Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

This has been a banner week for feminism, if you like the idea of feminists committing mass hara-kiri. (I do.)

When “Gender Studies” professors and Jezebel shrews are hardest hit, America wins.

Hot off the presses, a new study finds that sex-based brain differences are evident IN UTERO (long before culture or social constructivist poopytalk can plausibly have any influence on the sexes).

Sex-related differences in brain and behavior are apparent across the life course, but the exact set of processes that guide their emergence in utero remains a topic of vigorous scientific inquiry. Here, we evaluate sex and gestational age (GA)-related change in functional connectivity (FC) within and between brain wide networks. Using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging we examined FC in 118 human fetuses between 25.9 and 39.6 weeks GA (70 male; 48 female). Infomap was applied to the functional connectome to identify discrete prenatal brain networks in utero. A consensus procedure produced an optimal model comprised of 16 distinct fetal neural networks distributed throughout the cortex and subcortical regions. We used enrichment analyses to assess network-level clustering of strong FC-GA correlations separately in each sex group, and to identify network pairs exhibiting distinct patterns of GA-related change in FC between males and females. We discovered both within and between network FC-GA associations that varied with sex. Specifically, associations between GA and posterior cingulate-temporal pole and fronto-cerebellar FC were observed in females only, whereas the association between GA and increased intracerebellar FC was stronger in males. These observations confirm that sexual dimorphism in functional brain systems emerges during human gestation.

As the study’s conclusion notes, neonatal sex-based brain differences exert lifelong effects on behavioral sex differences:

The study of brain development in utero is imperative for understanding typical and atypical brain development trajectories and achieving optimal long-term neurobehavioral outcomes. The present study demonstrates for the first time that development of fetal brain FC varies with sex. The differential development of FC over gestation in male and female fetuses likely acts as a precursor to sex-related brain connectivity differences observed across the lifespan. Further, the fetal brain networks observed in the present study likely serve as the building blocks for nascent neonatal, toddler, and adult networks.

Colin Wright points out…

Also keep in mind that this study measured *functional* connectivity, not merely differences in brain anatomy.

Feminists and soyboy enablers are being force fed the truth about male and female differences: “society” has nothing to do with them. The source of sex differences is in the brain and begins in utero.

Biology ĂĽber alles.

Feminist Indoctrination Kommissars BTFO.

***

PS Amazog just banned Kevin MacDonald’s seminal book The Culture of Critique.

Luckily, you can still buy the book here…for now.

That famed liberal tolerance is quite a thing to behold, eh?

There should be a Banned Books Reading Club. That would make a great summer reading list.

***

PPS One of the few memes I laugh at with every return visit:

Read Full Post »

So what does it mean? Are 92% of men really smarter than the average woman?

Maybe.

Mr. Thompson explains,

However, cognitive tests show an effect size of only 0.2 in favour of men, just 3 IQ points. In consequence, at IQ 130 70% are men and at IQ 145 80% are men.

It is possible that, in a rush to ensure that men and women’s mental ability scores can be presented as equal, men’s stronger subject areas have been under-sampled. Test producers are under pressure to minimize sexual and racial differences.

In defence of any group who think that their specialist strong points have been ignored, we should set the sampling frame for cognitive tests as wide as possible. There may be a small but real male advantage in intelligence which a broader scope of tests would reveal.

Bigger brains are associated with bigger bodies, but the very large male-female brain size discrepancy suggests something else is going on besides correlated brain-body size dimorphism.

From Thompson’s article on the study over at Unz:

Broadly the same effect of male advantage can be found in all the brain region sub-comparisons. Male brains are both larger, and also vary more in size. Greater male variability seems a fact of nature. If there were a direct relationship between brain size and cognitive ability, there would be many, many more bright men than bright women.

The cognitive test was limited to a 13-item verbal-numerical test to be completed in 2 minutes, which ought to be enough to grade the general population.

