"Is The Man Cold Real?"

 I ran across this and thought this may have something to it.  Last week I came down with something that literally pulled me out of work for several days and when I finally went back to work on the 4th day, I still wasn't at 100%.  I do know that when my wife gets a cold, it doesn't affect her as bad as it nails me, but that being said, I don't get sick that often, the last time I got sick was back in 2021 when I got covid for the 3rd time, naturally, no vaxx.    I thought it was a good article.

    I shamelessly cribbed it from the "Art of Manliness"

     

Flu and cold cases are at all-time highs this year. I got the flu two years ago. Never felt sicker in my life. It was awful.

Kate got it too, and felt nigh near to death’s door at times, but she seemed to recover faster than I did and wasn’t moaning and groaning as much as I was. She was in bed for a couple days and then was back to work. Meanwhile, I was holed up in our bonus room upstairs for a week, alternating between Tylenol and Advil to manage the fever and body aches.

Kate has always teased me about being overdramatic about my symptoms whenever I get sick.

But, truth be told, I don’t think I’m exaggerating. I genuinely feel damned awful when I come down with something, and all I want to do is moan and lay in the “sick hole” upstairs for days.

Other couples have noticed a discrepancy between how men and women experience sickness — with men seeming to have more severe symptoms while women can power through the sniffles without missing a beat. So much so that we’ve named how men experience sickness as the “man cold” or the “man flu.”

But is the man cold actually a thing?

Do Men Get Sicker Than Women?

Many people have noticed that guys seem to feel sicker and feel sicker longer than women do when they get the flu or cold. And there are clinical studies that bear these observations out.

According to one study about the differences between men and women when they get the flu, women report more flu symptoms than men, meaning that while a guy might just have a fever and body aches when he gets sick, a woman might have both those symptoms plus cough, headache, runny nose, etc. But men are two times more likely to be hospitalized when they get the flu, which suggests that of the symptoms they do experience, they experience them more severely.

You saw this pattern with COVID-19 during the pandemic. Around the world, severe cases of COVID were predominantly among men, with men’s mortality rates 1.6 times higher than women’s. (It’s worth noting that some of this difference may be due to men generally having poorer health and being more likely to delay seeking medical care when COVID symptoms worsened.)

Surveys have suggested that men take about 1.5-1.7 days longer to recover from the flu than women. But other studies have shown that men recover faster from the flu than women. 

So, based on some studies, men do experience more severe symptoms, for longer. Man flu/cold might be a thing. 

But why would there be sex differences between how men and women experience sickness?

Blame the Man Cold on Testosterone and (Low) Estrogen

It all comes down to sex hormones. At least, that’s what the research suggests.

Testosterone, which men typically have 10-20X more of than women, can be a double-edged sword. While it increases muscle mass and puts hair on your chest, it also suppresses inflammatory cytokines like IL-6, potentially prolonging recovery from the flu by delaying viral clearance.

Testosterone also gives men a larger hypothalamus region, which, among other things, regulates body temperature. Scientists theorize that this enlarged hypothalamus could explain why men often report higher fevers during infections. And because fever drives some of the unpleasant symptoms of the flu or a cold, like chills and body aches, more severe fevers mean a more severe sickness.

Estrogen also plays a role in immune function. It seems to boost it. While men have estrogen, they don’t have anywhere near the same amount as women. Women’s elevated estrogen levels seem to enhance antiviral responses by boosting interferon-γ production, which slows down viral replication in illnesses like the flu. The retardation of viral replication can take the edge off of symptoms in women. What’s interesting is that this female hormonal advantage diminishes after menopause, when estrogen levels go down in women. Postmenopausal women have an immune response that aligns more closely with men’s.

Other studies show that women have additional immunity advantages over men, like stronger innate (first-line defense) and adaptive (targeted) immune responses. This can help clear infections faster.

So, men’s high testosterone makes them more prone to getting sicker longer, while elevated estrogen in women helps blunt the severity of symptoms and helps them recover faster.

