Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill An Old Thread Revisited (Women's body count doubles on fake lie-detectors)

GeckoBus

GeckoBus

commanded to be joyful
Joined
Apr 19, 2023
Posts
4,072
The thread:

The Study it refers to:

The Articles linked in the thread:

a) Article about the original 2003 study


b) Article about the 2013 rerun of the study

Key Points to take away from the paper

  • Women's body count doubled when they thought they could not get away with lying (fake lie detector test)
  • Women reported significantly earlier age of first sexual experiences than men
  • Women reported more sexual partners than men in the fake lie detector test, quote:
In the bogus pipeline condition,which encouraged
honesty rather than social desirability,women actually
reported more sexual partners than did men.This pattern
should be interpreted cautiously because the overall inter-
action between participants sex and testing condition was
not significant.Nonetheless the trend is intriguing and
may help explain why hetero sexual males report a greater
number of sexual partners than do hetero sexual females
(Wiederman,1997)

This is important because obviously when ever a guys has sex with a woman, the gender ratio is 50/50.
So we would expect equal amounts of partners between men and women. The researchers struggled with this question, since men report more partners and women less.
Women reporting more partners just flips the problem.
Of course we know the answer now.

Also, notice in the quote how they make excuses for the women, since the finding contradicts the image of the pure female:
"This pattern should be interpreted cautiously because the overall interaction between participants sex and testing condition was not significant."

This goes hand in hand with something @WorthlessSlavicShit has pointed out to me in this thread:


In this thread I linked research that showed that people in academia have a tendency to excuse findings that reflect negatively on women.
When a finding shines a bad light on women, they suddenly become all critical and say oh we have to be more careful and oh, we have to check the methodology etc.
Its a joke.
The quote I posted above is a great example of this. "Women fuck more than men? Impossiboru!"

I've also shown another example in my psychopathy thread, where they did live brainstate monitoring on women and found that their pleasure centers light up from causing their partners pain. That's what we objectively observe. But then the researchers twist this into "this means women value commitment from men."
No comment.


Lead researcher Shiri Cohen of Harvard Medical School explained why women's brains showed a positive reaction to seeing their husband or partner upset. She said: 'It could be that for women, seeing that their male partner is upset reflects some degree of the man's investment and emotional engagement in the relationship, even during difficult times.”

Finally, in the 2013 re-run of the original 2003 lie-detector study, it was found that:

“Women are reporting significantly more partners than the men.”
"Fisher said the findings should raise flags with researchers who use surveys to study sexuality "
"The average age of the study participants was 18, and the overwhelming majority of them were white."
"It was unclear why, 10 years later, women were now reporting that they had a greater number of partners than men"

No further comment is necessary.

@proudweeb
Should @Gymcelled 's original thread be in must read? You decide.
 
Yeah surveys by themselves mean nothing. Some people live through their lies. A virgin 40 yo man might even answer to a completely anonymous study that he's a stud and has had many partners. Just like a slut who lies about her partner count. Even when there's no repercussions of any kind, a person could still lie.

Women are portrayed as angelic beings. Meanwhile they're entitled solipsistic crazy carpets who expect men to fund their lives
 
Yeah surveys by themselves mean nothing. Some people live through their lies. A virgin 40 yo man might even answer to a completely anonymous study that he's a stud and has had many partners. Just like a slut who lies about her partner count. Even when there's no repercussions of any kind, a person could still lie.

Women are portrayed as angelic beings. Meanwhile they're entitled solipsistic crazy carpets who expect men to fund their lives
They did include methods into the study filter out faking and get more accurate results but yes, ultimately it is impossible to determine.
This is why one thing I am super interested in are STD studies.
You can't lie with STDs, you either have it or not.
STD clinics also collect massive amount of data on who fucks who, since they have to monitor the scope and spread of disease.

So I would love for some high IQcel like @WorthlessSlavicShit to find me some data on that, because I literally cant.
I have seen some data from here that showed a diagram from a Highschool where they mapped out the partners.
But thats about it.
 
