By Thorsten J. Pattberg for the Saker Blog
There must never be a truthful word about female promiscuity in our nation. We either keep lying and prevail, or we spill the truth… and must collapse.
Reports the American Sex Survey 2004, ABC News: “Overall, women in the US report an average of 6 sex partners in their lifetimes; men, 20.“
And this, from Durex UK: “Men worldwide have had more sexual partners than women, 12.4 compared to 7.2.”
Or this one, from Short News in Germany: “The French Ministry of Health found in a nationwide survey, that on average men had 11.6 sex partners, while women had 4.4.”
Tyrone Thundercock
The above headlines are real. They were collected in 2004. I suspect that researchers back then were morons. For sex, you need a male and a female. Homosexuals were excluded in all those polls by the way. So, men worldwide CANNOT have more sexual partners than women. It is impossible.
No Menticide Manual can be complete without a chapter on the deliberate manipulation of research data. And the choice of female promiscuity is just hilarious. The following bombshell will save a lot of our brothers‘ lives. Realize this: If lies are the weapons of journalists, statistics are the weapons of researchers.
[Warning: There will be ugly crying! She doesn’t know why she should be crying. 3 2 1… But she’s gonna cry!]
In all civilizations, in all societies man ever built, in all our great story-telling, the entrance of a strong female heralds wipeout, destruction and downfall. Draupadi brought down the Pandava brothers. Kriemhild caused the death of three kings. Eva kicked us out of Eden. Helen was carried off to Troy, and that was the end of Troy.
Wrote esteemed poet Rudyard Kipling:
“But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other’s tale; The female of the species is more deadly than the male.”
Females are the reasons men strive. If we can’t impress them, we die. We worship them, we fight to death for them. But one thing we must not allow them, at one point we must draw a red line: do not corrupt our science.
In any country and among most groups – if an equal number of males and females were asked about the number of their sex-partners, researchers will religiously report an average imbalance of 3:1 in favor of the males. All researchers do that. Those who do not,… have disappeared.
Sure, the ratio varies. Sometimes the ratio is given 4:1 or just 2:1. But it is always the same pussy slayer motto: men on average have more sexual partners than women have. Let that sink in.
Some members of the public understandably have difficulties with the maths. That ratio just doesn’t add up. Feminists intuitively agree with the scientist researchers that men are pigs and that we are born hunters, predators really, and thus must have far more sexual partners than women who sit at home and fix the water irrigation system or whatever.
But then of course, maths is compulsory at school. Basic analogy and equations. So even the most dimwitted members of the public try to do the maths again, and despair. Here is what they equate in their heads: For every sexual encounter, exactly one male and one female is required, so the ratio must be 1:1. It cannot be 4:1. Cahpeesh? – Do you understand?
Becky-look-at-her-butt
Scientific researchers, all Ivy League grads with colossal heads, cannot be wrong, obviously, and neither can the scientific journals and media that report the science. They would never lie to us.
That said, we still have a lot of ground people practicing cultural anthropology with no conflict of interest, who suspect foul play with the numbers.
Says Becky-look-at-her-butt: “Men are lying pigs and they inflate their numbers, dooh!”
Barks Tyrone Thundercock: “Those bitches divide by three!”
Next, we have some halfwits with strange PhD degrees in evolutionary psychology who immediately talk about long-term versus short-term mating strategies and the patriarchy.
Says one Dr. med. Dydiddling: “I concur that a ratio of 3:1 in favor of males reflects the entitlement and sexism in men, while the inverse ratio 1:3 in favor of females proves female oppression and victimhood. And… I don’t understand that the ratio must be 1:1… Most women are virgins. And some women need no sex to have kids at all, like Maria of Bethlehem…”
Suddenly, our male activist has an epiphany. Says Tyrone Thundercock: “I know, those bitches lie… U know… Sheila‘s a cobbler machine and Becky’s everyone‘s public doorknob!”
This could actually be a lead. What if the science researchers asked fifty women, and they also asked pretty hot and tempting Selma and Louise, and those two cream gobblers plowed through 327 bojangles between them?
Those two public buses would distort all orthodox data and violate all public assumptions about sex partners.
Laughs Becky-look-at-her-butt: “So, pretty hot and tempting Selma and Louise were excluded from the science, I knew it!”
I see Dr. med. Dydiddling is waving his hands, he has something to say. “Wait, they can’t do that! That is basic equation: If you subtract 327 from the right-hand side of an equation, you must also subtract that from the left-hand side!”
Becky-look-at-her-butt: “Haha, those biggidy boys and Casper-the-friendly-ghosts only had higher numbers because of Selma and Louise! That cracked me! So funny!”
Maybe we should peddle back and talk about 2004 science. Most sophomore students are shocked when they start their psychology major at the University of Virgin Mothers and discover that psychology 1.0 means statistics, statistics and statistics. All those fun Freudian, Jungian and rate-my-narcissism seminars are post-bachelor modules, non-important. Statistics is key, the manipulation of numbers.
All statistics are man-made. The scientists collect data and manipulate that data to demonstrate exactly what their pay-masters want them to. It is evident, from the crazy 4:1 or 3:1 imbalance in sexual partners between males and females, that the statistics were fantasy, throughout the centuries in fact, so in favor of females – our daughters had to be coy and angelic. Meanwhile, males – our sons – had to be indirectly praised as landsharks and chicken-slayers.
Tyrone Thundercock, Becky-look-at-her-butt and Dr. med. Dydiddling had the right intuition, but were easily tricked anyway. That’s because the scientists who fabricated the statistics did not delete pretty hot and tempting Selma and Louise per se, who clearly distorted the average, and thus would have misrepresented the population as a whole. Instead, the scientists, the psychologists I mean, did not give us “the mean” but the “median” of their data.
In statistics, we can easily manipulate any set of data by changing the way we determine the average. The ‘average’ is not what most people think it is. In fact, there are ‘many averages’, the most common are: the mean, the median, the mode, the ratio and the range.
If we take all the sexual partners of males and females in the world, excluding homosexual encounters, and then divide them by the number of people, we get an exact ratio of 1:1, because every sexual partner of the male, is also the sexual partner of a female.
Dr. med. Dydiddling
But this is shocking. Certainly not your daughters, right? A few very promiscuous females become pretty hot and tempting Selmas and Louises, between 10-20 % of all females. And those females are very, very sexually active. And we mean not just obvious sex-workers but a lot of jezebels and single-moms and validation seekers are responsible for a significant rise of sexual partners across the nation and for the vast majority, if not all men.
“This is abhorrent!” snaps Dr. med. Dydiddling: “You can’t publish that! The statistics must speak politically correct: Men are more promiscuous,… certainly more than women!”
And so tens of thousands of science news, all misleading, are published every year – in propaganda, repetition is key – to celebrate the “harvesting of dick” and still uphold the absurd idea that men on average have more sexual partners than women. They cannot!
And oh boy, is this a prizing-the-bull contest. For example, the rulers of France want their males to perform better than English males. The English report on average a 9:3 male-female ratio, so the French scientists will magically produce a 12:4 ratio in France. And when large condom producers such as above Durex UK started to report “international consumer data in 2004,” a lot of Health Ministries discretely ordered more condoms than they needed – just to look better on the ‘Global Condom Market Index’.
Do not even try to find those 2004 statistics on the Internet in 2021. All is censored now. Shadow-banned. The old propaganda of Man bad, Woman victim is still alive, but is drowned in information about “the Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People.” Prostitution is now legalized in most of Europe, and sleeping around is encouraged, even for normalos. Yet, despite rising promiscuity, no nation to our knowledge has yet confessed that a powerful group of promiscuous females is responsible for the greater good of a lot of males.
And no matter what they tell you about the numbers of sex partners. The ratio is 1:1, and it will always be 1:1.
Hopeless. They lie to us every single day, don‘t they? The Media. Scientists. There is just no honesty, nowhere. Even simple observations about male and female sexuality and their numbers of sex partners… they must screw with the numbers: “Oh, but men have 3 times more sex partners, didn’t you know!” Yes, and more people fit into a public bus than a Ford V8-SUV Excursion. They just cannot be honest about female promiscuity. Because the truth is, females can have as many sex partners as they want, and many want exactly just that. And those endless male braggarts with high numbers… they probably parked in the same parking lot.
The author is a German writer and cultural critic.
“Smurfette was the only female in The Smurfs, and the Smurfs on average had 4 times the number of sex partners than… never mind.“ –Kumbaya
- The Menticide Manual – Foreword + Start Early
- The Menticide Manual – Quibbling
- The Menticide Manual – Gaslighting
- The Menticide Manual – Ghosting
- The Menticide Manual – Framing
- The Menticide Manual – Inverse Reality
- The Menticide Manual – Stupidiocracy
- The Menticide Manual – Perseveration
- The Menticide Manual – ‘The Second Subjunctive’
- The Menticide Manual – Wokeness [or: Euphoria]
- The Menticide Manual – Red-Pilled
- The Menticide Manual – Astroturfing
- The Menticide Manual – Deceit
- The Menticide Manual – Blackpill
[…] and – hopefully not many – more horrifying tales of madness and mindkill.
Hm, one can put this problem into graph-theoretical terms: bipartite graph with males on one side and females on the other.
There could still be some hesitancy to accept ratio 1:1, due to (yet) undetermined time interval. But for every time interval (24 houres, 1 month, 1 year) ratio must be 1:1, so lifetime ratio must be 1:1.
QED
This is silly. There must be a dozen similar surveys I am aware of and in every one the Researchers have commented on the Arithmetic and speculated why the male and female answers are so different.
The author should read one.
Every researcher knows full well that they are not told the full story when it comes to simple questions on economics, let alone personal sex records.
There’s enough depressed men out there riding a blue pill, heaven help us if women start telling the truth …..and they tend not to kiss and tell in mixed company.
Cheers M
Mr. Pattberg,
Mathematically speaking, yes it is possible for men to have sex female partners more than women have men sex partners. So, the ratio could be anything provided it does not exceed the number of women or men on the planet.
Now, the total of actively sexual males frequency must equal that of females. The ratio must be 1:1.
Let me give you an example. Let take a sample of 20 men and 21 women. We know men hardly ever say no to free sex. Women on the hand are choosy and they decide with whom they have sex. If all 21 women find only 10 men attractive enough to have sex with, and decided to have sex with the 10 attractive men, of course separately. Now each one of the ten men had 21 different women, and each one the women had only 10 different men.
The total sex events for women must equal that of the men.
The lying and exaggeration have no effect on the mathematical computation. Maybe the result is not an actual one because of lying or political.
Your example is correct, but then the average man would have had only 21 / 20 = 1.05 woman! (because for averaging, we need to include all those ten men who did not get any partner, too!)
I tried a simple line diagram with 10 men and 10 women, giving each man 2, 3 or 4 partners, but at random; thus some women got more partners, some, no partners, some, one partner; the averages for women still came around more or less the same as men. (since we are talking about the average, all men got the average number of partners, to make it less cumbersome).
Therefore the data that men could have three or four times more women partners on the average is wrong.
The author says the ratio should be 1:1. My example is to invalidate that. Any ratio is possible. There are a lot of factors and elements must be included to arrive at a good average. If you take a sample of 1000 men and 1000 women, and ask them the number of partners of the opposite sex you will get different possibilities. 1. Some of men had sex with some of the women in the sample and with some women out of the sample. Then we can not get 1 to 1 ratio.
Another point scientists don’t lie unless politicians with money are involved.
Cheers
Our world never has been so matriarchal and, at the same time, never has been so much decried as patriarchal. (…)
The author writes very poetically, the writing style fills me with Sturm und Drang feelings, a sense of both being alive and worried. Reminds me of Hermann Hesse who is a writer I have particularly read a lot. But as important as showing and digressing on a issue can be, the more important question is exploring what we can do about these predicaments. How do we change the present Zeitgeist? What is the meaning of our society being too matriarchal?
What? Men and women have radically different levels of promiscuity–indeed, even of sexual need within a monogamous relationship. That’s why there are bimbos, gold diggers and prostitutes–and hand jobs and mercy fucks. If there are 10 women and 9 have sex with 2 guys and 1 has sex with 20, the average is 3.8. If there are 10 guys and each has sex with 4 women, the average is basically the same. Averages don’t indicate similar levels of common activity. If I’m in a room with Bill Gates, the average income in the room might be a billion $ a year. Wow, I’m rich! Averages are BS. The extremes have to be tossed to get anything meaningful. Or you use Median or Mode instead of Mean.
The problem with this seemingly scientific article is that partners do not die after copulating. It makes perfect sense that men mate with more women than women mate with men, because more men keep on going through more and more women, while many women limit themselves to one or two men in a lifetime. There are not enough ‘promiscuous’ women to skew the math away from those who are not.
Never had a threesome, Thorstein?
Actually, I have no idea what this farrago is about. Yes, when a man and woman have sex, it’s one to one. But I, and all the men I know, have had more such partners than all of the women I know, who tend to be more abstemious. Or perhaps a better word is choosy. Men will try it on with anything; women, not so much. What’s so difficult about that obviously realworld idea?
The author states, “In all civilizations, in all societies man ever built, in all our great story-telling, the entrance of a strong female heralds wipeout, destruction and downfall. “Draupadi brought down the Pandava brothers”. Kriemhild caused the death of three kings. Eva kicked us out of Eden. Helen was carried off to Troy, and that was the end of Troy.””
Though, Helen in the Odyssey, may have caused the end of Troy, Draupadi didn’t bring down the Pandavas in The Mahabharata, as the Pandavas were already in exile when they first came across her. The Pandavas were ultimately victorious in the fratricidal war. Perhaps the author is confusing the Kauravas with the Pandavas, even so, the epic of The Mahabharata is much more complicated.
I came to enjoy the series a lot. Those headlines on superior male promiscuity are the white lies that keep the world going. Averages are a lot of BS. The ‘average’ household income in he United States is $ 67k, which sounds pretty decent. Until you realize that half of our people live in precarious situations, are buried in debt and live in relative poverty, while 10% of households old 90% of all our nation’s wealth. Something like that biased BS is going on with reports about general male promiscuity.
Another shell shocker from talented Mr. Pattberg. Sleeping around and being unfaithful are exciting activities for attractive young folks… until we grow up and out of it, and wisdom sets in and gives us clarity about the mating game. Matured men love to talk about pastime women all the time, brag about our lost virality and foreign misadventures, and even in old age we still throw our eyeballs at every skirt. Women rarely talk about whoring and love affairs though. And the foolish men who brag about their free tickets deep inside of their broken hearts know that Gloria really slept with half of the boy scouts too, and probably made all of them feel very good about themselves, so it was no big deal for her at the time. But each of the guys thought her experienced and special and they will idolize her and forever. Such are both the blessing and the curse with beautiful women.
I was laughing so hard. Averages make no sense most of the time. The ‘average’ births per woman in France is 1.53. Have you ever seen half a baby? In most studies, the extremes are on a gaussian distribution, not a linear one. So on IQ of 170 does not look far from 100, until you figure that it is actually in the 0.0002 percentile rarity.
As to the sex partners of a female date, I advise gentlemen never to ask. For you, she is a virgin princess and her dexterity and flexibility in bed stems from self-help videos. That’s it. That’s the secret to future marriage and your sanity.
With all due respect, we cannot measure the planet by Germany and some Nordic countries. According to biology, in most of the planet, because of the higher amount of testosterone, men have more libido than women and have more sex and more partners than women. A minority of women have a lot of sex with many men, making men more sexually active, using for this a minority of women, such as prostitutes. Prostitution is mostly a female phenomenon. There are far fewer men working in prostitution. On the planet, older men have sex with younger women. The math is perfect. And the following exception helps the math, because some abnormal women like prostitutes allow men to be more promiscuous by going to bed with the same women. A minority of women like prostitutes have sex with an extraordinary number of men. Biological science clearly shows that men are different from women. The West has distorted the science of biology, and so the West is turning into chaos. Even if the difference is small, the devil is in the details.
What about swinger clubs? They are common in Northern Europe like Belgium and Germany and the Netherlands. The imbalances in there alone should skew all sensible data in their cities. But all in all, the ratio on earth is 1:1 of course. The idea of a ‘general population’ is a statistical artifact. There are 90 percent of men who live monogamous and have relatively low numbers of partners, but there are also 10 percent of men who have access to most women. Therefore, the ‘general population’ as such does not really exist, and the ‘average man’ is the rarest of sights.
90% of men are not monogamous. I would say 60%. Remember, because of testosterone, men have more sex drive than women. Industrial work in first world countries anesthetizes man. But in most parts of the planet man is like the dog that chases the bitch, and not the other way around. I know, in hollywood now women are “GIRL POWER” who behave like men. But don’t be fooled, that’s a lie, it’s just in the propaganda cinema. Don’t believe anything Americans teach. The goal of the Zionists is to stun men, and create an androgynous being like rocker David Bowie.
Scary stuff. During my college years in London, we had a mysterious female student who never had time and came to lecturers but then quickly left, which was a pity, because we really wanted to ask her out or befriend her, because she was definitely a stunner – a solid 9 or even 10.
So, two years into the program, my new flatmates were from Spain and we went partying and ended up at this high-end strip joint in Mayfair, and would you know it, there she was on the stage, naked as God had created her, barely past her legal age and dancing on the pole.
Having known her for over 2 years in lecture halls from seeing, I got unbearably aroused by this. I really can never forget this sight. I did not talk to her. I saw her going about with a good looking older client to the private boot section.
Never visited a Adult Entertainment Club ever again. Not my thing. I saw her many times at university after that night, and at graduation, and you just could not tell from her daytime persona that she was a high-end hooker at night – for years. She financed her degree with her good looks and her wealthy benefactors. Us same-aged, bohemian classmates were practically invisible to her.
She is now a medical doctor in her 40s, and married with kids. I am traumatized by this past clairvoyance. I look at beautiful women as property of the rich world. I also see females in the sex industry as essential workers.
I am happily married, I think, to a good woman. No kids. I just do not trust women, period. You never know what they did in their prime days. That and the constant stares and supply of male attention. If we as a society are not careful, all beautiful women will end up in the sex industry at some point in their lives.
Wisdom comes with older age. When you are still young, you feel self-important and exciting about your experimental exes and naughty side-flicks in a materialist world of boundless excesses, drugs and debauchery. It appears as if plenty of sexual partners has happened only to you.
But once the smoke screen of life is cleared and the hormones are more balanced, you talk to your peers and hear the same stories of them.
And then you will be looking at each others wives and be asking yourselves the same question, that the ladies too must have had their pretty dirty and care-free sex histories.
Probably more so than the husbands, if the wives were beautiful and have been studying abroad when young.
The bottom line is that no man will say no to free sex, so never even try to compete with a female in the numbers game.
We know this from break-ups and rebounds. When a break-up occurs, the man loses his status for a while and becomes less attractive and confident. His desperation for will make things worse for him. The woman on the other hand is immediately swarmed by her male friends, beta males and countless orbiters. Remember, there are almost zero homeless women.
A revengeful ex is the worst. If she wants revenge sex, she will have it, and a lot of it. I didn’t keep track on how many of those I had comforted in my life. Just use Bumble app and you will find hundreds of women who are on the app for revenge sex.
To all men, if you want a happy life, never ask a female for the number of sex partners. Just take your own number, divide it by three and substract two. That is her number.
There is just too much discrepancy between the haves and the non-haves, the attractive and the ugly. Averaging them makes no sense.
And then there is demographics, even within regions. Sailors and whore houses go together. And so do Soldiers and hostess bars. Take the US military bases all over Japan, especially in Okinawa. Where there are military bases, there are whore houses.
And even when off duty and travelling to Tokyo, in the foreigner district of Roppongi there are thousands of hostess bars who hire Filipinos, Thais, Chinese and even Russian escorts…all for Americans… and still facing staff-shortages, because the US military men are insatiable. Which has seen salary opportunities for attractive ladies in Tokyo going through the roof.
And just don’t get me started on the large US military presence in the Philippines (and the sex industry in Manila), Brazil and the Dominican Republic. These are basically global sex tourism hubs. And don’t think for a minute this is Third World Pricing. It is a global industry, sanctioned by world governments. Red Light districts tend to form right besides diplomatic quarters.
The same is true for the super expensive red light districts in Amsterdam in Holland or Hamburg in Germany, or even entire hooker cities like Hong Kong or Bangkok, all of them have over 200,000 sex workers each. And this is still not meeting demand. Mostly in the Far East, add to this another 200,000 casual escorts, cohabitation (for benefits) and (from a Western view almost incomprehensible) traditional mistress culture.
That is why Western visitors to the Far East are losing their minds. They end up with seemingly easy girls and have this Asian fetish syndrome, when in reality this is all business and survival strategy, and the girl usually is also nice to three, four other Americans, two Russians, two Europeans and has a local sweet-heart. It takes many years to understand male and female sexual behavior patterns in a new (foreign) region.
Yet, as a general rule. If you feel you had free or too easy access to a vagina, be assured that you are not the only one working in there. Be cautious.
And finally we still have regions in the world who are very traditional and less promiscuous, the country sides or the very religious communities. How can they compare to port cities, war zones or Western cities? There should not be a national or global average.
We just can’t average countries or the world. There is no sensible average anywhere.
I think the main take-away from this study is that our Western researchers discovered that a small fraction of promiscuous females is responsible for higher numbers of sexual partners of males in general. But this is taboo in pink-pussy-hat land.
You can‘t even say that in an opinion article for fear of being canceled, lol.
For that reason, the Western researchers for decades use a dirty trick from statistics book and give an arbitrary #average that (falsely) accuses men of being three times as promiscuous as women, which is such a perversion of reality but still kind of funny. :-D
I like authors style, but this article is a bit of a letdown. Unless you take it just as a gimmick, a little bit of fun regarding juicy theme.
As some commented, article does not prove what it seemingly wanted to (that women and men are equally promiscous). Obviously, questionnaries are not reliable. Men exaggerate number of partners, and women supress the real number. But still, there is a difference. There is a lot of unmet demand for sex in the world. It is mostly male.
As many others commented, it does not make sense to count separate “sex encounters”. (1:1).
If you count different individual partners that man or woman had in life (does not matter how many times) both key numbers for average (mean and median) will certainly show higher value for men (although discrepancy will be lesser then in official studies). Author himself seems to say that there is large body of men who gain this higher (as compared to most women) average with going through essentialy limited number of extremely promiscious women, so they all have sex with say, same neighborhood slut (hey, no judgment :-)) or even whore (who herself has many more partners then most women and even most men).
So, OK, let us not be naive about female fidelity and so on. Still, using statistics (be it mean or median) has a purpose. Purpose is to shed light on sexual behavior of “representative” male/female of the species. And I think those studies Pattberg attacks do show roughly correct picture, although precise values are a bit off.
Noe
That “2004 Science” is reminiscent of ancient 20th Century Science. Thankfully, most of it has now been debunked.
Much of the last 50 years was about empowering women to the workforce. So they invented this crazy idea that women were oppressed in every aspect of their lives. Poor women were always cheated on by their men! But for every cheating man, there had to be a promiscuous woman.
They only told the first half of the story, and so the 3 to 1 ratio propaganda was born.
Most men get maybe 5 to 7 sex partners in their lives, and most women maybe only 2 to 3 sex partners. But they forget to tell you that a few women are the reason for this imbalance. And we all know the purple squirrels, don’t we.
Today we know promiscuity is a human issue, not a gender issue. Action Dan can cheat on his girlfriend with 20 women, but that is 20 cheating women. According to 2020 Healthline, a governmental agency, “when it comes to what’s average – ‘normal’ doesn’t actually exist.”
Exactly!
We also speak of “a person’s number of sexual partners” and not of gender-biased averages. Male or female doesn’t matter. A single extreme record can distort any general set of data.
There was so much psychological misinformation out there that was never questioned, because there was no public internet square.
Back in the 80s and 90s, they told us:
– the ozone layer was disappearing and we’re all gonna die of skin cancer;
– AIDS was gonna kill everyone who doesn’t use a condom;
– homosexuality was curable;
– men had more sexual partners than women (which is mathematically impossible!).
Many more statistics were fabricated, for example the GDP country rankings, the fiat money system (what’s a dollar?), or the myth that race and gender don’t matter. Pre-internet was barbaric.
I even doubt that having gender-neutral classrooms is practicable. The boys perform much better when separated from the girls, girls ditto.
Funny article though! Congrats!
The genetic and biological force imposes itself on morality, and is decisive in the issue of promiscuity. On the planet we have general patterns of humanity. That’s what characterizes the thing itself. We are on the planet in a war of civilization, of values, in which one side of the war wants to distort the truth, or unfortunately wants to create chaos on the planet. A lie told 100 times has become the truth. Feminist Hillary Clinton Thinks Like You. They say women are just like men. But the truth is that a woman’s brain functioning is different from that of a man. It’s science. Learn from the best scientists on the planet today, the Asians. Nature is made of patterns. The devil lives in the small differences, he lives in the details.
Zionist science limits the difference between men and women to physical strength alone. It’s a lie. Have you ever heard about a hormone called testosterone? Go to the gym, and put some testosterone in your vein, and you’ll see how sexually aroused you get. Did you know that men have more testosterone in their blood than women? Do not trust the scientific studies now being carried out in merkel germany. This is why knowledge in the west is decaying, and western industry is losing out to the east. Western science has been infected with gender ideology, feminism, etc. Sex differences result from the inherent imbalance in the genes encoded by the sex chromosomes (X,Y). On the short arm of the Y chromosome is located the SRY gene, which determines the formation of the male gonad. This gene is specifically expressed in neurons that express the enzyme tyrosine hydroxylase in the substantia nigra cerebri.
In an experimental study with male rats, suppression of SRY results in motor deficit, although the number of neurons remains the same, suggesting the involvement of this gene in important biochemical properties of dopaminergic neurons of the nigroestrial system in males. Female and male brain cells show differences in the expression patterns of other genes that are specific to the developing brain, which determine gender-specific functions and abilities.
From an anatomical point of view, the differences between male and female brains are related to the dimensions of specific regions. During conceptus development, the anteroventral sexual and periventricular dimorphism nuclei of the preoptic area initially
contain the same number of neurons. However, with the increase in estradiol-mediated cell apoptosis in women, the nucleus of sexual dimorphism becomes smaller. On the contrary, in males, estradiol has an anti-apoptotic effect in this same nucleus, which makes it three to five times greater in males. The same happens in rats; however, these differences are reduced when these rats are treated with testosterone. The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH-3), considered the homologous nucleus of the sexual dimorphism of the preoptic area, is larger in men than in women. The volume of the central subdivision of the terminal stria bed core — an area
essential for sexual behavior—it is greater in men than in women.
.
.
“In all civilizations, in all societies man ever built, in all our great story-telling, the entrance of a strong female heralds wipeout, destruction and downfall”
An interesting sentence in a funny article ! It could perhaps be elaborated upon; the females mentioned a fraction of the great historical and currently active females pulling the strings in one way or another.
A biased statement too, as famous women through the ages have also changed the course of life for the good, but today, where are they….
Strength therefore in women, is also a question of ethical, spiritual direction and application.
Female governing power viewed from the sexual angle is an attention diverting ploy of the author? It is such a fascinating theme, could be, who knows, numbers are safer.
Certainly it has been used as such to great advantage in the case of famous, and not so famous women of history – but if determined females use sexual power in affectatious, alluring forms to manipulate, then to what end ? Today anyway, it is easily employed successfully, for reasons implicit in the article perhaps.
Thanks for the laugh Mr Pattberg, I must away now to the lawn irrigation…
Men overreport and women underreport. Hope they didn’t spend much money to figure this out.
There is a possible explanation. Women tend to downplay the number of partners and men tend to do the opposite. I don’t know if that’s enough to correct that imbalance, but surely it has to be taken into account.
My hunch is that, yes, women do under-report. My conjecture is that one of the reasons they do so is because, unlike men who seem to have, and to be comfortable with, a fairly constant level of interest in sex over their lifetimes, women seem to go through periods of intense interest in sex (late teens and early twenties and forties maybe) interspersed with longer periods when they are less interested or not interested at all. So I suspect that the under-reporting is a way of down-playing the perhaps slightly embarrassing ‘hot’ periods.
Draupadi also slept with all Pandavas (five in total) while Pandavas slept only with Draupadi. She has more men in her life than five men combined. Just wanted to point that out.