[…]

The test might be a little crude if the purpose is to detect sex differences across the broad range of different cognitive tasks, and also a bit limited if the volunteers are, as one might expect of this database, somewhat brighter volunteers interested in contributing to science. However, these are minor quibbles. All intellects can be evaluated in 2 minutes.

[…]

Sure enough, Table 2 shows that the cognitive tests are only an effect size of about 0.2 in favour of men. Where did all the male brain size advantage go? 0.2 of a standard deviation works out to 3 IQ points. Nothing much, you may say, considering that the test-retest reliability of the Wechsler is 4 IQ points, but if this is a true representation of male-female differences, then we can calculate what it would mean for the male/female balance at the higher levels of ability. As you may have seen in previous posts, if men are really 3 points brighter than women, and women’s standard deviation is narrower than men, say 14 rather than 15 points, then this makes a big difference at the higher reaches of intelligence.

Here are the estimates, if one assumes men have an IQ of 102, (sd 15) and women an IQ of 99, (sd 14).

At IQ 130: 69.8% men
At IQ 145: 80.3% men

[…]

This is a very substantial paper. It shows a massive sex difference in brain size of 1.4 d, and when one factors in that brain size relates to intelligence at a correlation of about 0.28, then the predicted intelligence difference will be a large 0.39 d, but the observed difference is only half that. Paradoxical. One implication is that there are sex-linked differences in brain structure and dendritic arborization which overcome pure size differences. If so, how is this balancing act achieved? Why don’t all people have the smaller, more craftily wired version of the human brain, which presumably requires a smaller blood supply. On the other hand, it might be that the cognitive testing has not been wide enough, and has ignored tasks in which males have an advantage. By the way, if one sex has an advantage in one skill, this is not an error of testing, it is a triumph of testing that a real difference has been revealed.

Speculatively, it’s not just cognitive tests that could be ignoring tasks which favor men. Colleges could be selecting students based on criteria that likewise ignore areas in which men have an advantage.

In honor of International Whambamthankyoumaam Day, here is a picture of misogyny:

Read Full Post »

From this ‘umble hot tub jive machine, circa 2007:

Does she have a large trashy tattoo anywhere near an erogenous zone?

Slut.

Today, from SCIENCE:

…a new study has revealed the effect that having tattoos has on your sex life.

Researchers from the University of Miami have found that people with tattoos are more likely to have a higher number of sex partners in the past year.

In the study, the researchers surveyed 2,008 adults – some of who had tattoos and some who didn’t.

The survey revealed that people with tattoos were more likely to be smokers, to have spent time in prison, and to have had a higher number of sexual partners.

Worryingly, these individuals were also more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health issue, and to report sleep issues.

Professor Karolin Mortensen, who led the study, said: “Previous research has established an association between having a tattoo and engaging in risky behaviours.

I read somewhere that in America, women with tattoos have begun to outnumber men with tattoos.

As the tattoo is associated with high sociosexuality (willingness to go all the way right away, frequently, and indiscriminately), it stands to reason that women are reacting to a sexual market which is careening toward an r-selection dynamic: fewer dads, fewer damsels, more cads, more tramps. Women are going crazy with tattoo fever because they’re subconsciously advertising to less dependable but aggravatingly charming men that their vaginas are open for business, no questions asked.

Unfortunately for women with tats who are looking for loving commitment, men don’t want sluts except as sexual playthings. And the lsmv men who must settle for sluts will resent them for the duration of their short-lived simulacra of normal relationships.

What men want when looking to invest in a woman for longer than a night is clear to anyone without an agenda or a butthurt ego:

If you’re a low-option beta, you might have to choose 2 out of 3.

***

As a commenter suggested, your next pickup venue should be a tattoo parlour. Easy pickuppings!

Read Full Post »

A study with a decent sample size (N = 274 female participants) found that the index finger to ring finger ratio (2D:4D) in women predicts their potential risk of cheating.

Being more exposed to the sex hormone oestrogen in the womb leads to women’s index fingers growing longer than their ring finger.

By contrast, being exposed to more of the male sex hormone testosterone in the womb has a more ‘masculinising’ effect – and results in a longer ring finger and a shorter index finger.

Men with longer ring fingers than index fingers have been found to be better sportsmen.

Eiluned Pearce of Oxford University carried out the research which has been published in a Royal Society Journal.

She took measurements of the finger lengths of 274 female volunteers and also sampled their DNA.

They also completed psychological tests on their relationship quality.

She found that ‘women with higher (more feminine) left hand digit ratios are more impulsive and rate their romantic relationships less favourably.’ She added that the finding is ‘intriguing, because the opposite might be expected’.

Ok, a few words of caution. As with any sociosexuality research that relies in part on self-report surveys, take it with a grain of salt. Women lie, and women lie a lot when the question has to do with their romantic longings and sexual history. Women as a sex will “lie down” (heh), meaning they will undercount the number of men they have slept with and will reclassify non-vaginal sex as platonic friendship.

Having said that, we can assume, since women will lie in one direction (to socially signal more chasteness than they in reality possess), that the differences in sexual behavior or relationship satisfaction between high and low finger ratio women would hold as a valid finding, despite the magnitude of those differences possibly skewed by social expectation bias. This would only not be the case if, for some reason, high finger ratio women and low finger ratio women lied at different frequencies. That is, if high 2D:4D women lied more about their romantic lives than low 2D:4D women lied about theirs, we could not trust any uncorrected self-report data that attempted to compare the two groups.

This isn’t an idle misgiving. It’s plausible that very feminine women are more disposed to lying about their chasteness than are masculinized women, given that femininity is in general associated with a greater sensitivity to social pressure and with affinity for emotional manipulation of others.

One more word of caution: the researchers appear to have used “impulsivity” and “dissatisfaction with relationship” as proxies for “higher likelihood of cheating”. These aren’t equivalent, despite the former two characteristics being a leading indicator of the latter risk. Dissatisfied women in relationships can conceivably control themselves and resist infidelity……

HAHAHAH OH MY GOD HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I KEEL MYSELF

….but that’s not the way to bet.

Still, based on my experience with women, I believe this study has touched on a truth about women that would be more brightly illuminated with better methodology.

In the research paper, she speculates that women with the higher index finger to ring finger ration are likely to be ‘more feminized’ and more highly sought after by males.

Because they know they have a lot of options, ‘this might be associated with dissatisfaction with current partners’ and this might lead to flings – or as the scientists call it ‘opportunistic mating’ and ‘impulsive’ mating with men who are not their husband or partner.

The two main strategies in sex are ‘opportunistic mating’ – in other words having lots of flings – and a strategy ‘focusing on long-term commitment’.

She writes that ‘If females with more feminised morphology [body shape] have higher ‘mate value’,

SMV: sexual market value.

The Chateau isn’t an outpost of the world; the world is an outpost of the Chateau.

this might be associated with dissatisfaction with current partners, leading to impulsive extra-pair matings and seeking alternative mates.’

Finger length ratio is a well-tread topic at the Chateau. There has been debate whether masculinized or feminine women are more likely to cheat (proponents of the former reasoning that women with high T are hornier and thus cheat risks), but this study says more feminine women are the cheat risks, which validates a classic Chateau pearl necklace of wisdom:

Options = Instability

The researchers also looked at the ratio of index finger to ring finger lengths in males, but did not find any connection with relationship quality.

FYI, there is very little discrepancy between the finger ratios of gay and straight men. If anything, gay men have slightly more “masculine” ratios.