Scientists hypothesize that these hormonal differences between men and women are evolutionary in origin and represent a “reproduction-immunity trade-off.” Females evolved to have less testosterone but stronger immunity to protect offspring during pregnancy and breastfeeding; men evolved to have more testosterone, giving them weaker immunity to disease but greater strength and drive for the tasks of hunting and fighting.

Is Man Flu Just in Your Head?

While many scientists think that man flu is real and biologically rooted, others argue it’s psychosomatic. In other words, man flu is all in your head, man.

A study from the University of Glasgow suggests that men are less in touch with their biofeedback signals (which helps in understanding how one’s body feels), which could result in reporting that their symptoms are more severe than they truly are.

Another study suggests that men and women objectively experience the same severity and duration of flu and cold symptoms, but men subjectively rate some of them as more severe and longer-lasting. The study examined how the sexes experienced the common cold and found that while men and women experienced physical symptoms (like nose and ear issues) similarly, men reported emotion-based symptoms, such as mood changes and psychological distress, as being more severe. The researchers of this study concluded that the man cold is just in dudes’ heads.

Why would men subjectively experience more severe cold symptoms? Some researchers theorize that because men are conditioned to be stoic, tough, and productive, and to power through things, when they do experience a sickness, they see it as an opportunity to take a break from these expectations; they amplify the severity of their symptoms to elicit sympathy, get taken care of for once, and justify taking off work.

I’m not sure I buy that, but that’s the argument.

Perhaps it’s the case that, since women historically were responsible for the lion’s share of childcare, which creates urgent obligations (kids still need to be fed and diapered even when their parents are sick), it’s more ingrained in women to bounce back and make sure the family is tended to. Is that difference rooted in evolutionary biology, cultural expectations, or a mixture of both? There’s no conclusive evidence to know.

How to Treat the Man Flu/Cold

Personally, I think the man flu/cold is a thing — an actual biological phenomenon. It’s been interesting to watch how my son Gus’ experience of sickness has changed as he’s moved from boyhood to teenagehood. As a boy, he’d get sick and be down for a day or two. Now that he’s 14, and has testosterone coursing through his veins, he experiences sickness like I do. He feels like garbage, and he’s out for longer. He just wants to go up to the bonus room and be by himself to wallow and moan and groan. Whenever either of us gets a bad cold or flu, we just tell the family, “Well, I’m off to the sick hole. See you when I feel better.”

You treat the man version of the cold or flu just as you would its female counterpart; do the stuff your mom told you to do when you were a kid:

• Drink plenty of fluids. Water is best, but you gotta get some ginger ale in there. It’s a miracle elixir.
• Keep your eating light. Soups and saltine crackers are clutch.
• Avoid caffeinated drinks.
• Get plenty of sleep and rest.
• Alternate between Tylenol and Advil to manage pain and fever.
• Watch The Price is Right and The Young and the Restless.

Most colds and flu bouts take about 4-7 days to clear. You could experience lingering fatigue for up to two weeks.

When you feel the first symptoms of sickness, take an at-home test to see if you’ve got the flu, cold, or COVID. If it’s the flu, get a prescription for xofluza. Taking it within 48 hours of your first flu symptoms can reduce their severity and duration.

While whether the man flu is an actual physiological thing or just in guys’ heads is up for debate, doctors all agree that we shouldn’t label men as whiny when they get sick because it could delay men getting the care they need to get better, which could result in worse outcomes — including death. Be sure to go see a doctor if:

• Your fever reaches 104 degrees Fahrenheit or higher or is above 100 for over three days.
• You have difficulty breathing or chest pain.
• Your symptoms get worse after an initial improvement.
• Your symptoms last longer than three weeks without improvement.