So I would love for some high IQcel like @WorthlessSlavicShit to find me some data on that, because I literally cant.
I have seen some data from here that showed a diagram from a Highschool where they mapped out the partners.
But thats about it.
Don't have anything about that on hand at the moment, but I'll definitely keep that in mind as a topic to search for.
 
So women admitted they were whores when they thought they could not lie about it?
 
They did include methods into the study filter out faking and get more accurate results but yes, ultimately it is impossible to determine.
This is why one thing I am super interested in are STD studies.
You can't lie with STDs, you either have it or not.
STD clinics also collect massive amount of data on who fucks who, since they have to monitor the scope and spread of disease.

So I would love for some high IQcel like @WorthlessSlavicShit to find me some data on that, because I literally cant.
I have seen some data from here that showed a diagram from a Highschool where they mapped out the partners.
But thats about it.
Recently there was a story about syphillis outbreak in black community of Houston, Texas. Surprisingly the data suggested that even ebony foids practice hypergamy with men from their own race. Majority of blacks admitted to hospital for STD in Houston were foids, but only a minority were black men. The stats points to a case where the same small collective of niggas ran thru a large proportion of black bitches in Houston JFL


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwRcWI7nSxQ
 
Last edited:
Recently there was a story about syphillis outbreak in black community of Houston, Texas. Surprisingly the data suggested that even ebony foids practice hypergamy with men from their own race. Majority of blacks admitted to hospital for STD in Houston were foids, but only a minority were black men. In other words, the same small circle of niggas were running thru a large proportion of black bitches in Houston JFL


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwRcWI7nSxQ

:feelsaww: :feelsaww: :feelsaww:
THANK YOU
THATS WHAT IM LOOKING FOR :panties:
my ultimate goal is to figure out womens actual lay count you know?
I know its probably impossible to determine but I really want to find out how many partners the average woman has by 30.
 
The thread:

The Study it refers to:

The Articles linked in the thread:

a) Article about the original 2003 study


b) Article about the 2013 rerun of the study

Key Points to take away from the paper

  • Women's body count doubled when they thought they could not get away with lying (fake lie detector test)
  • Women reported significantly earlier age of first sexual experiences than men
  • Women reported more sexual partners than men in the fake lie detector test, quote:


This is important because obviously when ever a guys has sex with a woman, the gender ratio is 50/50.
So we would expect equal amounts of partners between men and women. The researchers struggled with this question, since men report more partners and women less.
Women reporting more partners just flips the problem.
Of course we know the answer now.

Also, notice in the quote how they make excuses for the women, since the finding contradicts the image of the pure female:
"This pattern should be interpreted cautiously because the overall interaction between participants sex and testing condition was not significant."

This goes hand in hand with something @WorthlessSlavicShit has pointed out to me in this thread:


In this thread I linked research that showed that people in academia have a tendency to excuse findings that reflect negatively on women.
When a finding shines a bad light on women, they suddenly become all critical and say oh we have to be more careful and oh, we have to check the methodology etc.
Its a joke.
The quote I posted above is a great example of this. "Women fuck more than men? Impossiboru!"

I've also shown another example in my psychopathy thread, where they did live brainstate monitoring on women and found that their pleasure centers light up from causing their partners pain. That's what we objectively observe. But then the researchers twist this into "this means women value commitment from men."
No comment.




Finally, in the 2013 re-run of the original 2003 lie-detector study, it was found that:

“Women are reporting significantly more partners than the men.”
"Fisher said the findings should raise flags with researchers who use surveys to study sexuality "
"The average age of the study participants was 18, and the overwhelming majority of them were white."
"It was unclear why, 10 years later, women were now reporting that they had a greater number of partners than men"

No further comment is necessary.

@proudweeb
Should @Gymcelled 's original thread be in must read? You decide.
As obvious as this kind of outcome is to us, water is wet and all that, it’s still important these kinds of things are documented since only real hard data and proof can beat the denial/delusion most people have. Good idea for a test actually lol. Issue with lie detector stuff though is a lot of people think they’re fake going in so if that’s the case wouldn’t be too effective anymore.
 