That last bit about the dearth of evidence for a digit ratio-to-relationship quality correlation in men is very telling. It indirectly supports my observation that women make holistic assessments of male mate quality, seeking out a panoply of hsmv traits in men, some of which contradict each other. As such, the playing field is open to men of varying masculinity and femininity — think on, for example, how common it is to see brooding artist soyboys and musclehead jocks with cute girls — and how that might manifest biologically in a natural selection process that neither favors nor disfavors for long high 2D:4D men over low 2D:4D men.

It’s interesting to speculate on the existence of Darwinian balances that keep lower digit ratio men in the game, and further to speculate that this is the reason why there isn’t a connection between a man’s digit ratio and his relationship quality.

That connection is easier to see when looking directly at the source of a man’s happiness: his woman’s beauty, or lack thereof. Forget male finger ratios; if you want to know if a man is satisfied in his relationship, just ask yourself if you would eagerly fuck his girlfriend or wife. If yes, he’s happy.

Read Full Post »

Via Passerby, a bombshell 2010 research paper that found shitliberalism is a product of a feministed matriarchal system, while shitlordism is a product of a traditional patriarchal system.

CH, this is interesting. Young people raised by single mothers or from families where the mother had more influence are more likely to be lib/left (egalitarian), young people raised by their father or from families where the father had more influence were more likely to be more right wing (anti-egalitarian).

Definition of egalitarian in this case: support of racial and social equality.

Additionally, males were more right wing than females.

***

Abstract

Using 4 samples of adolescents from 3 nations (Australia, Sweden, and the United States), the authors explored whether the gendered nature of the family socializa-
tion environment affected young people’s level of group-based social egalitarianism. It was hypothesized that the greater the father’s influence in the family, the greater the children’s level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism. The results were consistent with the authors’ expectations. Children from father-headed households had the highest level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism; children from mother-headed households had the lowest level of group-based anti-egalitarianism; and children from dual-parent households were in between. Similarly, children from homes in which the father had the greatest decision-making power tended to exhibit the highest levels of anti-egalitarianism, whereas children from homes in which the mother had the greatest decision-making power displayed the lowest levels of social anti-egalitarianism. Family structure did not interact with either the nationality or gender of the child.

Single moms produce soyboys and pussyhat sluts.

Single fathers produce warriors and tradwombs for the West.

Don’t you love when science affirms your gut instinct? It’s like, why bother with painstaking methodology and securing grant money when you can just open your door and step outside for a front row view of the world?

THAT MEN HAVE HIGHER AVERAGE LEVELS of social dominance orientation and group-based anti-egalitarianism than women is one of the most thoroughly and consistently validated research findings in contemporary social and political psychology…

…the relative influence of male and female parental figures should influence the general group-based anti-egalitarianism of their children. Specifically, because of the relatively higher level of social dominance orientation and group-based anti-egalitarianism found among men, the greater the overall relative influences of male versus female parental figures, the higher the average level of group-based anti-egalitarianism children would have.

“Social dominance orientation” = a great trait for players and pappies alike.

But how exactly was social dominance orientation measured in this study? This way (fyi left unmentioned but safe to assume: most of the test subjects were White):

This [anti-egalitarian/social dominance orietnation] scale assesses the degree to which one supports or rejects social equality. Because two of these four items specifically refer to race and were also embedded in a series of other questions referring to race and social class (see Sidanius, 1976), this scale has a distinctly group-based flavor. The respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following four stimuli: (a) White superiority, (b) racial equality, (c) increased social equality, and (d) social equality. Each response was given on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). All responses were then coded into the direction of anti-egalitarianism.

That first stimuli goes right for the id, eh? I’ll guess that, paraphrasing, the responses broke down to “men invade, women invite“.

Swedish families tended to have slightly less male-dominated family decision-making patterns; Texas families tended to have slightly more male-dominated family decision patterns.

Stereotypes R Us!

