If rates of sexlessness are rising in both men and women, that doesn't mean that something like "Chadopoly" is wrong entirely. Since men and women's sexuality is different, as you pointed out to contradict some incel claims, it could be that males are having less sex because female standards are rising and they aren't chad, and females are having less sex because there aren't enough chads to go around and they won't settle for anything less.
I appreciate that you want to debate the black pill by using actual arguments instead of the usual platitudes and attacks of feminists and other "bluepillers" but you still seem to make the mistake of underestimating the effects of physical attactiveness using data that's hard to take seriously and making disingenuous arguments using autism and incel shooters which are outliers and not by any mean representative of the vast amount of men struggling with dating and sex.
In economics if the price of a resource (in this case sex) is too high and the supply is limited, the distribution will be mostly concentrated to a few people, so the chads may not be fucking the entire population of women under 30, but if you aren't "Chad" having a good sex life or being in a relationship with a desirable woman (not necessarily a super model, just not fat, not ugly and younger than 30) is very hard.
I think we should all accept the reality that in sex and dating, looks, status and money are first and everything else is second, and the trend in the west is that as women become more successful, their standards increase and they marry a lot less because most available men aren't attractive enough for them, hence why lower status men have to import wives from poorer countries, go "passport bro" or stay single, couple that lower sexual freedom and the result is most men will have little access to sex (with desirable women at least) and this situation could get pretty ugly, as it is always the case when competition for a resource that could be considered a biological necessity is brutal.
Most couples now meet online. Where else are men going to meet women? We know how brutal online is for most men, particularly as women don't want men approaching them under any circumstances.
Likes and matches do correlate with it. As a man, you need to be attractive to be even getting likes from women.
How can women having access to thousands of men not raise her standards and expectations?
I don't think the sexual revolution is responsible for women's rising standards, if anything higher sexual freedom makes it easier for lower status men to get sex, just like any resource in a free market. but relationships, especially those that involve marriage or cohabitation operate on another level.
Women in the past married more for financial stability, and there was also less wealth inequality which allowed more men to get married, nowadays the reality is quite different, women are now more educated and succesful and hypergamy raises standards accordingly, so the result is that women are marrying far less because they find anything below wealthy, attractive Chad unattractive and the only options for lesser men, if they have any in the first place are either going for foreign women in poorer countries or going for older, less attractive women that are desperate, this scenario is already a reality in many developed countries, probably including more affluent areas of USA.
It's also worth noting that women generally consider most men physically unattractive, as the classic okcupid study showed, which has also been replicated (for example: https://dkras.substack.com/p/sex-differences-attractiveness-and). When women have more freedom and financial stability it's common sense that looks are going to matter more and the socioeconomic threshold needed to be desirable to women also gets much higher, and since physical attractiveness is clearly not evenly distributed among men and most men are also not very high status or rich, the only logical conclusion is there is going to be a tendency for the buttom 80% to stay single, which is only going to get worse in the future.
Sorry didn't realize you replied. It seems you misunderstood my point, what I meant with sexual freedom was not women having freedom to sleep with Chad or whatever, I meant tolerance for things like prostitution and low sexual morality which does make it easier for lower status men to have a decent sexual life, which is not the case in for example the USA where prostitution is heavily policed and buying sex from a somewhat attractive sex worker costs an arm and a leg and both the right and left demand sexual puritanism. Also consider that if data is showing that young males are having much less sex, the only reason why is because they can't, because it's not like the high sexual drive of the male population could have changed in recent years.
Women now have access to dating apps and social media, hence why they're far more choosy now than the sexual revolution. They also have their own lives and careers and aren't reliant on men.
In addition to the hypotheses suggested by Nuance Pill, I suggest a third: that there are people who just want to collect the $40 for completing the NSFG without spending the hour it takes to fill out the questionnaire, so they say they have never had sexual intercourse in order to skip most of the survey.
I think Uncorrelated hit the nail on the head re. Chadopolization in his post on this subject a few months ago, where he observed the same trends (from the GSS and YRBS). Absolute inequality is decreasing but *relative* inequality is increasing, and relative inequality is more psychologically powerful. Some sex is infinitely more than no sex at all, or at least it feels that way. So a growing population of Gen-Z incels who have literally zero sex means the psychological perception of Chad looms ever taller, even though ironically it's a market recession for Chad too.
Was this phrasing in the original survey: “Had sex with someone they first met on the internet in past 12 months”?
Because it’s ambiguous. I’ve had (sex in the past 12 months) with someone I met on the internet. I haven’t had sex with someone I (met in the past 12 months on the internet). That is, I met my wife on the apps, and we’re monogamous.
Interesting a good job of pointing out the potential flaws in such qualitative research. I was thinking on this type of thing today. There's a joke told mostly among economists about the drunk man looking for his car keys under the street light. Passerby asks him where he last had the keys and points somewhere else. Point being he's looking where the light is i.e. selection bias in the info one can glean versus the mountain of unknowable info buried in qualitative surveys.