As obvious as this kind of outcome is to us, water is wet and all that, it’s still important these kinds of things are documented since only real hard data and proof can beat the denial/delusion most people have.
Actually, that’s not even gonna work. They’re just gonna call it all biased. Their whole shtick is anecdotal and almost always between the lines of “but I know a guy” or “touch grass.” I highly doubt if they even read.
 
Actually, that’s not even gonna work. They’re just gonna call it all biased. Their whole shtick is anecdotal and almost always between the lines of “but I know a guy” or “touch grass.” I highly doubt if they even read.
yeah that is what they say so I try to be prepared to explain why that’s a bad argument. Rare Exceptions do not disprove the existence of broad trends. Eg a woman who is 6 foot 5 exists but the vast and overwhelming majority of women are sub 5 ft, etc etc. Usually they’re a lot less prepared to argue than I am and if I have even one or two rock solid citations it’s over and they know it. Doesn’t mean they’ll accept it but it’s clear they lost and if that happens to people enough times only then do they start to reconsider.

Eg if someone’s in a cult the first time they’re exposed to the view that the cult may not be true they freak out and get defensive. It takes time to wear people down. Most can’t be reached probably but some can. Sort of related:
View: https://youtu.be/6yDPaW2Jo70?si=Z2FRdf0GtwCx_2ES
In fairness some studies are poorly done so if you’re gonna use em best to check they were reasonably executed I spose. Genuinely our only hope for a better future is getting men en masse to see the truth — at which point women will be forced to argue their views and if their views are wrong they will lose.
 
Last edited:
yeah that is what they say so I try to be prepared to explain why that’s a bad argument. Rare Exceptions do not disprove the existence of broad trends. Eg a woman who is 6 foot 5 exists but the vast and overwhelming majority of women are sub 5 ft, etc etc. Usually they’re a lot less prepared to argue than I am and if I have even one or two rock solid citations it’s over and they know it. Doesn’t mean they’ll accept it but it’s clear they lost and if that happens to people enough times only then do they start to reconsider.

Eg if someone’s in a cult the first time they’re exposed to the view that the cult may not be true they freak out and get defensive. It takes time to wear people down. Most can’t be reached probably but some can. Sort of related:
View: https://youtu.be/6yDPaW2Jo70?si=Z2FRdf0GtwCx_2ES

It’s mostly just cherry picking. Anyone with half a brain would recognize the pattern. For every ugly short currycel getting a girlfriend (never have I seen such anomaly myself but I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t exist), there’s ten currycels out there who don’t. For every mayocel getting a girlfriend, there’s five out there who don’t and so on. They operate under the black & white assumption that if one could do it, so can everyone else. They CAN’T understand that we’re speaking on behalf of the majority, not the minority.
 
yeah that is what they say so I try to be prepared to explain why that’s a bad argument. Rare Exceptions do not disprove the existence of broad trends. Eg a woman who is 6 foot 5 exists but the vast and overwhelming majority of women are sub 5 ft, etc etc. Usually they’re a lot less prepared to argue than I am and if I have even one or two rock solid citations it’s over and they know it. Doesn’t mean they’ll accept it but it’s clear they lost and if that happens to people enough times only then do they start to reconsider.

Eg if someone’s in a cult the first time they’re exposed to the view that the cult may not be true they freak out and get defensive. It takes time to wear people down. Most can’t be reached probably but some can. Sort of related:
View: https://youtu.be/6yDPaW2Jo70?si=Z2FRdf0GtwCx_2ES
In fairness some studies are poorly done so if you’re gonna use em best to check they were reasonably executed I spose. Genuinely our only hope for a better future is getting men en masse to see the truth — at which point women will be forced to argue their views and if their views are wrong they will lose.

