Record high amount of young men not having..ehm you-know-what.
- Thread starter stroopwafel
- Start date
I think we need to take that with a big pinch of salt.Gorfias said:
Not least because the author himself explains some massive caveats (small sample size, self-reported behaviour, etc.) There's not really "sharing" going on here (and the given stats suggest it's more 4:1, not 20:1). People who want one night stands have partners all to themselves for as long as they want: one night.
Likewise, Tinder is likely to represent more of a subsection of the dating pool; I don't know it well, but it seems to me to emphasise looks and superficiality (arguably a plus for people wanting one-night stands) where I suspect most people get their kicks through the traditional method of just leaving their house and happening to meet someone (workplace, bars and clubs, church[footnote]Statistically, church is a very good place to find partners, albeit more the long-term variety than flings[/footnote]), which through increased mutual interaction will be more dependent on being someone to have a fun time with.
You know, I wonder how that compares to the underlying truth behind Alex Jones "chemicals turning the frogs gay" (endocrine disrupters and hormones in the water [mostly put there by private industry] causing problems wrt sexual development, sexual behavior and fertility in amphibians) bit? More specifically, I wonder what the effects of human exposure are, and at what levels.Gorfias said:
True. For socialogical purposes, I'd think we need to see how the hookup culture impacts society, uncluding marriage rates. I read that marriage rates are either down or simply delayed.JoJo said:
So many confounding factors. Tinder is a subsection of daters, but maybe many do not use it knowing it a waste of time for them. In the end, regular guys can marry but I do think hook up culture is not for them.Agema said:
The truth can be found in the Hohos. Beware chocolate covered swiss rolls. But seriously, be nice if people were more concerened with this than, say, women's pubic region grooming habits. Example: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/data-watch/sdut-female-grooming-study-2016jul12-story.htmlSchadrach said:
Pulling people is about charisma more than it is looks (at least in face to face communication).Gorfias said:
Looks make getting one's foot in the door easier and the pig ugly are always going to have a mountain to climb, but sufficient charm will get men laid plenty.
Plausible. Chemicals used in plastics are likely to be a significant problem, as they may have oestrogen-like effects.Schadrach said:
You're often recommended to not wrap certain foods (e.g. cheese) in clingfilm because they potentially leach some of these chemicals out of the plastic, for instance. Although plastics in the water, soil, etc. are much more likely to be a problem.
But hey, that sort of thought leads to environmentalist stuff, which is really just an excuse for socialism, innit?
LOLHere Comes Tomorrow said:
They don't accept immigration well and also the population here is nothing like theirs. What kinda fear mongering thoughtlessness is this XD
I mean it's not even birth rates it's who's a virgin by what age lol
I mean, it kinda is? And also intersex. And sometimes just neutered.Marik2 said:
The whole thing about that stupid Alex Jones meme is that there actually are chemicals in the water interfering with the sexual behavior, sexual development and fertility of frogs. Just not put there by the government using chemtrails for some nefarious purpose but largely as industrial waste that should probably be better regulated (significantly from the production and use of plastics and from agriculture but from other industries as well). But they're not carbon dioxide, so it's not "sexy" to bring them up right now.
A example is atrazine (an herbicide), which can cause male frogs to develop female genitalia and be fertile, but only produce male offspring. Sometimes it just causes feminization without fertility, or chemical castration. Fun stuff.
Yes. I am very triggered right now. Thats why I made lengthy, ranty post in response to his very calm and reasonable post about incels and MRAs. C'mon dude.Avnger said:
Nope. Not too soon:Neurotic Void Melody said:
example: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzyvee/everything-we-know-about-torontos-new-sex-doll-brothel
I do think society has a problem that contributes to the incel issue. Namely, an artificially prolonged adolescence. And I don't doubt that is contributing to these numbers.
Not sure how much the MGTOW are impacting it.
Well, in that they are a part of society, it can't not have to do with them.Gorfias said:
Personally, I think it's largely part of the idea that a man is supposed to have/is owed a woman, and that he/society has failed if they do not. If people were being brought up believing that it's ok to be single, and that they shouldn't be condemned by their peers or themselves for being so, we'd not see people feeling alienated that way.
Just go the Stefan Molyneux route. Blame the women for fathering children with a-holes. Because that automatically creates more a-holes.Gorfias said:
Because being an a-hole is genetic.
Just letting you know that this is sarcasm. Please don't do that. This pretty much sums up my problems with Incels. They invent a problem (girls dont want to date ugly guys when in reality their personality is the problem) and making a solution only fixable by someone else (if you're problem needs to be fixed by someone else, you have no power.)
That's not true, because there are always women who aren't in an intimate relationship. Seeing women as a limited resource that men are in constantly competiting for is the misogynistic core of incel mentality. It's a huge problem because that same mentality is an impediment in social relationships, increasing social isolation and reinforcing the mentality. It's a vicious spiral of self-defeat that ends up hurting oneself and the people who they make contact with.Gorfias said: