Have you considered the women may be underreporting the number of partners they sleep with, sexual experiences, etc. I've now read several of your posts, and none of them fit with most people's lived experience. Where are you addressing the different between reported experiences and revealed preferences. Like, for example, you state in another post that dating apps work about as well for men as for women--no one who is using them thinks that. Not even women.
Would love to be proven wrong, but if it's with data from voluntary self reported surveys, it's just not convincing, because people lie! And women are especially likely to lie about sex and the number of sexual partners they have for obvious reasons.
"Lived experience" means anecdotes, often pre-motivated ones. And most of it isn't personal experience; it's extrapolating and sharing stories and accepting implications and yada yada. Obviously not an impressive standard for knowledge.
Surveys and similar data collection have their flaws, but there is not a better alternative. Vibes-based lived experience doesn't cut it.
I simply don't trust this data. Therefor, my anecdotes are my only accurate data points. I don't trust the agenda of people compiling this data and I don't trust the self reporting. A women is biologically wired to lie about her body count.
You in a cult buddy. It is such a common pattern. Only care about data when it supports the conspiracy. Otherwise reject the data. You cannot reject a mountain of evidence because it doesn’t suit you. A lot of the data here was not self reported and it collaborated with the self reported data. He also explained why the self reporting logically made sense. Women cannot rapidly grow in promiscuity if it is dropping for men. That would imply men are lying and under reporting. The chance of men underreporting their sex is like zero. Just take the L man.
Men who worry about this do so because they fantasise about what they fear and fear that their fantasies are not true - which they’re not. Also they have far too much time in their hands!
Yes well the AVERAGE man thinks he is owed women who are physically way out of his league. Ironically, dudes would be much happier focusing on CHARACTER anyway. After all the "I'm a nice guy" argument lends itself to "THEN FIND A NICE GIRL". Not hot. NICE.
> found that females were choosier than males, as predicted by parental investment theory. While descriptive statistics suggested that males have higher minimum standards than females, this is not necessarily indicative of a true sex difference, because females also tended to receive higher mate value ratings than male
The average man has incredibly low standards and has to take what he can get. Women do have incredibly high standards for men's looks. Look at app data.
Dating apps? The ones swarming with "female" bots? Sounds legit.
The average guy thinks that if he were female, he'd be hot. No dude, you'd be average. A 6 with full makeup and hair. That's just physically, whereas your character is at a 3. The shallower you are, the more you care about "hawwtttt".
See, far more attractive women get with men who aren't attractive or even rich. Because women aren't shallow like men are. Of course women are more beautiful than men. Men are hideous compared to women.
Men need to be the ones wearing makeup. They need to be more attractive, quickly.
Men who are loser 3s cry about how they can't get women they claim are superficial.
Women peak in dating apps at 20/21 and that per view of men at all ages sampled and that’s men aged up to 50 and yet it’s men who have it tough! In that world a 30 year old women has no way of competing with younger women and has very little time to settle down and have a family left. Men at 30 are more attractive than at 20 and ought to have money and prospects if he’s not spent a decade in the goon cave. And it’s men who have it tough. Mind you, self pity is incredibly attractive to women.
Oh FFS, women have little or no interest in their SMV unless it leads to commitment and babies which nowadays for many it doesn’t, much to their complete despair. Also, one still sees plenty of very average looking dudes in relationships with actual women so presumably it’s possible.
But even looking at the male-reported data, who has no reason to underreport, and extrapolate it to the female, there's just not enough sex happening to make the redpill claim.
But again, across the female population it still only really amounts to at most high single digit lifetime partners for the median woman. And I don’t know the data or sources off hand, but I’m pretty sure there’s a small population of women who have a massive body count, which would lower the median for women a bit more. In reality the typical girl you’ll meet in her mid to late 20’s has had sex with 5 or 6 guys. Not great, but not the end of the world.
I agree. But in our imperfect world the average guy will probably not marry a virgin (and he likely will not be a virgin himself). A woman's dating/sexual history is important, but guys need to be realistic about what their marriage prospects are.
2. low promiscuity can mean many different things... For me it means you don't have sex until marriage (if you are a women).
3. People started panicking over promiscuity 10-20 years ago as the victims of third wave feminism and a culture that framed general female promiscuity as being a good thing began entering the age when they should be getting married (and they weren't) + divorce rates.
4. There are much stronger forces at play then substack articles and discussions about "women's body count." My comment was to point out that 'high single digits' isn't some gotcha low number but actually still too hight :)
It’s the same old problem with “blue pill” gender data: taking self reported surveys at face value, as hard evidence comparable to a standard found in say, engineering. This is a fundamental problem with sociology types across the board. There is nothing to do to counter their faith in institutions as an authority on truth. The good news is that increasing numbers of people see these academic institutions for what they are, as opposed to having these same exact arguments ten years ago.
Even in the scenario that women do underreport their # of partners, why would the exact number they report stay relatively consistent; especially as the sexual mores of their cultural context become more liberal and promiscuity is more openly celebrated?
I downloaded the GSS data on number of partners and found the total number of partners women reported to be significantly less than men reported. I assumed men were over reporting and women under reporting, did some unscientific equalizing of the data and found the trends that everyone assumes, the average woman has more partners than the average man, by around 25%. Not a huge amount, but significant. The bottom 25% of men had far less sex than the bottom 25% of women, and the top 10% of men had more sex than the bottom 60% of men combined.
Yes, and it's obvious that lying has at most minor effects on stats.
Let's assume that women downplay number of sexual partners. But as we count heterosexual partners, and number of men and women is roughly equal, average number of sexual partners for women can't really exceed average number of sexual partners for men.
It is explained why this data is likely reliable. You can see how it logically fits and multiple surveys re-enforce each other. There is just too much collaborative evidence suggesting this is true. It also fits with what we know about evolution. Also I don’t trust people’s “lived experiences” because I have watched so many men with completely skewed experiences of anything related to women. They read totally different things out of encounters than what happened.
You can actually just test posing as a woman online once and quickly realize what delusional world far too many men live in.
I think if your lived experience is that far from the data, I suspect your perception of reality might be off. Remember YouTube and TikTok does not count as lived experiences. I suspect many men think they are.
If you would actually read the post or think a bit to generate your own response, you’d realize you have to explain why women have simultaneously been getting *more* promiscuous but *less* willing to admit it as men do *not* report the new sexual encounters in a way detectable on surveys and studies aimed to detect openness to promiscuity directly reveal no detectable change over decades. What do you mean by lived experience anyway? In what sense is it your lived experience that tons of women are hypergamizing up the Chads and getting massive body counts while leaving the ordinary guy in the dust? It sure seems like most people claiming this are confusing TikTok with their own experience.
Wow how nuanced I can feel the truth seeping deep into my bones reading this. 90% of the “data” here was collected from surveys, which is obviously going to have many liars, especially from women who basically evolved to lie about everything. I very much so doubt they were able to mean out all of the liars as they would still be predicting and estimating based on the sample size— which already creates a new problem. And I’m supposed to believe that a Chad was truly only accepted by 1%? Yes I do believe that if he just walked up to them for 30 secs and asked, but if he was able to talk to them for about 15 Mins (which is much longer than a day) I would reckon it’s higher, although this of course is speculative! Also claiming the man is attractive means nothing if you don’t go into how attractive they were, saying top 10% doesn’t mean anything again as you are not telling us how and where they got that number— another survey? Is that where, or was it simply someone they deemed attractive, did college women who decided to be about of the study choose who was actually attractive, or was it more baseless inferences from small groups. Top 10% lmao, maybe I missed the where you said it, but jeez! (I forgot most of it after reading it, but if it answered some of my questions already let me know)
The red pill as it relates to dating and gender isn’t a scientific claim, it’s a heuristic designed to help straight men navigate western dating and other social structures. I’d agree that red pill spaces are prone to hyperbole, and at this point have devolved to mythology that is less useful than the “hard truths” motivation that helps some guys. I’d also posit that sociology, gender studies are no different than the manosphere, their “facts” are largely bullshit, and they rely on institutional control to avoid being meaningfully challenged, rather than standing on truth.
I agree that some of the red pill stuff, especially in the early days, was useful in that it told men truths no one else would tell them. No, just being really nice and bringing flowers to Stacy will not make her fall for you. But for the last several years it’s been black pill slop that claims that every woman will cheat on and divorce you so don’t even bother getting married.
Yes, even ten years ago, the seemingly defunct “MGTOW” (men going their own way) YouTube videos massively outdid most other manosphere content in terms of raw views. Slop has always been a problem, but is likely worse. More so I think, the manosphere originally came from Gen x experiences involving nightclubs, bars, no real social media, terrible divorces, domestic violence kangaroo courts, etc. today’s digital social landscape is surprisingly far removed from that .
Ya I also think a lot of the arguments are outdated. I thankfully don’t know many people who got divorced, but the few divorces that have happened in the last decade are not as anti-male. Every guy I know got 50% custody, and with the male/female income gap closing the “she took everything from me financially” is just not that common. And the divorce rate has come down significantly.
Divorces and divorce rates are down because marriages are down, it’s not a real improvement imo. The ones I’ve seen are less bad, but tbh every generation below boomers has much less to lose. I’ve still seen some whacky, shitty problems in divorce, sometimes even stuff neither party wanted and protested. Also, still plenty of domestic violence bullshit charges, although increasingly against women too, and once again usually stuff neither party wanted (no one needs to be arrested over grabbing a cell phone out of someone’s hand while drunk, let alone stubbornly charged).
2024 presidential election was called “the podcast election” 🤷
And politicians are less scared of men “rising up” and much more scared of them “checking out” and not responding to the carrot stick incentives in a rigged game that depends on their effort.
Women are against men because of how genetic fitness plays out in modern dynamics. Most men are invisible to women, and women tend to be fickle and inconsistent in what gives them the ick. They’re not the type of people who should be in serious positions of power or authority. Institutions are stacked against men due to quotas and biased selection systems. Most university classrooms are filled with international students, mainly pretty much Indians and Chinese, and many of these universities aren't even highly selective anymore. The average IQ of someone with a master’s degree today is 7 points lower than someone with the same degree 55 years ago. Women are handed everything. Then they complain when they have to "settle" for someone they’re not attracted to, which ends up creating more outcasted incelss. All women lie- it’s hardwired into their evolutionary psychology. It’s a form of social signaling, tied to sexual selection and physical fitness. They often do this unconsciosly, which is why many genuinely believe they’re being honest. But 99% of what they say is emotion-driven, not logic-based. They aren’t natural truth-seekers-- that’s just not in their design. And that’s how we got here, this article caters to women, relying on surveys, p-hacked data, and no real nuance. Nothing in it has been replicated with serious rigor. It’s just the same fabricated claims recycled through soft methods and emotional framing-- pure conjecture with no hard truth behind it.
It's funny how this study's way of conduction was based off surveys and no hard evidence- not a whisper of it. Do you know why that is? It's because he can't gather data. He can't model truth- he cann only describe it in his fabricated articles full of nothing-burgers. This isn't even data; it's a hypothesis until hard data says otherwise, and even that would have to be consistently replicated. He didn’t go into how he got the attraction numbers, how the surveys were conducted, how many variables were in the survey, or how the methodology would even work in a “replicable” source. In what world is his "hypothesis" not just more noise with no signaling, no controls for confounders, and pure conjecture? I don't deal in BS articles,, especially not from someone who deems their craft “nuanced" lmao.
Women being at least one tenth as willing to help men's mental health compared to the resources they have available to do so as men are willing to help women with their mental health compared to the resources they have available, for one.
This one in particular has fucked me over personally given I am not a woman or child & only women's & children's shelters were available in my area (adult men have fewer options)
The biggest one however is romantic & sexual validation, inclusion, cuddling, & sex itself.
The more articles of yours I read, the less I think you're interested in actually finding the nuanced reality. You seem to just be another deboonker who's goal is to confirm their own existing narratives. You have many sources and a basic front of emotional detachment from the issues, but you have no genuine intellectual curiosity in the other side's points, and it shows.
It's not that these women are necessarily hooking up with these attractive men, but they are the men that they truly desire. Whereas the man they often settle for in their late 20s/early 30s isn't who they really desire.
The truth is that women make rules for men they're not attracted to (certain number of dates before sex, dinner before sex, the man having to make the first move, etc) whilst breaking them for the men they truly want. It's good to be aware of these things.
That applies to men too. When they truly want a woman, they adjust their behavior. Men make certain “filters” easier to get through for women they truly desire. It isn’t a man or woman thing. People just do it in general.
Maybe women were more polite about it in the past, so men had more of a comfortable illusion that what we were doing just didn’t happen nearly as much with women. I guess women’s rights gave women the ability to not try to overtly hide it like they would’ve done in the past, while for men, it was always out there.
It's not the same. As we know, women find most men to be unattractive and only really desire a small handful. Men don't really make rules for women and view most women as at least somewhat attractive. Women are extremely selective on the other hand.
Men more just put women into separate categories, i.e. wifey material or fun, but they don't make rules based on attractivevess like women tend to.
Women make rules for men not really attracted to and break them for the men they're not. Women are the gatekeepers.
It’s similar. Unattractive women are generally politely ignored except in moments of desperation. It just happens to be that unattractive/less attractive women have eggs in their body. Them having eggs is a hedge in case we don’t get the woman we want. They’re also honestly pretty useful to outsource undesirable work to because they’re more likely to be grateful for any attention. But we don’t actually desire those women, it’s just primitive brain trying to hedge so we have a backup to fall back on so our genes don’t die out.
Hijacking them in case things don’t go the way we want is incredibly beneficial. For them to exist on the board for baseline desire is low for us because the barrier to viewing them as “desirable” is low since they’re a hedge.
Women get pregnant, so they don’t “hedge” exactly the way we do in having there be a baseline desire for every man. A lot of men will just not be on the board for them unless absolutely necessary. If someone gets wiped out on the board, a spot may or may not open up depending on the quality on the board. While for men, everyone is on the board, just in case.
Also, we do categorize women under date, marry, etc. The women also do the same thing with men. It just so happens to be they focus way more on the men they want to go under the “marry” category than men do with the men’s dating pool. We’re much more passive about that and distribute our attention across the different categories much more evenly than they do. But we still will give outsized attention, lower barriers, and try to help the women we actually want to get through our “filters”.
And men typically have to take what they can get. Even fat and unattractive women get an insane amount of male attention online. Only attractive men get anything. An unattractive man doesn't get anything without paying.
If a woman requires you to take her on a date, then she isn't attracted to you.
Also, I just said that men categorise women by date, sleep with etc, then just don't make rules for them like women do.
Women are ultimately the choosers and decide which men are worthy
You're just coming up with a reason not to try. Men who get married are happier and live longer, and not just the Chads. Divorce rates are much lower than the boomer's, and especially for first marriages is pretty low.
Unattractive women getting attention doesn’t mean there’s any real desire. They’re just a hedge in case things don’t go the way we want. Unattractive women have to pay a super high cost too. If they get pregnant, odds are they’re probably going to keep receiving lower levels of support than the women we actually want. Hard to do for them since raising a kid properly is hard work and they tend to go back to being politely ignored, except it’s way harder for them to do that with a child. That’s just how it is.
The male version of it is most dudes don’t exist on the board because it doesn’t make sense for them to for women. That’s just how it is. Both sexes have the same underlying beliefs, they just go about it in a different way.
The take what we can get is the hedge. Take what we can get applies to most of the female population for us. That doesn’t put those women at an advantage since a large portion of them fall under that category, and will honestly probably suffer from the lack of investment since the door is really only opened for the women we want (who are nowhere near a majority of women).
That isn't true. Most women aren't particularly attractive but men will occasionally bend the rules for someone who isn't their type, especially if alcohol-affected. However, I've turned down or just ignored many more women than I've ever bent the rules for. Women tend to over-estimate their attractiveness, which is one of the least attractive traits. You might be 10/10 in looks but if your personality is 4/10 or less then I'd still turn you down.
Yes, it is. Most men have incredibly low standards and have to take what they can get. Men also have considerably higher libidos. Women are infinitely pickier than men across all metrics.
What even is the point you're trying to make? Women break rules for the men they're attracted to as they're the choosers. That's why no dinner before sex is a golden rule because if she were truly attracted to you you wouldn't need to do that nonsense.
Men also would make different rules for Sydney Sweeney and a regular girl. A lot of men will string along a girlfriend for years saying they cant commit and then get married to a girl they met in 6 months. Everyone does this.
Hardly. Women are the sexual choosers and the gatekeepers of both sex and relationships. They make rules for the normies and break them for Chads.
Those men you refer to are simps. Men don't tend to make separate rules for women (i.e. not sleeping with a woman until a certain amount of time). They do categorise women, such as for fun or long-term, but no rules.
Remember, if a woman requires you to date her before sex, then she's likely not attracted.
They are the ones who choose. They are the sexual choosers. A far greater reproductive burden is placed on them and they have the power in dating.
Am I treating them differently in how soon I'm going to smash them? Do I make them do silly things like take me out on dinner dates? I'm still giving both of them my sexual best, but why would I commit to one when she's clearly a liability? If she is making rules for you, then she's not attracted to you, whilst I'm attracted to both women. Big difference
DUDE! Yes! YES! Well done. Buckle up, I'm about to support your thesis with field reports.
So... I am, scientifically according to your numbers, one of those promiscuous 5%er chads. HA! I'm not six foot nor wealthy btw (suck it manosphere theories). But I'm single out here in the jungle and have many single friends of both genders in a major American city. I have front row seats to all their sex lives. I am on the apps, app actually--Tinder only. Long live the GOAT.
Sexual activity is WAY down for both genders. It's crazy how little actual sex everyone is having. To me, this is the real story. Everyone is cosplaying sex! You go to a dance club and nobody actually goes home with each other. People are going on completely fine first dates but the follow up just sort of fizzles out before anything comes together. All those ladies posting bikini thirst traps online? Extremely few of them are having any sex at all! Maaaaybe a situationship, a pseudo-boyfriend they reluctantly summon once or twice a month.
IT'S AMAZING! You've touched on it here and I 1000% agree with your analysis. I know multiple perfectly nice, normal ladies in their 20s/30s who are dying for a husband but will also admit that they haven't had a boyfriend, nor sex, in YEARS. I believe them! YEARS! They'll go on first dates and everything goes well... yet they DO NOT give the guy a second date! It's amazing! If the person isn't gross, made you laugh afew times, paid for dinner, etc... one should give them a second date imo. NOT SO! If the man isn't a magical being that transcends their souls into a dimension of euphoria--it's over. Nobody accomplishes this on the first date, so no sex.
Anecdote from the other week. I matched with a lady on Tinder and we exchanged numbers. She sent me unrequited videos of her reading poetry AND nudes leading right up to our first date. Sexting, daddy play, all this stuff. "Can't wait to see you today daddy" leading right up to the hours of the date. Then came the hour for the date aaaaaand... she stood me up! Did not show up to the bar, did not reply to texts. So I've got all these video clips of this lady reading poetry and her tits and texts of her calling me daddy... but she did not even meet me in person! HA! She texted five hours later apologizing and talking about the weird day she had... naturally I didn't engage--self respect is healthy y'all.
There's like a civilization-wide antisexual norm right now while at the same time we're "acting out" sex everywhere in the form of porn, erotica novels, slutty fashion, social media personas, etc. This doesn't mean that people have stopped using sex appeal to get ahead, feel better about themselves, etc. but the actual act is rare. Also I have a slight rebuttal to your assertion that the "rooster carousel" isn't real--ladies DO have rosters, but they aren't actually fucking all those dudes. They do like the attention and holding a handful of guys like this is power most ladies relish--but she is definitely not having sex or dating them all. And in her defense... I like having friendly relations with multiple pretty girls, who doesn't?! What, should I shoo them off like raccoons in a dumpster?
But the idea that there is a social contagion of hot sex crazed sluts running wild and tearing society apart is HILARIOUS. I see way more sad, sexless ladies kind of going through the motions, lost in a convoluted mythology they've crafted about themselves and the world. Lots of dressing up with friends and cocktails, lots of pretty selfies, lots of thoughts about how life works, lots of hours in the gym... and yet, no sex! No romance! A half-life.
I really think most modern ladies don't know what men, and sex, are! The whole dimension of the life experience is alien to most of them... so they treat that realm as either a dark, scary place they never visit or a fantasyland of which to dream about. Narnia. The next question is why is it like this in 2020s America... but I'm just observing here. Well done with the essay!
I wouldn’t doubt this. Maybe the manosphere is just dated. It accurately described my experiences with “dating” and hookup culture in the 2000s but I’m middle aged and married now, only experienced the early years of dating apps and it already looked grim.
It sounds like a total collapse is the end game of hookup culture . I’m sorry we millennials played such a role in this.
That's a good point. Maybe the manosphere is accurately breaking down "hook up culture", which still exists in some form. Maybe the upper classes do it out of boredom or something--most of the manosphere stars I see around seem pretty affluent. But for an average American, I think it's way more of a "hook never" society. We're trending into this old timey vibe of 100 years ago when men and women were like oil and water, socializing and existing in increasingly separate realms. Isolated from each other, our opinions of the other gender becomes increasingly more theoretical and delusional.
I've never been a "dating crisis" guy either. Culture is dynamic, we're adults making decisions with consequences, etc. When times seem prosperous, people tend to get more loose and libertine. When times are bad, they pair up to survive. Like... female workforce participation is DOWN and trending downwards... so the "hypergamous slutty boss babe who don't need no man is a nuke on society" thing feels dated...
It just feels like everyone is running talking points from 10+ years ago to me. People seem pretty sexually timid. Just observing over here.
Tbh, ten years ago the manospherian narratives were probably dated, more based on Atlantic articles from Gen x girl bosses from the 2000s and that sort of thing. Or oldschool PUA. The manosphere might just figure things out in hindsight rather than in the moment .
A comprehensive look at the clash between incel ideology and reality. Clear and concise line of argumentation. I will definitely refer people to this article whenever it comes up in conversation.
A few years ago, I was onboard with most of the incel talking points mentioned here. I think the key factor underlying incel ideology is as you mentioned a failure to reject the "tabula rasa," the blank slate, stemming from poor social skills and underdeveloped theory of mind.
Men and women are biologically different and it should make sense on a cursory look of any sexually dimorphic species that, analogously, human males are much more horny than human females, and have much less to lose from having sex.
This makes a lot of sense. I read a lot of conservative bloggers and one of the things that puts me at odds with them is I just don't get that worked up about the promiscuity thing. Of course, I'm middle-aged, so I'm not running around looking for virgins.
" I read a lot of conservative bloggers and one of the things that puts me at odds with them is I just don't get that worked up about the promiscuity thing. "
Because you don't know the data. The social science literature is clear and consistent that women (and men to a lesser degree) are less happy in marriage and more likely to divorce if they have a higher number of sexual partners.
The redpill side does overstate how slutty women are and how bad marriage is, but there is truth to the idea that a promiscuous women tends to make for a worse marital partner, all things being equal.
Declining marriage rates would have been a nice little statistic that could have been thrown into this along with the correlation of body count and divorce :)
I suspect you are correct, since if social science literature says something so contrary to their interests it's likely true. Do you have a good meta-analysis you like?
You lost me at “survey”, and got the eye roll with “study.”
Women are practiced liars, particularly about body count. They even lie to themselves, discarding the one night stands, the mistake with he who shant be named, the oral encounters, the stripper at the bachelorette party certainly doesn’t count; shut up Becky!
And sending Herb’s more handsome friend to cosplay “Chad” in a bar asking for sex (with no rizz, no money, and no style) is no indicator either.
Chad not only orders them like DoorDash on the regular, but has ongoing game at the gym and stalking DMs for some play. It’s not a one night campaign in a bar, it’s more like compound interest paying dividends for the regular player.
A Chad I was close friends with told me “word of mouth “ was his best tool. The hookup from last weekend would inevitably talk and her friends come investigate. The study has none of the additional “over time” elements.
And to get the greater truth out of women, ask her about her friends and dorm mates, not herself. The truth, (the horror stories) come out! And frankly, she’s as bad as her friends.
It seems like a confluence of factors work together to create the perception of greater promiscuity. There also may be a time scale factor to the perception as well; I notice that you note that over 80% of women born in the 1940s had pre-marital sex. This is intuitive if you recall that a woman born in 1946 would have been 23 in 1969. I wonder how those numbers would differ a decade earlier. Similarly, is one remembers that most men born in the 1910s would have seen military service during WWII, giving them several years away from their communities and with access to prostitutes those numbers are much less surprising.
If we recall that, prior to the advent of pharmacological birth control premarital sex would be much more risky, the liberalization of sexual mores are understandable at the time noted. Given the structures placed upon female independence prior to World War I, it is hard to believe that those numbers would be similar among women born in the 1890s.
American Protestant Christianity has always relied on a certain...emotionally charged denunciation of sin and call for repentance as a recruiting mechanism; hence the chronic need to claim imminent societal collapse which incentivces overstatement of promiscuity.
Ultimately, I think that the main change since the 1960s is that monogamous sexual relationships outside of marriage exist at all. Based on the antedotes of people I know who would have been old enough to date in the middle of the last century, in the 1950s dating culture was generally non-monogomous, with monogamy coming as a precursor to marriage. That said, premarital sex was risky so dating was also largely non-sexual. The sexual revolution was largely just adding sex to that paradigm when the risk dissipated; whereby the dating culture of the 1970s was both non-monogomous and sexual.
Human nature or in this case female nature does not really change as much as it responds to incentives. Generally, risk associated with anonymous sex are still much higher for women, even without pregnancy risk. As such, only a girl too naive to worry about such risks or too self-hating to care will really have any interest in sleeping with strangers.
Or drunk/high. Which was a key part of the dynamics of the 1980s, at least. Girls moved in groups usually but were interested in doing stupid stuff like getting drunk in out of the way places. Because they were just as dumb as we were. Everyone starts pawing each other under the influence and worries about slutdom and pregnancy were not relevant in the moment. Once you'd established a sexual relationship, even under those circumstances, you more or less continued it after everyone sobered up.
That part always confuses me about these discussions about casual sex. I mean the start was casual by some definition, but the aftermath was anything but. Any guy who didn't play by those rules acquired a reputation and a lot of negative baggage. Girls talk. There was a social fabric that prevented pure casual sex except under specific circumstances. I happened to grow up in a touristy area and if you picked up someone from out of the area, that could be more casual. Maybe. But usually wasn't.
>much larger share of the women a lot of men see nowadays are being deepthroated or doing something depraved. It’s hard to imagine this not having a perception-warping effect.
Everyone hears this a lot and I never outright challenge it, but I have a feeling it would make for a good nuancepill post.
While it seems reasonable to say that very frequent porn use might be correlated with believing in some/all of the theories you’ve debunked, it’s pervasive enough that it probably doesn’t move the needle for most people, except maybe more men cant get it up or hurt their partner’s feelings as a consequence of their porn use.
My point is, like with trads, I feel like people who cite this assume it has some significant material impact on sex/dating, and I’m curious if there’s data supporting that.
There's been a large rise in the percentage of women who report being choked during sex. That's one of many instances where porn consumption damages a person's sexuality.
There was another study I came across years ago about hookup culture specifically, among college students. Everyone had a short period of partaking in hookup culture, and then they found a partner and stayed with them for a while.
That's my experience too. I went on dates and some of them ended up in one night stands, but all of them started off as a genuine attempt on both sides to find a long term partner. I did this seriously for about six months and then met my husband. It wasn't a whole lifetime of hoeing around. It was a short period of focusing on finding a husband, but not saying no to fun along the way. My husband also seems to have approached things the same way, except he didnt have as many matches on the apps as I did (but still a pretty solid number).
Very interesting! The media portrayal of liberated women having sex like gay men is still going strong (see Kesha's new song Boy Crazy), but it seems to be a vehicle for women to live vicariously rather than a practical aspiration. To some extent it shouldn't surprise us - the people portrayed by popular media are generally much richer and more attractive than the average consumer has any hope to be. But you're right that the "information" that popular media provides is likely to result in confirmation bias, especially for men who don't have any actual female friends.
Have you considered the women may be underreporting the number of partners they sleep with, sexual experiences, etc. I've now read several of your posts, and none of them fit with most people's lived experience. Where are you addressing the different between reported experiences and revealed preferences. Like, for example, you state in another post that dating apps work about as well for men as for women--no one who is using them thinks that. Not even women.
Would love to be proven wrong, but if it's with data from voluntary self reported surveys, it's just not convincing, because people lie! And women are especially likely to lie about sex and the number of sexual partners they have for obvious reasons.
"Lived experience" means anecdotes, often pre-motivated ones. And most of it isn't personal experience; it's extrapolating and sharing stories and accepting implications and yada yada. Obviously not an impressive standard for knowledge.
Surveys and similar data collection have their flaws, but there is not a better alternative. Vibes-based lived experience doesn't cut it.
I simply don't trust this data. Therefor, my anecdotes are my only accurate data points. I don't trust the agenda of people compiling this data and I don't trust the self reporting. A women is biologically wired to lie about her body count.
You in a cult buddy. It is such a common pattern. Only care about data when it supports the conspiracy. Otherwise reject the data. You cannot reject a mountain of evidence because it doesn’t suit you. A lot of the data here was not self reported and it collaborated with the self reported data. He also explained why the self reporting logically made sense. Women cannot rapidly grow in promiscuity if it is dropping for men. That would imply men are lying and under reporting. The chance of men underreporting their sex is like zero. Just take the L man.
Men who worry about this do so because they fantasise about what they fear and fear that their fantasies are not true - which they’re not. Also they have far too much time in their hands!
Fuck your data and arguments. Titanium Burkhas.
Exactly, the average man struggles to get anything both on apps and in person.
Yes well the AVERAGE man thinks he is owed women who are physically way out of his league. Ironically, dudes would be much happier focusing on CHARACTER anyway. After all the "I'm a nice guy" argument lends itself to "THEN FIND A NICE GIRL". Not hot. NICE.
Sorry dude, you're just superficial af.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221135955
> found that females were choosier than males, as predicted by parental investment theory. While descriptive statistics suggested that males have higher minimum standards than females, this is not necessarily indicative of a true sex difference, because females also tended to receive higher mate value ratings than male
The average man has incredibly low standards and has to take what he can get. Women do have incredibly high standards for men's looks. Look at app data.
Dating apps? The ones swarming with "female" bots? Sounds legit.
The average guy thinks that if he were female, he'd be hot. No dude, you'd be average. A 6 with full makeup and hair. That's just physically, whereas your character is at a 3. The shallower you are, the more you care about "hawwtttt".
Apps just reveal how female nature.
Women have a very low bar to be considered hot/attractive. For men it's near enough impossible.
Women are far more shallow than men are. Character/personality doesn't matter. You know that.
See, far more attractive women get with men who aren't attractive or even rich. Because women aren't shallow like men are. Of course women are more beautiful than men. Men are hideous compared to women.
Men need to be the ones wearing makeup. They need to be more attractive, quickly.
Men who are loser 3s cry about how they can't get women they claim are superficial.
The irony.
Women peak in dating apps at 20/21 and that per view of men at all ages sampled and that’s men aged up to 50 and yet it’s men who have it tough! In that world a 30 year old women has no way of competing with younger women and has very little time to settle down and have a family left. Men at 30 are more attractive than at 20 and ought to have money and prospects if he’s not spent a decade in the goon cave. And it’s men who have it tough. Mind you, self pity is incredibly attractive to women.
Women always have infinite SMV, even when past 30. The average man has basically no value at all ages.
Men do have it tough in dating. Women have it on tutorial mode.
I don’t know what SMV is but it can’t exist anyway because you claim it exists in infinite quantities
Sexual market value. Every woman has infinite value. Most men have no value.
Oh FFS, women have little or no interest in their SMV unless it leads to commitment and babies which nowadays for many it doesn’t, much to their complete despair. Also, one still sees plenty of very average looking dudes in relationships with actual women so presumably it’s possible.
Curious, I didn’t see any of this activity on my notifications…anyone know why?
But even looking at the male-reported data, who has no reason to underreport, and extrapolate it to the female, there's just not enough sex happening to make the redpill claim.
There is. Just by a very few select number of men.
But again, across the female population it still only really amounts to at most high single digit lifetime partners for the median woman. And I don’t know the data or sources off hand, but I’m pretty sure there’s a small population of women who have a massive body count, which would lower the median for women a bit more. In reality the typical girl you’ll meet in her mid to late 20’s has had sex with 5 or 6 guys. Not great, but not the end of the world.
Let's work on getting the median down to one.
I agree. But in our imperfect world the average guy will probably not marry a virgin (and he likely will not be a virgin himself). A woman's dating/sexual history is important, but guys need to be realistic about what their marriage prospects are.
Solution: Just don't get married.
Women run the sexual market.
Glad you agree.
1. not expecting my comment to have any effect.
2. low promiscuity can mean many different things... For me it means you don't have sex until marriage (if you are a women).
3. People started panicking over promiscuity 10-20 years ago as the victims of third wave feminism and a culture that framed general female promiscuity as being a good thing began entering the age when they should be getting married (and they weren't) + divorce rates.
4. There are much stronger forces at play then substack articles and discussions about "women's body count." My comment was to point out that 'high single digits' isn't some gotcha low number but actually still too hight :)
How do you extrapolate?
It’s the same old problem with “blue pill” gender data: taking self reported surveys at face value, as hard evidence comparable to a standard found in say, engineering. This is a fundamental problem with sociology types across the board. There is nothing to do to counter their faith in institutions as an authority on truth. The good news is that increasing numbers of people see these academic institutions for what they are, as opposed to having these same exact arguments ten years ago.
Even in the scenario that women do underreport their # of partners, why would the exact number they report stay relatively consistent; especially as the sexual mores of their cultural context become more liberal and promiscuity is more openly celebrated?
I downloaded the GSS data on number of partners and found the total number of partners women reported to be significantly less than men reported. I assumed men were over reporting and women under reporting, did some unscientific equalizing of the data and found the trends that everyone assumes, the average woman has more partners than the average man, by around 25%. Not a huge amount, but significant. The bottom 25% of men had far less sex than the bottom 25% of women, and the top 10% of men had more sex than the bottom 60% of men combined.
Yes, and it's obvious that lying has at most minor effects on stats.
Let's assume that women downplay number of sexual partners. But as we count heterosexual partners, and number of men and women is roughly equal, average number of sexual partners for women can't really exceed average number of sexual partners for men.
Women will always have infinite sexual options.
It is explained why this data is likely reliable. You can see how it logically fits and multiple surveys re-enforce each other. There is just too much collaborative evidence suggesting this is true. It also fits with what we know about evolution. Also I don’t trust people’s “lived experiences” because I have watched so many men with completely skewed experiences of anything related to women. They read totally different things out of encounters than what happened.
You can actually just test posing as a woman online once and quickly realize what delusional world far too many men live in.
I think if your lived experience is that far from the data, I suspect your perception of reality might be off. Remember YouTube and TikTok does not count as lived experiences. I suspect many men think they are.
You’re no different from a leftist that wants to enact politics based on a lived experience of BIPOCs and sexual minorities.
If you would actually read the post or think a bit to generate your own response, you’d realize you have to explain why women have simultaneously been getting *more* promiscuous but *less* willing to admit it as men do *not* report the new sexual encounters in a way detectable on surveys and studies aimed to detect openness to promiscuity directly reveal no detectable change over decades. What do you mean by lived experience anyway? In what sense is it your lived experience that tons of women are hypergamizing up the Chads and getting massive body counts while leaving the ordinary guy in the dust? It sure seems like most people claiming this are confusing TikTok with their own experience.
Paranoia
Yes, if dating apps were working well for both, the apps wouldnt be losing customers.
^
Wow how nuanced I can feel the truth seeping deep into my bones reading this. 90% of the “data” here was collected from surveys, which is obviously going to have many liars, especially from women who basically evolved to lie about everything. I very much so doubt they were able to mean out all of the liars as they would still be predicting and estimating based on the sample size— which already creates a new problem. And I’m supposed to believe that a Chad was truly only accepted by 1%? Yes I do believe that if he just walked up to them for 30 secs and asked, but if he was able to talk to them for about 15 Mins (which is much longer than a day) I would reckon it’s higher, although this of course is speculative! Also claiming the man is attractive means nothing if you don’t go into how attractive they were, saying top 10% doesn’t mean anything again as you are not telling us how and where they got that number— another survey? Is that where, or was it simply someone they deemed attractive, did college women who decided to be about of the study choose who was actually attractive, or was it more baseless inferences from small groups. Top 10% lmao, maybe I missed the where you said it, but jeez! (I forgot most of it after reading it, but if it answered some of my questions already let me know)
It's funny that the redpill community has no actual data to back up their assertions. It's just "muh chad gets all the pussy."
The red pill as it relates to dating and gender isn’t a scientific claim, it’s a heuristic designed to help straight men navigate western dating and other social structures. I’d agree that red pill spaces are prone to hyperbole, and at this point have devolved to mythology that is less useful than the “hard truths” motivation that helps some guys. I’d also posit that sociology, gender studies are no different than the manosphere, their “facts” are largely bullshit, and they rely on institutional control to avoid being meaningfully challenged, rather than standing on truth.
I agree that some of the red pill stuff, especially in the early days, was useful in that it told men truths no one else would tell them. No, just being really nice and bringing flowers to Stacy will not make her fall for you. But for the last several years it’s been black pill slop that claims that every woman will cheat on and divorce you so don’t even bother getting married.
Yes, even ten years ago, the seemingly defunct “MGTOW” (men going their own way) YouTube videos massively outdid most other manosphere content in terms of raw views. Slop has always been a problem, but is likely worse. More so I think, the manosphere originally came from Gen x experiences involving nightclubs, bars, no real social media, terrible divorces, domestic violence kangaroo courts, etc. today’s digital social landscape is surprisingly far removed from that .
Ya I also think a lot of the arguments are outdated. I thankfully don’t know many people who got divorced, but the few divorces that have happened in the last decade are not as anti-male. Every guy I know got 50% custody, and with the male/female income gap closing the “she took everything from me financially” is just not that common. And the divorce rate has come down significantly.
Divorces and divorce rates are down because marriages are down, it’s not a real improvement imo. The ones I’ve seen are less bad, but tbh every generation below boomers has much less to lose. I’ve still seen some whacky, shitty problems in divorce, sometimes even stuff neither party wanted and protested. Also, still plenty of domestic violence bullshit charges, although increasingly against women too, and once again usually stuff neither party wanted (no one needs to be arrested over grabbing a cell phone out of someone’s hand while drunk, let alone stubbornly charged).
2024 presidential election was called “the podcast election” 🤷
And politicians are less scared of men “rising up” and much more scared of them “checking out” and not responding to the carrot stick incentives in a rigged game that depends on their effort.
I don’t follow what you’re saying or how it relates to what I said in this exchange. Sorry.
Women are against men because of how genetic fitness plays out in modern dynamics. Most men are invisible to women, and women tend to be fickle and inconsistent in what gives them the ick. They’re not the type of people who should be in serious positions of power or authority. Institutions are stacked against men due to quotas and biased selection systems. Most university classrooms are filled with international students, mainly pretty much Indians and Chinese, and many of these universities aren't even highly selective anymore. The average IQ of someone with a master’s degree today is 7 points lower than someone with the same degree 55 years ago. Women are handed everything. Then they complain when they have to "settle" for someone they’re not attracted to, which ends up creating more outcasted incelss. All women lie- it’s hardwired into their evolutionary psychology. It’s a form of social signaling, tied to sexual selection and physical fitness. They often do this unconsciosly, which is why many genuinely believe they’re being honest. But 99% of what they say is emotion-driven, not logic-based. They aren’t natural truth-seekers-- that’s just not in their design. And that’s how we got here, this article caters to women, relying on surveys, p-hacked data, and no real nuance. Nothing in it has been replicated with serious rigor. It’s just the same fabricated claims recycled through soft methods and emotional framing-- pure conjecture with no hard truth behind it.
It's funny how this study's way of conduction was based off surveys and no hard evidence- not a whisper of it. Do you know why that is? It's because he can't gather data. He can't model truth- he cann only describe it in his fabricated articles full of nothing-burgers. This isn't even data; it's a hypothesis until hard data says otherwise, and even that would have to be consistently replicated. He didn’t go into how he got the attraction numbers, how the surveys were conducted, how many variables were in the survey, or how the methodology would even work in a “replicable” source. In what world is his "hypothesis" not just more noise with no signaling, no controls for confounders, and pure conjecture? I don't deal in BS articles,, especially not from someone who deems their craft “nuanced" lmao.
Still waiting for a response. What would convince you that your ideas about women are wrong?
What evidence would convince you that you were wrong? What study design?
Null hypothesis.
The truth is halfway between what credentialed experts & redpillers say, since surveys are useless/people always lie on them.
Let's just say one HALF of all women are irredeemably evil hypergamous whores, instead of 100%.
What would convince you that you’re wrong?
Women being at least one tenth as willing to help men's mental health compared to the resources they have available to do so as men are willing to help women with their mental health compared to the resources they have available, for one.
What mental health resources are sex segregated? Domestic abuse shelters is probably the only one I can think of.
This one in particular has fucked me over personally given I am not a woman or child & only women's & children's shelters were available in my area (adult men have fewer options)
The biggest one however is romantic & sexual validation, inclusion, cuddling, & sex itself.
All their data comes from dating apps, which 2/3 of women don’t use (and that’s a conservative estimate)
🙄
Reality: Sexlessness has increased for both men and women, but moreso for average men.
The same studies you posted support this conclusion. Attractiveness rating studies support this, and online dating stats do too.
For women, sexlessness is by choice. For men, it isn't unless under exceptional circumstances.
The more articles of yours I read, the less I think you're interested in actually finding the nuanced reality. You seem to just be another deboonker who's goal is to confirm their own existing narratives. You have many sources and a basic front of emotional detachment from the issues, but you have no genuine intellectual curiosity in the other side's points, and it shows.
Translation: you are not curious or intellectually honest because you reach a different conclusion from the one I want you to reach 🙄
💯
People are pretty salty in the comments
Seems like a lot of losers want their wallowing in loserdom to be justified.
It's not that these women are necessarily hooking up with these attractive men, but they are the men that they truly desire. Whereas the man they often settle for in their late 20s/early 30s isn't who they really desire.
The truth is that women make rules for men they're not attracted to (certain number of dates before sex, dinner before sex, the man having to make the first move, etc) whilst breaking them for the men they truly want. It's good to be aware of these things.
That applies to men too. When they truly want a woman, they adjust their behavior. Men make certain “filters” easier to get through for women they truly desire. It isn’t a man or woman thing. People just do it in general.
Maybe women were more polite about it in the past, so men had more of a comfortable illusion that what we were doing just didn’t happen nearly as much with women. I guess women’s rights gave women the ability to not try to overtly hide it like they would’ve done in the past, while for men, it was always out there.
It's not the same. As we know, women find most men to be unattractive and only really desire a small handful. Men don't really make rules for women and view most women as at least somewhat attractive. Women are extremely selective on the other hand.
Men more just put women into separate categories, i.e. wifey material or fun, but they don't make rules based on attractivevess like women tend to.
Women make rules for men not really attracted to and break them for the men they're not. Women are the gatekeepers.
It’s similar. Unattractive women are generally politely ignored except in moments of desperation. It just happens to be that unattractive/less attractive women have eggs in their body. Them having eggs is a hedge in case we don’t get the woman we want. They’re also honestly pretty useful to outsource undesirable work to because they’re more likely to be grateful for any attention. But we don’t actually desire those women, it’s just primitive brain trying to hedge so we have a backup to fall back on so our genes don’t die out.
Hijacking them in case things don’t go the way we want is incredibly beneficial. For them to exist on the board for baseline desire is low for us because the barrier to viewing them as “desirable” is low since they’re a hedge.
Women get pregnant, so they don’t “hedge” exactly the way we do in having there be a baseline desire for every man. A lot of men will just not be on the board for them unless absolutely necessary. If someone gets wiped out on the board, a spot may or may not open up depending on the quality on the board. While for men, everyone is on the board, just in case.
Also, we do categorize women under date, marry, etc. The women also do the same thing with men. It just so happens to be they focus way more on the men they want to go under the “marry” category than men do with the men’s dating pool. We’re much more passive about that and distribute our attention across the different categories much more evenly than they do. But we still will give outsized attention, lower barriers, and try to help the women we actually want to get through our “filters”.
And men typically have to take what they can get. Even fat and unattractive women get an insane amount of male attention online. Only attractive men get anything. An unattractive man doesn't get anything without paying.
If a woman requires you to take her on a date, then she isn't attracted to you.
Also, I just said that men categorise women by date, sleep with etc, then just don't make rules for them like women do.
Women are ultimately the choosers and decide which men are worthy
You're just coming up with a reason not to try. Men who get married are happier and live longer, and not just the Chads. Divorce rates are much lower than the boomer's, and especially for first marriages is pretty low.
Coming up with a reason not to try? Why would you ask a woman out or approach one? They're all replaceable and go after the men they want.
Why would I want to get married to a woman who doesn't want me? WTF? Why would I try just to get divorced?
Divorces are lower because fewer people are getting married.
You see so many dead bedrooms and horrible divorces. That's because the woman was never attracted to the man.
Marriage is a horrible idea for men in the modern age. Literally no reason to.
Unattractive women getting attention doesn’t mean there’s any real desire. They’re just a hedge in case things don’t go the way we want. Unattractive women have to pay a super high cost too. If they get pregnant, odds are they’re probably going to keep receiving lower levels of support than the women we actually want. Hard to do for them since raising a kid properly is hard work and they tend to go back to being politely ignored, except it’s way harder for them to do that with a child. That’s just how it is.
The male version of it is most dudes don’t exist on the board because it doesn’t make sense for them to for women. That’s just how it is. Both sexes have the same underlying beliefs, they just go about it in a different way.
The take what we can get is the hedge. Take what we can get applies to most of the female population for us. That doesn’t put those women at an advantage since a large portion of them fall under that category, and will honestly probably suffer from the lack of investment since the door is really only opened for the women we want (who are nowhere near a majority of women).
Men do find most women at least somewhere attractive.
That isn't true. Most women aren't particularly attractive but men will occasionally bend the rules for someone who isn't their type, especially if alcohol-affected. However, I've turned down or just ignored many more women than I've ever bent the rules for. Women tend to over-estimate their attractiveness, which is one of the least attractive traits. You might be 10/10 in looks but if your personality is 4/10 or less then I'd still turn you down.
Yes, it is. Most men have incredibly low standards and have to take what they can get. Men also have considerably higher libidos. Women are infinitely pickier than men across all metrics.
What even is the point you're trying to make? Women break rules for the men they're attracted to as they're the choosers. That's why no dinner before sex is a golden rule because if she were truly attracted to you you wouldn't need to do that nonsense.
Men also would make different rules for Sydney Sweeney and a regular girl. A lot of men will string along a girlfriend for years saying they cant commit and then get married to a girl they met in 6 months. Everyone does this.
Hardly. Women are the sexual choosers and the gatekeepers of both sex and relationships. They make rules for the normies and break them for Chads.
Those men you refer to are simps. Men don't tend to make separate rules for women (i.e. not sleeping with a woman until a certain amount of time). They do categorise women, such as for fun or long-term, but no rules.
Remember, if a woman requires you to date her before sex, then she's likely not attracted.
There would be no need for categories if there were no rules that applied to them. You do treat them differently. Its a fact.
And you dont know many women if you think they are the only ones who choose.
They are the ones who choose. They are the sexual choosers. A far greater reproductive burden is placed on them and they have the power in dating.
Am I treating them differently in how soon I'm going to smash them? Do I make them do silly things like take me out on dinner dates? I'm still giving both of them my sexual best, but why would I commit to one when she's clearly a liability? If she is making rules for you, then she's not attracted to you, whilst I'm attracted to both women. Big difference
I boost this post until the lies stop. Thank you.
DUDE! Yes! YES! Well done. Buckle up, I'm about to support your thesis with field reports.
So... I am, scientifically according to your numbers, one of those promiscuous 5%er chads. HA! I'm not six foot nor wealthy btw (suck it manosphere theories). But I'm single out here in the jungle and have many single friends of both genders in a major American city. I have front row seats to all their sex lives. I am on the apps, app actually--Tinder only. Long live the GOAT.
Sexual activity is WAY down for both genders. It's crazy how little actual sex everyone is having. To me, this is the real story. Everyone is cosplaying sex! You go to a dance club and nobody actually goes home with each other. People are going on completely fine first dates but the follow up just sort of fizzles out before anything comes together. All those ladies posting bikini thirst traps online? Extremely few of them are having any sex at all! Maaaaybe a situationship, a pseudo-boyfriend they reluctantly summon once or twice a month.
IT'S AMAZING! You've touched on it here and I 1000% agree with your analysis. I know multiple perfectly nice, normal ladies in their 20s/30s who are dying for a husband but will also admit that they haven't had a boyfriend, nor sex, in YEARS. I believe them! YEARS! They'll go on first dates and everything goes well... yet they DO NOT give the guy a second date! It's amazing! If the person isn't gross, made you laugh afew times, paid for dinner, etc... one should give them a second date imo. NOT SO! If the man isn't a magical being that transcends their souls into a dimension of euphoria--it's over. Nobody accomplishes this on the first date, so no sex.
Anecdote from the other week. I matched with a lady on Tinder and we exchanged numbers. She sent me unrequited videos of her reading poetry AND nudes leading right up to our first date. Sexting, daddy play, all this stuff. "Can't wait to see you today daddy" leading right up to the hours of the date. Then came the hour for the date aaaaaand... she stood me up! Did not show up to the bar, did not reply to texts. So I've got all these video clips of this lady reading poetry and her tits and texts of her calling me daddy... but she did not even meet me in person! HA! She texted five hours later apologizing and talking about the weird day she had... naturally I didn't engage--self respect is healthy y'all.
There's like a civilization-wide antisexual norm right now while at the same time we're "acting out" sex everywhere in the form of porn, erotica novels, slutty fashion, social media personas, etc. This doesn't mean that people have stopped using sex appeal to get ahead, feel better about themselves, etc. but the actual act is rare. Also I have a slight rebuttal to your assertion that the "rooster carousel" isn't real--ladies DO have rosters, but they aren't actually fucking all those dudes. They do like the attention and holding a handful of guys like this is power most ladies relish--but she is definitely not having sex or dating them all. And in her defense... I like having friendly relations with multiple pretty girls, who doesn't?! What, should I shoo them off like raccoons in a dumpster?
But the idea that there is a social contagion of hot sex crazed sluts running wild and tearing society apart is HILARIOUS. I see way more sad, sexless ladies kind of going through the motions, lost in a convoluted mythology they've crafted about themselves and the world. Lots of dressing up with friends and cocktails, lots of pretty selfies, lots of thoughts about how life works, lots of hours in the gym... and yet, no sex! No romance! A half-life.
I really think most modern ladies don't know what men, and sex, are! The whole dimension of the life experience is alien to most of them... so they treat that realm as either a dark, scary place they never visit or a fantasyland of which to dream about. Narnia. The next question is why is it like this in 2020s America... but I'm just observing here. Well done with the essay!
I wouldn’t doubt this. Maybe the manosphere is just dated. It accurately described my experiences with “dating” and hookup culture in the 2000s but I’m middle aged and married now, only experienced the early years of dating apps and it already looked grim.
It sounds like a total collapse is the end game of hookup culture . I’m sorry we millennials played such a role in this.
That's a good point. Maybe the manosphere is accurately breaking down "hook up culture", which still exists in some form. Maybe the upper classes do it out of boredom or something--most of the manosphere stars I see around seem pretty affluent. But for an average American, I think it's way more of a "hook never" society. We're trending into this old timey vibe of 100 years ago when men and women were like oil and water, socializing and existing in increasingly separate realms. Isolated from each other, our opinions of the other gender becomes increasingly more theoretical and delusional.
I've never been a "dating crisis" guy either. Culture is dynamic, we're adults making decisions with consequences, etc. When times seem prosperous, people tend to get more loose and libertine. When times are bad, they pair up to survive. Like... female workforce participation is DOWN and trending downwards... so the "hypergamous slutty boss babe who don't need no man is a nuke on society" thing feels dated...
It just feels like everyone is running talking points from 10+ years ago to me. People seem pretty sexually timid. Just observing over here.
Tbh, ten years ago the manospherian narratives were probably dated, more based on Atlantic articles from Gen x girl bosses from the 2000s and that sort of thing. Or oldschool PUA. The manosphere might just figure things out in hindsight rather than in the moment .
True, maybe we're all just doomed to realize what's happening to us and write about it about a decade after the fact, HA!
This is a good thing. Let's get years down to never buddy
A comprehensive look at the clash between incel ideology and reality. Clear and concise line of argumentation. I will definitely refer people to this article whenever it comes up in conversation.
A few years ago, I was onboard with most of the incel talking points mentioned here. I think the key factor underlying incel ideology is as you mentioned a failure to reject the "tabula rasa," the blank slate, stemming from poor social skills and underdeveloped theory of mind.
Men and women are biologically different and it should make sense on a cursory look of any sexually dimorphic species that, analogously, human males are much more horny than human females, and have much less to lose from having sex.
This makes a lot of sense. I read a lot of conservative bloggers and one of the things that puts me at odds with them is I just don't get that worked up about the promiscuity thing. Of course, I'm middle-aged, so I'm not running around looking for virgins.
And, yeah, the Internet is not reality.
" I read a lot of conservative bloggers and one of the things that puts me at odds with them is I just don't get that worked up about the promiscuity thing. "
Because you don't know the data. The social science literature is clear and consistent that women (and men to a lesser degree) are less happy in marriage and more likely to divorce if they have a higher number of sexual partners.
The redpill side does overstate how slutty women are and how bad marriage is, but there is truth to the idea that a promiscuous women tends to make for a worse marital partner, all things being equal.
Declining marriage rates would have been a nice little statistic that could have been thrown into this along with the correlation of body count and divorce :)
I suspect you are correct, since if social science literature says something so contrary to their interests it's likely true. Do you have a good meta-analysis you like?
Thank you for reminding me that all boomers are bastards
I'm GenX.
same thing really
You lost me at “survey”, and got the eye roll with “study.”
Women are practiced liars, particularly about body count. They even lie to themselves, discarding the one night stands, the mistake with he who shant be named, the oral encounters, the stripper at the bachelorette party certainly doesn’t count; shut up Becky!
And sending Herb’s more handsome friend to cosplay “Chad” in a bar asking for sex (with no rizz, no money, and no style) is no indicator either.
Chad not only orders them like DoorDash on the regular, but has ongoing game at the gym and stalking DMs for some play. It’s not a one night campaign in a bar, it’s more like compound interest paying dividends for the regular player.
A Chad I was close friends with told me “word of mouth “ was his best tool. The hookup from last weekend would inevitably talk and her friends come investigate. The study has none of the additional “over time” elements.
And to get the greater truth out of women, ask her about her friends and dorm mates, not herself. The truth, (the horror stories) come out! And frankly, she’s as bad as her friends.
Bitterness is unhealthy.
It seems like a confluence of factors work together to create the perception of greater promiscuity. There also may be a time scale factor to the perception as well; I notice that you note that over 80% of women born in the 1940s had pre-marital sex. This is intuitive if you recall that a woman born in 1946 would have been 23 in 1969. I wonder how those numbers would differ a decade earlier. Similarly, is one remembers that most men born in the 1910s would have seen military service during WWII, giving them several years away from their communities and with access to prostitutes those numbers are much less surprising.
If we recall that, prior to the advent of pharmacological birth control premarital sex would be much more risky, the liberalization of sexual mores are understandable at the time noted. Given the structures placed upon female independence prior to World War I, it is hard to believe that those numbers would be similar among women born in the 1890s.
American Protestant Christianity has always relied on a certain...emotionally charged denunciation of sin and call for repentance as a recruiting mechanism; hence the chronic need to claim imminent societal collapse which incentivces overstatement of promiscuity.
Ultimately, I think that the main change since the 1960s is that monogamous sexual relationships outside of marriage exist at all. Based on the antedotes of people I know who would have been old enough to date in the middle of the last century, in the 1950s dating culture was generally non-monogomous, with monogamy coming as a precursor to marriage. That said, premarital sex was risky so dating was also largely non-sexual. The sexual revolution was largely just adding sex to that paradigm when the risk dissipated; whereby the dating culture of the 1970s was both non-monogomous and sexual.
Human nature or in this case female nature does not really change as much as it responds to incentives. Generally, risk associated with anonymous sex are still much higher for women, even without pregnancy risk. As such, only a girl too naive to worry about such risks or too self-hating to care will really have any interest in sleeping with strangers.
Or drunk/high. Which was a key part of the dynamics of the 1980s, at least. Girls moved in groups usually but were interested in doing stupid stuff like getting drunk in out of the way places. Because they were just as dumb as we were. Everyone starts pawing each other under the influence and worries about slutdom and pregnancy were not relevant in the moment. Once you'd established a sexual relationship, even under those circumstances, you more or less continued it after everyone sobered up.
That part always confuses me about these discussions about casual sex. I mean the start was casual by some definition, but the aftermath was anything but. Any guy who didn't play by those rules acquired a reputation and a lot of negative baggage. Girls talk. There was a social fabric that prevented pure casual sex except under specific circumstances. I happened to grow up in a touristy area and if you picked up someone from out of the area, that could be more casual. Maybe. But usually wasn't.
>much larger share of the women a lot of men see nowadays are being deepthroated or doing something depraved. It’s hard to imagine this not having a perception-warping effect.
Everyone hears this a lot and I never outright challenge it, but I have a feeling it would make for a good nuancepill post.
While it seems reasonable to say that very frequent porn use might be correlated with believing in some/all of the theories you’ve debunked, it’s pervasive enough that it probably doesn’t move the needle for most people, except maybe more men cant get it up or hurt their partner’s feelings as a consequence of their porn use.
My point is, like with trads, I feel like people who cite this assume it has some significant material impact on sex/dating, and I’m curious if there’s data supporting that.
There's been a large rise in the percentage of women who report being choked during sex. That's one of many instances where porn consumption damages a person's sexuality.
Great work, as usual.
Shut the fuck up you coked out lawyer bitch.
Check yourself into a mental institution.
Lol, no.
There was another study I came across years ago about hookup culture specifically, among college students. Everyone had a short period of partaking in hookup culture, and then they found a partner and stayed with them for a while.
That's my experience too. I went on dates and some of them ended up in one night stands, but all of them started off as a genuine attempt on both sides to find a long term partner. I did this seriously for about six months and then met my husband. It wasn't a whole lifetime of hoeing around. It was a short period of focusing on finding a husband, but not saying no to fun along the way. My husband also seems to have approached things the same way, except he didnt have as many matches on the apps as I did (but still a pretty solid number).
Very interesting! The media portrayal of liberated women having sex like gay men is still going strong (see Kesha's new song Boy Crazy), but it seems to be a vehicle for women to live vicariously rather than a practical aspiration. To some extent it shouldn't surprise us - the people portrayed by popular media are generally much richer and more attractive than the average consumer has any hope to be. But you're right that the "information" that popular media provides is likely to result in confirmation bias, especially for men who don't have any actual female friends.
There is no such thing as male/female friendships. You're A Trollop.