Doesn't even have to be sex. Simply interacting with a female as a male can be enough to get you professionally slandered and your personal life destroyed if they don't like you.
Anything to avoid talking about out of control female hypergamy, right?
In an age where hook-ups might seem as unlimited as a right swipe on a dating app, it’s easy to assume that Gen Z “should be having the time of their lives sexually
That's only true for women, Chad, and Tyrone. Bottom 95% men are being left out in the cold until their 30s, and by that point they're asking why they should have to jump through hoops to get what Chad and Tyrone got for free.
And she pushes back against the notion that shying away from sex is some sort of societal problem that needs to be “fixed.”
Of course she does. Societal problems are always left to fester until women are inconvenienced by them. That's why no one gave a shit about the epidemic of lonely men until Andrew Tate came along and threatened their betabux grift.
This is compounded by all the women being on hormonal birth control and how that totally throws off their mate selection preferences, so even when they do settle they end up with some average male but then as soon as they get off birth control to start a family they find the man they're with to be utterly repulsive and then end up as a single mother anyway, leaving a broken wreck of a man in their wake.
White people and East-Asian people population crash reminds me of the Mouse Utopia experiment.
Of course the mouse had no Feminist policies to make dating dangerous for males, nor brainwashing to convince young fertile people to sterilize themselves and make themselves ugly.
And more to the point the men have to have an incentive to get and stay busy. Feminism replacing those incentives with shame won't work, as the article discusses.
Incentives are something leftists will never talk about because they know they are creating the wrong ones. It should be the only realpolitik topic that we talk about.
It's just like welfare. They will do anything but talk about the logic of the work-replacement effect.
I don't think the distinction between the two matters all that much for this article's purposes. Men not having access to high value women to incentivize the labor that society needs means society gets less of that labor, regardless of why the men don't have that access.
I do agree with you that the writer is using the term "incel" when MGTOW is more fitting. It's probably one of those rare misapplications of the term that isn't malicious. I also agree that MGTOW is a much bigger threat to the feminist project than incels are. Incels make for useful bogeymen, but at the end of the day they're just an optics problem that the feminists need to sweep under the rug. They can still theoretically be controlled because they still desire female attention (although in practice that would require a far more credible carrot than the feminists are willing to offer). That's why driving them off mainstream sites like Reddit was enough. MGTOW on the other hand has the potential to derail the entire clown show if enough men adopt the lifestyle. That's why they're going scorched earth on MGTOW. It's really easy to see what the regime really sees as a threat by looking at how hard they go after different dissident communities.
Shockingly enough not really. The thesis is that young people are taking a longer time to grow up and that sex and relationships aren't really a priority over things like education. It's all from a woman's perspective of course, but it doesn't exactly contradict what we all know to be true: They spend their prime years on the CC, then find some cuck to pay for their mistakes and raise their bastard children in their 30s.
“A lot of young people when you talk to them will say their best friends are people they’ve never met,” said Jessica Borelli, a professor of psychological science at UC Irvine. “Sometimes they live across the country or in other countries, and yet they have these very intimate relationships with them. … The in-person interface is not nearly as essential for the development of intimacy as it might be for older people.”
No, it is still essential. People just lack intimacy. The breakdown in social cohesion is something they don't really talk about. We live in a country of foreigners now on top of all the issues with technology.
It being a country of foreigners is almost irrelevant to the cause of the problem here. If anything, the massive lack of intimacy and social relationships is what is causing the loss of social cohesion, which then leads to people not caring if their country is overrun by foreigners.
I hate how publicly, nobody acknowledges what led to this: children growing up on mobile devices and social media having all of their attention and desire to grow stolen by handheld drip-fed dopamine devices, and letting contact on social media take the place of real-world contact.
I feel like 30 years ago laws would have been passed on algorithms optimized for engagement to this degree because people actually cared about childhood development factors. Its obviously harmful long-term for societies, and especially their youth, because it pushes everyone into echo chambers, pushing stronger and stronger divides to the point where reasonable discussion is no longer possible, on top of the social and mental deficiencies it drives.
I disagree. Look at all the analysis of the effects of television on people. There's a reason it was called a "boob tube". Boomers are addicted to TV as badly as Zoomers are addicted to their phones. TV was the absolute core of people's lives: culturally, politically, socially, religiously, economically. In the 40's and 50's, people were actually pointing it out how dangerous it was for mass communication to be controlled in such a way, and it couldn't be stopped.
TV does all the same kind of dopamine addiction and mental control, but in a much more centralized way. You can (even now) still see Boomers addicted to the TV.
If the Boomers understood the internet, all internet traffic, social media sites, and emails would be strictly regulated by a government sponsored oligopoly of AT&T, MSNBC Universal, and Facebook.
I don't think you should disagree due to television, but I do agree that television was still likely overall damaging to the collective growth of humanity.
The difference between television and mobile devices is that the dopamine drip is omnipresent. With television, you had significant wasted time/growth, sure, but it was still at the very least on long-form content that required a minor form of irritation in the form of commercials, and it wasn't present while you were doing other constructive things.
