Teen miscarriage in under-developed bodies vs. 20s white women

aka why the r-select pressure to breed as early as possible is directly opposed to the biological science on the subject.

TLDR: K-selection, having kids into the 20s and 30s, is optimal for a woman’s health.

Strap yourself in.

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l869

“Conclusions The risk of miscarriage varies greatly with maternal age, shows a strong pattern of recurrence, and is also increased after some adverse pregnancy outcomes. Miscarriage and other pregnancy complications might share underlying causes, which could be biological conditions or unmeasured common risk factors.”

That’s important, write that down.

aka if you go Third World and force women to start breeding too early, they’ll be more likely to miscarry healthy children in future. Mother Nature hates r-types.

“Results There were 421 201 pregnancies during the study period. The risk of miscarriage was lowest in women aged 25-29 (10%), and rose rapidly after age 30, reaching 53% in women aged 45 and over. There was a strong recurrence risk of miscarriage, with age adjusted odds ratios of 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.48 to 1.60) after one miscarriage, 2.21 (2.03 to 2.41) after two, and 3.97 (3.29 to 4.78) after three consecutive miscarriages. The risk of miscarriage was modestly increased if the previous birth ended in a preterm delivery (adjusted odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.29), stillbirth (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53), caesarean section (1.16, 1.12 to 1.21), or if the woman had gestational diabetes in the previous pregnancy (1.19, 1.05 to 1.36). The risk of miscarriage was slightly higher in women who themselves had been small for gestational age (1.08, 1.04 to 1.13).”

LOWEST of all ranges in the mid-late 20s, which, per The World We Have Lost, happens to be the age our wiser medieval ancestors commonly married and commenced reproduction. Almost like they didn’t want their wife to die?

You can’t expect modern medicine to bail you out of degeneracy.

And forcing a woman to start “too early” (really before the pelvic growth plates fuse at 21) makes it more likely your later heirs will be miscarried too. No blaming the woman for your own impatience.

All those described factors sound r-selected, especially the C-section, which doctors shouldn’t be forcing women into for convenience. These are your future kids they’re risking.

This study isn’t precise enough because they try to dodge the teen death issue but here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27416/

scroll to:

“Figure ​3 shows the age related risk of spontaneous abortion stratified by parity status and number of previous spontaneous abortions. The association between spontaneous abortion and age was similar in all strata, although the level increased with increasing number of previous spontaneous abortions.”

Similar. It isn’t a huge difference by age alone like you falsely claim, stop being dumb. However….

if we look at marriage survival against IQ (linked to years ago) and cross-reference the J-curve beneath, delayed motherhood (sufficient time to educate) is healthiest for society in terms of infant survival and marital longevity. Divorce is lower in high IQ women, who tend to marry later, which we can lump into the No Shit category.

Fridge horror: The early marriage of the poor CAUSED a lot of their baby deaths! aka The Oven Ain’t Done Yet!

Pedos reee but nature hates them to breed. They’re extreme r.

“The incidence of spontaneous abortion varied according to a woman’s parity and number of spontaneous abortions in the preceding 10 years; among women aged 25-29 years spontaneous abortion occurred in 8.9% of nulliparous women and 9.3% of parous women without a history of spontaneous abortion, in 12.4% and 11.8% of those with a history of one spontaneous abortion, and in 22.7% and 17.7% of those with a history of two spontaneous abortions. After three or more spontaneous abortions, the proportion of pregnancies ending in spontaneous abortion increased to 44.6% in nulliparous women and 35.4% in parous women.”

Personal history and then family history are more important than age. Men need to get this through their thick skull. This is like the IQ and beauty versus popularity and personality divide. A man who praises his wife’s ‘nice’ personality is admitting her ugliness. She isn’t docile, she doesn’t respect you. If we plan to outlive a man, what does his opinion matter? ‘Nice’ is a quality of puppies, not a viable sexual partner. Your level is the best woman you can get – and keep. Men forget the second part. Cheating on a great wife to lose her is stupid.

Widows were hot commodities because they had proven fertility. Especially great if their husband was stoned to death for adultery, so she’ll be quite young.