Trying to tough out a sickness and continue your normal routine isn’t wise; it will just prolong the sickness and delay your recovery. In keeping your sickness lingering on for longer, you’ll actually lose more productivity in the long run than just completely taking time off and letting yourself heal up. It’s in your best interest, and in the best interest of your family, who wants to see you bounce back as quickly as possible, to hit your rest and recovery hard. At the same time, your household may be hurting without your help, so don’t wallow unnecessarily, and once you’re ready, get back in the saddle.

"What if Europe Had to Fight Without the Americans?"

 I saw this article surfing the web during break, and it to me was spot on, for generations Europe has let their defenses laps as they focused on "Butter instead of Guns", and they relied on the United States to do the heavy lifting.  During the Cold War, West Germany had a very good Military Services the "Bundeswehr" but after the cold war was over, they rapidly demobilized and now they are a shadow of their former selves.  Same with the rest of the Western Europeans.  Now the Eastern Europeans whom are in NATO spend in excess of 2% of GDP as is mandated by NATO charter because they know what it is like to be under the boots of the Soviets Er the Russians and have no desire to repeat the experience whereas the Western Europeans have gotten soft and in my mind I have severe doubt if they have the "stones" to defend Western Civilization as we know it.  

     I do know that President Trump isn't happy with the alliance because of the Europeans taking advantage of the Americans for many years, sneering about the proventials colonist then expecting us to carry the freight and then work cross purposes against us  For example gutting their energy sector because of the political pressure from the "Die Grune" to chase the unicorns of solar energy and wind, so they shut down their coal and nuclear plants and to make up the shortfalls, the Germans have to buy their gas and energy from the Russians, thereby financing their war machine.....Funny that..  So the possibility of The United States Leaving NATO is possible, I doubt it, but it is there, especially if the Western Europeans out of Brussels keep trying to jerk President Trump around, I can see him totally pulling out or seriously reducing our presence especially in Western Europe.  Although Poland and some of the Eastern Europeans would love to have us there on their soil.  Only Time will tell.

I got this from the "Wavell Room"  All credit goes to them.

As the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO increases, Europe faces not just a political crisis but a military emergency.  No longer shielded by American power, it may have to stand alone against a weakened, yet aggressive Russia – forced to fight, whether it is ready or not. What would war in Europe look like without the United States?  Could Europe still find a way to fight on its own terms?  It must – and it can.

Fighting without the tools to win

From British Paratroopers to Poland’s GROM, from Eurofighters to German howitzers, Europe fields some of the finest professional forces and most sophisticated weapon systems; the problem is, they just don’t have enough of them.   It is not that Europeans do not know how to fight.  The problem is, what do they actually have to fight with?  For years, defence budgets and industries have been allowed to wither away. Without the United States, European NATO members face crippling shortfalls in trained personnel, ammunition stocks, and critical military assets.  Although this has already impeded European operations in the past, it would prove fatal in a peer-to-peer conflict. 

Without U.S. stockpiles and equipment depots, Europe would face an immediate logistical challenge from the very outbreak of hostilities.  Ammunition shortages would be catastrophic.  The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that European stockpiles cannot sustain modern, high-intensity combat.  Stocks of artillery shells, precision munitions, and armoured vehicle replacements would be exhausted within weeks, with no immediate means of replenishment. 

Dwindling reserves and slow production

Unlike the United States, which maintains vast prepositioned stockpiles, European nations have allowed their war reserves to dwindle.  Decades of underinvestment and fragmentation across national borders have meant Europe’s defence industries are too slow and unresponsive to meet wartime demand.  Peacetime procurement cycles stretch across years, not weeks.  The very munitions that define NATO’s battlefield superiority – smart bombs, guided rockets, and cruise missiles – are produced too slowly and in far too small quantities.  In a war with Russia, Europe’s current production capacity would be overwhelmed within days.

To make matters worse, Europe lacks the military mobility to move what it currently has to where it is needed.  Equipment losses would mount rapidly without a resilient battlefield repair and maintenance infrastructure.  Damaged tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, and aircraft would be difficult to restore to combat readiness, and many would be lost for the duration of the war.

