Category Archives: Sex

This tends toward the academic rather than the erotic. But not entirely.

Divorce Rate Versus Number Premarital Sex Partners for Women

Posted on by

In the comments Rolf asserts:

the reason that men generally would prefer to marry women with a low-to-zero “body-count” is that the women tend to adjust their set-points to the best of each trait for the men they have slept with.

So to have a good chance at a long-lasting marriage, you have to be as nice as her first, as well-hung as her 5th, as long-lasting as her 8th, as rich as her 15th, as handsome as her 23rd, have as much free time as her 30th, be as ambitious as her 32nd, etc., etc., etc. That’s an impossible standard to meet, so they become bored / dissatisfied. If you are the only one she’s been with, then… you are the best of each of those things, and the odds of staying together are much better. If you point this out, high-body-count women will just slam you as “insecure,” of course.

…

Women control access to sex.
Men control access to commitment.

A key that opens nearly any lock is a rare and valued item.
A lock that can be opened by nearly any key is worthless.

We are not the same.

Citations? Just look at the research relating to divorce rates and number of partners the woman has before marriage. “Alpha widow” is a very real thing.

This just did not sound right to me from my recollection of the literature. I did not recall ever reading anything like this. I went searching for “What is the divorce rate for women versus the number of sex partners before marriage?”

Nearly all results ultimately lead back to the same 2016 study by Nicholas H. Wolfinger.

I’ll save you the reading time and just give you his graphs:

Probably the most interesting data in Figure 1. is from prior to the year 2000. Women with just two partners prior to marriage had higher divorce rates than any other groups!

And note that 10+ category included those with 100+ partners!

The lowest divorce rate in all years is those with zero partners prior to marriage. But from Figure 2, we see they are also the highest percentage of women who attend church weekly. This leads us to ask, “Which is causation, if any, and what is merely correlation?” An alternate hypothesis to the number sex partners causing divorce could be in play. For example, “Church going women are less likely to divorce and have fewer partners due to social pressure.”

In any case that the data for two to nine partners is negatively correlated with the divorce rate! Also of important note, it is only for marriages in the 2000s that the 10+ group makes an obvious jump.

Some analysts of the study point out there may be other causative factors for divorces in high count marriages:

  • The presence of children from a previous marriage/relationship causes extra stress on the most recent marriage.
  • “Excess baggage” (mental/physical health issues, financial issues, family relationships, etc.) resulted in many broken previous non-marriage relationships.
  • Age at time of marriage.

I did another search on something somewhat related, “What is the divorce rate for U.S. swingers?” I found only one number for this question, 2.8%. There was no citation given for this number and I don’t believe it.

There were studies that looked at martial and sexual satisfaction of swingers versus monogamous marriages. These tended to show the swingers scoring higher (no pun intended) than monogamous couples. But the studies had potential issues with selection bias. Hence, I don’t take those studies as definitive.

There was one other thing that I found extremely interesting about my searches. There apparently has been little or no interest in looking at the divorce rates versus partner counts for men. I do not have a decent hypothesis for this.

Getting back to the Rolf’s assertion and his model for divorce rates versus premarital partners…

I also found a study which directly addresses Rolf’s claims about desirability of virgins (or the original paper):

In 2017, Steve Stewart-Williams and I asked 188 participants from the U.K. to tell us how willing they would be to have a long-term relationship with someone based on their previous number of sexual partners. We started low: What if the person was a virgin? What about if they had just one previous partner? What about 19-22? What about more than 60? The participants rated 16 different histories in total, each time indicating their willingness on a nine-point scale from very willing to very unwilling.

Virgins, for both men and women, are not highly desired. And high counts were viewed harshly by people with low counts and low counts were viewed harshly by high counts:

The aim of this study was to explore how people’s sexual history affects their attractiveness. Using an Internet survey, 188 participants rated their willingness to engage in a relationship with a hypothetical individual with a specified number of past sexual partners, ranging from 0 to 60+. The effect of past partner number was very large. Average willingness ratings initially rose as past partner number rose, but then fell dramatically. For short-term relationships, men were more willing than women to get involved (although the difference was not large). For long-term relationships, in contrast, there was virtually no sex difference. Thus, contrary to the idea that male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity is not, both sexes expressed equal reluctance to get involved with someone with an overly extensive sexual history. Finally, participants with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation (high SO participants) were more tolerant than low SO participants of prospective mates with higher numbers of past sexual partners but were also less tolerant of prospective mates with low numbers of past sexual partners.

