1) Internet porn is training young men to have sex with fantasy images, making sex with a real partner an alien concept. 2) People are way more engaged with screens than in person 3) Masculinity is labeled 'toxic', etc. Young men are not getting the support/encouragement/mentoring they need.
Can you expand the third point a bit?
I hear people talk about this a lot, but don't understand what it actually means.
For example, what kind of support/encouragement/mentoring did men previously get that they no longer enjoy, and how would it have an effect on sex rates?
‘What a horrible idea — interacting with other humans face to face - I’d be so uncomfortable’. I see it as a weak social muscle that hasn’t had a lot of workout time and is leaning on a crutch of modern lifestyle staying indoors on screen time. Just like how gradual exercise will make someone stronger , lose weight and take a burden off of the public healthcare system — social exercise will benefit society as well in…
Mandatory bullshit events forced on people who don't want to be there and then likely some stupid process to prove to the government that you attended the event is a horrible idea. If you want to encourage face to face events then you need to transform urban spaces to be more walkable and create more public spaces people actually want to hang out at. If I go outside I could walk around for hours and the only people I…
I'm not sure that's true. If you look at where people meet their spouses you often find it was in school or at work (at least here in the states), basically places where they were forced to interact with other people.
"dude F that S *, I'm staying home, rolling a bunch of fat ones, and grinding on my level 80 Warlock, then logging on to grind up my PathOfExile smurf" (repeat loop for next 40 years) -- lots of people who are no way voluntarily going to break their comfortable cocoon created by addictive gaming & drugs.
I've been together with my wife for 18 years, married for 14 and I met her playing the original Everquest.
If you accept the premises: free information leads to higher female promiscuity aimed at top % males Lower % males will always be aware of this At some point this leads to increased violence and conflict There's no way to put any of this back into the bottle (how can you enforce cultural (or even enforced) monogamy given free information and anonymous encounters? It's harder than trying to prevent people doing drugs,…
That last sentiment is very prominent in the incel/red pill "communities". They have some inside-baseball names for it, but essentially they do express their extreme disdain for women who have sex with lots of men then decide to "settle down" with a provider.
Yeah it's absolutely an incel meme but do no means do I think that they invented it or that it's unique to them. I think almost all men have this feeling to some extent, I think it's a rare guy who is happy to know that every good looking guy in his office slept with his girlfriend casually. Proximity (time, location, social circle) is definitely an aggravating factor but it's all just a sliding scale. I like to think that I mostly don't care about a girl's past but it's definitely annoying on some level of the sliding scale.
I'm not a native speaker, and may miss some nuances, but promiscuous is defined as "having multiple sexual partners" by my dictionary which I think is as neutral as possible. Promiscuity is at first, and foremost was (and still is, in spite of contraception availability) practically more acceptable for men. And monogomy among other things is a constraint on men's behavior - forcing to accept social, and economic resp…
I am a native speaker, and "promiscuous" is definitely a negative, pejorative term. (Dictionary definitions are good at capturing the denotation of a word, but are sometimes less good at explaining its connotations. If your dictionary lists additional/alternate definitions of this one that apply in non-sexual contexts, look at those to see if they appear to carry positive or negative implications.)
It's clear what is being discussed here, because "promiscuity" has a simple understandable meaning. In certain contexts the word has a negative connotation, but only because those contexts morally disapprove of the condition the word describes. One would have hoped that "native speakers" could have offered a different, more suitable word to employ in this discussion, rather than just ruling the discussion out of bounds because they don't like this particular word.
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…
Having spent a fair amount of time doing the online dating thing at one point in my life, and having taken the time and effort on writing good messages, I don't feel like this is true at all. That's why you see men writing a bunch of generic low effort messages to women: because it is ultimately a more successful strategy.
Because young men are chronically watching hardcore pornography (produced in morally-depraved state of California)which trains them to think that they could never possibly compete with that big black d*ck hammering white womens butts and therefore could never possibly genuinely satisfy a woman.
Sex, food and shelter are necessary conditions for an "awesome life" for most people. You could argue they aren't sufficient and you need more ( like spirituality, community, etc ), but it's disingenuous to dismiss it as an unnecessary condition that you could distract yourself with hobbies. Response to (sridca): Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between need and desire. But you can't have an "awesome life" if yo…
Do you know the difference between need and desire? Can you comprehend how desiring sex is different to needing food and shelter? It is true that most people, as you indicate, are apparently unable to live an awesome life without sex in horizon. But that does not automatically make sex a "necessary condition" for an awesome life. > Not sure how you can live an "awesome life" without your basic natural desires being m…
You’re arguing pedantry and missing the point. Sex is not a need like food and water, you could say the same thing about any degree of human contact whatsoever.
And yet we know that humans isolated from other humans generally do not turn out well and sexual isolation is a very significant milestone on that spectrum.
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.
What does leaving the house accomplish? It's not
like you suddenly will interact with people.
Not all things that involve leaving the house involve meeting new people in person - but almost all the things that involve meeting new people in person involve leaving the house.