This is not just a logistical issue; it directly impacts Europe’s ability to dictate the course of the war.  When its reserves run out and production fails to keep pace, Europe will be unable to effectively shape the strategic environment.  Yet, such shaping operations – preparing the battlefield to favour one’s own forces – are essential for modern warfare.  They involve neutralizing enemy air defences, disrupting command-and-control networks, and degrading logistics and reinforcements.  These operations set the conditions for manoeuvre warfare, allowing ground forces to exploit gaps and achieve operational breakthroughs.  Without American air assets and stand-off capabilities, Europe would struggle to achieve air dominance or degrade enemy systems sufficiently to enable rapid and decisive ground manoeuvres. 

The air domain

The inability to gain and maintain control of the air would be felt long before European troops even reached the frontlines.  Russian ISR drones would detect and track their movements, enabling relentless strikes that would force European units to disperse, dig in, and hide.  Without U.S. anti-air capabilities, European forces are vulnerable to threats from Russian glide bombs, Shahed drones, and loitering munitions. Unable to mass for decisive operations, mechanized assaults would become a non-starter.  Frontlines would harden, forcing tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to disperse even further – acting as individual force multipliers rather than combined instruments of manoeuvre. 

 

Royal Air Force F35 (Photo by SAC Tim Laurence, Crown Copyright)

 

A highly dispersed force – down to the platoon and squad level – means that core tactical tenets would start to break down.  Fire and movement would no longer be mutually enabling components – the effective use of which has been central to Western warfare since the First World War.  With European forces unable to shape the battlefield, to mass for decisive action and to effectively suppress and outmanoeuvre the enemy, the result would be a war of attrition, much like what we see in Ukraine today.  

The Ukrainian way of war is not an option

Some argue that the war in Ukraine offers a glimpse into the future of warfare.  But while it has showcased remarkable battlefield innovation, it remains a war of necessity, not choice – and one that Europe cannot afford to emulate. 

Ukraine has fought with dispersed positions, drone teams, and small-unit tactics – not because they are optimal, but because they are the only available option.  The slow supply of Western equipment has forced it into an attritional fight, where gains are measured in tree lines rather than strategic advances.  This approach has exacted a staggering toll: entire formations lost, offensives stalled, and casualty rates in the tens of thousands.  It is a brutal struggle with no clear path to victory; and as important as they may be, no number of AI-driven drones has solved the fundamental challenge of breaking this bloody deadlock of trench warfare.

2023 – a counteroffensive without air superiority

The failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive revealed the harsh limits of attacking without air dominance, without deep strikes, and without shaping operations – precisely the situation European forces would face if they had to fight Russia alone.  Yet, unlike Ukraine, which spent eight years adapting to Russian tactics along the demarcation line and over three years in all-out war, most European armies lack comparable experience.  They also do not possess Ukraine’s extensive anti-air network, leaving European cities and infrastructure even more vulnerable to Russian missile and drone strikes.  Most critically, if Europe fights without the United States, it will have no external lifeline.  Ammunition shortages will not be offset by foreign aid, depleted stockpiles will not be replenished, and tank battalions will not be resupplied by allies. Europe must be able to sustain itself.

 

Swedish Archer artillery system (WikiMedia Commons)

 

Furthermore, while Ukrainians have shown enormous resilience, driven by a fight for national survival, it is hard to imagine similar determination across Western Europe.   Few European nations beyond the Baltic countries and Poland have the resolve to endure the kind of high-casualty warfare that would likely follow if Europe had to go to war today.  Public support for any conflict involving mass casualties and prolonged attritional warfare would likely collapse.

To understand what Europe must do now, we must recognize that Ukraine is not fighting this war on its own terms.  This is why it has repeatedly pleaded and begged for more artillery, aircraft, cruise missiles, and combat vehicles.  As critical as innovation and adaptability are in modern warfare, they cannot replace the fundamental need for firepower and manoeuvre.  Thus, while Ukraine has adapted to sustain its fight with domestically built systems, it has not regained the operational capabilities needed for decisive action.