Only 188 self-selected participants is a significant warning about limitations. But, my guess is the results point in the correct direction.

Pending review of new data, I do not believe Rolf’s model, or his conclusion are valid. Unless he is claiming this is only recent phenomena, the numbers prior to 2000 conclusively shoot down his model.

Rolf?

Posted in Sex

Gun Safety Commerical

Posted on by

This probably is not considered safe for work.

Citation Needed

Posted on by

To liven up the rather boring ordinary Markley’s Law Monday QOTD, I offer this:

Jazz fans and gun owners are apparently among the most sexually active Americans. #SexTrivia

Swingles @swingles
Posted on X, August 14, 2023

I have no idea what the basis for this is. And I’ve asked two different chat bots who also come up empty. Here is what Grok has to say:

Joe: Someone on X claims, “Jazz fans and gun owners are apparently among the most sexually active Americans.” Is there any truth to this?

Grok: There’s no direct, credible evidence from recent studies or data that specifically links jazz fans and gun owners to being “among the most sexually active Americans.” The claim seems to stem from a mix of speculation, anecdotal chatter, or possibly a misreading of unrelated research, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny based on available information.

Let’s break it down:

  1. Jazz Fans: No studies in the provided context or broader research landscape tie jazz fandom to sexual activity rates. Music preference might influence mood or social behavior—plenty of people associate jazz with romance or seduction—but there’s no data showing jazz fans as a group are notably more sexually active than others. It’s a stretch without evidence.
  2. Gun Owners: There’s been some research on gun ownership and sexual behavior, but it debunks rather than supports the claim. A 2021 study in the American Journal of Men’s Health analyzed data from 780 men and found no association between sexual dysfunction and gun ownership. This counters older psychoanalytic theories (e.g., guns as phallic symbols tied to virility), but it doesn’t suggest gun owners are more sexually active either—just that there’s no link to dysfunction. Sexual activity frequency wasn’t directly measured in this context, and no other recent, representative surveys connect gun ownership to higher sexual activity.
  3. Overlap or Generalization: The X claim might be riffing off stereotypes—jazz fans as passionate, gun owners as assertive—but stereotypes aren’t data. The 2015 Harvard/Northeastern survey on gun ownership (55 million U.S. owners, 3% owning half the guns) and Pew’s 2017 gun owner demographics (30% of adults) give us numbers but say nothing about sexual habits. Similarly, no national surveys like the General Social Survey tie music tastes and gun ownership to sex.

Without a specific, peer-reviewed study backing this exact claim—and none appears in recent literature or the search context—it’s likely just a provocative quip from X, not a fact. People throw out wild assertions online all the time, and this one smells like it’s more about attention than accuracy. If someone’s got a study from 2024 or early 2025 I haven’t seen, I’d be happy to reconsider, but as of now, it’s baseless.

What do you think—did the X poster cite anything, or was it just a hot take?

Joe: I suspect it was just someone trying to get attention by saying something controversial.

Grok: Yeah, that tracks. X is a breeding ground for attention-grabbers tossing out wild claims with no substance. “Jazz fans and gun owners are the horniest Americans” has that perfect mix of quirky and edgy to bait reactions—doesn’t need to be true, just loud. Probably worked, too, since we’re talking about it. Classic move. Anything else from X catching your eye lately?

Umm, yeah, I Watched this for the Data Science

Posted on by

Things I never would have guessed and don’t need to know. But the data science is interesting.

A Girl’s Guide to a Data-Driven Orgy.

A Girl’s Guide to a Data-Driven Orgy by Aella

my hereticon talk

Read on Substack

I guess this is what you get when an autistic girl grows up home-schooled with an authoritarian, extreme, Christian father.

Posted in Sex

Progressive Currency: Violence and Sex

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Progressives fixate on genitalia and sex because that’s the only currency they have. No matter how diseased or obese a progressive is, there’s someone out there willing to copulate with it.

regular guy @regularguyguns
Posted on X, January 25, 2024

A little something different for Markley’s Law Monday.

This was in the context of a now deleted post on X of a Markley’s Law example. While it is not an example of Markley’s Law, he asserts he knows why they use penis insults. I think that, at best, he is only partially correct.