And from the Conclusion:

Though the strength of the effects was relatively weak, the data indicated that the greater the father’s presence and decision-making power within the family, the greater the child’s level of group-based anti-egalitarianism. However, consistent with the invariance hypothesis (see Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), these family structure and family power variables did not interact with the respondent’s gender. In other words, these environments had essentially the same effects on boys and girls. Thus, the gendered-environment effect appears to be relatively constant across both the gender of the child and nationality, at least within the restricted populations sampled here.

Altogether, these results suggest that group-based anti-egalitarianism is not only affected by one’s own gender, but is also a function of the gendered nature of the family environment. Not only do men have a tendency to display transsituationally higher levels of group-based anti-egalitarianism than women do, but one’s degree of group-based anti-egalitarianism will also increase as one is exposed to male parental figures, regardless of one’s gender. […]

…these data were collected in the 1970s and 1980s, an era when paternal custody of minor children was less common than it is today….a contemporary sample of paternal caretakers would most likely have more typically male social attitudes than a sample of paternal caretakers from the 1970s and 1980s.

Will it be single fatherhood that saves European Christendom? Or will it be single mommyhood that destroys it? The race, so far, is a losing one for Team Patriarchy, but that last lap is where the warriors show their mettle.

Naturally, this paper being the product of social scientists, genetic influence is given no quarter. It could simply be that the issue of single moms inherit their pathological pussyhattery, while the issue of single fathers inherit their tribal protective instincts, and these inheritances get confused for attitudes resulting from the “gendered nature of the family in which one is raised”. Nevertheless, it confirms for everyone who doesn’t have their senses numbed by SJW screeching that there is something intuitively dangerous about ordering one’s society around matriarchy at the expense of patriarchy. You simply can’t entrust your nation and its posterity to the political preferences of women or feminized men.

To be fair, the authors did skate close to mentioning the possibility of causative mechanisms unrelated to self-survey responses:

Second, because these are correlational and self-report data, one is faced with the perennial direction-of-causation problem. Thus, rather than family structure’s affecting social attitudes, it is possible, on the one hand, that the respondents’ social attitudes were affecting their recollections of family life. On the other hand, this direction-of-causation problem is much more of a potential issue for the family-power, rather than the family-structure, variable. It is possible that those with high levels of anti-egalitarianism, for whatever reason, recalled their fathers’, rather than their mothers’, making most of the family decisions. In contrast, it is unlikely that respondents’ anti-egalitarianism attitudes also affected their recollections of family structure, regardless of whether they were raised in a single-mother, single-father or dual-parent household.

How about we play it safe and orient our society around discouraging single mommery and encouraging Father Knows Best?

Read Full Post »

I am on record stating my observation that American women are becoming more masculine, in appearance, physicality, and attitude. (And, parsimoniously, that American men are feminizing.)

The sexual polarity is reversing. Societal ruptures are inevitable as the poles switch places.

Further, there are archived posts on this blog in which the category of women called “Amazonian Alphas” was identified and discussed.

From old school commenter Clio,

This woman [the Amazonian Alpha], along with the Eternal Ingenue, is the most likely of all femme fatale types to be perceived as an Iconic Woman. But whereas the Eternal Ingenue inspires dreams of perpetual love and happiness, the Amazonian Alpha inspires, in those who fall in love with her, dreams of glory, of being raised above all the ordinary people who mill around on the face of the earth. She is the Maverick Alpha’s natural mate [Editor’s note: think John and Cindy McCain], although she may choose a more ordinary Classic Alpha. Often she is unable to find a man she considers worthy of her, and may remain single.

Keep that last sentence in mind as you continue reading this post.

The Amazonian Alpha is usually very intelligent and generally beautiful or at least physically impressive, being statuesque of build, like Maud Gonne, the Irish nationalist who made Yeats miserable, and often athletic as well.

