241–250 of 588 posts
This is not news to anyone who has been following the changes in gender dynamics in the past ~15 years. Without giving an opinion on any side: there is (and will continue to be) growing instability when inequalities (relationship, wealth, or otherwise) result in a large portion of the population disaffected. Historically the solution to this particular problem has been enforced monogamy + the risk of pregnancy. Clear…
Artificial AI-driven-wife (for example "Geminoid F") with artificial womb would solve the problem.
I’m genuinely concerned that people seriously think this is a _solution_. Beyond sex, relationships with romantic partners are a complex, rewarding part of the human experience. How did that get lost to some?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the data supports this. The economy has gotten better since 2008 by a significant margin. The unemployment rate has dropped consistently since 2010. But that's when the rise of lack of sex seems to really kick off and it hasn't subsided as the economy improved.
A variation is that women demand a man who makes more money than they do. In this model, increased female wages could be a factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. More access to potential partners with less social control lead to a winner take all situation. In addition, and it is addressed in the OP, women try to get partners which are higher on the social scale while men mostly focus on beauty.
Which makes total sense, given the different evolutionary drivers that men and women are motivated by. The problem with most narratives is that they moralize what is essentially an amoral phenomenon.
I do realise though that you're posting in the context of a society in which the necessary causal chain between sex and pregnancy has been broken, but the moral systems we have built around sex and relationships are predicated on that link for perfectly rational and valid reasons. Also ultimately we still need people to have children and bring those children up. The moral factor in sexual behaviour can't simply be discounted.
I’d guess HD porn + addictive video games + ubereats plays a nontrivial role in keeping young men from leaving the house, and also keeping them out of shape, making it more difficult to find a partner even if they wanted to.
What does leaving the house accomplish? It's not like you suddenly will interact with people. Most people organize through internet nowadays and stick to their cliques. Talk to someone on the public transport, you'd say. That also doesn't work, because most of these people are reading a book and have headphones on, which is a "don't touch me" signal to everyone around.
Well, that depends where you go when you leave the house, but there are indeed still places where people interact with strangers in person and form relationships,both friendly and romantic, without online interaction starting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is Japan which has a culture of "herbivore men": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men There is a similar movement growing in the US which is called "MGTOW", men going their own way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way Personally, I'm a bit scared that we're going towards a culture of increasing isolation and tension between the genders.
I think MGTOW are different from herbivore men. I'm not expert on either group buy my understanding is Herbivore men are men that don't or never have sought out relationships with women, while MGTOW is more comprised of men that have had bad relationships with women and decide not to pursue further relationships (especially divorced men).
Tinder, etc. leads to a skewed distribution of access to sexual partners based on attractiveness, which leads to unattractive men not having as many partners, which leads to pick-your-favorite-bad-consequence.
And there are a lot of men in this thread feeling worried and depressed about this. While it's certainly true that you get more matches on Tinder if you're attractive, this overall narrative is vastly oversimplified, and the conclusions drawn from it are inaccurate. It's the result of men projecting male attitudes onto women's behavior. I understand that it's easy to feel resentful. I don't fault anyone inherently for this-- these are complex issues, there are exceptions to every generalization, and it's difficult to judge because it's hard to experience the dating "market" through different eyes.
But before you buy into that narrative, take a moment to think about what it's like for women. I'll indulge in some generalizations (yes there are exceptions) because brevity is of the essence. Compared to men:
- Women care less about physical attractiveness - Women are less interested in hookups and enjoy them less - Women are more interested in romantic and emotional connections and long-term relationships
Do you really think the majority of women are happy with the recent societal changes in dating? It's not hard to find thinkpieces written by women lamenting these issues. I haven't met a single woman who was happy with it. And I've heard many bad date stories from my female friends and my own dates. One article described it as "searching for a diamond in a sea of dick pics". And you have to worry about physical violence or men who treat you like an object and try to run some PUA algorithm on you. Maybe you believe that some women are doing things you don't condone. But can you honestly blame them? No one's perfect, dating is a shitty and exhausting experience for everyone.
As a man it's easy to fixate on physical attractiveness because we notice and care about it more. But I assure you, once you meet your date in person your looks stop mattering (as long as you didn't lie) and at that point it's up to your personality. There are a lot of women who'd be excited to date a decent and kind man who's willing to explore some level of emotional commitment without trying to "keep it casual". Explaining these changes purely on the basis of an attractiveness/status market is a cop-out for men who are too insecure to confront whether they're actually enjoyable people to be around.
I see a lot of proto-incel thoughts in this thread. That shit is a downward spiral, you need to pull yourself together and get out of it before you internalize how physically "unattractive" you supposedly are. Once the incel ideology destroys your self-confidence and skews your outlook on the world you will actually become an unattractive person even if you look fine physically.
Ask a heterosexual woman in that age range about how many awful conversations she's had with men in that age range via dating apps. She won't say "a few", she'll say "A LOT", and be able to show that the vast majority of messages she gets are either very dry or insanely forward (sexually). If you're a great-looking guy and you can't start or hold a good conversation, you can still get laid on the basis of looks. But…
As someone who has been on the sending the awful messages (as in what were you thinking, not too forwards) side, I would like to postulate that having (and starting) conversations on a dating app is very different than in person. I can usually start in person conversations and keep them going for much longer than on a dating app (some go better than others, but on the whole I do better in person).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Women have to screen candidates until they find someone they think is interesting. This is exactly the kind of harmful narrative I'm talking about. > Sociologists have determined that men peak sexually around 18 years old [3]. Women peak at a much later age (30's and 40's). Hopefully better understanding will help the stress you experience dissipate. The stress has absolutely NOTHING to do with that. BUT, since you…
thanks for the links, they are interesting. > > Women have to screen candidates until they find someone they think is interesting. > This is exactly the kind of harmful narrative I'm talking about. There are more nuances than I allowed. Sorry. I will try to refine my presentation to make it less harmful and simplistic. The narrative is based on Ingo Swann's observations (as told in his book [0]), my own conversations…
This is not news to anyone who has been following the changes in gender dynamics in the past ~15 years. Without giving an opinion on any side: there is (and will continue to be) growing instability when inequalities (relationship, wealth, or otherwise) result in a large portion of the population disaffected. Historically the solution to this particular problem has been enforced monogamy + the risk of pregnancy. Clear…
Er, no, it hasn't. Risk of pregnancy predated the problem, it was not a part of a solution to it.