First, I would not say that is the only currency they have. They also have violence.

Violence is even more widely “traded” by their ilk than the sex. Nearly all mass shooters are democrats/liberals/progressives. And then there was Comrade Stalin – Leader of Progressive Mankind.

I further assert their “trade” in violence is a major reason they want to ban guns for ordinary people. They want to freely “trade” in this preferred currency of theirs. Gun owners impose a rather high “tax” on its use.

I also assert there are multiple reasons for the sexual insults. But the main reason is because these insults would be particularly hard hitting to them.

Why Do Humans Mate in Seclusion?

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Despite considerable cultural differences, a striking uniformity is argued to
exist in human preferences for concealing sexual intercourse from the sen
sory perception of conspecifics. However, no systematic accounts support
this claim, with only limited attempts to understand the selective pressures
acting on the evolution of this preference. Here, I combine cross-cultural and
cross-species comparative approaches to investigate these topics. First, an
analysis of more than 4572 ethnographies from 249 cultures presents sys
tematic evidence that the preference to conceal mating is widespread
across cultures. Second, I argue that current anthropological hypotheses
do not sufficiently explain why habitual concealment of mating evolved in
humans but is only seldom exhibited by other social species. Third, I intro
duce the cooperation maintenance hypothesis, which postulates that
humans, and a specific category of non-human species, conceal matings to
prevent sexual arousal in witnesses (proximate explanation). This allows
them to simultaneously maintain mating control over their partner(s) and
cooperation with group members who are prevented from mating (ultimate
explanations). I conclude by presenting a comparative framework and
predictions to be tested across species and human cultures

Yitzchak Ben Mocha
June 7, 2020
Why do human and non-human species conceal mating? The cooperation maintenance hypothesis | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Interesting.

I didn’t read the paper in detail, but it appears to me he is ignoring a significant subculture. There are lots of people who video their sexual activities and post the video on the Internet. There are sex clubs in all western large cities. At these clubs’ people have sex with their spouse in front of other people. They also have sex with people not their spouse in group settings. If this were an evolutionary beneficial behavior, why would people seek out others and places to defy the norm?

I agree that this is far from mainstream. And I have often wondered why people seek seclusion. Growing up on the farm it was common to see the cattle, cats, and chickens mating. It just did not make sense to me that people were so private about it. There was no emotional damage to any of the animals. And it was my understanding chimp, monkeys and other primates mated in public. So, what is going on with humans?

If Mocha’s hypothesis is correct, it’s a restriction created by men for their benefit. One would then expect women to be more inclined than men to engage in public sex. I don’t believe this is the case. On the other hand, women are much noisier during sex than men. This lends credence to the idea that they have an evolutionary bias toward getting attention when they are highly aroused.

I’m glad Mocha put some thought into it. His hypothesizes are far better than anything I came up with. I’m not entirely convinced they are correct, but they are worth discussing and testing.

Increasing the Anguish

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Above all I would advise people against posting expressions and videos of their personal anguish over the election, there is a substantial number of people here who use this as masturbation material.

David Burge @iowahawkblog
Posted on X, November 6, 2024

Sure, this is rather funny. I doubt there is much truth to it though. Yeah, there are some really strange kinks out there. But I doubt there are “a substantial number of people” which find this sexually arousing.

I think the more likely situation is that Burge finds it humorous to increase the anguish.

Although, there is one person who replied to his post with “I’m literally out of lube and shooting dust”. But I think he is joking too.

It Has Been a Long Time Coming

Posted on by

Gilead’s twice-yearly antiviral protected women from HIV infection

Gilead said Thursday that twice-a-year injections of a new antiviral drug, called lenacapavir, completely protected cisgender women from contracting HIV in a large Phase 3 trial.

In the study, none of the 2,134 women who received lenacapavir contracted HIV. By comparison, 16 of the 1,068 women who received the long-running daily pill Truvada contracted HIV. And 39 out of 2,136 women who received a newer daily pill called Descovy developed HIV.

It’s not clear from this article and I had to read this web page to determine these are women have been infected with the virus and this medication suppresses HIV to the point the virus is not a threat to their health.

