Current Events > Percent of men under 30 reporting no sex triples to record highs.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Because its too expensive to take care of children nowadays?
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

Next, I said what I said and I'm sticking by it. There are plenty enough men out there that are uncomfortable with their women making more than them (and vice versa) that the statement has merit. Particularly when the disparity is large. And I definitely don't deny that a large percent of women won't marry down, I even mentioned it. That's actually the point I was making, both sexes play a role in the situation.

There certainly are, but woman are the main initiators of divoce by a landslide so out of the two genders it's clearly woman with more of a issue with it.

Those career woman you see being validated constantly could find a man easily if they just lowed their standards, but they wont. Becuase woman due to biology or hypergamy specifically generally do not marry down.

Twin3Turbo posted...

Lastly, it's interesting that you brought up the argument of women wanting a man that can take care of them and their children without fully fleshing it out, particularly from a mans point of view. The whole idea of a man taking care of and providing for his family is ingrained into society, that's historically supposed to be a mans role and a large percentage of the population still plays into those roles.

I can see where people are coming from blaiming our traditional roles today on societal norms of old. But dont you think it's to much of a coincidence that gender roles have remained consistant throughout all of human history without any sorta huge debate or conflict? It just happaned. Regardless of our time period, religion, culture, place, or continent?
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

Ultima Dragon posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

At the end of the day, I think both women AND men tend to play a role in hypergamy though. Women looking for men with wealth / not respecting men that they make more money than. And men looking for women that make less money than them cause otherwise they feel embarrassed or emasculated. And just in general not caring how much their SO makes as long as she's hot. Both sides are in part to blame, so it annoys me when people act like it's all women's fault.

I dunno, lol. It seems like this is uniquely a problem in a gynocentric leaning society. All the Asian, South American, etc.. countries are still all banging like rabbits and popping out shit tons of kids. What other reason could there be other than value disparity?

Honestly, I don't know enough about general Asian and South American social climates to really comment, but if those societies don't really push women into college and careers the way the U.S does, then it really wouldn't surprise me.

That being said, haven't there been some reports about a large percentage of Japanese men having little to no sex?

This.

Japan is having the exact same issue, if not worse, and they're hardly a gynocentric leaning society, we also can't blame the problem solely on an obesity epidemic either (and I'm not sure how booming or cruddy their dating app scene is).

There's various factors at play there and in the US, we probably can't pin it on a single development.
---

Literally the easiest it's been to get laid in modern history.

And these goofs can't close.

They're all too busy being a 2.5/10 and lusting after a 11/10.
---

ClockworkHare posted...

...are related. In many cases, one causes the other.

Yes, there are some men who get uncomfortable knowing that the woman in their lives brings in a bigger paycheck and it threatens their self-esteem. They're a portion of men.

However, an even greater portion of men would flat out stop being bothered by their girlfriend making more if the average woman was not so hung up on how much her boyfriend makes to begin with. If most women did not care about a man's income, most western men would not get bothered by the issue at all. It could even become an accepted norm. The fact that many woman DO consider it a standard issue is part of why many men are "intimidated" about falling behind. Because the women they want to date will literally penalize them for it...

Them being related is part of the point that I'm making. The landscape has changed a bit over time but I'm not so sure that it's mainly due to women making their SO's income an issue. If a guy has a patriarchal "I must be the provider" mindset, he's likely to have an issue with it regardless because he wants to feel like he's the main one doing the providing. As long as women are expected to deal more with the home and kids, I'm not so convinced that them ALSO earning more money is likely to become the accepted norm. Men are going to have to be more willing to take on some of more traditional gender roles of the opposite sex.
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

...are related. In many cases, one causes the other.

Yes, there are some men who get uncomfortable knowing that the woman in their lives brings in a bigger paycheck and it threatens their self-esteem. They're a portion of men.

However, an even greater portion of men would flat out stop being bothered by their girlfriend making more if the average woman was not so hung up on how much her boyfriend makes to begin with. If most women did not care about a man's income, most western men would not get bothered by the issue at all. It could even become an accepted norm. The fact that many woman DO consider it a standard issue is part of why many men are "intimidated" about falling behind. Because the women they want to date will literally penalize them for it...

