane and why would they lie to us? It’s just a medically validated self-evident part of anatomy. Some women have very little there or it’s easily broken with other activities or over time (see above) so you can never be 100% certain and you really need to trust their word. You should be able to tell from the fact they have no idea what they’re doing.

Can the corona be stitched up?

Surgery on the vaginal corona rarely solves any problems, [reduces the number of honour killings] first because outcomes vary, and second because it helps to maintain patriarchal structures and a prejudiced view of women and their sexuality.

Seriously? Seriously.

Let’s see who these people are. The same Swedes with the ever-rising rape rates, which cultural beliefs brought this about?

RFSU’s mission since the organisation was founded in 1933 has been a desire to change people’s lives for the better. RFSU is a non-profit organisation independent of any political party or religion. We are dedicated to promoting a well-informed, open-minded attitude to sexuality and relationship issues. RFSU is founded on a firm belief that sexuality and relationships are central to the individual and to society. By informing and educating people and shaping opinion, RFSU aims to break down prejudices, overcome ignorance and improve sexual health in Sweden and abroad. RFSU views sexuality as a matter of individual liberty and human rights, in which all of us have the freedom to be ourselves, the freedom to choose and the freedom to enjoy.

To put this achingly simplistically, virginity is when you’ve never had sex. The first time you do, you cease to be one. That is final. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

I remain unconvinced and unimpressed. To me, a corona is still either a cheap beer or this

It means crown in Latin, they want to rebrand it because hymen doesn’t make them feel special enough.

Breasts are beautiful

This post is a pure celebration of breasts primarily in art, with some random opinions hither and thither.
There are many breasts.

XIR38609Portrait of a Woman revealing her breasts by Jacobo Robusti

 A breast is often a synonym for woman’s power of creation. It’s a common motif in art (yes, this is another art post, with a twist).

 fornarina raphael
Detail, Fornarina by Raphael

You could say a nipple twist.

Typical example of a 17th century theatre costume

The connection with sex has been ushered in by modern times and began as a reaction by Victorian modesty values.

marie dress 18thc
Marie-Thérèse Louise de Savoie-Carignan, Princess of Lamballe by Joseph-Siffrein Duplessi

The 18th century had low cuts and was renowned as a time of debauchery where orgies were quite commonplace on the heels of publications like This Misterie of Fucking from the late 17th and sexual self-improvement L’Ecole des Filles. Erotica was invented (I recommended Fanny Hill to begin with) and a flourishing market for erotic materials such as carved stone dildos (green jade from the Orient was a popular choice and remain so) and these were mechanized in the 19th century (here’s one operated by hand crank) in a way the steampunks would lose their mind over if they knew. Expanding shipping routes broadened horizons on that front.

mary_robinson_as_perdita_by_john_hoppner_1758_1810Mary Robinson as Perdita by John Hoppner

The neckerchief (gathered, ruched fabric seen above) arose to partially veil the frequent pop-outs caused by the tight-laced corsets demanded by the time when following the fashionable bustline. Courtesans and other prostitutes were the celebrities of the time (has anything changed). With this constraint of voyeurism from a former era, it led to the Victorian emphasis on the arse and the emergence of the bustle.

A bared breast in the 19th century was tied to Pagan values because pagans tend to go skyclad (naked). However, in the 18th century it was associated with chastity in art. The innocence of baring, as a child and height, as youth. Women would rouge their nipples. Here’s a recipe. The pale pink or as we call it now when naming a fabric, the blush of youth. Women still buy blusher… (I think it’s aging, since the nipples darken after childbirth).

A la hussarde by John Droit 1932

In religious portrayals, it took from the Catholic Church’s change of heart on the Madonna. She became a key figure and some Orthodox families are still headed and defined by their Matriarch for this reason.

Typical chamber painting: Danaë
by Antonio da Correggio

They found Renaissance “chamber paintings” kept in bedrooms or sometimes a wardrobe behind clothes to keep from the wife and associated topless females with masturbation, the reason they were commissioned.

