It really has very little to do with men "being owed sex" by women. Most men don't really believe they're owed sex by women, or anyone for that matter. The big issue is that society has placed such an emphasis on premarital sex and random hookups and casual sex that young men are beginning to feel like if they aren't having sex they are missing out on an integral part of life, which is not the case.
Sure, there are definitely men out there who truly believe that women are simply there to please them and be their slaves, but that is not the case for the vast majority of men, even so-called incels. They have simply been led to believe that sex is an amazing, huge part of life, that it is integral to a normal life and, while it is important to a healthy relationship, it's not necessary to live a normal life.
It also comes back, in a way, to the destruction of traditional masculinity. If they can convince millions of men that sex is the only thing that matters, that it is the most important part of a relationship and of life, then that's all they're going to care about. They're not going to focus on other things such as learning new skills or trade or bettering themselves in some other way.
Of course, the funny part of all this is that by convincing men that sex is the only thing that matters, they are completely reducing women to only being important in a sexual way. Although, I suppose that's part of the plan too. After all, we can't have women being motherly figures or caring individuals in a household or in life in general. We have to have them choose careers that debase them and destroy their mental well-being. It really is all connected I guess. The destruction of the family unit, the destruction of traditional masculinity, the destruction of traditional femininity, the sexualization of children... It really does circle back to the destruction of traditional values in a way that lets them swoop in and replace traditional morality with some sort of perverted new age "progressive" morality.
Anyway, that's my $0.02
Do show me.
Of course. It won't be a surprise to anyone that life in the 13th century was... dangerous. Your claim is that it was more dangerous than childbirth, which is certainly not a claim that is self-evident.
Wut?
You don't know the first thing about history, which is why you have no citation for this claim of yours. Good luck!
I'll be charitable and say that there were attempts.
See, this is where you go off the rails yet again. You said social responsibilities were lesser. I proved the opposite, after which you started talking about life expectancy instead. I've humored you this shifting of the goalposts, as you'd lose even on this score, but let's not pretend that you are even remotely engaging in good faith.
Responsibilities come with rights.
Average lifespans disagree.
Women have had more legal rights through history than the average man without the responsibilities.
Quoting leftist media without linking, in the hope that I wouldn't discover where you got it? Naughty naughty...
Anyway, this certainly is interesting, though extremely limited on traditional society and with the replication crisis, I don't go around assuming that "studies" are correct.
Let's assume for a moment that they are though. It disproves your claim that men are at significantly higher risk of death due to war than women due to childbirth, which was the original dispute that you tried to weasel your way out of by moving the goalposts. Here you can see the study's claims. Life expectancy is broadly similar (not vastly greater male deaths as you incorrectly claimed), and there is no noticeable spike in the number of male deaths when they are of military age.
You'll have to do better than this crap.
This is idiotic, even by your standards. You couldn't even prove your title-claim.
I quoted the results of the study, does it matter who decided to write it up?
What you failed to recognize or acknowledge is all of those patterns were selected because they were times of non-war, again add the difference. If you read the study they explicitly weaned out war periods because the numbers skewed vastly one direction.
I’ve repeatedly proven the title claim, you have yet to prove childbirth deaths outweighed general male deaths let alone with wartime efforts.
Duh. Or are you going to pretend that leftist media doesn't put its spin on things?
Did you?
That's a shame. I'd have liked to see that, and more periods than just a few years in Sweden. Different countries, different eras, etc.
If you're just going to post not just lies, but contemptible and discreditable lies, not sure there's point in talking to a crazy person. Point me to where you proved it and I overlooked it, or you're just lying.