Do you want to bet on the horse that has won races or never raced?

If marrying a woman at the proper time, with no personal fertility history, ask about the oldest aunt of theirs who had kids.

Ideally, you’d hear 40s for a firstborn. Those are top-tier genes, especially if the child was perfectly healthy. No genetic load. Miscarriages are common though (about 10% under ideal conditions) and hard to tell early on so it isn’t an exact science. It’s odds, it’s probability. So it isn’t so much age, it’s familial genetic load of mutations compounded by time, it only seems like age. The mutations already in their DNA (and higher in men because sperm constantly need to renew) simply become more of what they already are.

The IVF people do not want normie people to discover the simple ways to ensure better fertility health, they’d go out of business if we had a simple eugenic questionnaire prior to marriage e.g. period frequency. Also, miscarriage is actually good if very early because print error kids get expensive. That’s a sign the body is doing what it should, miscarriages aren’t all created equal, only most are bad.

In future we could probably devise a spiteful mutant test prior to marriage. Very Gattaca. On second thought, that might actually be what the test was. Ks approve.

Obviously with age the mutants (only one parent need be) become more apparent, and this also determines things like aging facial bone structure too, but it isn’t CAUSED by age, it’s their genome!

Age is not the true variable, the confound is mutation burden in your DNA (inc germline). Age can estimate on a population level but I implore you, on an individual one, speak to the family for same-sex history up to cousin level, there’s a reason doctors ask about it! It allows them to adjust their predictions without prejudice.

In general women have less abortions young because 1. it counts the healthiest time to breed, the twenties, which conceals the brief increase in the teens, 2. white women conceal the worse stats for non-white women while still a technical majority and 3. they’d have less time to experience anything, there’s been less time alive. This assumes they’re even having sex. Age is a poor metric. Ask about Aunt Meryl with the four kids after 30. You may strike gold and the woman has twins in the family.

Miscarriage is a J-curve by age, NOT linear.
Younger is not automatically better, learn maths dudebros.

Then we isolate the J-curve with no history:

Gee, why don’t the socialists encouraging teen pregnancies tell you this in Sex Ed class?

For my next trick, because I’m that bitch, compare the teen miscarriage line to other young women? [young being prior to middle-age, for women approx 40s]

Pedos reee.

It’s data from 1,221,546 pregnancy outcomes in a white country.

The mid-30s miscarriage risk is the same for that woman as a teen with the same history.

It’s a deeper 20s scoop if both example women had a miscarriage history of one.

Data doesn’t care about your deviance, pedos.

Mother Nature hates you. So those data-ignorant “dusty egg” jokes of mothers in their 30s should logically be applied to ‘teen whore’ types too. If you were being logical, which we all know you aren’t. Teen mothers (and fathers) also tend to have lower IQ, which suggests spiteful mutant. The data lines up perfectly.

They don’t really ‘believe’ in starting prematurely, it’s their life history strategy talking.

They feel a need to breed immediately because they know they’d likely miscarry if they waited like a K-type. Suck it?

“In women with no history of spontaneous abortions we found a slightly lower overall risk of spontaneous abortion among nulliparous women than parous women (10.0% v 11.6%). This tendency was found in all strata of age except for women aged 40-44 years. “

Again, actual women’s middle age. You’d expect that. The system is shutting up shop.

It’s slightly better to have had NO abortions than ONE. Duh? I think women would agree. So if that one spontaneous abortion would be likelier in the teens, should a fertility-oriented high IQ society encourage teen pregnancy?

The answer is clearly no.

And the Middle Ages Western Europeans were smarter than current America.

And you wonder why the white birth rate is so, so low.

Among women with a history of spontaneous abortion, the reverse tendency was observed; in general, nulliparous women had a higher age specific risk than did parous women (fig ​(fig33).”

Stop getting this wrong. We need to avoid spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) to increase the birth rate. You can’t throw conceptions at the wall to see what sticks.

That’s a male perspective on women’s bodies and it’s demonstrably, mathematically wrong.