Them being related is part of the point that I'm making. The landscape has changed a bit over time but I'm not so sure that it's mainly due to women making their SO's income an issue. If a guy has a patriarchal "I must be the provider" mindset, he's likely to have an issue with it regardless because he wants to feel like he's the main one doing the providing. As long as women are expected to deal more with the home and kids, I'm not so convinced that them ALSO earning more money is likely to become the accepted norm. Men are going to have to be more willing to take on some of more traditional gender roles of the opposite sex.

I'd wager that men's desire to be the primary provider has more to do with women's disrespect and disregard for men they outearn. As has been mentioned, women don't tend to want to mate down, which is probably what puts pressure on men to want to be the provider. Women largely still want men who are above them in the social ladder and are loathe to settle for men under them.
---

Zodd3224 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Keith_Valentine posted...

Seriously? You dont like girls? Ive had some bad experiences too but the real thing is worth. Its not Everything but it is special. I dunno

I've met guys with kids who actually preferred masturbating over sex.

Not me

I know thats right Zodd lol

*high five*

Esrac posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

...are related. In many cases, one causes the other.

Yes, there are some men who get uncomfortable knowing that the woman in their lives brings in a bigger paycheck and it threatens their self-esteem. They're a portion of men.

However, an even greater portion of men would flat out stop being bothered by their girlfriend making more if the average woman was not so hung up on how much her boyfriend makes to begin with. If most women did not care about a man's income, most western men would not get bothered by the issue at all. It could even become an accepted norm. The fact that many woman DO consider it a standard issue is part of why many men are "intimidated" about falling behind. Because the women they want to date will literally penalize them for it...

Them being related is part of the point that I'm making. The landscape has changed a bit over time but I'm not so sure that it's mainly due to women making their SO's income an issue. If a guy has a patriarchal "I must be the provider" mindset, he's likely to have an issue with it regardless because he wants to feel like he's the main one doing the providing. As long as women are expected to deal more with the home and kids, I'm not so convinced that them ALSO earning more money is likely to become the accepted norm. Men are going to have to be more willing to take on some of more traditional gender roles of the opposite sex.

I'd wager that men's desire to be the primary provider has more to do with women's disrespect and disregard for men they outearn. As has been mentioned, women don't tend to want to mate down, which is probably what puts pressure on men to want to be the provider. Women largely still want men who are above them in the social ladder and are loathe to settle for men under them.

IDK man I know a couple where the woman has her own house and everything and it's the guy who moved in with her and works a less valuable job than her and they're fine together. She's cute too. There's exceptions.
---

Tupacrulez posted...

Literally the easiest it's been to get laid in modern history.

And these goofs can't close.

They're all too busy being a 2.5/10 and lusting after a 11/10.

I agree.... Fucked up standards. Need to bring that shit down to earth. Lots of guys dont want to change or put in the hard work to improve.

Because it is hard. Its hard for me to keep trying. Its hard to make yourself socialize and work out after work sometimes. But it gets easier with practice, right? Shit.. Nerds are cool now! All the nerdiest shit is whats popular and trendy. Nerds should be happy tbh, its our turn in the sun.

Prismsblade posted...

There certainly are, but woman are the main initiators of divoce by a landslide so out of the two genders it's clearly woman with more of a issue with it.

Those career woman you see being validated constantly could find a man easily if they just lowed their standards, but they wont. Becuase woman due to biology or hypergamy specifically generally do not marry down.

In regards to the divorce thing, money typically is one of the main factors, although I'm not so sure it's because she may be making more, but more because of the way money is spent/saved in the house, and the couples debt situation. I 100% agree about the women not marrying down point. I've even brought that up to my friends (and on this board in a somewhat recent post that IIRC Zanzeburger made about a couple of his successful friends using the "Men cant handle my success" excuse). It's why I don't feel sorry for a lot of successful celebrity women that we all know of that get cheated on constantly. Almost all of them could find a faithful husband, but they want to marry a guy that is equally successful or more. But the problem is that he has hot 10/10's constantly throwing themselves at him and history has shown that that's hard for most men to turn down.

Prismsblade posted...

I can see where people are coming from blaiming our traditional roles today on societal norms of old. But dont you think it's to much of a coincidence that gender roles have remained consistant throughout all of human history without any sorta huge debate or conflict? It just happaned. Regardless of our time period, religion, culture, place, or continent?

Well that's also a point I'm making. The fact that women now are doing so well in comparison to men in addition to having it ingrained in them that a man is supposed to take care of them....those two factors lead to a lot of women being breadwinners, making more money than men, and not wanting to date guys that make less than them. Those guys making 40k today would have had less issues scooping up a woman back in the days where women didn't work or didn't make as much money. But now that women are making 60k, 70k and up, those 40k guys don't cut it for them any more. I agree that those women should probably be at least a little more open to the idea of marrying down, but chances are, they are going to at least feel like on some level that they are taking care of him. But they have it ingrained that it should be the other way around.
---

Keith_Valentine posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Literally the easiest it's been to get laid in modern history.

And these goofs can't close.

They're all too busy being a 2.5/10 and lusting after a 11/10.

I agree.... Fucked up standards. Need to bring that shit down to earth. Lots of guys dont want to change or put in the hard work to improve.

Because it is hard. Its hard for me to keep trying. Its hard to make yourself socialize and work out after work sometimes. But it gets easier with practice, right? Shit.. Nerds are cool now! All the nerdiest shit is whats popular and trendy. Nerds should be happy tbh, its our turn in the sun.

I think even 2.5/10 women get inflated egos due to all the dudes who would be ok to hit it and quit on sites like Tinder. So those 2.5/10 dudes can't get the women on their level.
---

evil_zombie11 posted...

Esrac posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

...are related. In many cases, one causes the other.

Yes, there are some men who get uncomfortable knowing that the woman in their lives brings in a bigger paycheck and it threatens their self-esteem. They're a portion of men.

However, an even greater portion of men would flat out stop being bothered by their girlfriend making more if the average woman was not so hung up on how much her boyfriend makes to begin with. If most women did not care about a man's income, most western men would not get bothered by the issue at all. It could even become an accepted norm. The fact that many woman DO consider it a standard issue is part of why many men are "intimidated" about falling behind. Because the women they want to date will literally penalize them for it...

Them being related is part of the point that I'm making. The landscape has changed a bit over time but I'm not so sure that it's mainly due to women making their SO's income an issue. If a guy has a patriarchal "I must be the provider" mindset, he's likely to have an issue with it regardless because he wants to feel like he's the main one doing the providing. As long as women are expected to deal more with the home and kids, I'm not so convinced that them ALSO earning more money is likely to become the accepted norm. Men are going to have to be more willing to take on some of more traditional gender roles of the opposite sex.

I'd wager that men's desire to be the primary provider has more to do with women's disrespect and disregard for men they outearn. As has been mentioned, women don't tend to want to mate down, which is probably what puts pressure on men to want to be the provider. Women largely still want men who are above them in the social ladder and are loathe to settle for men under them.

IDK man I know a couple where the woman has her own house and everything and it's the guy who moved in with her and works a less valuable job than her and they're fine together. She's cute too. There's exceptions.

Sure, but we're talking about general tendencies. Yeah, you can find a few exceptions, but women, in general, tend to favor men who are above them on the social ladder and disdain men who are below them.
---

Esrac posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

...are related. In many cases, one causes the other.

Yes, there are some men who get uncomfortable knowing that the woman in their lives brings in a bigger paycheck and it threatens their self-esteem. They're a portion of men.

However, an even greater portion of men would flat out stop being bothered by their girlfriend making more if the average woman was not so hung up on how much her boyfriend makes to begin with. If most women did not care about a man's income, most western men would not get bothered by the issue at all. It could even become an accepted norm. The fact that many woman DO consider it a standard issue is part of why many men are "intimidated" about falling behind. Because the women they want to date will literally penalize them for it...

Them being related is part of the point that I'm making. The landscape has changed a bit over time but I'm not so sure that it's mainly due to women making their SO's income an issue. If a guy has a patriarchal "I must be the provider" mindset, he's likely to have an issue with it regardless because he wants to feel like he's the main one doing the providing. As long as women are expected to deal more with the home and kids, I'm not so convinced that them ALSO earning more money is likely to become the accepted norm. Men are going to have to be more willing to take on some of more traditional gender roles of the opposite sex.

I'd wager that men's desire to be the primary provider has more to do with women's disrespect and disregard for men they outearn. As has been mentioned, women don't tend to want to mate down, which is probably what puts pressure on men to want to be the provider. Women largely still want men who are above them in the social ladder and are loathe to settle for men under them.