Its the instant-gratification, zero-downtime dopamine feed that mobile devices provide that is damaging to growth. People are more impatient than ever, less likely to endure anything educational if it takes more than 2 minutes, etc., etc., etc. Then there's the dopamine burnout that's starting to become apparent in other aspects of peoples' lives.
Even if you increase immigration to mass migration levels, that won't deteriorate the social cohesion of domestic populations. The social damage would come from the undermining of families, and directed efforts at atomitization.
Again, that's not necessarily the case. A domestic population can be displaced, but that doesn't necessitate the deterioration of a a domestic population's social cohesion. That's a failure of the domestic populations social institutions. This is why (actual) refugees from invading armies still have social cohesion. In fact, they may aggressively seek to preserve their social order, even when displaced to other lands by an invading force. This is why we see some populations "cling to religion" when they are displaced.
What you're thinking of is a) failed integration, and b) social institutional failure.
It sucks, but I kind of see this as a massive correction. A "deflationary pressure" on romantic relationships.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's a reaction to something totally unsustainable. Men are choosing to have less sex because of bad mate choice, emotional underdevelopment, and financial insecurity.
It sucks, but consider what would happen if they were engaged in relationships and having sex. You'd be getting tons of children out of wedlock, broken homes, broken families, and broken communities. The situation would actually be worse at a societal level as the children of broken homes pour out onto the streets and start killing the civilization they are mired in.
It's like a woman saying she "never wants to have kids" and "will absolutely get an abortion". That's not a woman you ever want having kids. She is going to feel personally attacked by her own children. She'll get her abortion one way or another. These men & women who aren't having sex are probably right about their self-assessment, and they will have to do something about it on their own time to make progress. No one can really help them but themselves, and all we can do is try to promote healthy behaviors to fix yourself.
How did they get this way? It's a moot point now, but the social engineering efforts of the Left over the past 70 years to destroy families, communities, and relationships between men and women. Additionally the fact that the understanding of relationships was so innate to the Greatest Generation that they didn't explain it to the Boomers, and the Gen X was taught not to give a shit. Hence, Millennials and Zoomers have no living role models for relationships. That's why this shit is so fucking alien to us. It's not bad acting, it's that the world the Boomers grew up in is long dead, and the people have so fundamentally changed that (although it's good advice), it's effectively impossible to translate.
Doesn't even have to be sex. Simply interacting with a female as a male can be enough to get you professionally slandered and your personal life destroyed if they don't like you.
Anything to avoid talking about out of control female hypergamy, right?
That's only true for women, Chad, and Tyrone. Bottom 95% men are being left out in the cold until their 30s, and by that point they're asking why they should have to jump through hoops to get what Chad and Tyrone got for free.
Of course she does. Societal problems are always left to fester until women are inconvenienced by them. That's why no one gave a shit about the epidemic of lonely men until Andrew Tate came along and threatened their betabux grift.
This is compounded by all the women being on hormonal birth control and how that totally throws off their mate selection preferences, so even when they do settle they end up with some average male but then as soon as they get off birth control to start a family they find the man they're with to be utterly repulsive and then end up as a single mother anyway, leaving a broken wreck of a man in their wake.
White people and East-Asian people population crash reminds me of the Mouse Utopia experiment.
Of course the mouse had no Feminist policies to make dating dangerous for males, nor brainwashing to convince young fertile people to sterilize themselves and make themselves ugly.
I'm not going to read the article. Let me guess? It's men's fault for not doing what women want.
Read this one instead: https://brighteyes.substack.com/p/the-fuck-rate-is-about-to-implode
I just started and I'm already impressed with the first sentence. This is going to be a breathe of fresh air.
Yes "societies" figured out that men had to be kept busy. The ones that had a bunch of angry incels running around didn't last.
And more to the point the men have to have an incentive to get and stay busy. Feminism replacing those incentives with shame won't work, as the article discusses.
Incentives are something leftists will never talk about because they know they are creating the wrong ones. It should be the only realpolitik topic that we talk about.
It's just like welfare. They will do anything but talk about the logic of the work-replacement effect.
I don't think the distinction between the two matters all that much for this article's purposes. Men not having access to high value women to incentivize the labor that society needs means society gets less of that labor, regardless of why the men don't have that access.
I do agree with you that the writer is using the term "incel" when MGTOW is more fitting. It's probably one of those rare misapplications of the term that isn't malicious. I also agree that MGTOW is a much bigger threat to the feminist project than incels are. Incels make for useful bogeymen, but at the end of the day they're just an optics problem that the feminists need to sweep under the rug. They can still theoretically be controlled because they still desire female attention (although in practice that would require a far more credible carrot than the feminists are willing to offer). That's why driving them off mainstream sites like Reddit was enough. MGTOW on the other hand has the potential to derail the entire clown show if enough men adopt the lifestyle. That's why they're going scorched earth on MGTOW. It's really easy to see what the regime really sees as a threat by looking at how hard they go after different dissident communities.
Overall good, but parts are pretty cringe when he's talking about smart women being the ones reading.
Still, thanks
Brilliant link.
