The relationship between unprotected sex, brain damage, and the thousand cock stare
- Thread starter Thomas the Rhymer
- Start date
Allegedly she is. Who knows if she has taken a hard one before in the past though. Still not a 1000 cock stare candidate in my book though. Is there a thing about 1000 dildo stare?
TheRookie
Woodpecker
Crazy
This girl is barely 16 and she already DOES have a 1.000 c*ck stare:
Source:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/09/schoolgirls-aged-14-16-leave-france-uk.html
This girl is barely 16 and she already DOES have a 1.000 c*ck stare:
Source:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/09/schoolgirls-aged-14-16-leave-france-uk.html
RE: The relationship between unprotected sex, brain damage, and the thousand cock s
Is she a born-again lesbian?
Etc etc etc hamster squeak squeak:tard:
Deluge said:corners said:The Thousand Cocks Stare TM:
You know she's a lesbian right?
Is she a born-again lesbian?
Etc etc etc hamster squeak squeak:tard:
brain rewiring
OK, enough of the semen DNA casuses female brain damage. Here's my own autist's take:
There are studies that show how soldiers need to short-circuit their empathy in order to function on the battlefield. This is why basic training involves dehumanizing the enemy (think Full Metal Jacket). Seems like a terrible thing but it's necessary and that mental switch is actually baked into the human animal (at least with men). It flips on and hopefully flips off again, but this is why veterans have trouble readjusting to civilian life and keep anguishing past memories.
That's just an extreme case, but something similar to that is at work when you engage in a lot of casual sex. Guys are more adapted to be able to screw without emotional connections, but even guys can "fool around and fall in love" as it were. You go into a sexual encounter purely for physical gratification and during the process, hormones are released that attempt to rope you into more lasting commitment.
The reason why I used the analogy of soldiers in wartime is that I feel women who enter into the cock carousel are trying to short-circuit that automatic bonding impulse. But just as it doesn't feel good for men to repress their empathy...it doesn't feel good for women to repress their ability to pair-bond. It's a tradeoff that has negative downstream consequences.
Men associate casual sex as a notch whereas women associate no-strings casual sex as a net loss, that the guy somehow took something away from her. Women see sex as transactional where the mutual pleasure doesn't count. There has to be something else extracted otherwise she got "used". Today's culture may be trying to teach women otherwise, but biologically, that's what her body tells her each time she executes the walk of shame after a ONS. This also explains a lot of cognitive dissonance of #MeToo, that women are on the cock carousel while simultaneously demonizing men. They may say they don't care about shame but they sure as hell spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone not to shame them for being sluts, so down deep they still care a great deal. The hamster is on constant overdrive.
The few more well-adjusted women out there who adhere to sex-positivity are able to reframe casual sex as more of a process of mutual giving of pleasure and not simply taking pleasure and running away, a net gain, not a loss. This is not an easy mental shift, but since these sorts of sex-positivity figures tend to come from the porn industry (like Nina Hartley) you can think of them as psychological survival tactics. They're also probably freaks of nature anyway in the first place (like Harltey being bisexual). But these women tended to have never gotten married or at least never had kids. You just can't lead a freewheeling swinger lifestyle and be a soccer mom at the same time. So there are still tradeoffs.
OK, enough of the semen DNA casuses female brain damage. Here's my own autist's take:
There are studies that show how soldiers need to short-circuit their empathy in order to function on the battlefield. This is why basic training involves dehumanizing the enemy (think Full Metal Jacket). Seems like a terrible thing but it's necessary and that mental switch is actually baked into the human animal (at least with men). It flips on and hopefully flips off again, but this is why veterans have trouble readjusting to civilian life and keep anguishing past memories.
That's just an extreme case, but something similar to that is at work when you engage in a lot of casual sex. Guys are more adapted to be able to screw without emotional connections, but even guys can "fool around and fall in love" as it were. You go into a sexual encounter purely for physical gratification and during the process, hormones are released that attempt to rope you into more lasting commitment.
The reason why I used the analogy of soldiers in wartime is that I feel women who enter into the cock carousel are trying to short-circuit that automatic bonding impulse. But just as it doesn't feel good for men to repress their empathy...it doesn't feel good for women to repress their ability to pair-bond. It's a tradeoff that has negative downstream consequences.
Men associate casual sex as a notch whereas women associate no-strings casual sex as a net loss, that the guy somehow took something away from her. Women see sex as transactional where the mutual pleasure doesn't count. There has to be something else extracted otherwise she got "used". Today's culture may be trying to teach women otherwise, but biologically, that's what her body tells her each time she executes the walk of shame after a ONS. This also explains a lot of cognitive dissonance of #MeToo, that women are on the cock carousel while simultaneously demonizing men. They may say they don't care about shame but they sure as hell spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone not to shame them for being sluts, so down deep they still care a great deal. The hamster is on constant overdrive.