Are there any studies that compare the two fundamental traits of the blackpill beliefs ’height’ and ‘facial attractiveness’ in terms of their relevance to what people priorities when choosing a partner? I would love to see your take about this topic.
While I do like your data are you able to ever make posts debunking the bluepill? They can be at least as wrong as the blackpill with many things they say
But I also think most young adult virgins are 18/19. After 21, it’s unusual to be a virgin. This might be a Covid effect. Also what month did the 2022-2023 data come from? Those are 2 years together.
The 'blue pill' isn't as clearly defined as an ideological framework. Most of the time it's simply a pejorative applied to anything that contradicts red/black pill claims. Other times it's a strawman, as few people actually believe that 'looks don't matter', 'just be nice and you'll be drowning in pussy', etc.
The bluepill isn’t really an ideology because it’s more mainstream. A lot of bluepilled advice is often shoved down mens throats and it often denies even something like autism accounting for mens dating struggles
Like “just take a shower” or “just be confident” or “personality matters more than looks”. These beliefs are commonly used as advice.
Confidence alone doesn’t make one successful nor is it as necessary as someone finding you actually attractive.
They tend to be just rigid as the blackpill or red pill but with their views reversed. They accuse any lonely man of having bad personalities or never showering. Interestingly, they only rely on questionable anecdotes as evidence.
Everyone showers. Also confidence doesn’t mean you’re going to be successful or know what to do
It doesn’t cure your autistic social skills or any unattractive trait. It’s overused advice. Mere confidence doesn’t cause success nor is confidence necessary
Actually autistic people do shower as much as everyone else. That’s why virgins laugh at the dumb take a shower advice. Autistic people struggle yeah because society does reject them and society makes the man pursue despite autistic men being more socially impaired. It’s not the struggling persons fault.
They don’t have bad personalities or never shower. They do shower, they just have a social disability that ruins them.
I won’t even say it’s a straw man tbh, they genuinely say weird trivial things like “don’t be weird” or “just be yourself” or “just be nice” as some type of argument.
If rates of sexlessness are rising in both men and women, that doesn't mean that something like "Chadopoly" is wrong entirely. Since men and women's sexuality is different, as you pointed out to contradict some incel claims, it could be that males are having less sex because female standards are rising and they aren't chad, and females are having less sex because there aren't enough chads to go around and they won't settle for anything less.
I appreciate that you want to debate the black pill by using actual arguments instead of the usual platitudes and attacks of feminists and other "bluepillers" but you still seem to make the mistake of underestimating the effects of physical attactiveness using data that's hard to take seriously and making disingenuous arguments using autism and incel shooters which are outliers and not by any mean representative of the vast amount of men struggling with dating and sex.
In economics if the price of a resource (in this case sex) is too high and the supply is limited, the distribution will be mostly concentrated to a few people, so the chads may not be fucking the entire population of women under 30, but if you aren't "Chad" having a good sex life or being in a relationship with a desirable woman (not necessarily a super model, just not fat, not ugly and younger than 30) is very hard.
I think we should all accept the reality that in sex and dating, looks, status and money are first and everything else is second, and the trend in the west is that as women become more successful, their standards increase and they marry a lot less because most available men aren't attractive enough for them, hence why lower status men have to import wives from poorer countries, go "passport bro" or stay single, couple that lower sexual freedom and the result is most men will have little access to sex (with desirable women at least) and this situation could get pretty ugly, as it is always the case when competition for a resource that could be considered a biological necessity is brutal.
With unlimited options at their disposal, women's standards are certainly rising.
More men are realising that it's pointless even approaching a woman unless you're extremely attractive.
So you deny that women have access to dating apps and social media? Women swipe left on 95% of men, for starters.
Also, men shouldn't approach women under any circumstances. How can you deny this?
Most couples now meet online. Where else are men going to meet women? We know how brutal online is for most men, particularly as women don't want men approaching them under any circumstances.
Likes and matches do correlate with it. As a man, you need to be attractive to be even getting likes from women.
How can women having access to thousands of men not raise her standards and expectations?
I don't think the sexual revolution is responsible for women's rising standards, if anything higher sexual freedom makes it easier for lower status men to get sex, just like any resource in a free market. but relationships, especially those that involve marriage or cohabitation operate on another level.
Women in the past married more for financial stability, and there was also less wealth inequality which allowed more men to get married, nowadays the reality is quite different, women are now more educated and succesful and hypergamy raises standards accordingly, so the result is that women are marrying far less because they find anything below wealthy, attractive Chad unattractive and the only options for lesser men, if they have any in the first place are either going for foreign women in poorer countries or going for older, less attractive women that are desperate, this scenario is already a reality in many developed countries, probably including more affluent areas of USA.
It's also worth noting that women generally consider most men physically unattractive, as the classic okcupid study showed, which has also been replicated (for example: https://dkras.substack.com/p/sex-differences-attractiveness-and). When women have more freedom and financial stability it's common sense that looks are going to matter more and the socioeconomic threshold needed to be desirable to women also gets much higher, and since physical attractiveness is clearly not evenly distributed among men and most men are also not very high status or rich, the only logical conclusion is there is going to be a tendency for the buttom 80% to stay single, which is only going to get worse in the future.
Sorry didn't realize you replied. It seems you misunderstood my point, what I meant with sexual freedom was not women having freedom to sleep with Chad or whatever, I meant tolerance for things like prostitution and low sexual morality which does make it easier for lower status men to have a decent sexual life, which is not the case in for example the USA where prostitution is heavily policed and buying sex from a somewhat attractive sex worker costs an arm and a leg and both the right and left demand sexual puritanism. Also consider that if data is showing that young males are having much less sex, the only reason why is because they can't, because it's not like the high sexual drive of the male population could have changed in recent years.
Women now have access to dating apps and social media, hence why they're far more choosy now than the sexual revolution. They also have their own lives and careers and aren't reliant on men.
I also encountered the anomalies with the ever-had-sex question by birth cohort on the 2022-2023 NSFG. https://borncurious.blog/p/survey-quality-is-declining-because
In addition to the hypotheses suggested by Nuance Pill, I suggest a third: that there are people who just want to collect the $40 for completing the NSFG without spending the hour it takes to fill out the questionnaire, so they say they have never had sexual intercourse in order to skip most of the survey.
I think Uncorrelated hit the nail on the head re. Chadopolization in his post on this subject a few months ago, where he observed the same trends (from the GSS and YRBS). Absolute inequality is decreasing but *relative* inequality is increasing, and relative inequality is more psychologically powerful. Some sex is infinitely more than no sex at all, or at least it feels that way. So a growing population of Gen-Z incels who have literally zero sex means the psychological perception of Chad looms ever taller, even though ironically it's a market recession for Chad too.
Was this phrasing in the original survey: “Had sex with someone they first met on the internet in past 12 months”?
Because it’s ambiguous. I’ve had (sex in the past 12 months) with someone I met on the internet. I haven’t had sex with someone I (met in the past 12 months on the internet). That is, I met my wife on the apps, and we’re monogamous.
Interesting a good job of pointing out the potential flaws in such qualitative research. I was thinking on this type of thing today. There's a joke told mostly among economists about the drunk man looking for his car keys under the street light. Passerby asks him where he last had the keys and points somewhere else. Point being he's looking where the light is i.e. selection bias in the info one can glean versus the mountain of unknowable info buried in qualitative surveys.
Interesting article I really liked it.
Are there any studies that compare the two fundamental traits of the blackpill beliefs ’height’ and ‘facial attractiveness’ in terms of their relevance to what people priorities when choosing a partner? I would love to see your take about this topic.
While I do like your data are you able to ever make posts debunking the bluepill? They can be at least as wrong as the blackpill with many things they say
But I also think most young adult virgins are 18/19. After 21, it’s unusual to be a virgin. This might be a Covid effect. Also what month did the 2022-2023 data come from? Those are 2 years together.
The 'blue pill' isn't as clearly defined as an ideological framework. Most of the time it's simply a pejorative applied to anything that contradicts red/black pill claims. Other times it's a strawman, as few people actually believe that 'looks don't matter', 'just be nice and you'll be drowning in pussy', etc.
Do you have anything specific in mind?
The bluepill isn’t really an ideology because it’s more mainstream. A lot of bluepilled advice is often shoved down mens throats and it often denies even something like autism accounting for mens dating struggles
Like “just take a shower” or “just be confident” or “personality matters more than looks”. These beliefs are commonly used as advice.
Confidence alone doesn’t make one successful nor is it as necessary as someone finding you actually attractive.
They tend to be just rigid as the blackpill or red pill but with their views reversed. They accuse any lonely man of having bad personalities or never showering. Interestingly, they only rely on questionable anecdotes as evidence.
Everyone showers. Also confidence doesn’t mean you’re going to be successful or know what to do
It doesn’t cure your autistic social skills or any unattractive trait. It’s overused advice. Mere confidence doesn’t cause success nor is confidence necessary
Actually autistic people do shower as much as everyone else. That’s why virgins laugh at the dumb take a shower advice. Autistic people struggle yeah because society does reject them and society makes the man pursue despite autistic men being more socially impaired. It’s not the struggling persons fault.
They don’t have bad personalities or never shower. They do shower, they just have a social disability that ruins them.
I won’t even say it’s a straw man tbh, they genuinely say weird trivial things like “don’t be weird” or “just be yourself” or “just be nice” as some type of argument.
What’s your xitter
Excellent analysis.