And then, another detour into clear-sighted personal experience which would be vindicated by SCIENCE:

My experience with Amazonian Alphas I have dated is that many of them have striking facial bone structure and an often exotic beauty. They are never “cute” or pretty in the dull, washed-out, southern sorority sister way. They have the kind of angular looks and prominent features that a sizable minority of men will not find attractive. They are usually taller than average and wear heels everywhere and know how to walk in them. You will never see an Amazonian wear flip-flops. She’d sooner submit to a beta male like yourself.

Because Amazonians are the product of the union of a successful alpha male and his beautiful wife, they often inherit their fathers’ blazing intelligence, cocksure attitude, and ambition. If they are lucky, they will inherit their mothers’ beauty, but this doesn’t always happen. More than a few alpha females look like drag queens in pantsuits.

And now, a word from our ¡SCIENCE!:

Tallness in women correlates with masculine ambition. […] Researchers theorize the higher testosterone which contributes to taller female height also masculinizes the female brain.

***

Height in women predicts maternal tendencies and career orientation. […] In pre-reproductive women (aged 20–29, n = 679), increasing height related to decreasing maternal personality (lower importance of having children, lower maternal/broodiness) and decreasing reproductive ambition (fewer ideal number of children, older ideal own age to have first child). Increasing height also related to increasing career orientation (higher importance of having a career, and higher career competitiveness). In post-reproductive women (aged over 45, n = 541), increasing height related to decreased reproductive events (fewer children, had first child at older age) and increased career orientation. Results provide further support for previous studies that show physical masculinisation is associated with psychological masculinisation.

***

Tall women with masculine traits seldom have children.

How do I do it? SCIENCE, sometimes years later, will reaffirm nearly every drop of knowledge and pearl of wisdom from this blog. I haven’t hijacked the minds of the labcoats. I simply observe the world as it is, instead of concocting a world as I wish it were.

What about the field? No doubt, the deep blue slutopolises are filled to the lip with tall amazonians whose pugnacious personalities are only matched in stridency by their heavy-heeled purposeful marches through the corporate battlefield.

The blue city beyotches are tall, and getting taller. And broader-shouldered. And narrower-hipped. And thinner-lipped. And bitterer of quip.

So if you want a feminine woman with babbies on the brain, stay away from amazons.

If you want pump and dump fun with perpetually contracepted fuck machines who foot their own bills, a tall girl is your squeal ticket. Bonus: Those belle towers have long vaginal throws, so if you’re packing in length what she’s stacking in height, take it to the hilt and leave a cream pie at her bolt-locked cervical door.

PS Maybe, given the lower fertility of tall women, the continued existence of short men can be explained by the higher fertility of short women. It’s Darwinian trade-offs all the way down…

Read Full Post »

Study: People with fewer sex partners report happier marriages

The Shitlantic is just now getting around to reporting on a subject which was discussed extensively years ago on this very ‘umble blog. Yes, Virginia, sluts really do make bad wives. Sluts are unhappier in marriages, which makes them higher infidelity (and cuckoldry) risks.

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a slutty woman your wife.

Inevitably, the femcunts of muffstream media will bend the knee(s) to Chateau Heartiste, and take all of my lovefacts. (It’s a mouthful)

The more interesting part of this particular sociological affirmation of Chateau teachings is the finding that men with a lot of premarital partners aren’t as unhappy in marriage as are women with a lot of premarital cockas.

Over at the Institute for Family Studies, Nicholas Wolfinger, a sociologist at the University of Utah, has found that Americans who have only ever slept with their spouses are most likely to report being in a “very happy” marriage. Meanwhile, the lowest odds of marital happiness—about 13 percentage points lower than the one-partner women—belong to women who have had six to 10 sexual partners in their lives. For men, there’s still a dip in marital satisfaction after one partner, but it’s never as low as it gets for women…

In fact, men with 6-10 premarital partners report the same level of marital happiness as men with 2-3 partners. (It seems men who aren’t virgins are happier if they have sampled more than five pussies. For men, a point is reached when quantity becomes its own quality.)

Women with 6-10 premarital partners are the unhappiest in marriage.