The few more well-adjusted women out there who adhere to sex-positivity are able to reframe casual sex as more of a process of mutual giving of pleasure and not simply taking pleasure and running away, a net gain, not a loss. This is not an easy mental shift, but since these sorts of sex-positivity figures tend to come from the porn industry (like Nina Hartley) you can think of them as psychological survival tactics. They're also probably freaks of nature anyway in the first place (like Harltey being bisexual). But these women tended to have never gotten married or at least never had kids. You just can't lead a freewheeling swinger lifestyle and be a soccer mom at the same time. So there are still tradeoffs.
Caduceus
Pelican
TravelerKai said:
TravelerKai, you wrote this 4 years ago.
Can you give us an update how your wife's "mommy brain" developed over the course of the last 4 years ? Did it stay the same or did she go back to her former self (meaning the mental state prior to birth of her 1st child) after she stopped breastfeeding ?
Caduceus said:
Cot damn. I forgot all about this post.
She went back to normal when the first kid turned ~2. Then she went right back into Mommy Brain syndrome again because of being pregnant with kid number two.
Now kid number 2 is almost 2 years old and while she is not as ditzy or airheaded as before, she is still clumsy (dropping things, etc.) I think clumsy is probably her personality. I don't think that is going away. She is still a big chested Chinese version Blonde.
The cliff notes is that it seems to take around 2 years (plus or minus 6 months) after birth for the hormone levels to level off and stop giving them the mental fog. I wish I had gotten blood work done on her to compare and contrast it. Maybe some guys super knowledgeable on hormones on the forum may have insight on female hormones during pregnancy and post pregnancy. I recently got on TRT myself and my mental fog is completely gone, so it does make me curious. As for the breastfeeding, the breast feeding stopped before 2 years, but did not impact anything as far as I can tell. Women can still squeeze a drop out sometimes even if they cut off the milk. Again, that is hormone driven.
Another thing I noticed is that it did take a little longer for her to lose the weight from the second baby compared to the first and the mommy brain seemed to be correlated to that as well, because it did not seem to go away when the weight started to fall off.
So to sum up, is it all just elevated estrogen (estradiol) and progesterone, etc. levels?
If you don't like the "foreign DNA causes an autoimmune response that affects women's brains" argument, consider the following. Viral infections that may be subclinical (i.e. no obvious, lasting symptoms) such as all the herpes viruses (Epstein Barr, CMV, HSV1 etc.) have now been linked to neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and MS. So, the more a girl fucks around, the more pathogens she's stacking up for life, and these pathogens are shown to cause brain damage, so there's that.
Also, and this may be pseudoscience, but I've heard that women produce less and less oxytocin with each successive sex partner, meaning her capacity to pair bond with future mates decreases with each cock she takes.
Also, and this may be pseudoscience, but I've heard that women produce less and less oxytocin with each successive sex partner, meaning her capacity to pair bond with future mates decreases with each cock she takes.
Caduceus
Pelican
Feisbook Control said:
Maria Ozawa at the start of her porn career many years ago
[img=500x500]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ePXQFdkqmEI/ToA_ERpvQHI/AAAAAAAAAjA/2tnJZ4V_TpM/s1600/Miyabi.jpg[/img]
Maria Ozawa NOW
No OP.
Absorbing DNA from a superior man may well be a way to improve genetically for a woman that is of low quality--hence the natural origin of sluts. What if the reason for women seeking out the best men, but only for a night, (knowing she can't keep him) is to indeed strengthen her fitness. Women with strong genetics might not need any outside contributions, and so they are not promiscuous, but lower quality women might take the input of superior males to be able to give birth to something of higher value.
This would further strengthen the theory that promiscuity is biological for females of low value, and biological for males of high value, so they can spread their superiority. One encounter after all, carries an extremely low chance of reproduction, so that may not be the goal of promiscuity after all.
Interestingly enough, I do feel like I'm doing some sort of duty when I sleep with a new girl, I feel good beyond the orgasm, I feel like a better person afterwards, more virtuous.
Nature is perfect.
Absorbing DNA from a superior man may well be a way to improve genetically for a woman that is of low quality--hence the natural origin of sluts. What if the reason for women seeking out the best men, but only for a night, (knowing she can't keep him) is to indeed strengthen her fitness. Women with strong genetics might not need any outside contributions, and so they are not promiscuous, but lower quality women might take the input of superior males to be able to give birth to something of higher value.
This would further strengthen the theory that promiscuity is biological for females of low value, and biological for males of high value, so they can spread their superiority. One encounter after all, carries an extremely low chance of reproduction, so that may not be the goal of promiscuity after all.
Interestingly enough, I do feel like I'm doing some sort of duty when I sleep with a new girl, I feel good beyond the orgasm, I feel like a better person afterwards, more virtuous.
Nature is perfect.
BlastbeatCasanova
Kingfisher
Flux said:
People get all hung up on the "meaning of life" but I think the meaning of life (from a purely biological standpoint) is to fuck and create more humans, thus keeping the species going. It feels great to go out and fulfill your biological imperative as a man