Sleeping Venus by Giorgione

These examples of former chamber art became quite famous and emulated until the establishment barred them from public show by refusing to purchase under (im)morality laws.

Olympia by Manet

The Victorians weren’t fans of the practice of masturbation these vanities encouraged and the public, common men were now allowed to see them for a small fee under arts exhibitions headed by Queen Victoria. Equality: miners and barons allowed to ogle at the same pair of tits.
Art was a moral battleground and the Academy deemed these messages unacceptable (politically incorrect). The portrayal of nude females was confined mostly to the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood outcasts, who hated them anyway, with a mind to portray women as both pagan (creative, fiery muses of men) and chaste, innocent (associated to their sex in a positive Christian way for the time). Potentially, they included so many nudes to piss off the Academy. Trolling par excellence. The combined interpretations taken up explains….

Lilith by Collier

The sex appeal was acknowledged to the viewer, as the choice to remain chaste.

                                           Serena, Found of Savages by Kennington

Can’t you see how sexual those women are? One is even holding a HORN.

the pearl
The Pearl by William-Adolphe Bougeureau

Virgins were sexy. There were urban legends about them which remain to this day, on par with unicorns. UNICORNS. (Modern beautiful virgins are like bloody unicorns). Virgins are still sexy (to men, whose opinion is The Word on sexual allure of normal women). It guaranteed paternity and makes a marriage almost divorce-proof (statistics and charts).

The Goddess Diana with a Lion by Angelo Von Courten

Women were powerful, and sex wasn’t a factor in it at all. In fact, sex diminished these women’s power. Promiscuous women were fallen and lost (kind view) or evil temptresses (femme fetale view kept today), who enticed men by plying their illegal trade as prostitutes by what they wore and the male spaces they chose to frequent (taverns, bars).

Picture is unrelated. It made me laugh.

A single woman in a bar? Pros. This is where we get the negative connotation of single.

The typical reaction. And they talk about Slut Shaming now.

Typical advertising, breaking the taboo on Victorian necklines. 1890. To this day, a woman with her top open is said to be asking for a come-on.

I wonder where she desires us to look. 1904 postcard. Wish you were here!

Hardcore Pornography of the day. Even whores had limits.

I call this phenomena The Tumbling Breast.

Just the breasts are depicted on partial display.

If you’re thinking “that sounds very feminist”, you are correct. This is the line the original feminists used to gain power, that female power was NOT rooted in sex and sexuality whatsoever! And lending women say, The Vote, wouldn’t lead to such immorality because women were the superior, purer, fairer sex acknowledged by the Classical Ancients (who the Victorians emulated in NeoClassicism).
It is Modern ‘Feminism’ which sexualizes and objectifies women because it is profitable; they charge for contraceptives, abortion and fertility treatments when it’s too late. ‘Sex-positive’ feminists are funded by companies. There is no profit in chastity. A few minor feminists have caught on, and coined the term Virgin Shaming. It hasn’t taken off because most feminists are deceptive. Feminist women in the 1960s began it wholesale to pass off the guilt they felt in the Sexual Revolution, from The Pill invented by men, onto other women who were competition for husbands later on (if everyone does it, men can’t preferentially choose the type of woman I can never be again, same with STDs at present, commented as positive to “get over with” again again and again although sluts in college are uncommon and it’s natural for a woman to be ashamed of her promiscuity, that’s why they downgrade, distort or try to redefine it as if the hymen doesn’t exist) and men caught on, who use it to this day to pressure a girl into why she should sleep with him because she needs to ‘lose it’ or be a loser (yep, that includes rape). Thanks, feminism!

As for the public argument of double standards on breast baring…
A few men rebelled and began walking around topless because miners who did real jobs needed that time to cool off and everyone said “fair enough” and soon male nipples were acceptable and remain thus. However, this doesn’t work for women because they’re erotogenic and connected to vaginal or clitoral nerve stimulation in the brain.

Class dismissed, thank you for not masturbating until you finished here first.