Current Events > Democracy might come to an end because some dudes can't get p****

(+) Yeah! (+)

GranAures posted...

It can't be those men should be expected to actually be appealing to women, the problem is clearly everything other than the men being unappealing.

It's the economy, the job market. More livable wages means more men can actually do shit and work on themselves.

Pudding? Well, you can't have pudding until you eat your meat.

SecretBase posted...

It's a different type of self-interest. You're invested in the success of your family, and potentially future generations. Alone you don't necessarily do anything that doesn't directly benefit you personally.

As a single man I do things to help people out that dont benefit me all the time. Not having a family of my own is what allows me to do those things. I have the spare money, time and energy.

I think this whole topic has a fundamental misunderstanding of the demographic. Trump aint winning shit and also single people dont have to only care about themselves.

Guide posted...

It's the economy, the job market. More livable wages means more men can actually do shit and work on themselves.

It was more a follow up to the notion of "just take in more women" as the "solution."

UndefeatedGOAT posted...

what was the rights answer to men not getting women?

Stop taking away women's rights and treating them like equals would both go a long way.

Umbreon posted...

Stop taking away women's rights and treating them like equals would both go a long way.

good thinking

MrDrMan posted...

Nice name imo.

Sorry not trying to derail, just complimenting a fun name imo.

Did something happen today that prompted this topic?

I know what Project 2025 is, but Im not seeing the reason for a doomer thread in February anywhere in the news.

There is certainly an amount of misogyny among Trump supporters. The iconic internet incel probably supports Trump because they are in general more likely to be right wing politically, stemming from a self-inflated value of their own worth. Trump hasnt promised women to anyone, but Trump is a mediocre man who can do nothing but bully others as scapegoats and views himself as the greatest person ever, and that resonates with that group. However, that image resonance casts a far wider net than just incels.

SecretBase posted...

Society runs on people forming families. With no prospect of starting a family people are heavily disnvested with the collective good of humanity and increasingly focused only on themselves. Which is part of why the "democracy is at stake" messaging isn't hitting with everyone.

There are people who vote Trump purely because he's funny. But if they had a household to protect they'd be a lot less likely to pull that shit.

Its about ideology.
Family values are a sham in the USA. The phrase is used by Christofascists to promote their views and way of living. The fact lgbtq+ youths are experiencing pushback in certain states that would increase the risk of suicide in those youths is the exact opposite direction of helping a family. How the economy can require both parents to work pushes away from family values.
Many people with families voted for Trump and will vote for him again. The views of those individuals are validated by Trump, or at least how they perceive Trump. Because those views either align with their own or are projected onto Trump, those individuals view Trump as good for their family.

Speaking of "mating rates"

Reminder that right wing politicians are now trying to get rid of contraception.

So if THAT happens and suddenly less women are interested in having sex because they can no longer legally reduce the chances of getting pregnant... (Outside abstinence or 'safe days')

Not to mention politicians disinterest in combating the ever increasing cost of living and raising a child....

"Why won't women have sex with me still?!"

It's a mystery.

Umbreon posted...

Speaking of "mating rates"

Reminder that right wing politicians are now trying to get rid of contraception.

So if THAT happens and suddenly less women are interested in having sex because they can no longer legally reduce the chances of getting pregnant... (Outside abstinence or 'safe days')

Not to mention politicians disinterest in combating the ever increasing cost of living and raising a child....

"Why won't women have sex with me still?!"

It's a mystery.

are you in favour of packing the bench? I think thats the only way any of the birth control policy in the states can start to get reverted right? Because the supreme court controls that and they're gunna live to be a billion I think

Umbreon posted...

Reminder that right wing politicians are now trying to get rid of contraception.

So if THAT happens and suddenly less women are interested in having sex because they can no longer legally reduce the chances of getting pregnant

Good post, this is the cycle in action. Republican efforts to compel the behavior they want by forcibly taking away choices will backfire on them, which then motivates them to push harder and remove even more choices. Eventually the endgame rightwing worldview is always that you require a class of human cattle who can be enslaved.

Remember this is the party who goes around yelling about freedom.

You have to spend more time and energy just to play the same game your ancestors did in the past era with what you've already earned. This is not a good thing.

You mean you have to work harder to be appealing to a partner that has their own job, life, goals, and identity separate from their partner than people did in a time when women weren't allowed to be educated or independent without sever social consequences?

How do you survive in such a world where a woman doesn't need you to get by?
Umbreon posted...

So if THAT happens and suddenly less women are interested in having sex because they can no longer legally reduce the chances of getting pregnant... (Outside abstinence or 'safe days')

They'll legalize rape. I know you weren't asking, but that's the follow up. Can't get contraceptives, can't get divorce, so eventually they'll just say you have to give it on demand.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Absurd and sadistic. I can only scarcely imagine the pain of a woman losing a child before it's even born. Telling that same women she has to keep that dead fetus inside of her is just utterly cruelty.

Turtlemayor333 posted...

Remember this is the party who goes around yelling about freedom.

It's always "my" freedom for them.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Seeing it pop up a lot with them being mad that women are doing OF or fansly & stuff too

hereforemnant posted...

Seeing it pop up a lot with them being mad that women are doing OF or fansly & stuff too

Some, too many, people really miss the days when it was acceptable and encouraged to hit a woman over the head and drag her to your cave.

And never evolved mentally past that.

Was just about to bring up that it was also easier to run a plantation back in the day.

If you were the owner anyway. Certainly not if you were the humans who didn't have rights.

SecretBase posted...

If the percentage of sexually successfully people is dropping then maybe something's already wrong.

it's actually a really interesting and odd data point

Men under 25 - 31% have not had sex in the past year
Women under 25 - 20%

Men between 25-35 - 14%
Women between 25-35 - 12%

Men 35-50 - 8%
Women 35-50 - 8%

The population between 35-50 saw no change over time in their rates of sexual activity. Compared to a study in 2000, people aged 35-50 had similar rates as they did in 2020.

NeonOPPAl posted...

Thanks the info even if it's backhanded >_> People should be able to tell when I'm adopting a persona and when I'm serious though.

I did nothing backhanded, I told it to you straight up. Hell, if I found this topic earlier I would've told you what the context was even when I'm aware of your gimmick/persona. I think your issue is that you can't see things from other peoples perspective, and this was evident when you go into a topic about someone fat and go "why don't they just try to lose weight? lol". When you give yourself a gimmick/persona and actively market yourself that way it makes it harder for anyone to take you seriously even if you're trying to be serious. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense. You sleep in the bed that you make, if you want that to change there's nothing stopping you from starting right now.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yep, it's rule for thee but not for thou when it comes to their own rules. There has been soo many cases of Republican/Pro-Life politicians of their loved ones/teens having secret abortions to keep up appearance. Just because those complications with birth are the exception doesn't mean we shouldn't have procedures to help with them.

"Sites like OF is wrong!" says the man who enjoyed watching free porn for years and years.

shockthemonkey posted...

Men being loudly upset that women have more autonomy is terrifying. Like the whole it was easier to get a partner in the past shit is implicitly supporting a world where women cant open their own bank accounts or sign their own lease.

It was easier in the 80s and everyone had equal rights then. There are other changes that worsened matters.

Prestoff posted...

Yep, it's rule for thee but not for thou when it comes to their own rules. There has been soo many cases of Republican/Pro-Life politicians of their loved ones/teens having secret abortions to keep up appearance. Just because those complications with birth are the exception doesn't mean we shouldn't have procedures to help with them.

The entire right wing is "don't tread on me"*

*but if someone treads on you that's fine and i'll probably even vote for them to do it

Why else would it?

shockthemonkey posted...

Oh yeah back before women were regularly allowed high paying and high profile roles and were still seen as subservient

It was also easier in the 90s and 2000s and I'm pretty sure that stopped at some point within. There are other changes that worsened things.

everyone had equal rights then

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

What "other changes" are you talking about?

SecretBase posted...

It was also easier in the 90s and 2000s and I'm pretty sure that stopped at some point within. There are other changes that worsened things.

i think its likely a better conversation to actually expand upon "what changed"

and also "easier" isn't maybe the best word

yes, men and women were more likely to have been sexually active in the last year in the 80s/90s/00s

suggesting that means it was "easier" is just that, a suggestion.

There are a multitude of reasons that this could be happening

SecretBase posted...

And yet somehow mating rates are decreasing despite this cultural awakening.

Women like to date up (or at least laterally) and that gets harder and harder to do the more they advance in the workplace. Add to that the endless distractions that lead to general atomization of people. Society is in a very awkward place right now

luigi33 posted...

This is the timeline we're in. Shit legit terrifying.

Hey now, I may be an incel but I love democracy fam

pezzicle posted...

yes, men and women were more likely to have been sexually active in the last year in the 80s/90s/00s

And it is very likely that many are less sex focused. And that isn't a bad thing.

And the ones that may be inclined may also better understand the financial costs of being sexually active and actually know they can't afford those costs. That's not a bad thing either.

It's not all about politics. Technology made it so people at least think they have a world of options and are more reluctant to settle for something less than satisfactory.

Still, right-wingers reading this trend as a thing of women having too much autonomy are bound to make things worse and make all modern men look less desirable because women are prone to generalizing too.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

So not even equal rights in the immediate implied topic of women having equal rights? Almost like he lied in an attempt purely to move the goalposts? I am shocked.

I'm not an American so I'm a little confused here - you're saying that American democracy is in trouble because men can't find a girlfriend? How does that work?

GranAures posted...

And it is very likely that many are less sex focused. And that isn't a bad thing.

And the ones that may be inclined may also better understand the financial costs of being sexually active and actually know they can't afford those costs. That's not a bad thing either.

Money absolutely plays a factor, although without more robust assessment, hard to say exactly

but about 30% of men who make less then 10k a year aren't having sex
Men who spend over 15 hours a week online recreationally are also not having sex (about 20%)

it is very likely that part of this is because heterosexual females have raised their standards for what they want from a partner and are behaving as such. (some) men can't recognize that this is a them issue, in the sense that they should be making efforts to get up to the new standard. Instead they are moaning about it because they think that women owe them sex

Asherlee10 posted...

What was easier?

Successfully dating.

Umbreon posted...

What "other changes" are you talking about?

Economic and cultural factors.

Tougher economy, rising education/employment/wealth standards, more shallow dating venues (apps), social conditioning that increasingly instills personality traits into men that are not broadly sexually attractive to women, etc.

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Women like to date up (or at least laterally) and that gets harder and harder to do the more they advance in the workplace. Society is in a very awkward place right now

It's quite the issue in a world where equality is normalized for many people to not actually want an equal.

shockthemonkey posted...

Its amazing how you just keep moving your goalposts without capable of saying anything. The trend is women becoming more independent and men falling behind their standards.

If it's women who changed it's a bit inaccurate to say the men "fell". In many cases they're doing what they always did and it's just not good enough now. If someone gets pulled out of a ditch while I stay there I didn't "fall", they were just elevated.