>>5419686Good luck.
>>5419693Here is another redpill.
>"muh it's harmless" DEBUNKED"(copy+ pasted from an old post of mine)
"People who assert that sex and everything relating to it is "harmless" rely on all of the following when confronting evidence to the contrary:
1. Naturalistic Fallacy (it's natural dude!)
2. Freudian reasoning (dude, repression dude!)
3. Appeal to ignorance (well dude, no studies exist so looks like I'm right!)
4. Straw man arguments (le current year)
"Looking back, we see that the old research, while crude in it's understanding and attribution of exact mechanistic cause, it nonetheless, appeals to medicine and physiology. The counter research of it's day and carrying over to "present research", is far divorced from this, and rather than doctors and men of science studying the field, it is conducted by sham experts with degrees in the social sciences. The fact is, your emperors promulgating this "present research" have no clothes.
Case in point, Dr. Ruth. She is not a physician as her name implies but holds a terminal degree in teaching. Yet, she plays the role of an expert on all matters regarding sex and holds the notion that it is harmless.
In fact, if we look at the present research from neurology and endocrinology journals, we see that the sex act triggers a profound response in the body, beyond what anyone could have imagined (rises of "prolactin", hypofrontality, habituation, etc).
The 300+ years of research showing the negative effects of the sex act cannot be neglected or swept under the rug with such simpleton assertions. It's time we drop the charade of the sexual revolution and reexamine the hypotheses put forth by physicians and scientists of old."