I agree that it plays a role but I think the provider thing is ingrained in society regardless. I'd say one of the main reasons for women not wanting to date down is because of the idea of men being the provider. If a woman has it ingrained that a man is supposed to be a provider and take care of her, and the single biggest way to do that in society today is through money, then it makes sense for them to only want to mate with dudes that have more than them. That way they still feel provided for. If she makes 100k and he makes 20k, I just highly doubt that she is going to feel provided for.
---

evil_zombie11 posted...

IDK man I know a couple where the woman has her own house and everything and it's the guy who moved in with her and works a less valuable job than her and they're fine together. She's cute too. There's exceptions.

There's exceptions to all of these things, but I think right now we are pretty much just having a general discussion.
---

Oh gotcha. lol I agree about that being the norm generally.
---

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Obesity diminishes sex drive.

#Metoo and a lesser desire for children are also culprits.
---

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

Aloner posted...

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

They don't try.

It has nothing to do with people being "unfuckable"
---

Lebronwon posted...

Keith_Valentine posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Literally the easiest it's been to get laid in modern history.

And these goofs can't close.

They're all too busy being a 2.5/10 and lusting after a 11/10.

I agree.... Fucked up standards. Need to bring that shit down to earth. Lots of guys dont want to change or put in the hard work to improve.

Because it is hard. Its hard for me to keep trying. Its hard to make yourself socialize and work out after work sometimes. But it gets easier with practice, right? Shit.. Nerds are cool now! All the nerdiest shit is whats popular and trendy. Nerds should be happy tbh, its our turn in the sun.

I think even 2.5/10 women get inflated egos due to all the dudes who would be ok to hit it and quit on sites like Tinder. So those 2.5/10 dudes can't get the women on their level.

Yea but 2.5 is far below the average! Those dudes would be screwed no matter what. Just like ugly women have a rough time in society.

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

That's the Admiral we want to see. Classic

Aloner posted...

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

Even non-hot women can get with dudes several points above them on the looks scale if all they are looking for is sex.

Also, believe it or not, a very large portion of those "unfuckable losers" really are indeed losers and not pleasant people to be around. So women avoid them.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Aloner posted...

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

They don't try.

It has nothing to do with people being "unfuckable"

I would assume that more men "try" than women, given social traditions, yet still more women get laid. Bizarre.

Aloner posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Aloner posted...

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

They don't try.

It has nothing to do with people being "unfuckable"

I would assume that more men "try" than women, given social traditions, yet still more women get laid. Bizarre.

Posting "hey" to 47 girls on tinder isn't trying.
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

Even non-hot women can get with dudes several points above them on the looks scale if all they are looking for is sex.

It seems that this is the case. I wish everyone would just acknowledge it, instead of pretending that we enjoy a level playing field.

People tell guys to just "lower their standards", yet even women uglier than them are already banging men who are hotter than them.

Sometimes standards aren't the problem, and there's just no options.

Twin3Turbo posted...

Esrac posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

...are related. In many cases, one causes the other.

Yes, there are some men who get uncomfortable knowing that the woman in their lives brings in a bigger paycheck and it threatens their self-esteem. They're a portion of men.

However, an even greater portion of men would flat out stop being bothered by their girlfriend making more if the average woman was not so hung up on how much her boyfriend makes to begin with. If most women did not care about a man's income, most western men would not get bothered by the issue at all. It could even become an accepted norm. The fact that many woman DO consider it a standard issue is part of why many men are "intimidated" about falling behind. Because the women they want to date will literally penalize them for it...

Them being related is part of the point that I'm making. The landscape has changed a bit over time but I'm not so sure that it's mainly due to women making their SO's income an issue. If a guy has a patriarchal "I must be the provider" mindset, he's likely to have an issue with it regardless because he wants to feel like he's the main one doing the providing. As long as women are expected to deal more with the home and kids, I'm not so convinced that them ALSO earning more money is likely to become the accepted norm. Men are going to have to be more willing to take on some of more traditional gender roles of the opposite sex.

I'd wager that men's desire to be the primary provider has more to do with women's disrespect and disregard for men they outearn. As has been mentioned, women don't tend to want to mate down, which is probably what puts pressure on men to want to be the provider. Women largely still want men who are above them in the social ladder and are loathe to settle for men under them.