HIV found its way to the U.S. in the late 1970s or early 1980s. At the time I expect it would be just five or ten years, at most, before there was a cure or a vaccine. There have been pretty good treatments for,what, 10 years now? But those treatments could not claim anything close to perfection. After about 45 years this drug appears have a good chance of making that claim.

The Stupid Party

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Never ascribe to a conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by unplanned financial self-interest.

Porn is not a Jewish conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, okay?

It’s a market correction for the gap between the male demand for sexual release, and the female supply of desirable and willing partners. You know, a market correction? That thing that happens in the free market? You remember the free market, right?

It’s that thing conservatives praise occasionally, but immediately turn against every time it points out a gap between their ideals and the reality on the ground.

People are just making money selling porn to horny men. That’s all it is.

But what conservatives are never, never asking themselves is, why are there so many horny men around? Why is there such a demand for porn, when it’s transparently obvious that no man in the world prefers porn to an attractive and enthusiastic female partner (or two)?

No, they never ask themselves that question because it’s easier to scold men than to address issues which would require them to take on someone with actual political power.

Look, when a man hits puberty, he starts getting horny. He can hold off doing anything about that for a little while, because he’s young, easily indoctrinated, and he’s still figuring it all out anyway. But pretty soon, he’s going to be driven to do something about that, and not all the lectures about sin that you can muster are going to stop him.

So why are men turning to pornography?

Because sex with a preferable partner is unavailable to them. Duh.

Conservatives uttered not a peep when boomers fucked the economy so no one could afford to buy a home, or raise children, until their late twenties or early thirties. Conservatives uttered not a peep when women wanted to leave the home and compete in the workforce, delaying marriage to build their careers. Conservatives uttered not a peep when women wanted to stop cooking food, and remained silent when the stores filled with pre-packaged factory slop made from processed corn and soybeans, and packed with sugar, causing an obesity epidemic.

Conservatives actively opposed availability of contraceptives at every opportunity, and refused to compromise at all on abortion.

Conservatives sat idly by while feminists took over the culture and taught women to hold men in contempt.

And on and on it went, until now, we’re reduced to landscape where only the top 5% of women are as attractive as the average woman of 50 years ago, and only the top 5% of men are desired, admired, or respected by women at all, and things have gotten so bad that young men will pay for naked pictures of attractive women because that is the closest they can get to the real thing, and conservatives’ solution is… scold young men some more? Ban porn?

Great.

Fan-fucking-tastic.

Because attacking the supply side worked sooooo well with drugs, didn’t it?

Conservatives are so goddamn dumb that they spent decade after decade fighting a “war on drugs” that they could never win, while ignoring the leftists quietly gutting the economy and fucking up everyone’s quality of life.

Thereby ensuring an ever-increasing supply of people so frustrated and miserable that porn and fentanyl sounded like an improvement over their daily lives.

Conservatives, please have this tattooed on your foreheads, backwards, so you can read it every morning in the mirror:

Demand creates supply. Supply does not create demand.

If you want to get rid of something, you must reduce the demand for it. If you want to get rid of the demand for something unhealthy, you must supply sufficient quantities of a superior alternative which is healthy.

A healthy society must have a healthy and available outlet for all human appetites, or it will cease to be a healthy society.

I swear, if you guys had spent half the energy fighting income taxes, socialism, feminism, government entitlements, and the erosion of the American quality of life that you spent on porn, abortion, and men in dresses pretending to be women, then you would have a lot less to cry about right now.

But you didn’t wanna upset women or boomers, and you didn’t want to cut federal spending, and you certainly didn’t want to confront the crass material appetites of human nature instead of retreating and burying your nose in a bible instead.

So now you are the Stupid Party. Which still makes you superior to the Evil Party, for all the good that does us.

But every two years, I’m still left with the unexciting choice between Stupid Party and Delusional Party, and things aren’t getting any better.

You’re nice guys, you really are. Your hearts are in the right place. I just wish your brains were in the right place, too.

Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_
Posted on X May 23, 2024

News You Can Use

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

A new study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine looked at the effects of taking erectile dysfunction (ED) medications on the risk of serious cardiovascular (CV) conditions, like heart attack and stroke. The medications studied are PDE5 inhibitors: sildenafil (Viagra), tadalafil (Cialis), vardenafil (Levitra), and avanafil (Stendra), all approved for the treatment of ED.