Not to mention stressful on the longsuffering wife.

Teens (biological children) have a higher pregnancy risk than adult, mature mothers:

“Under the assumption that only 80% of women with abortions in recognised pregnancies were hospitalised the risk of spontaneous abortion would be: 12-19 years, 13.3%; 20-24, 11.1%; 25-29, 11.9%; 30-34, 15.0%; 35-39, 24.6%; 40-44, 51.0%; and 45 or more, 93.4%.” that’s :-

Minor: 13.3% natural abortions

20s: 11.5% natural abortions

30s: 19.8% natural abortions (average, more variation)

40s: basically at least half. You’d need top tier DNA to survive that.

So stop lying, pedos. Call yourself hebe all you like, a POS by any other name.

This doesn’t factor in the mental trauma of giving birth, PTSD is quite common, discounting obvious cases like episiotomies without cause and C-sections with no pain relief. It happens.

Obviously, traumatising your teenage girls will put them off breeding altogether.

Then what happens to your precious ego birth rate?

The teen ectopic pregnancy rate also peaks in the teens comparable to a near-thirty year old.

DAT J-shape curve.

You mad, pedos?

Wait, there’s more!

Now onto stillbirths:

The rate for minors (teens) peaks at the same level as women in their late 30s.

That’s gotta hurt.

Good luck with your scientism though. I’m sure 1M+ white births are lying.

DAT 20s dip:

and it’s fractions of a percent, hardly apocalyptic is it? They’re such special snowflakes with the bloody victim complex.

“The association between maternal age and stillbirth showed a J-shaped curve, but the effect of age was less than for spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies (fig ​(fig5).5). When restricting the analysis to nulliparous women, we found an identical pattern, although the level was slightly higher. The proportion of stillbirths was substantially increased in teenage pregnancies and was at the same level as for the 35-39 year age group. The incidence of stillbirth was unchanged during the study period.”

Ouch.

I’d also like to see a subdivision of dead babies risk in teen/minor mothers by aged daddy. Maybe next time. I covered paternal age generally beforehand anyway.

It’s funny that the paper writers still try to make it about age though. Nice try. Miscarriage is the biggest factor in future fertility according to their actual data, age is more important for niche risk of ectopic and stillbirth, but less so. And most importantly, NONE OF THIS IS LINEAR. NONE OF IT. The curve is a J. Redpills read the data. I don’t care what the researchers claim to get gibs, read the data itself. It is a non sequitur to claim older = worse outcomes and also a non sequitur to claim younger = better outcomes when the data doesn’t show that, it blatantly shows the opposite, a kind of Goldilocks effect in the 20s.

To put this all on increasing age is false reasoning, as shown, it’s increasing mutant burden. Age is a vector of genetic load, not the cause. Like – Being in a car is a vector of drunk driving, it isn’t the alcohol!

But they wanna get cited so…. they’ll twist their own data. Or try? God forbid anything be genetic, even reproduction!

nb “The increase in risk of ectopic pregnancies in teenage women is most likely caused by pelvic inflammatory disease.”

Teenagers are not women but k. And that’s wrong. The female human reproductive system takes time to fully develop. r/K explains this. Inflammation takes years, it’s literally impossible to blame that or 20s would be still higher.

“The risk of stillbirth was found to be high among teenagers, as previously reported.24 This may be a result of unfavourable social and behavioural conditions among pregnant teenagers, although a biological explanation cannot be excluded. The risk of stillbirth among women aged more than 35 years was increased but to a lesser extent….”

lol

“Conclusion

Our study shows an important increase in the risk of spontaneous abortion and other types of fetal loss among women aged more than 40 years”

Middle-age, then? Duh? The body’s aborting print errors like it should?

Yeah because like I said about the r/K system starting up, it also takes years to wind down?

Why aren’t you getting this?

“increase is already considerable among those in their 30s.”

no it isn’t data varies too much in that decade so you cannot accurately comment

“This increase is observed irrespective of a woman’s reproductive history.”

but that’s the bigger effect size? it’s the objectively more important factor?

Can’t hurt feels or lose those IVF shekels, huh?