I watched that video this morning jfl
Dude got rejected for god knows how many years and it took millions of women seeing his video for one foid to greencardmaxx with him ... and somehow normies see this and they think "this disproves that looks matter bro".

Just lol if it took millions of women and only a single foid from the other side of the globe said "lemme try dating this guy" what does that fucking tell you? And who knows what her intentions are. Will normies take everything back if she ends up divorce raping him? I doubt it, if anything they'll just say he had a bad personality and deserved it.

Also glad to see that you're still posting bro.

And thanks OP for mentioning me :feelsautistic:
 
I watched that video this morning jfl
Dude got rejected for god knows how many years and it took millions of women seeing his video for one foid to greencardmaxx with him ... and somehow normies see this and they think "this disproves that looks matter bro".

Just lol if it took millions of women and only a single foid from the other side of the globe said "lemme try dating this guy" what does that fucking tell you? And who knows what her intentions are. Will normies take everything back if she ends up divorce raping him? I doubt it, if anything they'll just say he had a bad personality and deserved it.

Also glad to see that you're still posting bro.

And thanks OP for mentioning me :feelsautistic:
normies in general dont get that the exception PROVES the rule, not vice versa.

Also no problem, I'm kind of shocked that you are still around and replying to my thread kek :feelsaww:
It's actually your thread tbh.
I just remembered your thread first and when I saw that it was not in must-read, I made this thread.
 
normies in general dont get that the exception PROVES the rule, not vice versa.

Also no problem, I'm kind of shocked that you are still around and replying to my thread kek :feelsaww:
It's actually your thread tbh.
I just remembered your thread first and when I saw that it was not in must-read, I made this thread.
Most normies genuinely do not understand averages (and standard deviations are leagues beyond them). They always bring up exceptions or the tail end of a distribution thinking it disproves statistics or patterns.

I dont post anymore for the most part but i do check my account for the occasional pm :feelsmage:
 
It’s mostly just cherry picking. Anyone with half a brain would recognize the pattern. For every ugly short currycel getting a girlfriend (never have I seen such anomaly myself but I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t exist), there’s ten currycels out there who don’t. For every mayocel getting a girlfriend, there’s five out there who don’t and so on. They operate under the black & white assumption that if one could do it, so can everyone else. They CAN’T understand that we’re speaking on behalf of the majority, not the minority.
Yup, you nailed it man. It’s really weird how so much of the population can’t seem to wrap their heads around “on average” things. It’s like their minds don’t get it if there’s even one cherry picked exception. And honestly it’s DBDR said in one his vids, you also don’t know what that inceltier fellow who managed to land a girlfriend’s relationship is actually like. Odds are he has to jestermax/moneymax his balls off for just a minimal crumb of sex and is likely to get dumped later anyway.
 
I watched that video this morning jfl
Dude got rejected for god knows how many years and it took millions of women seeing his video for one foid to greencardmaxx with him ... and somehow normies see this and they think "this disproves that looks matter bro".

Just lol if it took millions of women and only a single foid from the other side of the globe said "lemme try dating this guy" what does that fucking tell you? And who knows what her intentions are. Will normies take everything back if she ends up divorce raping him? I doubt it, if anything they'll just say he had a bad personality and deserved it.

Also glad to see that you're still posting bro.

And thanks OP for mentioning me :feelsautistic:
Well put mate, I hear ya — my dad keeps marrying greencard maxing whores who keep divorce raping him over and over again. You’d think he’d fucking learn but these guys are actually retarded or somethin I swear.
 
Well put mate, I hear ya — my dad keeps marrying greencard maxing whores who keep divorce raping him over and over again. You’d think he’d fucking learn but these guys are actually retarded or somethin I swear.
How does he have the money to do that? Isn't he getting divorce raped every time?
 
@Gymcelled @Celasius @GeckoBus @cvh1991

I think I know why normies think that the exception proves the rule kind of.
Because I used to kind of think this way for myself when I was younger, although I didn't choose to preach this to others since that would be stupid.