Even funnier, from a biomechanical point of view, marital happiness actually ticks up a bit from men with 11-20 sex partners to men with 21+ partners.

For both sexes, entering marriage in a virginal state provides the happiest outcome.

This all makes complete sense looked through a “cheap sperm, expensive egg” filter: men are wired to compartmentalize sex, to better spread the seed. All else equal, a man with hangups about casual sex won’t be as reproductively successful as a man who can love em and leave em, and live to settle down with a marriageable woman when his rigor has mortised.

So for men, past performance is not as indicative of future marital satisfaction as it is for women, who are psychologically scarred a little bit more with each cock that carves their sugar walls. Women aren’t wired to “spread the egg” (they don’t have that many to spread, and they can’t walk away from a pregnancy like men can do); they are wired to hoard the egg and save it for high quality seed. This explains why sluts are unhappy in monogamy; they have given their eggs away so often and so profligately that no man they marry could possibly register in their hindbrains as the zenith of penis. Too many cocks have come and gone that it has messed with sluts’ ability to bond to men.

Virginal brides, by contrast, will explode with lovingtightness upon surrender to the nuptial cock, because they have no other cock with which to compare their husband’s cock. By default, the virgin perceives marital cock to be the finest quality seed she could get. Some call that love.

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, when it comes to sex, less experience is better, at least for the marriage,” said W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist and senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies (and an Atlantic contributor). In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce, while those with 10 or more were most likely. These divorce-proof brides are an exclusive crew: By the 2010s, he writes, just 5 percent of new brides were virgins. And just 6 percent of their marriages dissolved within five years, compared with 20 percent for most people.

5%? So you’re saying I have a chance! (I wonder how the percentage of new bride virgins tracks over generations. I’m willing to bet ours is the least virginal era in all of Western history.)

Only 6% of virgin-bride marriages dissolved. Well, no kidding. Given the dearth of virgins in Post-America, the man who locks one down would be a fool to let her go.

Let that be a lesson, ladies:

If you want a loving man for the rest of your life
Never take a cocka before your wedding night.

By the way, the fact of modrenity that virgins are as rare as unused buttplugs in CNN anchor desks portends horrible outcomes for civilization, as it has formed in the American miasma. As age at first marriage increases, the number of female virgins approaches zero. Few women will hold out until age 30, so if women aren’t getting married until then, good luck finding a virgin whose vagina is a Chinese finger trap instead of a hallway. Many MANY more marriages will be miserable for both parties because

a. the wrinkled newlywed bride is past her nubile peak and

b. she’s corrupted by a caravan of cocks.

(a) will reduce a man’s ardor to provide and protect, and (b) will induce a woman’s ardor to cheat and eject.

You can thank shitliberalism and the Pill for this slutty state of gnawingly empty affairs.

It doesn’t matter in practice whether sluttiness causes marital unhappiness, or is correlated with marital unhappiness. If you are a man seeking to enslave yourself in bonds that you think will sit lightly on your limbic limbs, then your best bet is to wife up a woman who doesn’t have a variety of sexual experiences. That is, go for the virgin, or near-virgin, before choosing the “woman who knows what she wants in the bedroom”.

You can teach a virgin to be a better lover; you can’t teach a slut to be a purer lover.

In the final analysis, once-frequent commenter Man Who Was Thursday condensed all these lovefacts about virgins and sluts and marital unhappiness into a pithy phrase:

Success with women is more disillusioning than failure.

PS The lead author of this study is Nicholas Wolfinger. Not a J_w? (If not, it would explain the mass droppage of realtalk.)

PPS Relevant:

Ha! An otherwise perfect meme marred by one flawed assumption: that slut grandma wouldn’t have died childless, in the paws of her adoring cats.

Heather asks the questions the legacy won’t,

Is a slut’s chance of dying alone with cats eating her eyeballs, equal to the chance she has mystery meat grandchildren?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: