Non incel explanation for this pls

People have other shit to do than pair up and make babies, eg spending time on Tahitian interpretive-dance forums.

Plus with the erosion of traditional norms the social pressure has lessened greatly

The stats cited show that women are only slightly less likely to have sex now than they were in the 20th century, while men are far less likely. 1/3 of men under 30 aren't having sex, according to the Washington Post.

The problem is that dating apps create a steep sexual hierarchy for men because they allow attractive men to cast wider nets. Back in the day men were only really competing with the other men the women they were attracted to interacted with directly, while now men have to compete with men all across the city at any given moment.

Attached: Dn4Yruj.jpg (432x768, 105K)

As advertising methods are rapidly accelerating, companies are learning how to trigger people's shame responses. The goal is to create a greater propensity to consume, but a side effect is that a steadily increasing number of the population believes they are not good enough

The taboo status of sex is what attracted people to it. If it becomes a banality like everything else people are less likely to be intrigued by it. Ironically, those fanatical Christians of the past who pontificated to all their kids about the evils of premarital sex were actually kindling an intrigue for it in young people's minds.

This is bull. People want to have sex regardless of its status.

holy shit im glad im good looking

women unironically get the same amount of dopamine they usually would get in a relationship from selfie likes and posting pictures of their bodies on the internet

>Decline of social skills,
>Rise of pornography and dating apps, decline in communities for making friends
>decline in religious marriage
>Decreased membership in religious groups

The incels are correct that women have become worse. They forget to consider that men have become worse too.

The secular dating/sex world is in complete shambles.

i get the point but theres so many ppl not on tinder this wont apply too, especially b/c ppl on tinder are likely to be looking just for hookups to begin with

/thread.

Attached: oldmanwojak.png (635x661, 233K)

To many distractions for people (especially men) to care about meatspace

It's not just tinder, it's dating apps in general. Most millennial women have used or are using dating apps. And even if they're not, the dynamic still affects them because other people are using those apps, which alters the dating market.

yeah but alot of apps arent as look-based as tinder. my understanding at least is that shit like okc pairs ppl partly based on interests etc..

like if u see two ppl online youll just go off looks but if you met a 5 who you gelled with and a 9 but the 9 was an asshole you shared no interests with you might still pick them but the odds arent as strong

The problem is right there in the title. It says “sex”, but the real topic to discuss should the lack of intimate togetherness.

Sex has been detached from it, as in old style brothels. Now everyone is in the global brothel. Narrow statistics on sexuality after sexual revolution has probably masked the degeneration that has been happening, and now it is starting to show even in these numbers. Sex is simple and marketable, intimacy is a complex topic without easy answers intertwined with other existential questions. Reset yourself, and look how much of the all over the place talk about “fantastic” possibilities of modern sexual lives is just unsubstantiated fashionable tales with idealized actors who don't really resemble people from flesh and blood.

I think that what is happening in Japan is the very same thing happening in all developed societies, and studying it can help universally.

youtube.com/watch?v=TWDgvrTjacs

Mating is an exchange like any other, when the benefits outweigh the cost, people go for it. When the benefits dont outweigh the cost, people dont go for it.
The sorry state of females, the inequality in the family courts, the high monetary cost of houses, schools, everything needed to raise a child successfully. i could go on and on. The point is that people are backing away from a shitty deal

Nearly all popular dating apps are looks based. You don't get an indication of someone's personality from a picture of their face, their height, and a few sentences in a profile. Even on OK Cupid women tend to filter by height, which makes it looks-based.

>eugenics
Eugenics was meant to select for intelligence, not muscles and facial bone structure.

It's about desirable characteristics, not necessarily about IQ per se

It's still easy to get laid without dating apps or whatever
Its called dressing clean and having confidence
Its also called paying a qt Asian hooked for $250/hr
Too much effort picking up chicks plus you gotta send $100 at least on a night out and a decent motel is another $250 a night minimum fuck it just pay for pussy

What do I even do about this bros? I want to hate women for being entitled but I can't find an answer to the objection that people should be able to like whoever they want to. After all, would I lower my standards of beauty because I rate average art at a 2/10 instead of a 5/10? I guess the only solution is for men to become equally picky, but I doubt the chads would do that. Are men just repulsive then? Are we just so disgusting that our average is their 2/10? I guess its just natural selection. I'll probably have to neck myself.

Imagine actually caring about dating apps, and even studying their stats without recognition of bias they introduce. It's like measuring the ocean temperature in your bathtub.

The point is that the desirable traits are pigeonholed to single photo - too low bandwidth. Height or physical strength is not objectively an useful trait. MHC, intellect, industriousness and cunning is.

Furthermore, tinder hookups is only very rarely used to actually sire offspring.

Industrial revolution, female liberation and the impacts of woke capitalism created the perfect environment for female dual mating strategy to manifest itself

Online porn, too many kids living at home, sex culture is toxic RN.

i dont rly want hookups tho, i want meaningful intimacy. if i rly wanted that i could just use grindr but it sucks.

does anyone know to what extents this applies to lgbt ppl, if at all

People fuck more today than they did in the past. The difference is that they use anticonceptional methods and do abortions.
About the exceptions, I'd say it's mostly because of the end of communities and families as institutions, but a bit of natural selection and a bit of guys that would never get laid anyways (like priests and academics in the past). Feminism isn't the one to blame here tho, capitalism destroyed both more than 100 years ago, we need new institutions with gender equality.

YOu forgot to mention that there's a substantially higher amount of men on dating apps than women

/thread

the average personality of a male in 2019 is viewed as a 2/10 by women
think about it that way user

It's ok to argue self-selected bias if tinder was used by 5% of the productive group. But when 30% does it, you suddenly start to get something approaching a representative behavior sample even outside of the app.

Obviously outside of tinder, the raw incel-nomics are far less skewed, never the less, it seems reasonable the raw attractiveness trait still influences behavior in there.

Men had both fewer opportunities to couple and a lower investment for coupling throughout most of our evolutionary history, so men are just built to fuck as widely as possible. Most 9/10 men will fuck a 6/10 because they lose nothing in the process.

At the start of the agricultural revolution 17 women reproduced for every 1 man:
psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

I just fuck in the bathroom tbqh, pickups are not worth the money for that shit.

If men could fuck beautiful women all day they would too. Once you reach average intelligence, it doesn't really matter whether or not you're any smarter when it comes to attracting mates.

what are you even saying? that both are wrong? Ive seen /pol/ complain about this same thing and they are pretty conservative

I got money to spend and and club/pub bathrooms are gross. Whatever works bro (Y)

I don't understand. You said the problem was with dating apps and now you're taking me back to the agricultural revolution.

that's not true people had much more sex in the past

couldnt this be showing that 1/17 men's dna performed the others out in the last 8k yrs?

>If men could fuck beautiful women all day they would too
For sexual selection to work properly *at all* it is *necessary* that most men are rejected, to weed out gene pool defects at the very minimum. Only the ones with survival skill and physical fitness must win.

>Once you reach average intelligence, it doesn't really matter whether or not you're any smarter when it comes to attracting mates.
It does matter tremendously, because you can kill or subjugate dumber competitors, you need cunning and wit to do that. Treachery in mating competition and is mainstream hypothesis of how intelligence evolved in homo erectus on the male side (females are conjenctured to benefit from social intelligence, as female which can get along with rest of the group can raise survival of her ofsspring).

People are having more sexual release than ever.
Incels want sex. They're still having sexual release with their hand.
Very few people lead a chaste lifestyle, or even attempt to moderate their sexual behavior. They indulge in it every chance they get. They are slaves.

Attached: 15563153970580.jpg (808x453, 81K)

For fuck's sake. School teaches everyone what's “scientific”, but it doesn't teach to think, so we're having monkeys with rulers having no idea what they do.

People using dating apps are willing to use dating apps in the first place.

I bet you also believe that imageboard polls provide valuable insights. It's because you don't understand that no self-respecting poster participates in them, and that the statistics is actually gathered on stray edgy Facebook teens, like that faggot who writes “ppl” and “rly” here.

The thing about the agricultural revolution was to point out that steep sexual hierarchies among men isn't necessarily a new phenomenon. The basis of that hierarchy can either be access to food (which the agricultural revolution facilitated) or looks (which tinder is currently facilitating).

This

Once females have access to their own resources and a set of societal values that won't slutshame them into monogamy, they'll just go for the hot guy and won't mind sharing him. This is how things used to be in pre-agriculture times: only one out of 20 or so males ever managed to reproduce. They'll do it until their youth fades and then settle with a subpar male.

There's NO WAY around this: you either full blown revert back to a patriarchal society or there will be an ever growing male incel demography. You just gotta ask yourself for how long could a society with a significant population of young men unable to start families or connect romantically with women go on before becoming a boiling pot

If you think cavemen weren't painting their walls white you're misguided.

Zizek's spin on it
youtube.com/watch?v=OabTK7y7d6E

wrong board

Also, people reasoning about themselves using faux biological mumbo-jumbo are the part of the plague.

Isn't this the board to talk about books?

yes

>For fuck's sake. School teaches everyone what's “scientific”, but it doesn't teach to think, so we're having monkeys with rulers having no idea what they do.
Are you going to argue that elementary statistics is some nonsense?

>People using dating apps are willing to use dating apps in the first place.
Yes.That's what self-selected bias means.

>I bet you also believe that imageboard polls provide valuable insights.
No. In the US, of the 18-34 group, both genders, 30% use Tinder. This is not Yea Forums poll, but app use statistics from google. 30% is just far too much to argue they're statistically insignificant. The remaining 70% will feel consquences of this, regardless of how "traditional" their behavior is.

If you think a little stick drawing has the novelty and stimulation of limitless HD video pornography on demand, you're misguided.

They could use their imagination, same deal as porn

Your premise is that access to porn means people have more sexual release.

This really isn't the case. Release is when you stave off that urge - and you receive your kenjataimu something I'm on as I write this. People have been doing this for thousands of years with just a hand and the noggin.

>Once females have access to their own resources
You mean getting paid taxpayer money for their crotch-spawn right?

using your mind is not the same as jerking off to pornhub
ones like coke, the other is like shooting crack

> app use statistics from google
Monkeys with rulers. Monkeys with computers.
> I can press buttons and get the results! Lots of results! Lots of calculations! BIG DATA! I don't even have to think once what any of it means, or why do I believe that metrics that are suitable for marketers to sell shit are suitable for everything else!

This image is always at hand.

Attached: science-fs8.png (1716x1710, 827K)

Yes, it is the case because sexual stimuli is a reward in and of itself. My overall sexual frequency dramatically increased once I had access to video pornography.

>I can press buttons and get the results! Lots of results! Lots of calculations! BIG DATA! I don't even have to think once what any of it means, or why do I believe that metrics that are suitable for marketers to sell shit are suitable for everything else!
Let me guess. Earth is flat because it's common sense, regardless of what a monkey with a ruler stuck to round horizon says.

it's a dodecahedron

no one listens to the desert fathers anymore

If those “explanations” help you sleep at night, fine. I see nothing but childish ignorance and disregard for life's complexity in them.

It's all fine to disagree. I'm not sure your line of argument consisting of "ur wrong! ur big stupid ape!" is very enlightening of inconsistencies in the statistical model. Predicting weather is not very accurate. It's just a monkey with a ruler which ignores anecdotal variables. Doesn't mean the simplified model is pointless just because it's impractical to assess the system with perfect accuracy.

That isn’t how evolution works.

You do not understand what is wrong with that “model”. There isn't one, to begin with. Monkeys apply methods they have been taught to data they grab without questions.

Have you ever thought that Tinder might be just another game on someone's smartphone? Hurry up, search for insights on human sexuality in Quake III deathmatch stats, you'll be big!

Eugenics selects for survival fitness, yes, but it is context (environment) dependent. If the context is civilization, intelligence is best for fitness, as it is what you need to run civilization. This was the argument of early eugenicists. Out in the woods? Probably not nearly as much.

Also, classic eugenics has little to nothing to do with evolution, it's more like domestication. You're combining and amplifying already evolved phenotypes.

There's also modern eugenics, which indeed does deal with directed evolution a lot. New phenotypes are made by direct gene edits.

>capital and capitalism doesn't exist, because market is just speculative game and participants play it for the sake of it
I don't know. Gut feeling is that people swipe because they want to get laid and self-validate in absentia of relationships which serves this purpose (and many more). Notion that the app is just angry birds timewaster is tricky, because people eventually get tired of games. It's difficult to even argue it's gamified, because all incentives are end-to-end, not singular Achievement GET like on Stack Overflow, or even social network group posturing.

Hey Nate

The societal non-enforcement of monogamy leads to an expansion of the non-reproductive male strata. Women are only genetically attracted to a small minority of men and only a few men could impregnate all women. Add to that the welfare state and increased wealth and women do not have to rely on a steady partner as much as they did before so the viability and toleration of an impregnation by a high status non pair bonding male increases. The only thing keeping a lid on this development right now are alimony laws. All this will end in mass nihilism and political radicalism.

eugenics has more commonly been used to filter out people with undesirable physical characteristics, e.g. nonwhites, cripples, jews, etc.

America is not a welfare state wtf

There's a serious lack of economic opportunity for the average individual.
Baby booms coincide with times of economic opportunity, that's why Africa and India are exploding in population at the moment.
In the United States, the economy in terms of GDP keeps growing, but if you look at the wages the regular workers are making, they're completely stagnant, and with rising healthcare and housing costs, means that there is currently an economic squeeze going on.
Someone may point out the extremely low unemployment numbers, but there are two points to be made with regards to those:
1. The way the number itself is calculated has changed, those out of work for a certain period of time are no longer counted as unemployed
2. The quality of employment has drastically been dropping. This means lower wages, less benefits, and less fulfilling work. Far more people are employed by extremely large companies now than ever before, which means their contribution to the whole is tiny, they are not a valued employee in a small shop of some sort, they are just a cog in the machine.

Substractive or additive is just implementation detail. Jews practiced positive eugenics for centuries, nazis practiced mostly negative eugenics you mention. The biggest instance of successful eugenics (domestication) used both at the same time to achieve best convergence into the desired phenotype.

Eugenics is a Jewish psiop to coordinate tribute to moloch

There are all sorts of government programs to fund women who have children. They don't need to rely on having a husband anymore.

Of course it is. When women have children and are below a treshold of income they are entiled by law to receive payments from the state. The only thing that's different between the U.S. and Europe is that the U.S. has large groups that are unable to pay into the system, as such the level of service is lower. But the U.S. has for example a higher per capita state healthcare spending than Sweden. With mass immigration into Europe they will be forced to Americanize their systems or experience radical political revolution, although that is likely inevitable since a smooth transition is impossible.

Depends on how you define welfare, but I believe nearly 50% of federal spending is for welfare (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid).
Well over that amount if you consider most defense spending to be a form of welfare.

Righto. This may have been true throughout most of modern industrial history, but what if people’s IQ becomes less of a provide-or-starve thing and more of a cool accessory as more cognitive work is offloaded onto computers and AI and such? People are “running civilization” less and less all the time, and the environment is changing. It’s obviously an oversimplification, but it makes me wonder. Are intelligence and conscientiousness major draws in post-industrial society like they’d be in the 1850’s, or are personality disorders more stimulating nowadays?

Rampant societal narcissism.

my point is that eugenics has never been used to systematically improve intelligence in a measurable way.
okay i'll have a go at this.
>socially isolated young people
>increased social control of teenagers leading to less independence/risky behaviors like drinking in HS
>emphasis on respect for others' bodily autonomy("private parts," #metoo) making young people, especially women, more afraid of intimacy
>effective sex education
>young women being preoccupied by school, extracurricular, and their "careers," and therefore ignoring sex since they dont need it anyway
>"women arent dependent cuz they can get a job noooooo" -stefan molyneux; my problem with this is that the phenomenon has become more pronounced over the last couple of decades, AFTER women were fully able to participate in the workforce, regardless of what feminist propaganda might suggest
>no emphasis on monogamy - this might have something to do with it but societies that enforce monogamy also tend to enforce premarital abstinence
>socially awkward incels being undatable freaks
this still doesnt seem like enough to explain the phenomenon desu.

Yes, a huge chunk of military spending is functionally welfare.

someones ability to contribute to society has no direct impact on their Darwinian fitness. someones "fitness" under a eugenics system is whatever the hell adolf/schlomo decides it should be.
but narcissists tend to be sexually impulsive and promiscuous.

This. Women now have literally thousands of options at the palms of her hand. There is no reason to content themselves with the average guy from college or work anymore if she can easily land a date with a better man through Tinder.

I remember that famous phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan, "the medium is the message". Tinder, and dating apps in general, completely changed the way human sexuality works, even if most people aren't on them, the effects "trickle-down". In a way, it works just like socialist critics of neoliberalism accuse the economy of working under laissez faire conditions, the more freedom a market has to operate, the more resources are concentrated, accumulated in a few hands, simply because fewer people have the conditions and capacities to compete in a completely free market. It works the same way for human sexuality, the erosion of traditional organs of society such as churches and clubs that could be venues for social interaction, the decrease in the social acceptability of workplace romances and the appearance of dating apps have greatly increased the availability of possible mate choices, specially for women, and since female sexuality is hypergamous they are all choosing the same guy, the ones incels call Chad.

Tech takes, tech gives. Only sexbots and virtual reality can end the suffering of young men. We won't go back to the days of dating being available for sub-8/10 guys.

Attached: 1545873336590-1.png (730x1789, 317K)

I meant “provide” in a reproductive sense, like feeding and sheltering a baby, which women take into account when opening their holes.

Reversion to hypergamy. People on phones all day.
I'm 25, healthy, good job. I wish I could be cannon fodder in a big war. This life is so fucking gay.

Has Houellebecq written about tinder yet? I haven't read his latest novel

You should be

Attached: peace.png (283x178, 8K)

You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about personality disorders.

The narcissist avoids sex and intimacy, because he can never measure up to the image that he holds himself. Every encounter is a potential narcissistic injury, a painful reminder of who he actually is. Therefore it's preferable to avoid contact, to focus on endless daydreaming and masturbation(figurative and literal).

This situation is ripe for demagoguery

i do

Yes, dysgenic reversal is common towards the end of empire cycle. It happened multiple times in the past. IIRC it will just cause collapse, empire resets, and the show goes on again, this time with renewed cultural dogmas to avoid degeneracy which allowed for the collapse (babylon->zoroastrism, roman empire->christianity).
>personality disorders more stimulating nowadays?
Need for intimacy is very ancient instinct crucial for reproduction, but now in direct opposition to technosingularity. This will take centuries to adapt assuming total world collapse is not an option anymore.
Psychopaths have great survival advantage here, but have almost none or even negative advantage towards reproduction. Stupid people are disadvantaged in survival (at least in africa anyway), but they simply overcome this with r-strategy spam (niggers). Typically advantage of niggers between empire resets is tempory, as they're too stupid to survive war and famine.

> There is no reason to content themselves with the average guy from college or work anymore if she can easily land a date with a better man through Tinder.
Only a completely incurious shut-in could write that.

> Tinder, and dating apps in general, completely changed the way human sexuality works
Thousands of years, AND POOF IT'S ALL BROKEN WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE AAAHHH

You perspective is as limited as one of a bug on the ground.

> even if most people aren't on them, the effects "trickle-down"
Perfect bullshit, akin to media's ANOTHER SHOOTING IS A SIGN THAT EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH OUT SOCIETY AND WE ARE DOOMED UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING STUPID QUICK

Frankly I don't know why some cult doesn't just weaponize incels by offering them sex in exchange for political support. You can get them to follow anything if you give them pussy, it's like a huge untapped market of cannon fodder just waiting for some entrepreneurial con man to exploit it.

me

Could this “dysgenic” trend before the Big Fall be the secret genetic genius of the thot at work? Mobbing a built, traditionally masculine, disagreeable fella for his genes instead of Ted in accounting’s, so when the Sea People arrive to pillage, your kid’s gonna kill rather than be killed? In other words, does a dysgenic population cause the collapse, or is a population dysgenic in peacetime but eugenic in chaos generated in anticipation of it?
It’s out there, but I wonder, I wonder...

what type of narcissist were you referring to then?
people with narcisstic personality are notoriuous for their sexual exploits. i dont know what else you mean by "narcissism."
think about how expensive this would be and how bad it would look in the public eye.
not to mention that you cant just openly run a prostitution ring.

>When you remember that youre not a statistic

Attached: C9B70E12-45F5-44E3-911A-EFBC01E56D4C.jpg (500x471, 35K)

My name's Reed

There is plenty of data from social scientists about the rise of involuntary celibacy (though they won't use that term because of its unfortunate implications). It's undeniable that the modern dating market is harder for men than it was in the past. I don't agree with the incel ideology, I don't hate women, but they do have a point concerning the fact that we live in an era of concentration of sexual resources at the expense of the majority. Of course, complete sexlessness is still relatively uncommon, most men still find partners, but these are less attractive than they would be previously, since their "looksmatch" is now hooking up with ripped guys and bearded hipsters off Tinder, and those guys who are less attractive or more social awkward are completely fucked, they don't stand a chance in the current scene.

Attached: tinderpocalypse.jpg (770x500, 63K)

I think it’s possible that increased incidence of narcissism may lead to more of a bimodal fuck-distribution, depending on the way the narcissism operates (stay in and blow big loads in fleshlights to preserve your ego or pursue hot hot babes to inflate the same), which is what we seem to be seeing.

give me a source on this image.

I don't think so. Female attention is a part of it but it's not everything. It's the loss of community, nation, race, belonging. It's all unacceptable in 2019 but if some leader revived it well enough I'd jump on that demagogue's hype train for sure.

I got it from some guy on Twitter, it was based on this study.

ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim

Attached: Lymanstone.png (593x652, 191K)

It's pretty easy to have sex nowadays. Finding intimacy or someone who compliments you is completely rare

this, based

I wonder how much of a role this played in ISIS’ success in recruiting.

>Could this “dysgenic” trend before the Big Fall be the secret genetic genius of the thot at work?
Our last empire cycle is unusual that technological progress can keep up with downfall, we're too good at band aiding the dead horse.
So Catch-22 we're in now is that our widespread degeneracy is not enough to trigger collapse. Our civilization is far too robust to a point it can easily progress towards plot of Idiocracy and only then shit truly hits the fan, triggering the great filter. But if this happens, its possible million years worth of evolved intelligence traits might be lost as the "temporary" dysgenic phase takes 500 years instead of the usual 50, ie crippling humanity permanently.

submission (haven't read serotonin since it's not in english yet) already had less emphasis on the sexual marketplace than his other books. obviously, it was involved, especially comparisons between european women and islamic women, but for the most part, thematically, the book looked at european civilization and spiritualityin the past and present. i feel like houellebecq is moving away from the sexual marketplace themes, wouldn't surprise me if his next book hardly deals with it at all.

There's a strong case to be made for this. My roommate cancelled his Tinder fuck yesterday to play a board game with me. Sex is too cheap to be of interest

Lol using Medium as a source.

He is now a popular author and even got married, so now he is the Chad.

We need another author to carry the torch of representing sexually unattractive men.

Mate, this is it, we either make it or we never do. We are mid air on our bid jump for eternity, and it looks like its a nope so far, collectivelly we are too aimless, we have surrendered collective decision making to capitalism, literally regressed back to animal behaviour but with money instead of solar energy

I think hookup culture is more common among gays than straights
idk dude I'm not gay don't know anything about that world

Conclusion from that article for anyone who doesn't want to clickthrough:

It’s mostly about people spending more years in school and spending more years living at home. But that’s not actually a story about some change in sexual politics; instead, it’s a story about the modern knowledge economy, and to some extent exorbitant housing costs. As such, it’s no surprise that rising sexlessness is being observed in many countries. This, in turn, suggests that finding a solution to help young people pair up may not be as easy.

> but these are less attractive than they would be previously
Why in the fucking fuck does that bother you? What kind of metric is this? This are the questions you have to ask yourself instead of wallowing in self-indulgent ideological bullshit.

Hookup culture is hegemonic among heterosexual young people in cities.

How about we put every person over the age of 60 in an oven and burn them to ashes?

In my experience (I'm LGBT and spend quite a bit of time in LGBT circles), LGBT people are indeed more hookup-y but they tend to have more intimate hookups, if that makes sense.

>intimate hookups

Attached: 1554424499778.jpg (1200x1026, 137K)

Who's going to pay for all these ovens? The only people who have the money are those over the age of 60.

Do the Accelerationists discuss this? It seems like their cup of tea, but I’m pretty illiterate when it comes to their theories.

we'll burn them in their own ovens

Attached: 1556002890765.jpg (674x536, 95K)

Theres no non incel way to explain, social shaming basically doesnt work anymore and mostly chads and brads benefit and get their small harems while some normalfags have monogamous relationships

Of course the article wouldn't publish a conclusion that would be in line with what is being published in incel websites. Saying that house prices is to blame is more socially acceptable than saying women are just hooking up with attractive guys on Tinder and average guys are fucked.

Barring MAD scenario, I don't think total extinction of humanity is likely, though it's quite likely we'll kill off majority of other species during our downfall.
As long as air is breathable, we can eat algae.
As for dysgenics, there's another important factor at play - it's fairly likely we'll reverse engineer the process, rendering sexual selection obsolete. Eugenics and even random evolution being moot as we can make direct edits computationally at that point. So the most probable outcome is average IQ 85 niggers 100 years from now, the same thing, but gene-edited to IQ 150 another 100 years later.

The problem isnt women tho, its men overvaluing them. This will all end very badly once VR/sexbots crash the pussy market.

The article goes through statistics at length to come to that conclusion, I recommend reading it if you have an issue with the conclusion.
It's very easy to dismiss ideas based on tone, address the argument directly if you wish to have substantial thoughts on anything.

yeah, of course he couldn't have taken an honest look at the data and come to a different conclusion. the jews would never allow it.
major power war is what will solve the incel problem. inferior males killed off, guaranteed employment, end of political disunity and mass social shaming, critical infrastructure/food supplies damaged enough to make women dependent on men.

absolutely based posts, can you provide some readings or go into more detail please

You’re thinking about this wrong, I think. 85 IQ’s in a hundred years are gonna be 75 IQ’s in a hundred more years. There will be no impetus to reverse this trend. Why spend money making the dirt-eaters magnates? However, 125 IQ’s in a hundred years will be used as stock for that (likely extremely small) 150 IQ population further down the road. We’re seeing this today through natural selection, but you’re right, Capital will find a quicker way to do it in the future.

Depends on the breed of accelerationists. The "technology and capitalism will bring us star trek utopia, even if it means broken reproductive pattern" is the neoliberal idealist variety, whereas black pill "humanity is done for, all you can hope for is that your brain is valuable enough to be scanned and slave away in simulation by AI overlords". That is, if technology like that will even exist within your lifetime.

It's not happening

Capital will never allow major power war, you arent seeing it, we are not in charge anymore

The statistics it does through is just correlations between celibacy, more studying (which should be obvious considering the kind of men likely to be celibate) and living at home (again, obvious), and then trying to link one with the other as if studying more and living at home caused celibacy, and not just people who are prone to be celibate are also prone to study more and have less incentive to leave home. The article won't explain why these same trends of studying more and leaving the parents home later doesn't affect female sexuality either.

You're assuming there would be monopoly on bio-engineering. This is extremely unlikely. The boom will be akin to computer revolution. It will be reserved for the rich at first, and indeed they'll get headstart so they'll retain wealth. Thats IQ 150 richfags, IQ 85 prole niggers. But from then on the technology will get cheaper to a point even the 99% niggers will have iPhones (ie all children they produce will be gene-edited because its turbo cheap). It's also unlikely it will be rational choice on the part of now half-braindead parents, far more likely a matter of market pressure. Sort of need this gene-edit to be able to plug in into social network and post instagram photos one milisecond faster thing - again, same shit you see with nigger+iPhone. They don't use it because its powerful to extend ones horizons, but because it makes their niggardly more efficient. Regardless, it can uplift em, if they ever choose to do so.

on the likely effects of a major power war: really anything on wwii and the following to decades, especially the silent generation producing the boomers.
on sexlessness among young people:
>iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy--and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood--and What That Means for the Rest of Us by Jean Twenge
also read i dont know of any writing designed to critique/contradict it. would love to see something related that went into more detail.
explanation please?
"we" were certainly not in charge when the major powers put us into meat grinders so they could have the big swinging dick at the next family gathering.
the article also claims that the lack of early marriages combined with decrease in religious volcels results in more "involuntarily celibate" men, not that unmarried people are having a sexual drought per se. not sure if this is accurate.

It will probably more akin to nuclear power due to the perceived potential dangers, it will be highly regulated and restricted

>if they ever choose to do so
That’s kinda my point. The opportunities to not be a diabetic, borderline-retarded drug addict abound in the United States, but people do not always go for them. And nobody @ me with progressive resentment horseshit, it is there.
I’m not assuming a monopoly, I’m assuming a normal distribution. I’m assuming current trends continue. The 85 IQ’s will not be going to the gene clinic for smarter offspring, the same way they don’t feed their kids vegetables today.
And yes, like said, I think you underestimate the potential for fuckery. What if it’s made an extreme social taboo? What if it is kept intentionally unaffordable?

There's no sex recession. How can you have a sex recession when the average woman has a body count of ~30 from serial monogamy and hookups? Someone's doing the fucking.

Good points, though socially I think it's more acceptable for a woman to live with her parents than a man.
Additionally there's this bit from the article:

In reality, according to the GSS, the top 20% of the most sexually active never-married young men have about 50-60% of the sex. It’s about the same for women, and these shares are basically stable over time. Measuring the number of partners instead of sexual frequency, the top 20% most promiscuous men account for about 60% of male sexual partnerings, and the trend is, again, quite stable over time.

Which questions the idea that females, in general, are becoming hypergamous. Sexlessness in women has remained stable for 4+ years now according to the data presented.

>How can you have a sex recession when the average woman has a body count of ~30 from serial monogamy and hookups?
i dont think this is true. also the sex recession hits men harder than women.

>social science

It takes one country to break the embargo. In fact, china already did (children edited for HIV immunity IIRC). So a country which doesn't respect bans then gains momentum some decades later, and whoever proscribed the technology is forced to liberalize market. Banning this is shooting oneself in the foot.

Nuclear market is easy to control, because it takes enormous infrastructure to gather fissile material. You can't miniaturize the Manhatten project. But bio-chemistry? There are no difficult precursors you need billions of upfront costs for, and the technology is receptive to automation and economies of scale.

The average female partner count should be equal to the average male partner count even if sex is concentrated among the top few percent of men.

i dont believe the average is 30.

>Women average about 30 guys

Theres no fucking way, please tell me this isnt true

>In reality, according to the GSS, the top 20% of the most sexually active never-married young men have about 50-60% of the sex. It’s about the same for women, and these shares are basically stable over time. Measuring the number of partners instead of sexual frequency, the top 20% most promiscuous men account for about 60% of male sexual partnerings, and the trend is, again, quite stable over time.

This is the only statistics that really challenge the incel hypothesis, but even here they can just argue that since prostitution is becoming less common, the 20/60 remains but its internal composition is changing, while it would be previously because a few men fucked a lot of hookers, now it's mainly about Chad and his harem.

1 hookup a month in college approaches 50 partners dude.

I'm too tired and I don't get that much out of it. I'm poor and work like 60 hours a week. There are other things I get a lot more instant gratification from that take a lot less effort. My time is important and relationships are riskier investments comparatively

I would think sex work is on the decline with that recently passed law that took away safe harbor protections from craigslist and every other site that could possible have solicitations on it.
That may be too recent to have any sort of effect visible in these surveys.
Do you have any data regarding prostitution to support your assertion?

also the "recession" that incels describe involves chads fucking lots of bitches
averages != median

Niggers will gain the capability as a side-effect of niggardly. You think niggers will ignore gene edits? First think a nigger will inevitably edit is physical traits, it's unlikely they wont touch the technology at all. It's just fashion think, just as iPhone. Niggers accept technology when it caters to niggardly, and the technology can bring positive side effects the nigger can't ignore no matter what.
>potential fuckery
Terrorists gonna ter. It's nothing new even now, you can engineer deadly e-coli with $50k upfront cost. So what if its $5 100 years from now?

Compared to nuclear threats, biological ones can be contained, and even fought with ... you guessed it, by engineering antigens. One of the first things gene editing will do, far before more complex edits such as intelligence is uber strong immune systems. This is also why I think most of biosphere is going to disappear soon (GM invasive species already did half of the job).

I think the median partner count for men has gone down, and for women it's gone up quite a bit.

what board game, fāmalam?

Attached: image.jpg (444x411, 131K)

Serial monogamy is uber common, though the count is more like in 10-20 partners by the time they hit 30. Look at stats how many women take anti-depressants, majority of em are serial monogamers.
One account of such a thot: bustle.com/articles/135919-what-a-decade-on-ssris-forced-me-to-confront

wouldnt surprise me but do have a source?

>Only a completely incurious shut-in could write that.
Have you talked to the average girl attending university these days? The majority of them use tinder, many of them exclusively. At the same time, there is a major stigma against sexual aggressiveness in the 'workplace'/university atmosphere, which makes it much harder for men to compete. It's also interesting (and striking) the number of women using prostitution apps to pay for school.

> It's also interesting (and striking) the number of women using prostitution apps to pay for school
It's funny to note that the average educated woman today lives a life more or less equivalent to a prostitute in 19th century or so Europe. And yes, lots of women are engaging in prostitution via sugar dating.

I think the problem isn't necessarily just sex itself, but also how the commodification of sex with the sexual revolution and decline of communities/families alongside other more recent factors such as social media, globalization, etc, have removed any notion of love or intimacy.

To make matters worse, college educated women have by far the best economic prospects of any demographic. The fact that so many of them resort to prostitution is a good sign of the dramatic economic problems facing young generations.

I'm just looking forward to the inevitable civil collapse coming in fifty so years

Just a sex cult? Try whole Babylonian civilization:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution
Priestess wielded immense power in the palace economy (they were bankers for all intents and purposes), in return, they had to put out to unmarried men.

Educated women aren't doing prostitution out of desperation to pay for school, they're usually middle to upper-middle class, lazy, and desiring of more material goods. Many of these girls make 6 figures a year sugar dating.

>So then the women that are fair and tall are soon free to depart, but the uncomely have long to wait because they cannot fulfil the law; for some of them remain for three years, or four. There is a custom like this in some parts of Cyprus.[2]
femcels existed in ancient babylon.

Babylon was an incel paradise:
>When a woman has once taken her place there she goes not away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, “I demand thee in the name of Mylitta” (that is the Assyrian name for Aphrodite). It matters not what be the sum of the money; the woman will never refuse, for that were a sin, the money being by this act made sacred.

Basically pay-what-you-want brothel with mandatory conscription of women who don't want to marry.

its pretty simple. in the beginning of the 90s, japan had a booming economy built on a bubble. when it inevitbably burst around the end on '91, the economy crashed, and its wake created the rise of the hikkioomori. no one could get jobs and middle aged parents of broke virginal otakus had to keep taking care of their man baby children. birth rates fell, people stopped having sex, and a generation of men played visual novels in which their waifu fantasies could be fulfilled.

fast forward to 2008. americas housing bubble burst. the economy collapsed, we gave a trillion dollars to the banks that fucked our tight little assholes, and millions lost their homes. welcome to the rise of the incel. our economy only recovered for the upper middle class, while the rest toiled in the gig/uber economy, millenials get bashed because they have so much student debt they cant afford a home, and no one is hiring, even in stem fields. who has the time or the energy, and most importantly the money, to find a mate? and they chastise us like its our fault, when we live in a secret depression that the media doesnt talk about, while tent cities just like on the 20s pop up in every major american city. its no wonder were not fucking. we cant afford babies, we cant even afford to buy condoms, a nice dinner out, and a movie. so much easier to just stay home and stream yourself playing donkey kong, while the outside world burns. but hey, america is now 90s japan. for a weeaboo, this isnt half bad.

9/10 would read again

>incel
>19 results
How do we fix the reddit problem on this board?

>Viewing things only in a material context devoid of social or cultural degeneration
Money's not going to solve things moron

Niggers are poor as fuck, and inceldom is at all times low in there. Money is involved when it comes to stable family, maybe. Has no bearing on people just pairing up even before family comes to play.

Just my two cents:

1.) Internet porn provides an easy release for teenage boys. It trains them to ignore the more difficult social interactions involved in courtship that used to be required for a satisfying sexual release. This results in sexual dysfunction

2.) Boys are more afraid in the "#metoo" era of being labeled rapists for looking at girls the wrong way. They understand they are guilty until proven innocent and that their lives can be ruined at a whim. This makes them more guarded in their approaches to women.

3.) Economic pressures make more traditional routes to family rearing less feasible for a large chunk of the population

4.) All the interracial and transgender crap pushed by the media actually doesn't appeal to most people instinctually, but these is the only sources for modeling their notions of intimacy available

5.) The messages of feminism and progressivism have made both sexes confused as to what roles they should naturally adopt. Both men and women feel ashamed for what comes naturally to them.

6.) Jews

7.) Dating apps distort and pervert normal dating dynamics

im just using history as evidence. the us is very different from japan, an ethnostate like you all dream of. yet they suffered from a decrease in sex and birth rates post crash. its clear that material conditions influences sex having. unless youre saying history is wrong. i bet you can find the same durring the great depression, too.

Cultural Marxism in the West.
catholicherald.co.uk/dailyherald/2019/04/25/the-west-can-learn-a-lot-from-hungarys-pro-family-policies/

internet
iphones

Yeah, its not like sexual activity is highest among the lowest income brackets and the financially well off suffer equally from the results of the sexual revolution and the introduction of market dynamics into the sexual domain, just material influences

Based

Jesus this post fucking hurts
Why can't I be normal?

Attached: cryingwojak.png (691x653, 20K)

well, incels seem to come out the children of downwardly mobile middle class families, so maybe its an expectation thing. i wont deny the existence of the lower class lothario, which has always existed, no matter the economy, but your jealousy of them is misplaced. you should direct all your anger at the rich, who definitely arent having less sex. in any case, your takes arent backed up by evidence, while i just found out birth rates are as low as they were during the great depression.

>decline in communities for making friends
this is a big one

everyone is a narcissist these days. dont worry about it.

My 20 year old girlfriend in college had 19 partners before me. Yes I was desperate back then.

Attached: pull it.jpg (780x438, 47K)

incelism has nothing to do with class. it's looks combined with shit parenting in a world where looks are 80% of the game.

>The foulest Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land to sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger at least once in her life. Many women who are rich and proud and disdain to mingle with the rest, drive to the temple in covered carriages drawn by teams, and stand there with a great retinue of attendants. But most sit down in the sacred plot of Aphrodite, with crowns of cord on their heads; there is a great multitude of women coming and going; passages marked by line run every way through the crowd, by which the men pass and make their choice. Once a woman has taken her place there, she does not go away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap, and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, "I invite you in the name of Mylitta". It does not matter what sum the money is; the woman will never refuse, for that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. So she follows the first man who casts it and rejects no one. After their intercourse, having discharged her sacred duty to the goddess, she goes away to her home; and thereafter there is no bribe however great that will get her. So then the women that are fair and tall are soon free to depart, but the uncomely have long to wait because they cannot fulfil the law; for some of them remain for three years, or four. There is a custom like this in some parts of Cyprus.[2]
Is this just a one-time bang thing or is this a marriage ritual?

you need to look deeper. and also understand history and your place in it.

how long, if at all, until female incelism becomes a thing

vague and cringe

See For most it was once in a life service, but there were also sex slaves as well as priestesses who chose service to Aphrodite it as a career path.

i really havent been vague, as i explained with the example of japan.

Are you an idiot? Even if we go by your so called evidence, birthrate statistics have been on a steady decline since 1990, a trend continuing through economic booms and busts. You're a moron if you think if people were more economically well off the modern sexual market place shaped by globalization, casual sex, and general anomie will be fixed.

and yet incels didnt pop up until after 2008 *thinking man emoji*

cringe underage. the only good point you made was when you talked about japan being the culturally authoritarian near-ethnostate /pol/ dreams of.
gay.

i really dont get the resistance to the idea that if you all had good jobs, youd be getting laid rn

Its almost like social media and smartphones exploded after 2008

There is a femcel subreddit, but rather than being about access to sex, it's about access to relationships. They can't find a guy willing to settle

we wouldnt all have good jobs. some people have issues besides their families being "poor."
this

you know what they say about those who dont remember the past. this shit has happened before, but you want to think your some special goddamn snowflake.

"In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude."
-Houellebecq, Whatever (1999)
Its almost like just because something isn't named doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a phenomenon, Houellebecq was writing this shit back in the early 2000s about these types of people

im right here bitches

Attached: images.png (316x159, 7K)

whoops

Attached: screen-shot-2019-04-04-at-7-41-30-am-w640.png (640x323, 88K)

what should we call this gap
the sex gap?

ugly people get laid all the time. you guys just love wallowing in self pity, admit it.

Yeah, we just need another group of people with tunnel vision running around shouting about gaps.

> 5%

Damn, this guy perfectly illustrates the dynamics of modern sexuality, its only about getting laid

give it another couple of years, we'll get to 10% and be comparable to the wage gap

oh yeah keep dreaming about the beautiful, romantic past when girls fell in love with gentlemen who put their coats down on puddles and made love to each other only after marriage under the eyes of god

It's more patrician to wallow in self pity than get pity sex.

yall niggers really need to get laid then you wouldn't feel any desire to sit in this thread all day wasting your time and brain power you'd put the effort into actual creative shit ibstead of qq cry cry bitch ass boys

Yeah, I remember the past with global internet communications, smartphones, and social media. It was great nothing fundamentally altered the nature of human interaction.

i think incel philosophy will influence future politics not by converting serious people, or large masses of people to incel philosophy, but by instilling the implicit notion in currently young neo-populist conservatives that societal engineering is necessary to regulate the sexual marketplace.
due to sexual liberalism, the sexes are farther apart in their pattern of sexual approach.
acceptability of various behaviors is disputed and expectations of what is wanted at any given time do not advance in unison.
technology and sexual liberalism have sabotaged dating and economic improvement is a linear solution to a problem of exponential proportions
lol.
im not ugly. economic improvements wouldnt help me because my social isolation has to do with my mental health issues, not due to the lack of a job that i would have if we elected bernie.
larger than the real wage gap.
>reads 1984 once

im not saying that shit doesnt have an effect. but if you look at the data, its clear that every post economic crash there follows a decrease in sexual activity. its fucking normal, and your pain isnt something new. why dont you want to learn? the past is yours to learn from, friend.

jokes on you, i never read 1984. my point still stands, tho. sexual depression follows economic depression, its been proven again and again, what more do you need?

All you can do is better yourself (don't do it to attract a mate, do it because you can) and keep trying. Don't lie to yourself about what you want.

Attached: E96140A9-FF04-4210-BD58-9F219367DEBE.jpg (500x832, 36K)

>Gets btfo by every rebuttal and chart posted
>Continues to plug his ears and yell that everything is normal

lol its normal in terms of historical significance, but ok put words in my mouth, you ignorant faggot

not saying i agree with him but i think he's saying such charts are normal following depressions

this is a rly good point for lonely ppl. maybe becoming volcel b/c noone will fuck you doesnt count but the shift in mindset to focusing on selfimprovement is better for your mental health and longterm prospects

>ywn kill everyone who has had sex outside of wedlock
feels bad man

>All you can do is better yourself (don't do it to attract a mate, do it because you can) and keep trying. Don't lie to yourself about what you want.
bettering yourself is the worst thing you can do, I was a spastic until my late 20s but I refuse to go near women now that I'm financially independent because you simply cannot trust one and they are disgusting

>What do I even do about this bros? I want to hate women for being entitled but I can't find an answer to the objection that people should be able to like whoever they want to. After all, would I lower my standards of beauty because I rate average art at a 2/10 instead of a 5/10? I guess the only solution is for men to become equally picky, but I doubt the chads would do that. Are men just repulsive then? Are we just so disgusting that our average is their 2/10? I guess its just natural selection. I'll probably have to neck myself.
Your eagerness to take 1 step into the waters and contract genital herpes for life is strange. Buy an onahole and be content.

Well, ultimately you can only control what you have power over, and you really only have power over yourself. Nobody has the power in them to make someone find them attractive, or to change the dating scene to be less skewed against them, so all they can do is try to better themselves.

I can't say it's gotten me any great successes yet, I've had one sexual partner in my life, but I've also spent most of my life as a fat, alcoholic trainwreck without social skills. I've put a lot of work into getting back down to a healthy BMI and I've very nearly lost all the weight I want to lose. I've quit drinking and my life has gotten vastly more stable and my finances have improved greatly. I've also gotten better at making friends mostly by working to make myself into an honest and considerate person with a variety of interests, and I've made more friends than I've ever had. It hasn't solved my problems with dating, which frankly still makes me feel like a joke, but it has made me feel better about myself and attained some small measure of eudaimonia.

But pretty much every chart in this thread shows that depressions in and of themselves provide little explanatory power for describing the cultural phenomenon, levels of sexual activity are higher during the early 1990s depression for example compared to the boom year of 2006. Really thought, I just see someone trying to bury their head in the sand regarding the effects of technological and social developments over the past decade and the disproportionate impact you see displayed.

glad to hear it. the new dating/hookup "market" fucking sucks but it's dumb to let that ruin your life when there are still a lot of good things we can do/accomplish regardless

This boy scout lives under a rock

There's just no point in letting it make you miserable. If there's one lesson I took from Stoicism it's that it's pointless to suffer over something you have no control over.

whats there to explain? of course people stop fucking when their life prospects are shit. theres really nothing more to it then that. but go ahead and blame your phone for your problems.

it is astronomically worse with lgbt

Attached: 1553002061009.jpg (906x1024, 209K)

It’s no use trying to reason with the equivalent of a pinkerfag, where things are good because the economy is good and conversely the only reason things are bad is because of the economy is bad

1. im too lazy to investigate but this image looks very fishy

2. gay and lesbian relationships dont have the same dynamic that occurs when half the pop is way hornier than the other half

isnt that a better explanation than scaremongering about tech? i dont hear much of a difference between this and the people who thought pokemon was some kind of satanic japanese invasion

back to faggot

hahaha now i wont even waste time investigating your bullshit. hate hurts you too user

Not really, considering the other guy's economic explanation was extremely weak given both and show some earlier depression periods with higher rates of sexual activity than some later expansion periods, indicating a great deal of other non economimc factors, and other anomalies such as a lower levels of sexless individuals in 2008 and 2009, which would be counter if it was just economic causes. On the other hand, the large spikes after 2008 indicate to me a new factor, which would coincide with new developments in technology and social media. I would hardly consider it scaremongering as I don't think you will find many individuals who deny the large impact developments such as smartphones and social media have had on people.

You HAVE to go back, sweaty.

people were saying the same shit about tv and movies. omg now porn exists?? that will destroy society!!!!! people will just stay home jacking off instead of going out and fucking. 100 years later... omg internet porn exists????? yeah fuck off.

Since when did I mention porn? How does that relate to my post at all?

go back to your containment board first

im saying your take has been done before. technology always scares people, and the first thing people tend to say is that this tech is going to affect sex and dating somehow. same shit different tech.

The Tinder/dating app explanation for rising male sexlessness is to me something that always misses the wider point: why are people going on the internet and their phones to find partners at all?

The rise in a sexless class of men (and some women) to me is best explained by the decline of young men in the workforce and the rise of social isolation. People have fewer friends, fewer social contacts, and fewer places to meet others. Humans are still humans and they crave social interaction, but they’re trying to use an app to find it, and obviously that doesn’t work. I don’t even think a large share of women even intend on having sex from these apps, it’s lore about the validation.

Relationships form face to face. I’m aware of a lot of the incels citing studies about the 80/20 distribution on dating apps, and the fact that physical attractiveness is the biggest determinant of matches on them, but again, I don’t think those things are really that widely used. It’s known that people become attracted to those that they are around often, this is why coworkers end up fucking and marrying, same with classmates. Humans are not that complicated, if you’re not around other people you’re not going to be getting laid, and right now there’s a huge chunk of men who are basically not leaving their homes and don’t have friends. The dating apps are a side effect of the real issue.

And one more thing: this is all exacerbated by the fact that women almost never want to date down education wise. As women become more educated relative to men, a gap occurs.

What did people do before to meet and make friends?

How much worse is the lack of friendship going to get? I have no friends. I know it's bad for my health.

ask your mom and dad

>Imagine actually caring about dating apps
I agree, except most women do and use them.

Our culture is different. Even fallen we dont have a gettho ethos and short term fun for Long term impoverishment is not going to happen.
Yep
/thread
And the 80/20 rule is becoming ‘95/5 rule.
People are generally forced together through lonelyness, but now when a women gets lonely she can be sated by chad-lite without even having to leave her bed to met him, and she doesnt really mind sharing him.

Attached: EE4AC5CF-6EAB-4FF0-918E-639D51F641B6.jpg (800x600, 250K)

>How much worse is the lack of friendship going to get? I have no friends
Well I've got some good news for you, user...

Well I mean, I don't know what else there is to convince someone who is clearly unwilling to accept anything. I already pointed out the coinciding trends in sexual activity with technological and social developments and it isn't a fringe thought that the way in which the sexual market by means of effects such as unprecedentedly communication and travel has been altered. I personally think these are commiserant developments to social trends such as the decline of communal and family structures but I mean if you want to continue to believe it is all economic there is nothing else I can say if you intend to be so obstinate.

you know why boomers are called boomers dont you? post war economic boom = more fucking and more babies. the reverse is also true. its predictable as fuck. i guarantee when the economy is going good again all this shit about apps will suddenly explain the rising birth rates in exactly the same way how it explains falling birth rates. because its a shallow non take that explains nothing. tech is just tools.

I think about this image a lot and it constantly is on my mind when I think about these tinder disparity dialogues
I think, yeah I wanna meet vaginas but the chase is just not worth it. The girls on tinder are not worth it. Taking some girl who's boring as hell out somewhere to talk and flirt a little and try and get back to her place to smash so I can clear my mind and actually do shit I like with my bros? It's not worth it. Just beat off at home and go shit it up with my niggas. It almost makes me think I don't actually like women but I'm just attracted to them, it's almost unsettling to think about

Attached: vagina on my face all the time.jpg (923x633, 130K)

Possibly, but I think you’re ignoring the internet’s ability to basically sedate people who are failing in all avenues of life.

Imagine you’re a young, friendless, jobless, sexless male without the internet. If you spent as much time alone as the current versions of these men do (because they have the internet to distract them) you’d legitimately go insane. To the guy who said you have no friends, how much of your free time is spent alone staring at a screen? I’d guess all of it, when I was totally isolated without a job or friends I spent all day and night alone looking at a screen. That kinda of isolation is literally considered torture, but because the internet is there to sedate these types of people they never experience the steep mental decline that comes with zero human contact.

And I think you’re economics analysis can’t explajin places like Japan where basically no one has sex. Social isolation and the tools to sedate there socially isolated align with the education of women and women’s natura desire to date up is pretty much making a huge swath of men totally fucked.

I think almost every gen z teenager wants sex but they have been socially isolated and their sex drive has been directed at porn. Ultimately though its their fault and I would classify myself under this banner. I think it's the fear of rejection, or feelings of inadequacy that hold people back to getting a gf. I don't think banging prostitutes or going fully autistic and doing MGTOW is the answer. Instead men need to be around more women and work on social skills, because they often have spent their childhood solely around other boys.

i get that, but the internet can just as easily be used to connect potential sex partners, and maybe we havent yet how to effeciently organize that, while at the same time its not being used that way because people are stressed about their lives. it can be used to distract, but why do we need to distract and sedate ourselves? we can change how our tools are used depending on what we spontaneously need them for. and right now we need it to distract from our shitty lives.

It's fairly straightforward actually if you have even slightly above a room temperature IQ, a pair of working eyeballs, and a few seconds to do some cursory research. Basically the proportion of the population that is able to find a sexual partner is decreasing, but those who are capable of finding a sexual partner are having more sex with more people than they would have previously.

Basically both phenomenon are happening simultaneously, and it's just that the sex has distributed itself in an unequal fashion such that more and more people aren't having any sex at all, while the ones who do have become gluttonous hedonists.

underrated response

The majority of people are monogamous and seek out stable relationships. Then there the cool amazing people like me who bang all the time and make girls cum all the time. We well more specifically me are having big sex all the time and lots of it.

I really think we have enough data from internet dating to know women will not ever choose the vast majority of men on there. I don’t know how you’d rework these things to make that happen, I don’t think there is an answer.

Again, I don’t think humans are all that complicated. Yeh mere exposure effect is something we’ve known about for a while, and it’s also observed even if you can’t articulate it. When you put adults in a room together say after day after day eventually they end up fucking and starting relationships, that’s how it’s worked for all of time. When you have huge swaths of men not ever meeting women because they have no friends or jobs, they will not be getting laid. They have to look like models to get sex from dating apps, if there was a way to retool the apps to help these guys I’d be okay with that but I’m very skeptical that anything could do that.

“The mere-exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon by which people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. In social psychology, this effect is sometimes called the familiarity principle. The effect has been demonstrated with many kinds of things, including words, Chinese characters, paintings, pictures of faces, geometric figures, and sounds. In studies of interpersonal attraction, the more often someone sees a person, the more pleasing and likeable they find that person.”

what if it allowed men and women to rate each other and people are placed in different leagues, and you only see people in your own league?

>and no one is hiring
Yeah no
>The US unemployment rate rose to 3.9 percent in December 2018 from a 49-year low of 3.7 percent in the previous month, and above market expectations of 3.7 percent.

Maybe, but when women are asked to rate men they rate most of them as unattractive. I’m not saying there’s no solution, but to me whatever is happening now is bad overall for dating.

Serious question:

Does the word intimacy equate to sex in the mind of most people?

I wrote a very cringeworthy story and had it published online to my everlasting horror, and it's partly about a young incel who craves intimacy with a girl he obsesses over. He explicitly uses the word "intimacy", but I didn't mean it as in sex but more as in familiarity, deep connection between two people, the shedding of any masks etc. Am I fucked here?

men will do the same so that will put the bulk of women in that same league, it evens out and after a while it should be more or less accurate, i think. anyway, tinder and such are hookup apps, i doubt many actually find long term partners out of it.

>US unemployment rate
>having anything to do with unemployment

Attached: 1536603058329.gif (298x224, 2.85M)

yep. trumptards went on and on about obamas employment numbers being fake, when trump is president suddenly they are accurate? yeah naw thats propaganda

Good one! Never seen a redditer tourist use that one before! XD

It really depends on context, if the character is already having sex and talks about wanting intimacy then no, if a random incel does the same then probably yes.

having sex with someone is literally extremely intimate though

Fuck, that is really not a good thing at all. I thought people would read it and assume the protagonist / narrator just wanted a close relationship with someone, not just to "f**k" them. This story is literally on the internet with my name and photo attached. I feel sick.

ok blackpill time
everything we are is an expression of capital
capital is our god expressing itself through us
if you lack capital you express it almost metaphysically

If you can't get a well paying job in the US right now it's because you have interpersonal problems or a moderate to profound intellectual disability

Capitalism, modernity and plain unchallenged immaturity and narcissism. Basically, the same as incel but in normie terms. People are very selfabsorbed and need to feel their fantasies and made up desires, which are blown up by media, are being fulfilled, except this doesn't really work in real life. If things aren't going your way, you can stay inside and watch TV and porn were you get your way and never really have to search yourself while you deep down feel guilty and humiliated. Sometimes it turns into a school shooting. Then you have the fact that we're doing everything we can to minimize human interaction and social skills which limits mating in obvious ways. Companies today value social skills above all else because everyone is autistic. Then you have the money issue, kids houses etc are expensive.

I put this post together very crudely but give it a thought

Whatever... Which should've been translated as the world as a market and struggle

im posting on Yea Forums of course im retarded, but at least im not deluded into thinking im not

Its pretty easy to bang though... But maybe that's because I am fit and 6'4

The translated title is: The Extension of the Domain of the Struggle

It's a play on the slogans coined by students in 1968

Im glad we agree.

Attached: images (51).jpg (649x472, 28K)

Gtfo geezer!

Attached: cover (1).png (1177x662, 40K)

most redpilled post itt

>Males decide it's not worth it
Okay incel

Tbhwyf I'm not even american, I'm in a situation of academic failure and it's more than likely that I will have a life of slave-like poor worker

Now it's entirely based on the retarded instincts of sexuality, and even worse female sexuality.

>tfw so broken and inexperienced that the idea of putting a piece of my body inside the body of another person just seems absurd at this point

Attached: Wojak_Laptop.jpg (234x215, 5K)

>I'm just looking forward to the inevitable civil collapse coming in fifty so years
try 20

The frequency at which I've been dreaming about the scramble during the collapse have become more frequent. Like from a couple times a week to every single night. For the last six months.
Maybe even less than 20 years man.

Indeed only a third of gdp is social spending, needs to be 95% for true Welfarism, comrade.

Birds don't like their cunnies raped by stings.

So answer honestly, how many people and how many times did you guys have sex last year (2018)? Also give an estimation of your attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10.

I had sex with three different people three times last year, I'm a strong 7.

Oh, you want a solution? Here it is: have sex. Even if you're not in the mood. It seems like strange advice-- force yourself to have sex-- but it's the correct advice. The problem is unrealistic expectations of yourself, sex, marriage, etc. Instead of fantasizing, pretending, teasing, silly text messages that come to nothing, whatever, just do it. If nothing else-- and this is nearly unimaginable-- you will both feel better that you did it.

How can I overcome this?

Attached: 1489200420875.jpg (1735x2325, 1M)

Power plants require much invested capital, are static, big and unconcealable, not easily replaced.
Bioengineering will spread like illegal small weapons.

I just fucked my friend's ex.
I didn't even find the sex appealing, just wanted to share a warm bed with someone and I'm bad at picking up girls at bars.
Last year I was in a relationship for 8 months, broke up and after that did a fwb type of bullshit with a girl for a month or so.
I don't know about rating myself. I'm a skinny fag who dresses in old soviet camo, black jeans and band shirts.
Kill me.

Are you a bee or a bird? Because I don't fuck lamers.

I'm a snake.
Slithering, cunning, backstabbing snake.

Either construct your identity around who you actually are (i.e. what you actually do) or start seriously working towards actually being who you think you are. Either way, you are in hurry. Soon you'll be old and you will have stick to the first option.

and

So fuck other snakes in the face. Have you ever seen a snake eat a snake while ejaculating?

It isn't eugenics because people aren't using it to reproduce, just to fuck the people with the most desirable genetics.

Sex is really the height of physical intimacy. The incel desires both the physical AND the emotional intimacy that he lacks.

So rape?

This advise was for narcissists not incels.

False and damaging advice. If you have intimacy problems already "forcing yourself to have sex" will just make you recoil into isolation.

So just keep daydreaming and masturbating? That will solve the issue?

Don't these kind of articles neglect the fact that there used to be spinsters and celibates in the past as well? Just like nuns and monks and a large number of people who don't get any but just aren't very visible.
I'm from a small rural town where at least the previous two generations married around 20, never divorced, but even they recall the existence of celibates back in their day.
A lot of stuff regarding relations and sexuality has changed since the 60s but I think this phenomenon isn't as new as they make it out to be, just more visible and talked about.

If you're having sex with anything that walks and remotely resembles a woman you either have ridiculously low self-esteem or you're not a 9/10.
>I want to hate
Try using your brain instead of mindlessly following the misguided feelings of a herd of internet spergs.

>I can't find an answer to the objection that people should be able to like whoever they want to.
This disgusting "people should do what they like if it doesn't hurt anyone" is what got us here and will continue to sink us. You probably think that homosexuality and travestism is also ok, secularist scum.

Im sure it has to do with very attravctive men fucking even average out of their league women because... why not?

0
4/10

No, but you can't go straight from the cloister to an orgy. That just perpetuates the cynical cycle of optimism: you don't understand intimacy, you enter a sexual relationship hastily, it doesn't go well because you didn't enter the relationship for the person, you did it for the sex, expecting that if you just had sex the clouds would open and God would reveal the Mystery to you, then you retreat back to your cell further jaded because you "tried and failed" once again. Go out, socialize, make friends of both sexes. You may not have sex or end up in a relationship, and if you bear this in mind you won't poison any worthwhile relationship you end up in with irrational optimism, living ghost stories, treatment of the other person according to your ideals rather than their physical being. I haven't had sex in five years because I fell for the "lose your virginity and all will be well" meme. Also pornography is the devil.

This,

We should keep in mind that this phenomenon occurs in Japan too so while there may be other causes like porn or "da joos", there should be an underlying primary factor.

Social isolation seems like the obvious answer. Look up Bowling Alone. We're seeing the results of an issue decades in the making. The internet has probably exacerbated this as we no longer have to go outside to interact with others, and online relationships hardly lead anywhere (ex. has there ever been a Yea Forums meetup irl?).

The decline of religion has also led to one less place for people to meet others. Churches provided a community and it's not uncommon back in the day for people to find their mates there.

Whatever, get a pet or two. That's what I did.

You're literally not looking at the data being shown to you. Yes, women are having more partners on average, but those more partners are from a more selective group of fewer men. Women are having more sex, but they are having more sex with a smaller group of men (who are having a lot more sex). This is causing a negatively skewed distribution where there is a significantly smaller variance in the men who are considered attractive enough to be valid sexual partners for women. OK Cupid notoriously did a study (which they conspicuously deleted after it got a lot of press putting pressure on them to explain the phenomenon which put such a bad light on modern online dating and dating in general) where they showed of 20,000 women and mens data sampled on their website, that women rated 80% of men shown as being significantly worse than average attractiveness, despite men rating women almost entirely in compliance with a normal distribution. This is verified with studies Tinder which show a similar distribution pattern.

medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

nytimes.com/2014/10/30/fashion/tinder-the-fast-growing-dating-app-taps-an-age-old-truth.html?_r=0

These both show an average number of "likes" given by female users to be between 12-14% of all male users they interact with. While you could stick your head in the sand and say these phenomenon are strictly for Tinder/OK Cupid (the two largest online dating apps) these apps working based primarily on physical attraction is much more true to how casual interactions public play out numbers wise than some complex metric factoring in personality and all of that nonsense. When a woman sees a man at a bar, she doesn't see his passion for Greek classics or his mountain biking hobby, she sees his body composition and bone distribution, which has been demonstrated to be something women have in general a skewed perception about. 20% of men are hooking up with 80% of women leaving the average and below average men getting little to nothing at all, and very socially frustrated with little recourse for that frustration (hence the incel phenomenon).

Why don't they want young men to realize that super-hypergamy is the problem? What are they trying to hide?

i am so sexually repressed the shame alone makes it almost impossible to pursue women. i am horny all day and night and somehow i cannot admit to my own sexuality, i hate to be seen as a sexual being, it feels vulnerable, though i'm not sure what exactly i'm afraid of, it's not only the possibility of failure, it's being sexual at all, and even thought i know it is natural it feels like i was not meant to be sexual but more than anything i want to be.

I have yet to find a single study tracking either median or expectation values/mean for partner counts over time in a serious way. Most studies I've seen rely on self-reporting which is especially unreliable for partner count given women not only are generally inclined to lie about their sexual past, but often feel that if they don't lie about their number of previous sexual partners they will be looked down upon.

Unlike what a lot of intersectional/progressive people will tell you, this happens naturally and for a good reason as women with large numbers of sexual partners experience significant difficulty with long term pair bonding that men tend not to. There is a generalized trend that women who had more premarital partners are significantly more likely to divorce than women who had between 0-2 premarital partners.

ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

Women who have more partners also tend to be less satisfied with their relationships and derive less happiness from their marriages:

ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness

Basically, not only have there been next to no studies that have actually tracked median number of sexual partners over time (the closest I could find was a small n=145 intergenerational survey comparing Boomers/GenX/Millennials/Gen Z), but if there were to be such a study done, it would basically need to find some other way to collect this data besides self reporting because women often lie about their previous partner count (which has been so documented that it actually became a fairly large mathematical discipline to prove whether it was even possible for the mean averages to be significantly different between sexes in a closed population).

Did you even read my previous posts. It seems you are running on some sort of heuristic instead of engaging with what I wrote.

>No, but you can't go straight from the cloister to an orgy.

Nobody was advocating this. Again I'm not talking about virgins, I'm talking about people who retreat from meaningful relationships of any kind due to the enormous disconnect between their self-image and reality. These people by definition cannot enter a relationship for the other person. The only cure is actually becoming who you think you are or accepting who you actually are. Both are done by engaging with the world instead of retreating into fantasy.

As I wrote
>The problem is unrealistic expectations of yourself, sex, marriage, etc.

I feel you senpai. Not trusting my representations helps with dealing with being different.

I agree with this. Talking and hanging out with people irl (especially girls) really highlighted to me how disconnected the digital world is with reality.

People need to go outside more. I think the closure of many public hangout spaces like bars and such has really damaged human intimacy. I'd go so far as to say that human interaction itself is undergoing a kind of McDonaldisation that removes the soul from it. Meanwhile, the most meaningful relationship I've formed were ones created through circumstance rather than apps.

>Women who have more partners also tend to be less satisfied with their relationships and derive less happiness from their marriages:

Do you know if there's any university that has done any investigation into this and reached similar results? I fear that the institute for family studies could be tainted as impartial.

Netrunner

>To the guy who said you have no friends, how much of your free time is spent alone staring at a screen?
Much of it. I do work around 50 hours a week with 90% men. I am ignored on dating apps. My entire youth contains no memories of romance, love, or sex.

The existence of luddites who oppose everything new doesn't change the simple fact that technology affects social and political relations. The development of the printing press led to the religious wars in Europe thanks in parts to the proliferation of inflammatory pamphlets, the development of the mechanical clock led to a complete change in the way man relates to labour. None of this is controversial in any way, this is basic shit taught at universities, you have that in McLuhan and even Marx. So why does the affirmation that the same logic is valid for social media ellicits so much resistence? You can say that the industrial method of production gives rise to alienation and commodity fetishism or whatever, but to say that dating apps change the way men and women approach relationships is "scaremonging".

I don't even oppose Tinder. It's like opposing writing or the steam engine. I merely observe its effects.

Attached: The_Gutenberg_Galaxy,_first_edition.jpg (237x360, 15K)

It's much cheaper to live with a partner in the West you fool.

>men use compliments to increase their odds
>tend to come across as fucking desperate because they are

Shocking.

You mean roommate?

>lesbian stats

You know, it's interesting that not a single version of those stats I have *ever seen* has included 'abuse by same sex partner'.

Weird.

>social anxiety is just narcissism bro
Ok.

This is the ultimate blackpill and you can't ignore it.
People, especially women will deny this, because the whole reason manipulation on men is so effective is because the gold at the end of the rainbow is that "you become perfect in her eyes".

The truth is out. Women can never be satisfied fully and any attempt at satisfying them by you entirely is a lost cause.
Do something else with your life, you are flat out dooming yourself. Not even Brad Pitt is a 10/10 to these women, no one is. Leave it alone.