…

The group of men taking PDE5 inhibitors had significantly fewer serious CV events (by 13%), fewer deaths from CV events (by 39%), and fewer all-cause deaths (by 25%) compared to men not taking one of the medications. Findings in those with CV risk factors, like smoking or high cholesterol, were similar.

…

There wasn’t an independent measure of sexual activity—it may be that the sexual activity itself contributed to the positive study results.

PETE STAHL, M.D.
April 24, 2024
New research suggests a beneficial link between erectile dysfunction medication and heart health (aol.com)

Just as I suspected, the increased health is really due to Dr. Joe’s Cure for Everything instead of the meds.

[I’m mostly kidding.]

My recommendation is to do both, just to make sure.

Interesting Analogy From Someone With Very Different View

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

thinking seems like two things – a powerful engine (good memory, fast computation, abstractions) and a steering wheel (avoiding cognitive biases, noticing when beliefs are incentivized). But it’s way easier to tell if you’ve got a weak engine than if you’re missing steering

Our brains are super bad at noticing steering problems. We just steer straight into whatever validates us, and the faster your car goes there, the smarter we think we are. This is how u get people like my dad, who’s IQ tested 140+, but thinks evolution is a lie.

It also seems like it’s pretty hard to improve your engine, but it’s a lot easier to improve steering, given deliberate practice. I’d rather have a weak engine in a car that’s pointed in the right direction, than a powerful one in a car that’s pointed in the wrong direction.

Aella @Aella_Girl
Post on X here, here, and here on April 22, 2024

Interesting analogy. It seems pretty solid to me. I like her stuff. She has a different way of looking at things. More different than even I look at things. She has some very twisted Twitter surveys. Example:

Quick, don’t think, just vibe- are snakes more good or bad? || In general, you’re more sympathetic to Israel or Palestine?

Snake good || israel
Snake good || palestine
Snake bad || israel
Snake bad || palestine

And she made a blog post with a flow charts, statistics, and pictures from her birthday gang-bang.

Confirming Evidence of My Hypothesis

Posted on by

I have interviewed a number of women on the topic of monogamy and/or the lack of it in their relationships. Numerous women told me things which indicate to me it was virtually impossible for them to be happy in a monogamous relationship.

Here are some sample quotes (paraphrased for conciseness):

  • After that threesome with two men I realized I could never be in a monogamous relationship again.
  • My husband is a great guy and a wonderful father. He is good looking and good shape. I just don’t want to have sex with him. I want to have sex with a half dozen different strange men at the same time.
  • After being married for two years I just couldn’t stand it anymore. I had to have something more so I divorced him. I married a second time and the same thing happened again. They were both good men and they did nothing wrong. It was me. I just feel comfortable at the sex club. It feels right to me.
  • My husband and I estimate I have has sex with about 600 different men since we have been married. I can’t imagine it any other way.
  • All people want to do this sort of thing (sex with multiple people). The ones that say they don’t are lying to themselves and/or others.
  • I was monogamous in my first marriage. We had lots of great sex but there were other things wrong in the marriage. After getting divorced I discovered there was a sex club nearby. In the first year after joining I had sex with 600 different men. Not 600 times in that year, 600 different men. Multiple times with many of them. Now I create my own parties for people in private homes and nothing gives me greater joy than seeing women discover their true sexual nature like I did.

Numerous other women tell me they simply don’t have an urge to have sexual relationships outside of their committed relationship. I believed them because they were in a safe place to be completely honest about their feelings.

There were others which described a middle ground of some sort. Yes, they had been unfaithful for a while but that was when their primary relationship was bad and in their current multi-year/decade relationship it wasn’t a problem.

I didn’t see any environmental factors which could explain the difference so I concluded there was likely a genetic factor.

Now there is evidence confirming my hypothesis:

The Surprisingly Strong Link Between Genetics and Infidelity | Psychology Today

  • Monozygotic twins are more similar to one another in the likelihood of being unfaithful than dizygotic twins.
  • It is estimated that between 40-60 percent of the variation in infidelity can be explained by genetic factors.
  • Research attempting to link infidelity to specific genes has been largely unsuccessful.

…

In Cherkas et al.’s research, concordance rates were significantly higher for MZ (46%) than DZ (32%) twins, suggesting that “MZ co-twins are approximately one-and-a-half times more likely to be unfaithful if their co-twin has been unfaithful as compared with DZ co-twins.” When adjusting for factors such as number of sexual partners and age, the authors estimated that 41% of the variation in infidelity in this sample was due to genetic factors, a “heritability estimate.” By contrast, the shared environment in which twins were raised did not contribute to twins’ concordance rates.

…

Zietsch et al. calculated heritability estimates of 63% for men and 40% for women, suggesting that for men as much as 63% of the variation in infidelity was due to genetic factors. While the estimate for women was very close to the earlier estimate calculated by Cherkas et al., the estimate for men was much stronger than the heritability estimate for women, potentially suggesting a stronger genetic basis for infidelity in men vs. women.

I find this fascinating. How can such complex behavior/urges be influenced by differences in brain chemistry or some such thing? How is this behavior controlled at the genetic level rather than via rational thought?

I am, again, left with the conclusion that rational thought is a very thin veneer over the mind of most people.

Dr. Joe’s Cure For Everything Improves Cognitive Function

Posted on by

Another study in support of Dr. Joe’s Cure for Everything (see also these posts):

Numerous studies have noticed that loneliness and social isolation are associated with cognitive decline in later life; however, these analyses do not often consider one of the most intimate types of social activity: sex.

What’s more, some experts think that a lack of social activity is a repercussion of cognitive decline and not a cause of it.

Nevertheless, the models that Shena and Liub ran in their study suggest that the link between sex and cognitive health does not go both ways.

In other words, they found better cognition was not predictive of sexual activity five years on.

…

Shena and Liub have put forward several explanations for their results.

First, sex often involves physical exercise, which means improved cognitive performance may be due to improved cardiovascular health, which, in turn, can increase blood flow to the brain and reduce inflammation.

Sex is also known to reduce stress, and stress is thought to prevent the neuronal growth in some parts of the brain associated with memory.

Lastly, sex may improve cognitive function through the release of dopamine, which is a neurotransmitter linked to improved memory.

There have been lots of studies showing correlation between sexual activity and various aspects of better health. This is the first one I have seen that supports sexual activity being a causation of better cognitive health.

This post was motivated by Archer who suggests Dr. Joe’s Cure For Everything could fix the entire country. The country could sure use some improved cognitive function.

Do your patriotic duty.

Posted in Sex

Dating a Scientist

Posted on by

I used to be a scientist at a government laboratory. I found this amusing.

Via Aella @Aella_Girl:

image

There is more than a little truth in that.

An Alternate Point of View

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

We have horrific double standards when talking about polyamory vs. monogamy. relationship issues in polyamory get blamed on the poly; relationship issues in monogamy dont even get processed as being caused by monog

Aella @Aella_Girl
Tweeted on August 29, 2023

This was sort of mind blowing to me. What a difference an alternate point of view makes!

The majority of people in this country probably see many problems with all the variations of consensual non-monogamy even if they do see the potential benefits. But can those same people see the exact opposite of that. That is, can they see many problems with monogamy even if they do see the potential benefits?

Now apply that logic to gun control and the advocates on the alternates sides of that debate.

Rationality is a just a very thin veneer over our emotional brains.

Would Just 14 People Been Acceptable?

Posted on by

TV network slammed for airing a 15-person orgy: ‘I can’t believe this is on’

I wasn’t aware of a social etiquette rule about the number of people at an orgy. So, is a 14-person orgy okay and 15 is not? Who makes these crazy rules anyway?

Don’t make impractical sex rules

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

A new study in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy sought to investigate the relationship between sexual values and sexual incongruence as well as the effects of religiousness on this relationship. The findings indicate that religiousness predicts sexual incongruence, but not more than conservative sexual values, which demonstrated the most substantial relationship.

…

The research demonstrates that specific sexual values are predictive of sexual incongruence, over and above the effects of religiousness. Conservative sexual values surrounding abstinence may be particularly difficult for individuals to uphold, leading to greater sexual incongruence.

These findings have important implications for sexual education and therapy, highlighting the need to consider individual values and beliefs in promoting sexual health and well-being.

Laura Staloch
February 21, 2023
New study finds the more conservative your sexual values, the more challenging it is to stick to them

On one hand this is a, “Well, duh!” moment. Adhering to strict rules is obviously going to be more difficult and less likely to happen than having lax or no rules. But there are some implication not mentioned in the article.

If the rules are so such that compliance is too difficult, then guilt, depression, and perhaps even self harm could result after failure or having extreme difficulty in abiding by the rules..

They are doing it wrong

Posted on by

Really?

The fear of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine looms over the current crisis, but some Ukrainians have found a… creative solution.

A large group of Ukrainians has decided to organize a mass orgy to take place on a hill outside of Kyiv in case Putin does launch a nuclear bomb.

More than 15,000 have already registered on Telegram for the sex party. The mass orgy will take place on a hill outside the city where the participants would be asked to decorate their hands with colored stripes, symbolizing their sexual interests. If you are considering participating – three stripes are for anal sex lovers and four stripes are for oral sex lovers.

That’s pretty messed up as far as I’m concerned. You should stay in your bunkers.

The orgy is after you know you have survived all the firestorms and fallout.

Quote of the day—Annalee Armstrong

Posted on by

HIV integrates its genetic material into the genome of a host cell, meaning available therapies just can’t remove it. A team of scientists at Temple University and the University of Nebraska Medical Center managed to remove the virus completely from mice during preclinical testing using a combination of CRISPR and antiretroviral therapy. They also found no adverse events that could be linked to the therapy in the study, published back in 2019.

…

The company is also working on similar treatments for other viruses, including herpes and hepatitis B.

Annalee Armstrong
September 27, 2021
Excision’s CRISPR gene editing therapy for HIV is heading into human testing after FDA clearance
[A few months ago a male friend (who I suspect is bi-sexual) pointed out that COVID-19 is not the first pandemic our generation has lived through. My thinking about this enabled a quick response to different friend just a few days later who was pontificating on how COVID-19, “Hit the sweet spot of infectiveness and lethality.” I disagreed, “It could be a lot more lethal.” “Not really”, he replied, “It would be hard to be more lethal and still infect a lot of people because it would kill people before they could infect as many people as it does.” I had a three letter acronym response, “HIV”.

He immediately conceded. A disease as infectious as chickenpox with the silent latency and deadliness of HIV would have the potential to exterminate humanity.

I fear that as long as we have global trade if we don’t develop the ability to respond to new diseases in timeframes of weeks, or perhaps days, some disease will, “Find the sweet spot” (or be engineered) to close the curtain on humans.

HIV was first recognized as a new disease in 1981. At the time I figured scientists would have it figured out and curable in “five or ten years”. Forty years later a promising cure is going into human trials.

Herpes too was a pretty big deal in the mid 1980s. Like HIV, herpes is now treatable but incurable. That may be changing in the next few years.

Think of all these diseases as practice for the future.—Joe]

Self-esteem correlated with number of sex partners

Posted on by

Interesting:

An analysis of data collected across 10 world regions suggests that men’s self-esteem is more strongly tied to their sexual success than women’s. The findings were published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.

…

The study authors accordingly proposed that having a greater number of past sexual partners should increase self-esteem. They further reasoned that this positive link between self-esteem and number of past sexual partners should be stronger among men since greater sexual acceptance is more adaptive for men. That is, men’s ability to pass on their genes relies strongly on having a high number of sexual partners, while women’s success in passing on their genes rests on having higher quality sexual partners who will invest in offspring.

The first thing that came to mind when reading this was, “Correlation doesn’t mean causation. Perhaps having a high self-esteem, as a consequence of such things as job success, physical attractiveness, etc. contributed to the higher number of sexual partners.”

The authors are concerned about that as well:

The authors note that past experimental studies have found that manipulating self-esteem seems to impact sexual desire differently among men and women, suggesting that self-esteem might be “both a cause and a consequence of short-term mating success in men.”

“Future work should seek to disentangle the many functions of self-esteem within men’s short-term mating psychology,” the researchers write, “including work to identify how self-esteem may serve specially-designed functions as both a consequence, and a cause, of short-term mating success.”

Many years ago I would hear things to the effect that women with high number of sexual partners by women was frequently a result of low self-esteem. At the time I knew two young women (in their mid 20s) who that seemed to apply to but it did not appear to be a consistent pattern. More recently with women in their 50s and 60s I have talked to about numbers of sex partners don’t seem to show any correlation one way or the other. But this did not involve any accurate self-esteem measurements.

More study is required before, if ever, the head shrinks start prescribing lots of sexual partners to increase self-esteem.