The effect is still there but that’s a curious omission of scale.

“For society, such findings would indicate that tendencies to postpone pregnancy increase the overall incidence of fetal loss and possibly the costs of health care.”

ooooh they’re pushing teen pregnancies

damn r-types

“overall” POPULATION is not filial risk (personal risk)

filial risk is genetic, kin based

socialists shouldn’t be allowed to science

postponing in a K-select manner is MATURING

it’s HEALTHIER

higher actual birth rate, higher maternal safety, higher child survival

healthier children! higher IQs!

WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE

= fewer r-types, I weep!

“these factors are highly correlated” = NOT CAUSATION

for the reproductive equation, you must include the age of BOTH parents at conception

BOTH PARENTS.

That’s the genetic equation of causation. Single parents are not up for discussion here, they didn’t impregnate themselves?!!

12-19 (minor/teen) pregnancies, not aborted: 51,132.

That’s a huge dataset of adverse pregnancy outcomes. How will the hebes recover?

….

….

….

in prison, where they belong.

Short and tall women are slutty

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470490900700405
h/t Dutton

I wish they’d look racially, but this explains the r-selected LBFMs.

https://www.academia.edu/32121636/Height_among_Women_is_Curvilinearly_Related_to_Life_History_Strategy
Tall women I have noted, like Tilda Swinton seem to be left-wing in an openly aggressive, manly fashion.
Short women tend to be left-wing in a subversive fashion, i.e. infantilising rape gangs and cheating on their simp of a husband as a “poly”, the type to know they can’t play the tall woman’s game of leftism so fakes femininity to extract resources (from State, Church, simp). Assuming a short woman is more feminine is statistically wrong. She’ll be more likely to cheat from insecurity.

re Keller, M. (2013). The Genetic Correlation Between Height and IQ. PLOS ONE.
I already knew taller men are smarter and kinder to women, they’re protective. That’s why women like them, not the height per se.
Short men view women as social competition so are more likely to bully, gaslight, verbally abuse and hit them. They think domination makes up for lack of dominance. It’s moral cowardice, “pick on someone your own size” as they used to say.
Nature made taller men healthier because they’re generally better people.
Misogyny is a known factor of inferiority and most of them (with vitriol aimed in-race) are shorter than the women or average man, so subconsciously hate their mother.
Height in a man is broadly like a human’s peacock tail. It develops as a signal of genetic quality which cannot be faked and demonstrates low mutation load. There’s plenty of time before the growth plates fuse to get adequate nutrition and exercise so either their parents hate them (and parents hate more ugly children or products of other unions) or they are burdened with so many mutations it’s a small wonder they weren’t miscarried (and probably would have been without modern medicine).
One big reason modern humans are uglier is IVF, the other being maternal care for parents who simply don’t deserve it.
Read into that what you will.
Maybe the solution is more abortion, but more eugenic abortion.

Average height women have “more reproductive success” (Nettle, 2002) – cited top paper.
This also applies to the third world (they cite). Perhaps the fetish for pedomorphic women (short women, short limbs) is an r-select feature?
Men always prefer women a few inches shorter than them as a norm (so probably same class, assortative) but “markedly” short (as the paper puts it) is abnormal and suggests r-type breeding preferences (young and done, no investment).
Tall women are less symmetrical, although the way they write that sentence up is vague to spare blushes.
Medium height women have “highest mate value” – more studies needed on this. What does that actually mean? Just fertility? Beauty? Personality? IQ? What? Good family?
Jealous women were “taller or shorter than average” – damn, dare you to do a cross-racial study, that would be funny. 
So if you don’t want a harpy guys, select an average height woman (for her own race, presumably, also your own?).

If you wanna be cucked, women, marry a short man,

-or men, marry a short or tall woman.

Short is clearly a non sequitur to feminine, as it states short women are more jealous (along with tall women) of “feminine” beauty.

Average women are more repulsed by masculine women but… isn’t everyone? Can you guess my height by that?

I actually thought that was just everyone.

A few screencaps:

  • Humans are K-selected as a species, believe nobody who says otherwise. No, men are not meant to “sow oats”, it’s degenerate. The quality men don’t do that. Reputation evolved to explain this commentary on your genetic quality.
  • K-types are MORE reproductively successful in the long run, as you’d expect. Evolution is about the long run and who actually reproduces, not just “screws” in completely sterile fashion.
  • Married isn’t always better for the children if the parents (or one) are unstable, in loyalty or sanity.
  • Problem children come from problematic parents.
  • If your child is a slut, it’s your fault.
  • Sex is a physical distraction from growing up mentally, usually escaping from childhood trauma.
  • r/K isn’t really a choice, it’s mostly genetics. Posing as the other type won’t work.
  • 65% genetically heritable. Your kids will be just as slutty as you are, whoever you marry.
  • Hot women can hold out for marriage. Not – cannot.
  • Women are more than morally offended when you treat them as promiscuous (when they’re not) because you’re also calling them ugly.
  • If you want a spouse who can pair bond neurologically and raise your children as a good role model, don’t marry a former slut.
  • Better spouses are genetically fitter spouses (average women, tall men).

Pretty fertile

A woman’s face is the true indicator of fertility, it isn’t really nearly as amenable to later changes at the gym, at the surgeon or by diet. It’s a true signal, trust it over the body if there is a conflict. If a woman has an average face for her race and a “great” body, the body is fake. It must be, because they’re supposed to have developed at the same time, with the same nutrients and genes and hormones. A highly dimorphic body would also produce a highly dimorphic face by the same conditions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234055814_Cues_to_fertility_Perceived_attractiveness_and_facial_shape_predict_reproductive_success

slight repost for SEO

“Attractive facial features in women are assumed to signal fertility, but whether facial attractiveness predicts reproductive success in women is still a matter of debate. We investigated the association between facial attractiveness at young adulthood and reproductive life history-number of children and pregnancies-in women of a rural community. For the analysis of reproductive success, we divided the sample into women who used contraceptives and women who did not. Introducing two-dimensional geometric morphometric methodology, we analysed which specific characteristics in facial shape drive the assessment of attractiveness and covary with lifetime reproductive success. A set of 93 (semi)landmarks was digitized as two-dimensional coordinates in postmenopausal faces. We calculated the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and regressed facial shape on facial attractiveness at youth and reproductive success. Among women who never used hormonal contraceptives, we found attractive women to have more biological offspring than less attractive women. These findings are not affected by sociodemographic variables. Postmenopausal faces corresponding to high reproductive success show more feminine features facial characteristics previously assumed to be honest cues to fertility. Our findings support the notion that facial attractiveness at the age of mate choice predicts reproductive success and that facial attractiveness is based on facial characteristics, which seem to remain stable until postmenopausal age.”

This is how men traditionally found a good wife in a time of petticoats. The face, neck, shoulders and arms show you the rest of her body. Their books emphasize these as important* and their fashions allowed a plunging neckline to better judge fitness. It’s also why they hated make-up, not for the flush but the drawing-on of superior features. This still happens, largely with the midface and eye area. If a girl draws on her nose, just say no.

*They were incredibly bitchy about scrawny, ugly necks and shoulders up until the Edwardian Era. Kiera Knightley’s man bod would be the epitome of ugly. They wanted tapered full shoulders and neck.

That came back in the 1950s, for similar post-war fertility need reasons.

Note the thighs match the neck, so no thin necks either. Lithe arms, nice legs. It’s a rule. They considered the neck and wrists feminine and seriously, what woman nowadays goes to the surgeon about those? It’s a clear signal, still.

Breadth of hips imitated in elbows, palms and knee joints. It’s the same genetic input. A woman with large hips and tiny knee joints has had surgery. The knees develop before puberty to accommodate broad hips. At puberty, they can get even bigger as the legs get longer, so there’s no woman with long legs, regardless of height, and tiny knee joints. It’s impossible, biologically. Otherwise, they’d have biomechanical issues with walking. There’s an angle I can’t be bothered to look up produced by broader hips down to the knee joint and when it exceeds a certain level or gradient the woman can’t actually walk, literal mobility issues. The shoulders aren’t broad in bones (that’s masculine) nor are the feet in women. Long feet are a direct metric of height to stay upright, it’s a hinge but slender feet are the feminine marker and foot-binding’s purpose was narrowness. A woman with broad shoulders and narrow, bound feet has trouble walking. Men also have broader feet to match their shoulders. They throw a lot of weight forward.

A gamine type body, with one or two pleasing features (e.g. just a small waist and long legs) would also produce deficits in maternal instinct and capacity. Caveat emptor. This is important for men selecting a wife, as opposed to a quick shag (what society tells you). If you have a choice of two women, pick the nubile one.

Curvy women may sag, yes, but they don’t come to resemble a man, especially after menopause (see study above).

I’d like to see a study of husband’s desire for his wife by body type. Imagine the outrage. Apples/Naturals would be the worst. Just avoid women with broader shoulder bones than hips. You can tell at a distance.

Healthy shoulders and such are ignored nowadays with dire sub-fertility consequences. Babies eat that fat.

Note, a daintier wrist because the elbow join is broader.

The entire body is a signal, T&A is a ((distraction.)) Padding will do those.

Note the emphasis. That was behind Marilyn’s charm. Victorian body in 50s Americana clothing.

Nowadays we have knee length skirts as normal but very low necklines as odd or even offensive. It’s possible to derive fitness better from the legs, like a deer, really, or a horse, but most men have lost the skill or drive, fetishising tights and heels instead. Upper class men still judge by and fetishize the legs and were behind the rationing shift in fashions to display them. Middle class men fixate on backsides but not hips, which would be a superior indicator as breadth. Lower orders fixate on breasts, high time preference indicated. The woman herself may already be pregnant.

What is a wife in the Bible?

http://www.womeninthescriptures.com/2010/11/real-meaning-of-term-help-meet.html

According to Genesis, not inferior.

 I learned that kenegdo could also mean “in front of” 

You don’t marry an inferior.

She was designed to be his mirror opposite, possessing the other half of the qualities, responsibilities, and attributes which he lacked.

Eve was Adam’s complete spiritual equal, endowed with an essential saving power that was opposite from his.

 

Where are all the K-types? [good men, good women]

Has she been reading me?
This is basically verbatim what I’ve been saying.
You self-improve and you’re not entitled to anyone.
You don’t deserve a good person.
Good people are naturally attracted to other good people.
If they don’t want you – guess what. You’re not good enough. You’re likely aiming too high and don’t know your MMV.
My marriage matrix is one of the most popular posts.
It’s also common sense.
The worst one is when sluts want a virgin.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? What’s with the fetish?
What happens after the honeymoon? They’ll hate you even more than another slut would.

For practical K-virtues in a man?

This girl nails it.
So clearly, men try to disqualify and ignore her.
Obviously you need to be independent to ~keep~ a wife and ~support~ a family.
It isn’t shallow to say that’s the goal, it’s basic biology.
Your forefathers are laughing at you and weeping at your tantrums over the way the species operates.
It’s bare minimum. If you don’t have one set of ambitions, why have the other that can’t be supported on air?
It’s like wanting a sportscar and never saving money but dropping five figures on gourmet coffee per year.
Your problem is obvious as it is basic.

If you can’t look after yourself, alone…………

The idea women don’t have a right to describe to men what they demand in a mate is preposterous.
The list wouldn’t be shocking, basically good father material.
She should’ve bullet-pointed. Try to be…..(more)
If the answer would be “I wouldn’t want my father to be that way” it’s a bad thing.

Briefly, K-women are at more of a premium than ever. They can afford to be more selective than ever. If you don’t respect this, they made the right choice in rejecting you. And wouldn’t you really rather a woman say No than accept you into an unhappy marriage because you were available to one another, despite the lack of fit?

The woman trying to secure a man, any man like a leech… because her biology is screaming at her, isn’t a good woman, the one you want.

Men can’t really perceive lack of fit in a relationship, women need our EQ for this, the peahen discernment skills.

Men display, so be the best unique display of yourself you can be.
Then who cares if you find your swan? You’ll be developed, you don’t need an accessory, scantron wife of attributes XYZ to impress other men, man.

Word of advice?

Don’t be so blackpill and embittered.

Women run a mile. We know everything sucks but it makes you sound personally weak.

Don’t do the macho thing either.

We can see right through you and you can’t keep it up the rest of your life.

Actually, a list of Don’t Do (This) would be more useful.

Then they’d bitch at us more for telling them the truth – you can’t handle the truth!

Selfish people get divorced. Don’t be selfish.

Useful links
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/the-simple-decision-to-marry/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/women-used-to-be-ladies/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/27/born-again-christians-are-the-worst-cucks/
Don’t think you can trick us, we’re not stupid.
The majority of child IQ is maternal IQ, do you want dumb kids?
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/links-the-sexual-revolution-robbed-women-men-have-never-had-it-so-good/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/todays-women-yesterdays-prostitutes/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/where-are-the-real-men-where-are-the-good-men-dead-mostly/
“Men gave up first. They gave up on the white picket fence for a few easy lays”
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/link-the-blue-pill-expectations-bubble/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/03/02/why-do-i-keep-things-simple/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/why-wont-women-wait-until-marriage/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/why-cant-slutty-men-find-non-slutty-wives/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/link-why-are-women-so/

Too much brain?

Look at all the vintage inspiration stuff.
Make a private pinterest board to start figuring out likes/dislikes.

Design the life you want.
Life design is crucial and really what self-improvement is all about.

Actually, why aren’t there any vintage man blog and youtubers? Vintage lifestyle, music, fashion, books…. I’d like to see that, it’d be good for men.

Start with artofmanliness.com 

Be the best man you can be.

 

Actual hatefacts to offend everyone

OR
Nevermind, your fear is completely justified.

Feel free to make your own.

So let’s talk about the Red Pill, shall we?

This little red pill where any group is magically exempt from criticism… almost like a privilege. Offense is “how dare you imply my demographic is morally fallible!”

Shall we?

 

Marital selection from the Bible

To balance out this dismal talk of divorce risk, some positive advice.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+31

Listen, my son! Listen, son of my womb!
    Listen, my son, the answer to my prayers!
Do not spend your strength[a] on women,
    your vigor on those who ruin kings….

Biblical MGTOW, hate to say it. Don’t sleep around, waste of energy.

It is not for kings, Lemuel—
    it is not for kings to drink wine,
    not for rulers to crave beer,
lest they drink and forget what has been decreed,
    and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.
Let beer be for those who are perishing,
    wine for those who are in anguish!
Let them drink and forget their poverty
    and remember their misery no more.

Addictions are bad whoever is doing it.

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
    for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
    defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Chivalry.

A wife of noble character who can find?
    She is worth far more than rubies.

The question is, can you ‘keep her’?

11 Her husband has full confidence in her
    and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
    all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
    and works with eager hands.

Household contribution.

14 She is like the merchant ships,
    bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still night;
    she provides food for her family
    and portions for her female servants.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
    out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

Intelligent, business-minded.

17 She sets about her work vigorously;
    her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
    and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
    and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

Sounds vaguely workaholic but this was before the washing machine when everything took ages plus she had servants. Will your future wife have servants? So it is reasonable to expect exactly the same output?

20 She opens her arms to the poor
    and extends her hands to the needy.

Community spirit.

21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
    for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
    she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

Colour of rulers. Mistress of the house?

23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
    where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

Power couple. Ambitious as a unit.

24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
    and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
    she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
    and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

Sage, stoic, talks but doesn’t nag aka is correct.

27 She watches over the affairs of her household
    and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
    her husband also, and he praises her:

That’ll be the day.

29 “Many women do noble things,
    but you surpass them all.”

Romance within the marriage.

30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
    but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Honor her for all that her hands have done,
    and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

By the connection of marriage, an honourable spouse brings honour unto you, like a glow cast over your house.

If you don’t respect them before the wedding, don’t bother.