I agree that it plays a role but I think the provider thing is ingrained in society regardless. I'd say one of the main reasons for women not wanting to date down is because of the idea of men being the provider. If a woman has it ingrained that a man is supposed to be a provider and take care of her, and the single biggest way to do that in society today is through money, then it makes sense for them to only want to mate with dudes that have more than them.

I don't think that role of men as provider is an issue of social conditioning. I suspect its biological inclination informing how our societies are constructed. At best, I think, you could say that, because humans are tribal animals, our social pressures reinforcd those natural inclinations.

I mean, men mostly being most of the heads of households, primary providers, leaders, etc seems to be pretty standard across various cultures. Seems unlikely that would be a coincidence if that kind of structure wasn't ingrained in us as a species.

Totally hypothesizing here, but my suspicion is that in the early days of our species, women needed men to provide for them, because a pregnant woman is going to have a much harder time providing for herself in those harsher times.

So, women who were inclined to depend on the men to protect and provide for her and her offspring would have a better chance to pass on whatever genes predispose her to feeling a need to depend on men. For similar reasons, men evolved to tend to be bigger, stronger, and more prone to status-seeking, risk-taking, and aggressive behavior than women.

I don't think that its society that teaches us that. I think that is the type of behavior you'd naturally see in humans and that you'd need a society to train people to behave differently from that.

Am I getting my point across okay?
---

Aloner posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

Even non-hot women can get with dudes several points above them on the looks scale if all they are looking for is sex.

It seems that this is the case. I wish everyone would just acknowledge it, instead of pretending that we enjoy a level playing field.

People tell guys to just "lower their standards", yet even women uglier than them are already banging men who are hotter than them.

Sometimes standards aren't the problem, and there's just no options.

Well, they have it easier in some ways, we have it easier in others. If all they want is sex, then no question women have it easier. However, if they are looking for a relationship, I firmly believe guys have it easier. Or rather, we control that more than women do. There's no shortage of women blowing up my phone weekly that would like to be in a relationship with me, but I don't commit to any of them. I control that aspect.
---

Aloner posted...

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

I know I'm certainly "unfuckable". The key difference though is that I'm not some bitter incel about it, I've just had to accept that I'm nonviable mating stock, and that's *before* taking into account the supposed "competition" out there.

There's literally no reason for me to ever try, the game was lost from the onset.
---

Esrac posted...

I don't think that role of men as provider is an issue of social conditioning. I suspect its biological inclination informing how our societies are constructed. At best, I think, you could say that, because humans are tribal animals, our social pressures reinforcd those natural inclinations.

I mean, men mostly being most of the heads of households, primary providers, leaders, etc seems to be pretty standard across various cultures. Seems unlikely that would be a coincidence if that kind of structure wasn't ingrained in us as a species.

Totally hypothesizing here, but my suspicion is that in the early days of our species, women needed men to provide for them, because a pregnant woman is going to have a much harder time providing for herself in those harsher times.

So, women who were inclined to depend on the men to protect and provide for her and her offspring would have a better chance to pass on whatever genes predispose her to feeling a need to depend on men. For similar reasons, men evolved to tend to be bigger, stronger, and more prone to status-seeking, risk-taking, and aggressive behavior than women.

I don't think that its society that teaches us that. I think that is the type of behavior you'd naturally see in humans and that you'd need a society to train people to behave differently from that.

Am I getting my point across okay?

I'm pretty sure that we basically agree, but disagree on on the degree, if that makes sense. In regards to whether or not men being providers is social conditioning or primal conditioning, I'm not really sure much that it matters honestly (although I'd wager that the answer is that it's both). The end result of it being that it's ingrained in our heads that mean are supposed to lead, protect and provide. And as you said, that's pretty much how it's been in most cultures through history. The problem that has come about is that women have started taking on more of that more traditional male role yet don't really respect the men that take on more traditional female role IMO.
---

The problem that men have now is they just have no balls. Straight women want men. Real men. Not humans who happen to have a penis but act like women.

It doesnt mean that women cant be independent, powerful, assertive, and financially successful. But women have to BELIEVE that a man is still capable of being a real man, of providing strength, security, and comfort and be able to take control if need be. Theres alot of guys that cant even pretend well enough to get a woman to suspend that disbelief.