I think the thought process is that a 5'2 curry is bad, but lets say that 5'2 curry is gymmaxxed, moneymaxxed, statusmaxxed actor.
Well then he is absolutely pretty guaranteed to get a GF right? Easily.

So then you work your way down from that and think if its guaranteed so long as you get those things then you can try get pretty close despite your genetics, you can go to the gym, you can try make money, you can try to "just be social bro" and statusmaxx and try replicate that effect.
 
I think I know why normies think that the exception proves the rule kind of.
Normies can’t withstand anything opposing their fallacious self-taught beliefs. Not only are they gaslighting us in an attempt to conceal the truth, but also to cope with the pain themselves. It’s like those people who buy the newest shitty AAA game and then tell themselves and everyone around them how it’s the second coming of Christ despite not even putting down 5 hours playing it; they WANT to believe that the game is good, similar to how they want to believe everyone can do whatever they desire if they’re willing to put the effort. It’s in the human nature to lie to itself otherwise we’d all end up rendered dysfunctional.
 
@Gymcelled @Celasius @GeckoBus @cvh1991

I think I know why normies think that the exception proves the rule kind of.
Because I used to kind of think this way for myself when I was younger, although I didn't choose to preach this to others since that would be stupid.

I think the thought process is that a 5'2 curry is bad, but lets say that 5'2 curry is gymmaxxed, moneymaxxed, statusmaxxed actor.
Well then he is absolutely pretty guaranteed to get a GF right? Easily.

So then you work your way down from that and think if its guaranteed so long as you get those things then you can try get pretty close despite your genetics, you can go to the gym, you can try make money, you can try to "just be social bro" and statusmaxx and try replicate that effect.
People cant cope with the fact that some things are out of your control, and humans are damn good at self deception.

At the end of the day everyone wants to believe they can be whoever they want or do whatever they want. No one wants to believe that most of who you are and who you're going to be is predetermined.

And the winners of life always want to believe they got there because of their hard work or the choices they make. Whether it's people with good genetics, people born into wealth/status, people who got their job because of connections etc.

If all of those things were aquired through no fault/work of your own, then you could lose everything if the reason for your success is taken away from you.
The pretty boy wants to believe women like him for his personality, because otherwise he's one accident/one 3rd degree burn away from being a truecel.
The rich kid wants to believe he would still rise to the 1% if he lost everything because otherwise it would be pretty scary.
 
Yeah surveys by themselves mean nothing. Some people live through their lies. A virgin 40 yo man might even answer to a completely anonymous study that he's a stud and has had many partners. Just like a slut who lies about her partner count. Even when there's no repercussions of any kind, a person could still lie.

Women are portrayed as angelic beings. Meanwhile they're entitled solipsistic crazy carpets who expect men to fund their lives
Why fund a rattlesnake
 
How does he have the money to do that? Isn't he getting divorce raped every time?
I don’t know the guy super well and he seems to be a complete fool when it comes to the women he marries but his job is incredible. He basically gets wined and dined with executives and “sells big contracts” :feelsseriously: Cushy boomer job. If he didn’t get divorce raped so many times he’d probably have a shit load of money.
 
Last edited:
Recently there was a story about syphillis outbreak in black community of Houston, Texas. Surprisingly the data suggested that even ebony foids practice hypergamy with men from their own race. Majority of blacks admitted to hospital for STD in Houston were foids, but only a minority were black men. The stats points to a case where the same small collective of niggas ran thru a large proportion of black bitches in Houston JFL


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwRcWI7nSxQ

:feelspuke::feelspuke::feelspuke::feelspuke:
 
It’s in the human nature to lie to itself otherwise we’d all end up rendered dysfunctional.
Oh yeah, if everyone hypothetically became blackpilled tomorrow I wonder what would happen to the world.
Something I noticed from viewing stacies I used to know from school, their fathers all look the same for some reason.
1699249007182