Russia is weaker than we think

The good news is – neither has Russia.  Despite the gains it has made in recent months and the remarkable ‘political will’ – for lack of a better word – to sacrifice hundreds of thousands on the battlefield, the Russian Armed Forces have proven themselves far weaker than most anticipated before 2022.  While they have made tactical adaptations and remain proficient in defensive operations, Russia has paid a steep price.  It has lost large portions of its pre-war force, depleted its Soviet-era stockpiles, and pushed its economy to the limits of its labour force. 

The Russian military has repeatedly failed to conduct basic combined arms manoeuvres or air campaigns and has yet to find a solution to the stalemate other than pressing forward with wave after wave of squad-sized infantry assaults.  For now, Russia remains stuck in Ukraine, and it is highly unlikely that it can simultaneously defeat Kyiv, reconstitute its forces, and open a second front against Eastern Europe.  Where Europe lacks the means to fight the war the way it wants to fight, Russia lacks the systems to conduct it effectively. 

Europe still remembers what stalemates look like

This is the other good news: Europe knows how to avoid a bloody stalemate – because we have been here before: after the First World War, Western militaries adapted their operational and tactical procedures to ensure that it would never again be trapped in the kind of static, attritional warfare that defined the battlefields of Flanders.  The Western Allies, the Wehrmacht, and later NATO did not adopt manoeuvre warfare out of academic preference, but out of the hard-learned necessity to avoid pointless slaughter.  Despite repeated claims by some analysts, it does not mean NATO was incapable of attritional warfare.  Attrition was not abandoned – it was moved away from the frontlines.  Air campaigns and stand-off capabilities such as cruise missiles and long-range rocket artillery were how Western militaries sought to degrade enemy capabilities before their own soldiers ever entered the fight. 

Both these core tenets were validated in Ukraine, as most recaptured territory resulted either from operational breakthroughs – such as the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive – or from shaping the environment into untenable conditions, forcing Russian troops to withdraw, as seen in Kherson later that year.  And while the Kursk offensive has been controversial strategically, it shows that the Russian Armed Forces cannot defend in force everywhere – leaving exploitable gaps and opportunities for manoeuvre.

Russia has shown it cannot replicate the systems to conduct complex air campaigns and shaping operations – even in its own backyard.  This is because NATO’s dominance in Multi-Domain Operations has never been just about tanks, stealth aircraft or cruise missiles.  Rather, it came from the integration of systems—command structures, intelligence fusion, and targeting processes – that allowed NATO forces to operate with unmatched precision.  In this, NATO had – and still has – no peer in the world. 

European strength remains a political—not a military—question

Much of this has depended on U.S. assets, technology, and personnel.  Yet Europe possesses both the institutional knowledge and technological expertise to rebuild these capabilities independently in its own area of responsibility.  We know what to do, how to do it and what to do it with.  Large-scale air exercises with European command structures have demonstrated this potential.  Technology, both new and old, an industrial base and financial resources exist to produce, procure, and employ the necessary weapon systems – build, buy and bomb.  This applies to everything from aircraft and drones to cruise missiles, long-range rocket artillery, and other critical capabilities. 

Europe also has a deep well of doctrinal expertise and a large corps of staff and non-commissioned officers capable of leading the necessary expansion of forces.  With a workforce more than twice the size of Russia’s – and larger than that of the United States – Europe has the manpower to sustain and build up its militaries – if it acts now. 

The crisis facing Europe means challenge is formidable.  Nations – some of which may not even believe in the cause – must unite.  Fragmented European defence industries have to move towards a consolidated warpath.  It means convincing entire generations that this is their fight.  It means spending ‘gold for iron’ today to avoid spilling blood for freedom tomorrow.  Finally, it also means reconstituting European forces now, rather than being forced to send untrained conscripts into the meat grinder later.  Europe needs weapons, civilian defence, hardened infrastructure, and a high state of force readiness – on a massive scale. 