Shockingly enough not really. The thesis is that young people are taking a longer time to grow up and that sex and relationships aren't really a priority over things like education. It's all from a woman's perspective of course, but it doesn't exactly contradict what we all know to be true: They spend their prime years on the CC, then find some cuck to pay for their mistakes and raise their bastard children in their 30s.
That's somehow worse. It's like me saying the reason stocks went up is because it rained in California.
Narrator: Yes.
Sounds good to me. The world could do with some fucking monagomay and responsible relationships.
Thanks to technology women all feel like they have infinite options and can't make decision.
While men are "respecting" women like they say they want and thus never make a move.
No, it is still essential. People just lack intimacy. The breakdown in social cohesion is something they don't really talk about. We live in a country of foreigners now on top of all the issues with technology.
It being a country of foreigners is almost irrelevant to the cause of the problem here. If anything, the massive lack of intimacy and social relationships is what is causing the loss of social cohesion, which then leads to people not caring if their country is overrun by foreigners.
I hate how publicly, nobody acknowledges what led to this: children growing up on mobile devices and social media having all of their attention and desire to grow stolen by handheld drip-fed dopamine devices, and letting contact on social media take the place of real-world contact.
I feel like 30 years ago laws would have been passed on algorithms optimized for engagement to this degree because people actually cared about childhood development factors. Its obviously harmful long-term for societies, and especially their youth, because it pushes everyone into echo chambers, pushing stronger and stronger divides to the point where reasonable discussion is no longer possible, on top of the social and mental deficiencies it drives.
I disagree. Look at all the analysis of the effects of television on people. There's a reason it was called a "boob tube". Boomers are addicted to TV as badly as Zoomers are addicted to their phones. TV was the absolute core of people's lives: culturally, politically, socially, religiously, economically. In the 40's and 50's, people were actually pointing it out how dangerous it was for mass communication to be controlled in such a way, and it couldn't be stopped.
TV does all the same kind of dopamine addiction and mental control, but in a much more centralized way. You can (even now) still see Boomers addicted to the TV.
If the Boomers understood the internet, all internet traffic, social media sites, and emails would be strictly regulated by a government sponsored oligopoly of AT&T, MSNBC Universal, and Facebook.
Never saw this comment, sorry.
I don't think you should disagree due to television, but I do agree that television was still likely overall damaging to the collective growth of humanity.
The difference between television and mobile devices is that the dopamine drip is omnipresent. With television, you had significant wasted time/growth, sure, but it was still at the very least on long-form content that required a minor form of irritation in the form of commercials, and it wasn't present while you were doing other constructive things.
Its the instant-gratification, zero-downtime dopamine feed that mobile devices provide that is damaging to growth. People are more impatient than ever, less likely to endure anything educational if it takes more than 2 minutes, etc., etc., etc. Then there's the dopamine burnout that's starting to become apparent in other aspects of peoples' lives.
Do you disagree with that premise?
There was plenty of social cohesion when the ground work was being laid via Hart-Cellar and other changes.
Even if you increase immigration to mass migration levels, that won't deteriorate the social cohesion of domestic populations. The social damage would come from the undermining of families, and directed efforts at atomitization.
It will if the people coming in are very different from the domestic population. They are so it does.
Again, that's not necessarily the case. A domestic population can be displaced, but that doesn't necessitate the deterioration of a a domestic population's social cohesion. That's a failure of the domestic populations social institutions. This is why (actual) refugees from invading armies still have social cohesion. In fact, they may aggressively seek to preserve their social order, even when displaced to other lands by an invading force. This is why we see some populations "cling to religion" when they are displaced.
What you're thinking of is a) failed integration, and b) social institutional failure.
Iirc males are having less sex. Females are turning into 304s
Women are having less sex as well. The decline just isn't as steep as it is with men.
It sucks, but I kind of see this as a massive correction. A "deflationary pressure" on romantic relationships.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's a reaction to something totally unsustainable. Men are choosing to have less sex because of bad mate choice, emotional underdevelopment, and financial insecurity.
It sucks, but consider what would happen if they were engaged in relationships and having sex. You'd be getting tons of children out of wedlock, broken homes, broken families, and broken communities. The situation would actually be worse at a societal level as the children of broken homes pour out onto the streets and start killing the civilization they are mired in.
It's like a woman saying she "never wants to have kids" and "will absolutely get an abortion". That's not a woman you ever want having kids. She is going to feel personally attacked by her own children. She'll get her abortion one way or another. These men & women who aren't having sex are probably right about their self-assessment, and they will have to do something about it on their own time to make progress. No one can really help them but themselves, and all we can do is try to promote healthy behaviors to fix yourself.
How did they get this way? It's a moot point now, but the social engineering efforts of the Left over the past 70 years to destroy families, communities, and relationships between men and women. Additionally the fact that the understanding of relationships was so innate to the Greatest Generation that they didn't explain it to the Boomers, and the Gen X was taught not to give a shit. Hence, Millennials and Zoomers have no living role models for relationships. That's why this shit is so fucking alien to us. It's not bad acting, it's that the world the Boomers grew up in is long dead, and the people have so fundamentally changed that (although it's good advice), it's effectively impossible to translate.