Even if our modern society has redefined alot of standards for that, women still have deep rooted biological need to have a powerful man. It's not about actual physical strength or finances...its about guys projecting the aura of being powerful if need be.
That does not mean women want controlled and disrespected....to put it crudely, women want a respectful man, but one they believe can fuck them hard and pull their hair and smack their ass a little. Respectfully. Similar to how guys want a lady in the street and a freak in the bed, you know.

Right now, there is just a large segment of males who just reek of pussy whipped, might as well be dickless mamas boys. And women can spot it so fast and want nothing to do with it.

Why have sex when you can jerk it off to your 2d waifus?
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

Aloner posted...

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

Even non-hot women can get with dudes several points above them on the looks scale if all they are looking for is sex.

Also, believe it or not, a very large portion of those "unfuckable losers" really are indeed losers and not pleasant people to be around. So women avoid them.

Which raises the question, how did so many males get to that point?

I'm not sure if its just a general paradigm shift in which women who would've had to settle for those men no longer have to, and so they just get discarded... or if there is something that is preventing them from developing into more desirable males?

Were these guys lost causes from the get go who would've just died off in a more primitivetime, or were they left broken by some dysfunction in our modern societies?
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

Well, they have it easier in some ways, we have it easier in others. If all they want is sex, then no question women have it easier. However, if they are looking for a relationship, I firmly believe guys have it easier. Or rather, we control that more than women do. There's no shortage of women blowing up my phone weekly that would like to be in a relationship with me, but I don't commit to any of them. I control that aspect.

It's a matter of sequence though.

You have to pass the sexual desirability check before women start begging for relationships.

A random guy who doesn't get laid can't just go out getting free relationships. The unattractive guys who are primarily focused on relationships and try to push that aspect often fall into the "nice guy" scenario and get nothing. It's only the "players" who get the constant relationship demands.

A random woman looking for free sex can just get it, though. No qualifications necessary.

Basically, "Women have an easier time getting sex. Attractive men have an easier time getting relationships. Unattractive men can't get a foot in the door." Though realistically if the women were willing to settle, they could get easy relationships too.

Esrac posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

Aloner posted...

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

Even non-hot women can get with dudes several points above them on the looks scale if all they are looking for is sex.

Also, believe it or not, a very large portion of those "unfuckable losers" really are indeed losers and not pleasant people to be around. So women avoid them.

Which raises the question, how did so many males get to that point?

I'm not sure if its just a general paradigm shift in which women who would've had to settle for those men no longer have to, and so they just get discarded... or if there is something that is preventing them from developing into more desirable males?

Were these guys lost causes from the get go who would've just died off in a more primitivetime, or were they left broken by some dysfunction in our modern societies?

Good ass question. Hell if I have the answer but if I were to take a stab at at least some different factors, there are just a lot of things that take place of what having a career and a family would have provided for a man.

Porn being a big cause of it. Now that it's literally at your fingertips on demand, you can just live out your fantasies on your own time, literally whenever you want. Secondly, video games have done a pretty good job of replacing real life accomplishments. Now instead of trying to win at life, they're more worried about putting in 100 hours to get their next platinum PS4 trophy.
---

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Aloner posted...

The Admiral posted...

On the opposite end of this discussion, I've found it ridiculously easy to get laid this year. Has to be aided by the lack of competition and number of guys in their 20s who are just unfuckable losers.

Why can't their female equivalents fuck them? There shouldn't really be "unfuckable losers".

I know I'm certainly "unfuckable". The key difference though is that I'm not some bitter incel about it, I've just had to accept that I'm nonviable mating stock, and that's *before* taking into account the supposed "competition" out there.

There's literally no reason for me to ever try, the game was lost from the onset.

What?

We live in a world where Lyle Lovett was able to fuck Julia Roberts. I'm not saying you can fuck a celebrity, but if Lyle Lovett figured that shit out, even the ugliest guy on the planet has to be able find something.

No one ever gets a hit without even stepping to the plate.

Esrac posted...

Which raises the question, how did so many males get to that point?

Lots of things:
- Record number still living at home in their 20s
- Unlike with women, successful men in their 30s and 40s will compete (and win) for those same women in their 20s
- Excessive Internet/online socialization leads to social awkwardness and inability to talk to women
- Younger men have been indoctrinated with bullshit about how being "traditionally masculine" is offensive, but most women still want to fuck men who are traditionally masculine
- Fewer guys in their 20s drink, which has always been a driver for sexual aggressiveness
---

Porn and online dating ruined everything.

Its easier to just go out one night on the town and figure it out, man.
---

My personal theory is that women don't need to interact with as wide a pool of men anymore because they can just get their kicks on social media or tinder. They get all the attention they need there. It's an addiction.

They don't need that random dude that sits near them in class, if they can go online and get 500 'likes' or find someone on a dating app
---

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

I know I'm certainly "unfuckable". The key difference though is that I'm not some bitter incel about it, I've just had to accept that I'm nonviable mating stock, and that's *before* taking into account the supposed "competition" out there.

But there are women out there with your exact traits. They should be viable.

jedisamurai posted...

That does not mean women want controlled and disrespected....to put it crudely, women want a respectful man, but one they believe can fuck them hard and pull their hair and smack their ass a little.

Well we're taught that behavior like that is rude and degrading. Maybe society needs to stop suppressing desirable traits.

The way I was brought up, I could never imagine roughing a woman up during sex in any way, regardless of it being simple playfulness. And those influences are ingrained in me at this point.

Twin3Turbo posted...

Esrac posted...

I don't think that role of men as provider is an issue of social conditioning. I suspect its biological inclination informing how our societies are constructed. At best, I think, you could say that, because humans are tribal animals, our social pressures reinforcd those natural inclinations.

I mean, men mostly being most of the heads of households, primary providers, leaders, etc seems to be pretty standard across various cultures. Seems unlikely that would be a coincidence if that kind of structure wasn't ingrained in us as a species.

Totally hypothesizing here, but my suspicion is that in the early days of our species, women needed men to provide for them, because a pregnant woman is going to have a much harder time providing for herself in those harsher times.

So, women who were inclined to depend on the men to protect and provide for her and her offspring would have a better chance to pass on whatever genes predispose her to feeling a need to depend on men. For similar reasons, men evolved to tend to be bigger, stronger, and more prone to status-seeking, risk-taking, and aggressive behavior than women.

I don't think that its society that teaches us that. I think that is the type of behavior you'd naturally see in humans and that you'd need a society to train people to behave differently from that.

Am I getting my point across okay?

I'm pretty sure that we basically agree, but disagree on on the degree, if that makes sense. In regards to whether or not men being providers is social conditioning or primal conditioning, I'm not really sure much that it matters honestly (although I'd wager that the answer is that it's both). The end result of it being that it's ingrained in our heads that mean are supposed to lead, protect and provide. And as you said, that's pretty much how it's been in most cultures through history. The problem that has come about is that women have started taking on more of that more traditional male role yet don't really respect the men that take on more traditional female role IMO.

I'm generally of the opinion that all the big generalities about how our societies are structured are informed by biological inclinations to certain tendencies.

And that we really only start to break from those tendencies when technology gets to a point that we can train ourselves to behave differently. I mean, I don't think it's a coincidence that women's independence and success kinda coincides with various inventions that allowed for it.

I mean, don't think we'd have nearly the same state if we didn't invent effective birth control or medical technologies and techniques that let more women survive child birth and let's more of those children survive to adulthood, for example.
---

Aloner posted...

18 and 29 reporting no sex in the last year

Hang on, does this mean they just haven't been laid in a year?

The topic title makes it sound like the category is people who have had no sex ever, not "no sex in the last year." Big difference.
---

Ive been having frequent sex since 18. Whos taking these surveys?
---

PatrickMahomes posted...

Aloner posted...

18 and 29 reporting no sex in the last year

Hang on, does this mean they just haven't been laid in a year?

The topic title makes it sound like the category is people who have had no sex ever, not "no sex in the last year." Big difference.

And this.

To be fair, I dont remember my longest dry spell but it was definitely over 6 months.
---

The Admiral posted...

Esrac posted...

Which raises the question, how did so many males get to that point?

Lots of things:
- Record number still living at home in their 20s
- Unlike with women, successful men in their 30s and 40s will compete (and win) for those same women in their 20s
- Excessive Internet/online socialization leads to social awkwardness and inability to talk to women
- Younger men have been indoctrinated with bullshit about how being "traditionally masculine" is offensive, but most women still want to fuck men who are traditionally masculine
- Fewer guys in their 20s drink, which has always been a driver for sexual aggressiveness

So, I'm 33 and married with a couple kids.

However, I'm currently in a situation where I'm living separate from my family (military) and most of the females I'm around are in their early 20s, maybe very late teens.

Not that I'm looking to have an affair, but when I wonder what it'd be like to try hitting on any of these 20-something girls, I'm kind of left baffled because I don't really know what to say to them.

Yeah, I'm probably a bit socially awkward because a lot of my socialization has been online and maybe I have spent too much time playing video games. And maybe I only drink sparingly. But, for me specifically, I think it's because I've spent so much of my life in a committed, monogamous relationship and then with a family (my wife and I have been together for over a decade).

What I mean is, if my wife and I did divorce or something, I may be in trouble because I don't really know how to successfully hit on women anymore. I've been out of that game for so long and I don't really know how to relate to women who are ten years younger than me.

The joking comparison of a married man to a domesticated animal isn't wrong.
---

Aloner posted...

we're taught that behavior like that is rude and degrading. Maybe society needs to stop suppressing desirable traits.

The way I was brought up, I could never imagine roughing a woman up during sex in any way, regardless of it being simple playfulness. And those influences are ingrained in me at this point.

Come on my dude...you're not taking that literally are you? Some women arent into that shit of course. Take out the (playful) hair pull and ass smack....let's just say bent over doggy with her ass in the air ready for a solid fucking.

For women, its about the feeling, emotionally as much as the act itself. Doggy style is statistically by far women's favorite position. Why? I mean the position itself is a little degrading.

Because not only does it feel physically good from that angle, but mentally, they feel both slutty and safewith their partner. That's a powerful combo.

If God wanted people to have sex he wouldn't have invented clothing

Esrac posted...

What I mean is, if my wife and I did divorce or something, I may be in trouble because I don't really know how to successfully hit on women anymore. I've been out of that game for so long and I don't really know how to relate to women who are ten years younger than me.

It's a skill, like anything else, and it improves with practice. I assume since you're married you at least have an average ability to talk with women. That's a big part of it -- you don't need crazy game or stupid moves, you need to know how to interact, listen, and come across as a confident guy. You get more of a pass for any shortcomings as physicality improves (being tall, in shape, good looking), but you don't need to be hot to get laid.

The hardest part, IMO, is knowing when you're getting a green light to be aggressive and when you should try to make your move. That's a bit more of an art and takes some practice.
---

Esrac posted...

- Excessive Internet/online socialization leads to social awkwardness and inability to talk to women
- Younger men have been indoctrinated with bullshit about how being "traditionally masculine" is offensive, but most women still want to fuck men who are traditionally masculine

These two are the biggest reasons, men acting like men is being called "toxic masculinity" when it's just dudes acting the way they are suppose to, people are being sexist towards men especially white men recently with Gillete's commercial being a perfect example.

Dude's in their 20's are being lied to by mothers and PC culture into being "sensitive" and less manly which is NOT what women want.
---

we want sex bots
---

Women, who needs 'em!
---

https://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss300/Tails82x/cdcfiguresabstinence_zpscc8ce022.png

This is from the CDC back in 2012 and I was noting this trend way back in the photobucket days. Abstinence is the norm.

As a conservative I'm absolutely pleased, but with some caveats and challenges involved from this trend. I'm also loving the whole end of brick and mortar thing, btw, and the internet replacing human contact - I heard "man is a social animal" so many times in too many half-baked high school courses. The truth is, a lot of these interactions only took place because we HAD to. But as soon as other options are possible, just look at what the public picks.

Of course, there are downsides to this, the higher rates of isolation/depression and lower birth rate being some of them. It is possible to go too far here.

Not surprising. Those 18-29 year olds are all still living at home.

I'd say the #1 factor is failure to launch more than anything. In spite of easy access via app or whatever, #2 is even easier access to digital alternatives. It comes up on the screen when you want it, goes away when you want it, and has even less commitment. As Ray Bradbury would say, "blow, wad, flush" The lower marriage/birth rates are part of society now paying the price for the choice to take the lazy way.
---