Conclusion

Will Europe ever be as powerful as it was with U.S. support?  No, probably not.  That is why one can only hope NATO still has a future – even as we prepare for the worst.   But if Europe acts with determination and unity it can avoid the political and military crisis it currently faces.  It can rebuild the dominant, highly integrated military systems necessary to deter or decisively defeat any Russian aggression.  The challenge, therefore, is not whether Europe can fight effectively without the United States – it can, and it might soon have to.  The real question is whether Europe will invest today, while it still has the choice of how it wants to fight before circumstances dictate the way it has to.

Monday Music "Sympathy For the Devil."

 I have been watching Paramount+ was watching "Dune" then rolled into several original Star Trek Movies with "Star Trek TWOK" and they had several trailers for a new series starting called "Mobland"  and they were using this song as part of the intro theme, so needless to say this song was an "Earworm" so I decided to foist it on everyone else.  

Now to My "Monday Music"..
       I remembered this song and it ain't my favorite Rolling Stones song, "Paint it black" has that distinction,   One of the things I liked about this song is the historical mentions in the song from "the time for a change in St Petersburg and held a generals rank when the blitzkreig raged." 

                             Looks Like Leonid Brezhnev.....Don't it.......
"Sympathy for the Devil" was written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, though the song was largely a Jagger composition. The working title of the song was "The Devil Is My Name", and it is sung by Jagger as a first-person narrative from the point of view of Lucifer.
In the 2012 BBC documentary Crossfire Hurricane, Jagger stated that his influence for the song came from Baudelaire and from the Russian author Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita (which had just appeared in English translation in 1967). The book was given to him by Marianne Faithfull.
In a 1995 interview with Rolling Stone, Jagger said, "I think that was taken from an old idea of Baudelaire's, I think, but I could be wrong. Sometimes when I look at my Baudelaire books, I can't see it in there. But it was an idea I got from French writing. And I just took a couple of lines and expanded on it. I wrote it as sort of like a Bob Dylan song." It was Richards who suggested changing the tempo and using additional percussion, turning the folk song into a samba.
Backed by an intensifying rock arrangement, the narrator, with narcissistic relish, recounts his exploits over the course of human history and warns the listener: "If you meet me, have some courtesy, have some sympathy, and some taste; use all your well-learned politesse, or I'll lay your soul to waste." Jagger stated in the Rolling Stone interview: "... it's a very long historical figure — the figures of evil and figures of good — so it is a tremendously long trail he's made as personified in this piece."
At the time of the release of Beggars Banquet the Rolling Stones had already raised some hackles for sexually forward lyrics such as "Let's Spend the Night Together" and for allegedly dabbling in Satanism(their previous album, while containing no direct Satanic references, had been titled Their Satanic Majesties Request), and "Sympathy" brought these concerns to the fore, provoking media rumours and fears among some religious groups that the Stones were devil-worshippers and a corrupting influence on youth.
The lyrics focus on atrocities in the history of mankind from Lucifer's point of view, including the trial and death of Jesus Christ ("Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed his fate"), European wars of religion ("I watched with glee while your kings and queens fought for ten decades for the Gods they made"), the violence of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the 1918 massacre of the Romanov family ("I stuck around St. Petersburg when I saw it was a time for a change/Killed the Tsar and his ministers/Anastasia screamed in vain"), and World War II ("I rode a tank, held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank"). The song was originally written with the line "I shouted out 'Who killed Kennedy?'" After Robert F. Kennedy's death on 6 June 1968, the line was changed to "I shouted out 'Who killed the Kennedys?'"
Jagger sings the final lines of the coda, before the fade, in a high falsetto.
The song may have been spared further controversy when the first single from the album, Street Fighting Man, became even more controversial in view of the race riots and student protests occurring in many cities in Europe and in the United States.

The recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" began at London's Olympic Sound Studios on 4 June 1968 and continued into the next day; overdubs were done on 8, 9 and 10 June. Personnel included on the recording include Nicky Hopkins on piano, Rocky Dijon on congas and Bill Wyman on maracas.
It is often mentioned that Marianne Faithfull, Anita Pallenberg, Brian Jones, Charlie Watts, producer Jimmy Miller, Wyman and Richards performed backup vocals, singing the "woo woos", repeatedly, as this can be seen in the film Sympathy for the Devil (see below) by Jean-Luc Godard. Richards plays bass on the original recording, and also the song's electric-guitar solo. Jones is seen playing an acoustic guitar in the film, but it is not audible in the finished mix.
In the 2003 book According to the Rolling Stones, Watts said: "'Sympathy' was one of those sort of songs where we tried everything. The first time I ever heard the song was when Mick was playing it at the front door of a house I lived in in Sussex... He played it entirely on his own... and it was fantastic. We had a go at loads of different ways of playing it; in the end I just played a jazz Latin feel in the style of Kenny Clarke would have played on 'A Night in Tunisia' – not the actual rhythm he played, but the same styling."
On the overall power of the song, Jagger continued in Rolling Stone: "It has a very hypnotic groove, a samba, which has a tremendous hypnotic power, rather like good dance music. It doesn't speed up or slow down. It keeps this constant groove. Plus, the actual samba rhythm is a great one to sing on, but it is also got some other suggestions in it, an undercurrent of being primitive—because it is a primitive African, South American, Afro-whatever-you-call-that rhythm (candomblé). So to white people, it has a very sinister thing about it. But forgetting the cultural colors, it is a very good vehicle for producing a powerful piece. It becomes less pretentious because it is a very unpretentious groove. If it had been done as a ballad, it wouldn't have been as good."

In an interview with Creem, Jagger said, "[When people started taking us as devil worshippers], I thought it was a really odd thing, because it was only one song, after all. It wasn't like it was a whole album, with lots of occult signs on the back. People seemed to embrace the image so readily, [and] it has carried all the way over into heavy metal bands today."

Of the change in public perception the band experienced after the song's release, Richards said in a 1971 interview with Rolling Stone, "Before, we were just innocent kids out for a good time, they're saying, 'They're evil, they're evil.' Oh, I'm evil, really? So that makes you start thinking about evil... What is evil? Half of it, I don't know how much people think of Mick as the devil or as just a good rock performer or what? There are black magicians who think we are acting as unknown agents of Lucifer and others who think we are Lucifer. Everybody's Lucifer."
Contrary to a widespread misconception, it was "Under My Thumb" and not "Sympathy for the Devil" that the Rolling Stones were performing when Meredith Hunter was killed at the Altamont Free Concert. Rolling Stone magazine's early articles on the incident misreported that the killing took place during "Sympathy for the Devil", but the Stones in fact played "Sympathy for the Devil" earlier in the concert; it was interrupted by a fight and restarted, Jagger commenting, "We're always having—something very funny happens when we start that number." Several other songs were performed before Hunter was killed.
After being omitted from the Stones' 1972/73 tours, "Sympathy for the Devil" was played occasionally as the encore in 1975/76, and has been performed regularly on all of their tours since 1989. Concert renditions have been released on the albums The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!, Love You Live, Flashpoint, and Shine a Light.
   Sympathy for the Devil is also the title of a producer's edit of a 1968 film by Jean-Luc Godard whose own original version is called One Plus One. The film, a depiction of the late 1960s American counterculture, also featured the Rolling Stones in the process of recording the song in the studio. On the filming, Jagger said in Rolling Stone: "... [it was] very fortuitous, because Godard wanted to do a film of us in the studio. I mean, it would never happen now, to get someone as interesting as Godard. And stuffy. We just happened to be recording that song. We could have been recording 'My Obsession.' But it was 'Sympathy for the Devil', and it became the track that we used.