They all look similar to this, and they gladly smile and will appear in their daughters birthday IG post or happy fathers IG post or Happy Birthday dad! IG post.
And they smile happily while a few pictures to the right is them in very racy clothing, these guys are not blackpilled at all their wife probably sees chad on the side and they dont realise that their daughters instagram is just a chad honeypot to take dicks and they dont even try to stop it at all.
If these guys all became blackpilled I wonder what would happen, they probably just think their daughters are independant queens.
At the end of the day everyone wants to believe they can be whoever they want or do whatever they want. No one wants to believe that most of who you are and who you're going to be is predetermined.
Yeah personality and what you can achieve and stuff alot of it is predetermined, everyone can play basketball, I am actually quite good at throwing free throws myself despite being a manlet but I will never be in the NBA even if I had the power of time travel and went back to when I was a kid and practiced I still would never make the NBA.

And the winners of life always want to believe they got there because of their hard work or the choices they make. Whether it's people with good genetics, people born into wealth/status, people who got their job because of connections etc.

If all of those things were aquired through no fault/work of your own, then you could lose everything if the reason for your success is taken away from you.
The pretty boy wants to believe women like him for his personality, because otherwise he's one accident/one 3rd degree burn away from being a truecel.
The rich kid wants to believe he would still rise to the 1% if he lost everything because otherwise it would be pretty scary.
The fear factor is good.
But you also just feel so much better about yourself when you attribute it to your own skills, it feels amazing to look at your success and say "its all me baby" it doesnt feel as good when you realise its all just luck.
 
In general, the facts of life are determined by share luck than any intellectual pursuits or success obtained, but I think wealth is a huge determinant. If you are obscenely wealthy, you can simply buy a wife - such is our modern world - which is alien to us for the reasons I have outlined.
 
Don't have anything about that on hand at the moment, but I'll definitely keep that in mind as a topic to search for.

would you mind checking this?


Im not good with this kind of math heavy academic stuff
i got it from this thread in must read

 
would you mind checking this?


Im not good with this kind of math heavy academic stuff
i got it from this thread in must read

Don't think I can add much more than what was already said in that thread. Looking at that massive circle of relationships was brutal, knowing that I was completely cut off from the local counterparts in my schools.

Some of the bits that nevertheless caught my eye:

The homophily effects can be seen with attractiveness and smoking.Similarly attractive students (or, similarly unattractive students) are disproportionately drawn into pairs
No, you aren't going to punch out of your league, and btw, yes, looks are objective.

More thanhalf of all students report having had sexual intercourse, a rate comparableto the national average and only slightly higher than observed for schoolssimilar with respect to race and size.
Slightly less than one-quarter of all Jefferson studentsreported no romantic or nonromantic sexual relationship during the preceding 18 months.
The OG brocels.

Table 2 demonstrates clear evidence of homophily in romantic partnerships.31 Adolescents at Jefferson tend to select partners with similarsocioeconomic status, grade point average, college plans, attachment toschool, trouble in school, drinking behavior, IQ, and grade. With respectto categorical attributes, partners tend to be similar in terms of sexualexperience, suspension from school, and smoking. Less important is religious denomination.
While homophily is strong, the preference for similarity does not extendto all characteristics, most obviously sex and age. Almost every singlereported romantic relationship at Jefferson is a cross-sex relationship, andas is true in most high schools, girls at Jefferson tend to be involved witholder boys.
Ninth grade girls tend to be in relationships with ninth andtenth grade boys, tenth grade girls with boys in the tenth and eleventhgrades, and so on. Among all partnerships involving Jefferson students,we observe a mean grade difference of .9, less than expected if relationships were formed independent of age (mean difference p 1.23 in therandomly assigned pairs), but evidence of a female preference for olderboys (or male preference for younger girls).32
Suifuel for old hags (in college:feelskek::feelskek:).

