"The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society"

PucaMama

iptba wrote: »

The original link has changed (I've put in the correct one above).

Also I don't recall part 2 being posted:

Don't even know where to start with "part 2". What is wrong with transgender or gay people???

One thing I notice with so many of these articles is how so much of a womans value is put on her looks eg her weight

qt3.14

PucaMama wrote: »

Don't even know where to start with "part 2". What is wrong with transgender or gay people???

One thing I notice with so many of these articles is how so much of a womans value is put on her looks eg her weight

1) Where does he say there's anything wrong with them? You do know the author is gay, right? He says it in that very article.

2) One thing I notice with so many men in general is how so much of a womans value is put on her looks eg her weight. It's a shortcut to checking a potential partners genetic worth, and pretty much every animal that has eyes has a gender that picks up on nonfunctioning visual cues and a gender that displays them. In birds for example, the males usually are the ones displaying, peacock tails etc, bower bird nests while the females do the observing. In humans it's the females displaying, for example extraneous breast tissue (other primates do without them, in humans they serve a sexual function as well as a nutritional one), a suboptimal pelvic anatomy (take a look at earlier bipedal hominids, their pelvic displacement was markedly more efficient for bipedal locomotion AND birth than modern humans, wouldn't have been as sexy though!)

Anyway, the more calories a given subject can invest in producing these nonfunctioning cues, generally the better their genetics by simple virtue of them being able to do so and maintain the caloric needs of base survival.
We might have passed by such simple interactions in the last 10-20k years but our brains are still hard wired for them.

Wibbs

qt3.14 wrote: »

It's a shortcut to checking a potential partners genetic worth, and pretty much every animal that has eyes has a gender that picks up on nonfunctioning visual cues and a gender that displays them.

Aye, but weight in women is very much cultural and varies over time. In some thin is in, in others downright corpulence is the order of the day. Though the hourglass hip to waist ratio is very consistent.

In birds for example, the males usually are the ones displaying, peacock tails etc, bower bird nests while the females do the observing. In humans it's the females displaying,

Again it's mostly the women displaying. At least on the surface. However that's cultural and varies too. In quite the number of societies it has been the men who were the ones overtly displaying. Even in modern western society men are giving off subtle display cues all the time. In how they dress and socially interact for a start and that's before we get to overt displays of wealth and social standing. BMW man in the sharp suit is displaying just as much as the woman in the short skirt.

for example extraneous breast tissue (other primates do without them, in humans they serve a sexual function as well as a nutritional one),

Bewbs are an unusual evolutionary change alright. to another great ape full breasts would be an automatic turn off. A complete reversal of the human view. To another great ape full breasts mean the female is lactating and not fertile. An odd one alright. It may be down to something simple, us walking upright. So this brought the breasts into more focus and larger and perter were selected for by males as a sign of reproductive health and youth.

a suboptimal pelvic anatomy (take a look at earlier bipedal hominids, their pelvic displacement was markedly more efficient for bipedal locomotion AND birth than modern humans, wouldn't have been as sexy though!)

Actually that's not correct. That's old news. Among the first(and unexpected) changes in the earliest hominids was for a wider pelvis in women. Unexpected because it does reduce efficiency and more, this happened before our brains and skulls got much bigger, which was what was thought drove this change*

Anyway, the more calories a given subject can invest in producing these nonfunctioning cues, generally the better their genetics by simple virtue of them being able to do so and maintain the caloric needs of base survival.
We might have passed by such simple interactions in the last 10-20k years but our brains are still hard wired for them.

I would agree that there is some hard wiring. EG the optimum hip waist ratio in women, height in men etc. However humans have put a gargantuan amount of cultural layers on top of this wiring and that varies far more than the evolutionary hardwired theory usually gives credit for. Humans are and have been extremely variable and adaptable in our sexuality and reproductive strategies. It's one big reason for our success. I would say that women's bodyshape varies far more and far faster as a cultural "ideal" than men's though. As I've pointed out before, the look of the male Greek ideal would still get women's hearts a fluttering today, whereas the female Greek ideal would be "yea she's OK I suppose". As for rapidity of change? The Miss World of say 1960, the "ideal" for her time, wouldn't even be considered in a local round of the same competition today and no way would she win.



*though IMH I would say that was the reason even that early on. They had bigger skulls than chimps, but more, modern human babies are basically born premature. They're still embryos at birth. Their skulls haven't knitted together for a start. Go back 4-5 million years, maybe their kids were born more like chimp babies, pretty fully formed and with fully formed skulls. This would require the larger pelvic opening and pelvis. That what evolved later wasn't the pelvis once it reached a certain size, but more that our kids got progressively more immature at birth to accommodate our increasing brain size.

HalloweenJack

Have read both parts and can't get away from the feeling that any lad under 30 and who hasn't been through a messy divorce and struggles girls but buys into this idea that women aren't worth it, is just making up excuses for their lack of success.

I don't want to sound judgmental by that. I myself am a very quiet, laid-back person and I've had lots of problems with my self-esteem over the years and obviously that also came through in my attempts to get with girls.

There's a lot of peer pressure as teens to get with the opposite sex and when I got into the late teens/early twenties, as someone who hadn't had much success previously, I found alcohol and/or other drugs as confidence boosters and tried to overcompensate for wasted time earlier on.

It worked to an extent but then I also realised that the reasons why I struggled with girls as a teen was because I had a lot of other stuff going on upstairs and although alcohol/drugs got me over mental blocks when it came to approaching girls, it didn't help me deal with all the other stuff I had going on and I eventually ended up in counselling.

When I left counselling, I was a lot more naturally confident and, similar to what one poster mentioned earlier, I think being able to accept who I am and being more confident in myself has made me more attractive.

In a very roundabout way, what I'm getting to is that these men (I refer specifically to those under 30, never married, unlucky in love) need to address why they struggle with approaching women, instead of blaming women or looking for a work-around (PUA-type nonsense).

I know it's not easy. I've accepted who I am but it hasn't made it any easier for me to approach women but I think my self-confidence is there to see and women respond in a more receptive way to confidence, even if it's in a clumsy way.

One thing that stood out for me but that wasn't expanded on is this from part 2:

And the sexodus will affect women disproportionately harshly because research data show that when women “act like men” by having lots of casual sex, they become unhappy, are more likely to suffer from depression and destroy their chances of securing a meaningful long-term relationship.

There is a link to a graph and it seems reasonably respectable. I would like to know is this caused by "women acting like men" or more specifically that any person, man or woman, who has a lot of casual sex becomes unhappy?

And as a slight tangent to the above, the few guys I've met who are adherers to PUA were boring and one-dimensional. They had internally closed themselves off from the world. They would only ever talk about their experiences in general terms, they rarely gave specific examples of anything they did and, despite being really talkative, they always stuck to "safe" topics and never talked about anything personal. They would talk about "plays" and all this crap and I just found it to be incredibly boring, insulting to women and cynical.

I definitely find that those who invest the most in that PUA stuff are sociopathic or have massive walls put up to stop anybody possibly finding out the slightest bit of personal information about them. I imagine that is a reaction or a defence mechanism to avoid being hurt, which I can understand but ultimately it just seems sad. The girls that were into these guys were ones who wanted to get to know them and change them so, in fairness to the guys, it worked for them but it just seems terribly cynical and doesn't seem to actually care for what the women involved feel/want.

Personally, PUA and MGTOW are both extreme reactions to a fear of rejection.

Potatoeman

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Have read both parts and can't get away from the feeling that any lad under 30 and who hasn't been through a messy divorce and struggles girls but buys into this idea that women aren't worth it, is just making up excuses for their lack of success.

I don't want to sound judgmental by that. I myself am a very quiet, laid-back person and I've had lots of problems with my self-esteem over the years and obviously that also came through in my attempts to get with girls.

There's a lot of peer pressure as teens to get with the opposite sex and when I got into the late teens/early twenties, as someone who hadn't had much success previously, I found alcohol and/or other drugs as confidence boosters and tried to overcompensate for wasted time earlier on.

It worked to an extent but then I also realised that the reasons why I struggled with girls as a teen was because I had a lot of other stuff going on upstairs and although alcohol/drugs got me over mental blocks when it came to approaching girls, it didn't help me deal with all the other stuff I had going on and I eventually ended up in counselling.

When I left counselling, I was a lot more naturally confident and, similar to what one poster mentioned earlier, I think being able to accept who I am and being more confident in myself has made me more attractive.

In a very roundabout way, what I'm getting to is that these men (I refer specifically to those under 30, never married, unlucky in love) need to address why they struggle with approaching women, instead of blaming women or looking for a work-around (PUA-type nonsense).

I know it's not easy. I've accepted who I am but it hasn't made it any easier for me to approach women but I think my self-confidence is there to see and women respond in a more receptive way to confidence, even if it's in a clumsy way.

One thing that stood out for me but that wasn't expanded on is this from part 2:

There is a link to a graph and it seems reasonably respectable. I would like to know is this caused by "women acting like men" or more specifically that any person, man or woman, who has a lot of casual sex becomes unhappy?

And as a slight tangent to the above, the few guys I've met who are adherers to PUA were boring and one-dimensional. They had internally closed themselves off from the world. They would only ever talk about their experiences in general terms, they rarely gave specific examples of anything they did and, despite being really talkative, they always stuck to "safe" topics and never talked about anything personal. They would talk about "plays" and all this crap and I just found it to be incredibly boring, insulting to women and cynical.

I definitely find that those who invest the most in that PUA stuff are sociopathic or have massive walls put up to stop anybody possibly finding out the slightest bit of personal information about them. I imagine that is a reaction or a defence mechanism to avoid being hurt, which I can understand but ultimately it just seems sad. The girls that were into these guys were ones who wanted to get to know them and change them so, in fairness to the guys, it worked for them but it just seems terribly cynical and doesn't seem to actually care for what the women involved feel/want.

Personally, PUA and

MGTOW are both extreme reactions to a fear of rejection.

Im not sure about the happiness as there was a report in the US where they discovered that mens happiness has increased over the last 40 years or so but womens has decreased.

I have also heard that men are less attracted to marriage the older they get but woman are more attracted to it after thirty. That would seem to be a problem with both parties wanting different things.

OnTheCouch

Potatoeman wrote: »

Im not sure about the happiness as there was a report in the US where they discovered that mens happiness has increased over the last 40 years or so but womens has decreased.

I have also heard that men are less attracted to marriage the older they get but woman are more attracted to it after thirty. That would seem to be a problem with both parties wanting different things.

Whereas I have seen one or two girls become more favourable to the idea of marriage as they get older, I would still maintain the majority (maybe even the vast majority) intend getting married at some point and knew this from a young age. I have seen a lot more instances of men not being 100% sure about it and going along with it in order to keep the partner happy.

Potatoeman

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Whereas I have seen one or two girls become more favourable to the idea of marriage as they get older, I would still maintain the majority (maybe even the vast majority) intend getting married at some point and knew this from a young age. I have seen a lot more instances of men not being 100% sure about it and going along with it in order to keep the partner happy.

Im not sure what you mean, are you agreeing with me?

I think for guys its more likley if they are in a long term relationship of over five years after thirty but this would be biological as they dont have the same time constraints as women.

OnTheCouch

Potatoeman wrote: »

Im not sure what you mean, are you agreeing with me?

I think for guys its more likley if they are in a long term relationship of over five years after thirty but this would be biological as they dont have the same time constraints as women.

Yes and no. I've known a couple of female friends who were fairly anti-marriage in say their early 20s and came round to the idea later on, but the majority have known from very early exactly what they wanted: that being marriage and kids. Of course it depends who you know and what circles you hang in, but that is what it's been like for me.

I would agree with you mind you when you say men in long-term relationships after 30 would probably be more likely all right. Simply the staid nature of their every day existence, societal pressures, likely huge pressure from the girlfriend, make it more of a possibility they'll just think 'Fxxx it, let's get married.' Even if there's not a whole lot of logic behind it.

Although I myself was quite eager to get married in my teens and early twenties and now I'm not sure at all, even verging on being against marriage, so I may be somewhat biased on the topic.

Potatoeman

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Yes and no. I've known a couple of female friends who were fairly anti-marriage in say their early 20s and came round to the idea later on, but the majority have known from very early exactly what they wanted: that being marriage and kids. Of course it depends who you know and what circles you hang in, but that is what it's been like for me.

I would agree with you mind you when you say men in long-term relationships after 30 would probably be more likely all right. Simply the staid nature of their every day existence, societal pressures, likely huge pressure from the girlfriend, make it more of a possibility they'll just think 'Fxxx it, let's get married.' Even if there's not a whole lot of logic behind it.

Although I myself was quite eager to get married in my teens and early twenties and now I'm not sure at all, even verging on being against marriage, so I may be somewhat biased on the topic.

Well what I heard was that marriage was more appealing to guys in their early twenties and decreased over time where it was more appealing to women after thirty. So it seemed that both wanted it at different times. This was from the US so Im not sure about Ireland.

iptba

Shock study: Marriage rate declines with porn use, threatening economy, society

By Paul Bedard | December 19, 2014 |
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-study-marriage-rate-declines-with-porn-use-threatening-economy-society/article/2557461

Porn use, they said, can be credited with cutting the marriage rate. They cited statistics showing that men 25-34 are six times less likely to be married than the same age group was in 1970. They also found that divorce rates are twice what they were in 1950.

Aside: Studies suggest that women are more likely to initiate separation than men (I've seen figures as high as 90% in college educated couples) so I think there are likely plenty of other reasons also for divorce.

ancapailldorcha

That's the biggest pile of cack I've seen all day. They've essentially ignored all the socio-economic differences between now and then just to pin the blame on pornography. Some facets of the American (and British) media seem determined to preserve the idea of marriage as being the only morally correct way to have sex with any alternatives being labelled as unethical or worse... Also, they've conveniently forgotten that people (not just men) can watch porn without becoming addicted to it as I imagine most do.