Anyway, they found out the reason for the big cluster. Status and keeping it by not taking sloppy seconds:

Given the conditions of homophily described previously, figures 9 and 10show that a simple rule—the prohibition against dating (from a femaleperspective) one’s old boyfriend’s current girlfriend’s old boyfriend—accounts for the structure of the romantic network at Jefferson.
From theperspective of males or females (and independent of the pattern of “rejection”), a relationship that completes a cycle of length 4 can be thoughtof as a “seconds partnership,” and therefore involves a public loss ofstatus.35 Most adolescents would probably stare blankly at the researcherwho asked boys: Is there a prohibition in your school against being in arelationship with your old girlfriend’s current boyfriend’s old girlfriend?
It is a mouthful, but it makes intuitive sense. Like adults, adolescentschoose partners with purpose from the pool of eligible partners. But beyond preferences for some types of partners over others—for example,preferences for partners interested in athletics, who do not smoke, or whowill skip school to have more fun—adolescents prefer partners who willnot cause them to lose status in the eyes of their peers. In the same waythat high-status students avoid relationships with low-status students, byselecting partners on the basis of the characteristics that have resonance for the local determination of prestige, students avoid relationships whosestructure would lower their status in the eyes of their peers.

Imagine still denying the statuspill in 2023:feelsseriously:.

(Aral et al. 1999). Among sexuallyactive black adolescents, 25% are likely to be infected with herpes (CDC 2000), andprobably 40%–50% of all sexually active females have had a previous HPV infection,now known to account for most cases of adult cervical cancer (Holmes et al. 1999).The literature identifies three reasons for these gloomy facts. First, one-half of alladolescents over 15 years old report being sexually active, and a significant proportionof these adolescents are inconsistent in their use of condoms, therefore heighteningrisk of STD acquisition and transmission (Bearman and Bru¨ ckner 1999). Furthermore,many adolescents who have not had intercourse are sexually active in a substantivelymeaningful (if technically ambiguous) way, and most do not use condoms during noncoital sex. Specifically, of adolescents who report that they are virgins (i.e., have nothad sexual intercourse) roughly one-third have had genital contact with a partnerresulting in fluid exchange in the past year. Thus virginal status does not mean thatadolescents are not engaging in behaviors that are free of risk for STD transmission.Second, the majority of adolescents with an STD have no idea that they are infected(Holmes et al. 1999); consequently, they may fail to protect their partners even if theywould prefer to do so. And third, relative to adults, adolescents tend to form romanticpartnerships of short duration, on average only 15 months, but with a strong skewtoward relationships of extremely short duration (less than four months; Laumann etal. 1994). Most sex in adolescent relationships occurs, if it is to occur, within the firsttwo months (Bearman, Hillmann, and Bru¨ ckner 2001). This combination of shortduration partnerships, inconsistent safe-sex practices, and incorrect assessment of STDstatus provides a partial account for the diffusion of STDs among the adolescentpopulation. As fundamental is the role that sexual contact structures play in STDtransmission dynamics
No words.

Everybody Loves Raymond What GIF by TV Land
 
Don't think I can add much more than what was already said in that thread. Looking at that massive circle of relationships was brutal, knowing that I was completely cut off from the local counterparts in my schools.

Some of the bits that nevertheless caught my eye:


No, you aren't going to punch out of your league, and btw, yes, looks are objective.



The OG brocels.




Suifuel for old hags (in college:feelskek::feelskek:).

Anyway, they found out the reason for the big cluster. Status and keeping it by not taking sloppy seconds:





Imagine still denying the statuspill in 2023:feelsseriously:.


No words.

Everybody Loves Raymond What GIF by TV Land
:feelsaww: :feelsaww: :feelsaww:
thx for going through it for me brocel!

anime-cute.gif


so new data, shucks ugh
 

Similar threads

Zer0/∞
Replies
9
Views
343
zerozerozero
zerozerozero
Lookslikeit
Replies
0
Views
162
Lookslikeit
Lookslikeit
Balding Subhuman
Replies
5
Views
332
StepyAkermanskie
StepyAkermanskie
Confessor
Replies
76
Views
6K
Jud Pottah
Jud Pottah

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top