# Why is male anger chalked up to not getting a lot of sex nowadays?



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I sometimes wonder (I do not have any data) whether younger generations have lost their incentive to develop interpersonal/intrapersonal communication skills because "screen culture" has supplanted the actual need to interact.
> 
> I didn't have internet/Web, or a smartphone as a horny teenage male, so if I wanted to get intimate with a young woman, I had to walk up and talk to her. If she wasn't interested, I had to talk to another, and so on. I developed the skill because I was motivated to do so.
> 
> ...


this was excellent 

only thing ill say is incel was originally meant to describe women who couldnt have sex like they wanted to. but in true female fashion it was flipped to describe males who dont get enough sex as if every man just wants have sex with every pretty girl. most guys do. but a significant proportion of boys and men dont want to stick it in every pretty thing they see. thats just a stereotype as 80% accurate as it is. 

it is more shameful for a woman to want sex and not be able to get it because if shes half decent looking she should have too many options to choose from, thus the incel thing. as a man not getting enough sex is common. even if you have a lot of sex its still not enough sex and thats why we want more sex


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

beth x said:


> For the very same reason, they are perpetrators of domestic violence. It's the wimmen's fault. Obviously.
> 
> She didn't hold her mouth the right way, didn't do enough or she said too much, cried too much, asked for more, or some lesbian purple-haired femmo put ideas in her head and made her think she had rights.


no jusification for violence against women 

but i have heard that some women intentionally provoke male anger and some women are attracted to violent and abusive men

i just put this here in the interest of full transparency 

(im an entp i couldnt help myself)


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> it's not illegal to be illogical


it should be... but then most women would be in jail and we dont want that


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

Sensational said:


> Probably the rise in basement dwellers and incels in Gen X & Gen Y, now Gen Z has a bunch of bubble wrapped weirdos. So... 🤷🏻‍♀️. I think the increase in school shootings probably plays apart into that stereotype too.
> 
> I mean angry guys seem to be often (not always) linked to lack of access to sex (hey I don’t make the society) just saying.


theres a lot angry guys who beat up their girlfriends who also get sex, just saying


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Part of the annoyance for me is this idea that they would get more action if they were nicer people.
> 
> After the popularity of things like 50 Shades, "After," "365 Days" and "The Kissing Booth," I'm gonna call bullshit on that.


ahhh yes, the "I CAN CHANGE HIM" fallacy


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

MoStoner12 said:


> it should be... but then most people would be in jail and we dont want that


fixed that for you


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> for some people they are one and the same, but that was kinda the point


for some people its okay to kill... just because "some people think/feel" doesnt make it reality 

even i have physical touch as my no.1 love language but i dont equate amazing sex with love

you wouldnt have sex with a prostitute and assume she loves you, that would be a sign of mental illness 

thinking sex will lead to love is an outrageous assumption that will almost always lead to disappointment, and emotional dissatisfaction


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

MoStoner12 said:


> for some people its okay to kill... just because "some people think/feel" doesnt make it reality


it does if it starts impacting their behaviour and impact on others


> even i have physical touch as my no.1 love language but i dont equate amazing sex with love


good for you, I have touch as my hate language and I definitely don't equate them


> you wouldnt have sex with a prostitute and assume she loves you, that would be a sign of mental illness
> 
> thinking sex will lead to love is an outrageous assumption that will almost always lead to disappointment, and emotional dissatisfaction


yup


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> fixed that for you


you did fix it 

but i liked what i said better 

the chemical structure of the female brain leads to them not being rational in some of the oddest of situations 

for example how does one have tens, if not hundreds or thousands of DMs but still feel lonely. to a man that is irrational 

the story of women going to a store, 
1st floor: good looking men who will treat them nice
_moves to the next floor_
2nd floor: good looking men who will treat them nice and have money
_moves to the next floor_
3rd floor:good looking men who will treat them nice and have money and will be a good father 
_moves to the next floor_
4th floor: good looking men who will treat them nice and have money and will be a good father and give them the best sex ever
_moves to the next floor_
5th floor: good looking men who will treat them nice and have money and will be a good father and give them the best sex ever and their family loves them 
_moves to the next floor_
6th floor: this floor exist to show women are never happy 

(there is male equivalent to that analogy, i wonder if you can guess it)

then go around saying things like "all men" because they chose to be with an abuser or drug dealer because "he excites me"

then again maybe rationality itself is subjective 

either way i think rationality comes so easy to women that they would rather choose a different option. maybe because they dont have as many outlets to exercise their frustrations


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

That sounds a lot like bollocks.

Women aren't all the same for a start and I bet a whole heap of them would think that having someone grabbing at their tits and arse all the time would be stressful in itself. I've almost got a UTI just thinking about it.

Men can also be really needy for external validation too.

PS

Multiquote is a beautiful thing.








MoStoner12 said:


> i love this so much
> 
> because women think vaginas are the solution to every mans issues...not realizing how stressful most women can be.
> 
> ...


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

MoStoner12 said:


> i had a feeling i would find you here


I had a feeling you'd follow me everywhere looking for trouble.


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> it does if it starts impacting their behaviour and impact on others
> 
> good for you, I have touch as my hate language and I definitely don't equate them
> 
> yup


what is it like to not have touch as your main love language??? im curious. i have heard of "sex once a month is more than enough in a relationship" type of people. but it doesnt make sense to my brain clearly 

i hate people touching me but when i love someone i just want to touch them all the time (still somewhat uncomfortable with cuddling and the like though)


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

beth x said:


> That sounds a lot like bollocks.
> 
> Women aren't all the same for a start and I bet a whole heap of them would think that having someone grabbing at their tits and arse all the time would be stressful in itself. I've almost got a UTI just thinking about it.
> 
> ...


i mean, youre an intj female im assuming....so youre supposed to be different from every type of woman. i dont think you can speak on the general motivations of women because their brains dont work like yours 

i never said men dont need it, im saying most women think that is what what most people want as is how they judge the value and perceive the happiness of other people

i had an ex who thought that because i had a small circle of close friends and didnt care about validating myself to the masses that somehow that was the cause of my unhappiness or somehow diminished my value


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

IDontThinkSo said:


> I had a feeling you'd follow me everywhere looking for trouble.


touche mon ami


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

MoStoner12 said:


> for example how does one have tens, if not hundreds or thousands of DMs but still feel lonely. to a man that is irrational


depends on the contents of those DMs lol


> (there is male equivalent to that analogy, i wonder if you can guess it)


stay at ground floor?


> either way i think rationality comes so easy to women that they would rather choose a different option. maybe because they dont have as many outlets to exercise their frustrations


I can relate to that, personally


MoStoner12 said:


> what is it like to not have touch as your main love language??? im curious. i have heard of "sex once a month is more than enough in a relationship" type of people. but it doesnt make sense to my brain clearly
> 
> i hate people touching me but when i love someone i just want to touch them all the time (still somewhat uncomfortable with cuddling and the like though)


it makes dating pretty tedious sometimes I can tell you that much
if I don't connect with the person on every other way it just comes across as bothersome ("your body hurts me as the world hurts god" -type of thing). even with people I've truly loved it sometimes felt like I was just _tolerating_ it at best. not ALL the time, but sometimes.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

I think I could grab a woman from any type and say what I said with a little extra "yep that's absolute bollocks". They might say it in different words they may say it nicer or even meaner but I would bet my arse that I'm not alone in thinking that was a generalised and very untrue statement you made about women.

Generalising about women like you know their motivations, it's pretty insulting. You've stated that I am INTJ therefore different, but you've already made a statement that contradicts your first one. 

Your ex doesn't represent women either.



MoStoner12 said:


> i mean, youre an intj female im assuming....so youre supposed to be different from every type of woman. i dont think you can speak on the general motivations of women because their brains dont work like yours
> 
> i never said men dont need it, im saying most women think that is what what most people want as is how they judge the value and perceive the happiness of other people
> 
> i had an ex who thought that because i had a small circle of close friends and didnt care about validating myself to the masses that somehow that was the cause of my unhappiness or somehow diminished my value


Please use the multiquote. You spam the thread with Mostoner12 and we miss the flow of conversation.


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> depends on the contents of those DMs lol
> 
> stay at ground floor?
> 
> ...


"depends on the contents of those DMs lol"
i feel like this is a cop out answer. most women dont explore their options deep enough. they look for a reason to reject a man instead of looking for a reason to be with one

"stay at ground floor?"
most women like male intimacy. if youre a lesbian you stay at the ground floor

i think i understand you a bit


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

MoStoner12 said:


> "depends on the contents of those DMs lol"
> i feel like this is a cop out answer. most women dont explore their options deep enough. they look for a reason to reject a man instead of looking for a reason to be with one


I think you could argue that women on average might have more reason to be cautious, but if someone is actively looking for a reason to reject someone that's more of a personal issue IME.
what you said about exploring the options (i.e. potential for relationship) is something more typical to the dating culture at large, at least where I live.


> "stay at ground floor?"
> most women like male intimacy. if youre a lesbian you stay at the ground floor


no I meant men. but point taken


> i think i understand you a bit


yeah I figured you would


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

MoStoner12 said:


> yeah you right but it doesnt come from the lack of sex in itself
> 
> but the feeling of feeling unwanted and not loved in this forever growing into isolationist society we are developing into. they just want love. cant get it and feel sex is the answer


Lots of people want love. Doesn't mean you can just treat other people like sex objects with no needs, individuality, or value outside of having sex with you.

But I guess women must not know what it's like to want love--must be part of their illogical, reptilian brains that can't understand fancy things like "love" unlike angry young men who want to shoot up yoga studios because hot women won't fuck them.

Maybe women really need to take a page from incels to understand what true love is. Thankfully the incels wouldn't ever listen to an actual woman talk, unless it's to confirm their projections. I'm sure hating women is the best solution after all, when a society is growing isolated and lacks in love.


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> Lots of people want love. Doesn't mean you can just treat other people like sex objects with no needs, individuality, or value outside of having sex with you.
> 
> But I guess women must not know what it's like to want love--must be part of their illogical, reptilian brains that can't understand fancy things like "love" unlike angry young men who want to shoot up yoga studios because hot women won't fuck them.
> 
> Maybe women really need to take a page from incels to understand what true love is. Thankfully the incels wouldn't ever listen to an actual woman talk, unless it's to confirm their projections. I'm sure hating women is the best solution after all, when a society is growing isolated and lacks in love.


this rant had absolutely nothing to with what i said....i dont know if it was intended to or what....


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

MoStoner12 said:


> I don’t understand what sounds horrible 😂 but okay. I’ve never heard anyone say “I understand physical pleasure but it’s not important”....interesting statement


Well you said "everything is about sex" but "sex is about power," which means that everything is about power. And I don't like the idea of sex being about power--it could be one of the activities that is free from power imbalances.

I think that the emotional and spiritual part of sex is also important. I think physical pleasure is probably one of the easier ones?




> Well. In a world where a woman who is decent looking can have sex whenever she chooses....and men can only have sex when women see him as high value...there is a double standard. It’s not about judging (you’re a perceiver anyway 😂) it’s just about understanding the different realities men and women live in.


Well do you think men would not have sex whenever they choose, and have sex more than many women do, were they to be given that type of opportunity? I think all men are different, but it seems like a double standard if you would have sex with a lot of people in the same situation, and then judge a woman who does what you would do. You should then cheer her on and ask her how to do it.



> I just used expense because you used the word.
> 
> ‘relative poverty’ not necessarily real poverty for the most part. But in the rare case in the western world women would be faced with real poverty she would have to give up her child for not being able to provide for it. But many women just either use the government or the court system to get the man to pay.
> 
> I think their is a social return to kindness. People are more likely to help you when you are down because they remember when you helped them. Many people are evil leeches and don’t return the favour but some will. Don’t know if you believe in Karma but there’s that too.


I don't believe in karma though I believe in cause and effect. The legal system should be set up to primarily protect the most vulnerable--so that is the child. I know it's not perfect, but it need to protect children above the interest of adults, unless adult interest also aligns with what is best for the child. 



> I wouldn’t say I’m referring to agreeableness but I get what you mean. I would say kindness can lead to sex sometimes. At least in the male reality. If you have lots of female friends and they really like you because you’re a kind and genuine person....they Will tell their friends and it makes you seem less threatening and easier for women to talk to because they know you’re not dangerous and women like to be treated with kindness from time to time. It’s not the only factor but it can definitely get you browny points you didn’t know about because of how people talk about you when you’re not in the room.


This makes sense--maybe it could also have to do with rarity as well. Since it is less common for men to take the time to do what you describe here. But yeah, it also makes sense women would talk positively about a man they trust, and that he might be seen as more trustworthy by other women as well. 

But do you think if a group of men were to talk about how non-threatening a woman is, she would be treated the way the man is in your situation if she were trying to engage with a group of men? I would be afraid of gaining any kind of reputation around a group of men, because of how some groups of men seem to talk about women in a sort of disparaging way. Perhaps it is that I imagine a group of men as more threatening feeling than a group of women.



> women have always had privileges men don’t have. I feel like speaking in absolutes like “always” and “never” is disingenuous. There are often times women have those things. Like men pay for the first date. The man has to be the provider. Women get custody of the children. It’s more likely for a woman to marry a rich man and be a housewife. If all else fails she can just sell her vagina for money (only fan culture and the like). Sex is a walk in the park for women. Sex for men is literally a war zone in the jungle like the Vietnam war😂. Rape and sexual assault are awful and disgusting...I have nothing to say about that but it’s not even like women can rape men or would have to...


But men could also sell their asses for money, I am sure. Is that really a privilege? I think many men probably wouldn't want to sell their ass holes for money because it could be dangerous. It's not like you can't--so I never understand this argument. If it's such a privilege, then no one's stopping you from doing it (except the same laws that apply to women selling sex).

Though I agree that there are some drawbacks and benefits for both genders.



> I don’t know what it’s like to be raised like a woman but I guess conforming to societal expectations is more important to be accepted into the modern world as they more dependent than men on “the tribe”


Women aren't _dependent_ on the tribe--they are what makes up the tribe. Just as men are. So yeah--it has been networking that help with child raising and stuff--it's important in human communities to have support and work together--everything we have built (not "men have built" but WE have built as humans) has been a cooperative effort. 



> There are people who don’t value sex but those are the minority or the trauma victims.
> Women don’t provide emotional support for men so what else would men value women for apart from their sexual pleasure and baby making. If I open up and tell a woman about my problems she’s going to treat me like I’m weak and lose respect for me. Men don’t have as many needs. Emotional satisfaction/Physical pleasure are the only two things men want from others. Women only provide those things with their bodies. You can resent it but it just is what it is.


This isn't true for many men--many men do get emotional support from their partners. It isn't considered "weak" for women to talk about emotional stuff to each other--and that is not projected onto men. 

Some women are going to be less emotionally supportive than other women. Perhaps if you try being friends with a woman, you can learn whether or not she's emotionally supportive in the way you need. This is a part of emotional compatibility, imo.

Not all women can be emotionally supportive to all other women either. It is just not how everyone is because we all have different emotional needs in a relationship.



> if you don’t want to be valued for just your bodies then start listening to men’s problems without the “am i your mother” mentality and just be a friend. But that’s just not how women’s brains are wired


Not everyone will be a friend. This is definitely true of men as well as women. Many women are sympathetic, but usually with women venting to each other, there is unspoken reciprocity that is expected, so you should also seek to listen to a woman who is listening to you if you want it to be like a friendly venting session. And sometimes people do need advice, and not just listening. Or they even need to give criticism to help a person. And that is okay--it doesn't mean they don't care about you, but if it bothers you, then it's good to talk it out with the woman you are considering friendship with.

And maybe some women just want to fuck--they don't want to deal with the emotional aspect. But they should probably just be honest about that, right? Rather than pretend they care about you emotionally just to use you sexually.




> I dunno, it depends on your physical make up. Most women don’t like to exercise as much. I mean....when I was young I didn’t care how I looked. My body was awful but I was happy that it wasn’t priority to stress about. Most women care about their appearance but I guess if you don’t it can be like a weight off your shoulders.
> 
> Yeah I live in a village in the north of England, it doesn’t get much more white than that 😂


I think that there are different ways to care about one's appearance. Cosmetic companies would love if we were so insecure we bought every single product they produced. We should be afraid of our skincolor, our haircolor, our hair texture, the contours of our bodies and face, the composition of our body, our fashion sense (okay that's fashion industry).

That all has no regard for the woman's body or what she really wants to do with it or what she needs. So I think its better to care about one's appearance in the way of what one wants for one's self, and I think that sometimes takes a bit of time to understand, since many people have been getting messages from the industry from a young age, and it can be overwhelming. So yeah--it's normal to care about your appearance, but it's also important to set the standards for how you're going to do that so that it's beneficial to you, rather than destructive.

Well I'm glad you get to play ball now, even if you had trouble as a kid.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

@MoStoner12 

I also want to say, that if you are being serious--emotional support in groups of women is an interaction a lot of times. 

If someone is chronically invalidating the other woman's feelings, she will likely not be given the same amount of emotional support as if she was responsive and considerate of the women around her's feelings.

So you know what is emotionally invalidating? Denying people are feeling things that they do. Blanket statements about a gender or race tend to immediately do this.

Because imagine if you really like cake, and I keep telling you "men don't like cakes." That's not being emotionally supportive, because I'm not even allowing you to define your individual feelings yourself. I am just insisting on this thing I believe about you, that has nothing to do with allowing you to express yourself or listening to you.

Perhaps you do love cake--perhaps cake tastes sweet to you. Perhaps all the other men in the world hate cake. Emotional support is listening to you and allowing you to define your own emotions.

This is why sexism and racism aren't just nur nur nur PC culture trying to silence meh--it's Soros' fault. They are called "offensive" for a reason--because they are offensive. And that is the opposite of emotionally supportive.

So, just in case this actually is a real concern and not trolling--that is one of the very first things you could do to communicate to people that you are interested in engaging in an emotionally supportive interaction with them--to accept if you are emotionally invalidating them by telling them "all women x" or "no women x" and perhaps also avoid the women who tend to talk like this about "all men" or "all women." Because they may not be very emotionally supportive to an individual.

Emotional support, at the very basic level, requires accepting someone as an individual, and listening to their individual emotions. Something that some struggle with more than others, but if you can try to show some consideration to the types who do tend to try to consider people as individuals (and no--that doesn't mean excluding feminists or "sjws" because of the distorted caricatures that depict them as racists or sexists when they are not), then you might have more success.

This is only if you are being serious--I can't really tell if you are or not. If you are--you might want to pick up a book about emotional validation or supportive listening, so you can get an idea of what it looks like.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Here's the fact of the matter. If I were to suddenly get a lot of action, I wouldn't suddenly become a nice, male-feminist piece of little bitch shit.
> 
> I'd simply be an angry narcissist who also just so happens to get a lot of action. It would change literally nothing.


Objection! You'd be a _*happy*_ narcissist who also just so happens to get a lot of action. Having sex doesn't change who you are. It just improves your mood.


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

ENFPathetic said:


> Objection! You'd be a _*happy*_ narcissist who also just so happens to get a lot of action. Having sex doesn't change who you are. It just improves your mood.


Correction rejected.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Correction rejected.


Ok, that's fair. I was being a bit snarky.

Bad sleep/diet/lifestyle are far more likely to be the source of anger. Sex does improve mood though. That's probably where the notion comes from.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

MoStoner12 said:


> I don’t understand what sounds horrible 😂 but okay. I’ve never heard anyone say “I understand physical pleasure but it’s not important”....interesting statement
> 
> Well. In a world where a woman who is decent looking can have sex whenever she chooses....and men can only have sex when women see him as high value...there is a double standard. It’s not about judging (you’re a perceiver anyway 😂) it’s just about understanding the different realities men and women live in


Yeah, except women get called _"sluts"_ if they sleep with a lot of men. Men get called _"cool"_ if they sleep with a lot of women. Personally, I think both are just senseless social judgments, but the point is that while you are right that women will only sleep with high value guys and what women can sleep with men basically whenever they want, there is a price for that, where as for men there is never a price for that.

What is high value anyway? There's the classic narrative: looks, money, status. Then there's the narrative that is all like social value, you have social alliances, you have friends, you have people who have your back, sort of like power or social power, being value. And then there is this idea that value is giving a girl experiences, can pump social state and control social energy and that kind of stuff.

There's some validity to all 3 of them, more to some less to others.

Looks, attractiveness, is that of value? yes, because it's an indicator of health. If you have a symetrical face, if your body and physique look good it means you're healthy. What about resources, money and that kind of stuff? the more resources, money, assets that you can control, the more likely you have to live a better life, that's going to be very useful as well.

Social alliances, if you have people having your back, people owing you favors, people that are willing to work for you, that can obviously help you live a better life as well. That social aspect of like having friends, having alliances, that's very useful.

Giving a girl good experiences, pumping states, pumping emotions, that doesn't seem to relate directly to any kind of living a better life, so how is that actually valueable? because it represents social value indirectly. If you're good at interacting with people, making them laugh, making them have a positive experience, that indicates social experience, it indicates that you've been in social situations or you've taken risks and it has worked before, so it implies social value.

Or this idea of having girls around you, having girls make you look good, it implies social value.

So, it's not a direct social value thing, but it is an indiactor, actually technically a way of tricking people, of tricking or indicating social value, whether or not you actually posses it.

So why do we have guys who have money or status but don't get girls? why is there not a 1-to-1 correlation like that? Because it doesn't matter what you have, it matters what you show to the girl. And because just having 1 factor isn't what a girl is looking for, she's looking for the whole package.

Let's say that you're a rich guy with a Bentley, and your opener is _"hey, I'm rich I have a Bentley"_, you have shown that you have a level of wealth assuming the girl even believes you, but you've also shown that you're try hard and you try to impress her with it, which indicates you don't think you're enough for other reasons, it indicates that you have a scarcity of women, you've shown that you're good in this one category of wealth, but you've shown that you're bad in social categories, you've shown that you're bad in interacting with people, you've shown that you're needy, you've shown all these other things that are overly bad. And in general, people are going to believe the worst about you more than they will believe the best.

If you are saying something positive about yourself you have a strong incentive to lie. If something negative about you is being shown, that's usually accurate and honest because why would you intentionally say or do something negative?

So if you show a few positive qualities and a few negative qualities, people are going to believe the negative qualities but may not believe the positive qualities. So it matters not only that you have high value traits, it matters that you show them in a high value way.

And the overall package matters. Someone is not looking just for the guy who is good looking and like lame on every other level. Not just the guy who is wealthy and lame on every other level. Also not just the guy who has been with many other girls but is lame on every other level. You want to be that total package.


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

Dezir said:


> Yeah, except women get called _"sluts"_ if they sleep with a lot of men.


They kind of are. Plus, nowdays they call them empowered.



Dezir said:


> Men get called _"cool"_ if they sleep with a lot of women.


No they're not. They are called fuckboys that use women for sex and can't keep their life together.
Where the hell does the stereotype that men are praised for having sex with every woman in the city come from?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Andy 8184 said:


> No they're not. They are called fuckboys that use women for sex and can't keep their life together.


While this is true, it does not explain why many young women choose to have sex with men who have substance abuse issues, STDs, and a criminal record.



Andy 8184 said:


> Where the hell does the stereotype that men are praised for having sex with every woman in the city come from?


Young women tend to support whatever and whoever is considered culturally desirable where they live, and in contemporary American culture, rationality, foresight and elegance are considered to be effeminate. Instead, young men are encouraged to party it up, take drugs, be a "gangsta", swear and curse, get into drunken fist fights and rut with a slut as much as possible. Man has therefore been reduced to a beast that is ruled by its impulses. Further societal decline is inevitable, and eventually a collapse will ensue.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Meliodas said:


> While this is true, it does not explain why many young women choose to have sex with men who have substance abuse issues, STDs, and a criminal record.


Young women do a lot of things for a lot of reasons. Looking for broad scale reasons why a whole demographic might follow a particular trend you personally have observed is an exercise in demographic essentialism and a waste of time. If you personally know women who do this why don't you just ask them?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Whatexists said:


> Young women do a lot of things for a lot of reasons. Looking for broad scale reasons why a whole demographic might follow a particular trend you personally have observed is an exercise in demographic essentialism and a waste of time. If you personally know women who do this why don't you just ask them?


I do know women who behave this way - including, I am ashamed to say, a few in my own family - and I have asked them this exact question. To date, I have never received a direct, honest answer. Instead, they take the question as a personal attack, become defensive, accuse me of racism, sexism, classism, whatever -ism is fashionable, and try to deflect and dissimulate. They leverage the family's wealth and reputation to avoid accountability whilst corroding the foundations that our privileges were built upon.

Such wilful ignorance suggests to me that deep down, they are compensating for something. My theory is that gangstas, meatheads, and vagabonds act as a form of escape from the burdens of adult life. They represent a form of contempt for and rebellion against the structures of civilization, and symbolically, against the authority of the father. Hence the sexual fantasy of a return to nature - of a man who is wild, impulsive, and unpredictable, a savage who can only destroy and never create. In any case, I blame a combination of thuggery being idolized in the culture and overly indulgent parenting. Women who've been coddled, treated with deference as "ladies", and told that they can do anything from a young age will become conceited, bored, and will make foolish choices.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Meliodas said:


> I do know women who behave this way - including, I am ashamed to say, a few in my own family - and I have asked them this exact question. To date, I have never received a direct, honest answer. Instead, they take the question as a personal attack, become defensive, accuse me of racism, sexism, classism, whatever -ism is fashionable, and try to deflect and dissimulate. They refuse to take any responsibility for the choices they make.
> 
> This suggests to me that deep down, they are compensating for something. My theory is that gangstas, meatheads, and vagabonds act as a form of escape from the burdens of adult life. They represent a form of contempt for and rebellion against the structures of civilization, and symbolically, against the authority of the father. Hence the sexual fantasy of a return to nature - of a man who is wild, impulsive, and unpredictable, a savage who can only destroy and never create. In any case, I blame a combination of thuggery being idolized in the culture and overly indulgent parenting. Women who've been coddled, treated like a "lady", and told that they can do anything from a young age will become bored. A decadent aristocracy makes foolish choices.


Yeah, sorry. There isn't a single reason. That's my point. Demographic essentialism is a waste of time. Plus, maybe you should listen when they tell you that your question is problematic. Because it is. Inherently.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Whatexists said:


> Yeah, sorry. There isn't a single reason. That's my point. Demographic essentialism is a waste of time. Plus, maybe you should listen when they tell you that your question is problematic. Because it is. Inherently.


Sentimentality, as Oscar Wilde once said, is a luxury. It is easy to feel some quasi-spiritual connection to humanity as a whole when you don't have to pay a price for that belief. Like him, I am deeply skeptical of the idea that freedom is the highest virtue, and that we should tolerate anything except intolerance. My fear, which is frequently confirmed IRL, is that relativist attitudes inevitably lead to a loss of discernment, nuance, and curiosity in life. For many people, exhortations to "be kind" and "feel unity" are just an intellectually lazy way for them to feel good about themselves, and avoid asking the big questions about what makes a society successful, who belongs in it, and who doesn't.

I have only one rule, and that is to always observe and follow my self-interest. I figure out what I want, who, and what is aligned to my objectives, and support it/them accordingly. There are no exceptions.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Meliodas said:


> I have only one rule, and that is to always observe and follow my self-interest. I figure out what I want, who, and what is aligned to my objectives, and support it/them accordingly. There are no exceptions.


You sound like you've been reading too much Ayn Rand. Pure self-interest isn't a winning strategy in the long run in society. Society functions because cooperation yields better long term results in prisoner's dilemma's then pure self interest, when communication is possible.

You should try reading a little more Kant or Kierkegaard. Maybe read up on the logic underpinning human rights and why "everyone is valid" isn't just an empty platitude, it's a rational belief based in logic. I've never met a relativist who lacked nuance or the ability to discern or a curiosity for life. And relativist attitudes have only ever increased those things for me. If you can show me evidence of some kind that relativism, an inherently complex and nuanced perspective, reduces interest in or ability to see nuance relative to absolutism, an inherently non-complex nuance free perspective, I'll consider it. But your attitude sounds quite a lot like it's based extensively on confirmation biases justifying untested beliefs. A lot of deep intellectual work has gone into the platitudes you've dismissed as lazy. Intellectual work aimed at answering those very questions you think those answers are means to escape rather then answer. It's the work of the greater number of great minds in the field of philosophy.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I sometimes wonder (I do not have any data) whether younger generations have lost their incentive to develop interpersonal/intrapersonal communication skills because "screen culture" has supplanted the actual need to interact.
> 
> I didn't have internet/Web, or a smartphone as a horny teenage male, so if I wanted to get intimate with a young woman, I had to walk up and talk to her. If she wasn't interested, I had to talk to another, and so on. I developed the skill because I was motivated to do so.
> 
> ...


Great answer.

I think a lot of the problem in my generation is not too much life experience in interacting face to face. Doesn't mean we never do it, but we certainly have a lack of it. Thus creating awkward people such as myself...


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Eren Jaegerbomb said:


> Great answer.
> 
> I think a lot of the problem in my generation is not too much life experience in interacting face to face. Doesn't mean we never do it, but we certainly have a lack of it. Thus creating awkward people such as myself...


Thanks. My own personal experience was that I realized that if I walked up to 10 women, 9 of them would probably shoot me down, but 1 would see the spark in my eyes and we'd strike up a conversation. You have to be willing to accept rejection as part of the process if you're ever going to find someone special. That's part of how it works. I think for people who don't have the experience with interaction, this becomes a anxiety-ridden, paralyzing, non-starter. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, though.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Meliodas said:


> I do know women who behave this way - including, I am ashamed to say, a few in my own family - and I have asked them this exact question. To date, I have never received a direct, honest answer. Instead, they take the question as a personal attack, become defensive, accuse me of racism, sexism, classism, whatever -ism is fashionable, and try to deflect and dissimulate. They leverage the family's wealth and reputation to avoid accountability whilst corroding the foundations that our privileges were built upon.
> 
> Such wilful ignorance suggests to me that deep down, they are compensating for something. My theory is that gangstas, meatheads, and vagabonds act as a form of escape from the burdens of adult life. They represent a form of contempt for and rebellion against the structures of civilization, and symbolically, against the authority of the father. Hence the sexual fantasy of a return to nature - of a man who is wild, impulsive, and unpredictable, a savage who can only destroy and never create. In any case, I blame a combination of thuggery being idolized in the culture and overly indulgent parenting. Women who've been coddled, treated with deference as "ladies", and told that they can do anything from a young age will become conceited, bored, and will make foolish choices.


Yes, some women are like that, but not all women are like that. Personally, I feel sorry for women who go for these kinds of people: the bad boys, the alpha males, the brutes, the ones who feel like they need to be the biggest, baddest, meanest and strongest in the group and be able to tear others down just with a look in their eyes, the dominant bully. Modern society doesn't work that way, we no longer need those behaviors to survive, in fact we may have not needed them in the past either, looking at animal leaders, some alpha males are bullies, those who frighten everyone, but others are the leaders, those who mediate conflicts, stop conflicts, they are consoler-in-chief and a unifier for the group, and if they are a good leader that everyone likes, the group will defend them, so they don't need to be the strongest, baddest or meanest. And mankind's biggest advantage in the wildness was their numbers rather than their strength or intelligence, no other animal could form groups of over 100 people, except humans. You may be a mammoth, but when 50 tiny animals with spears attack you, your size and strength don't matter that much. If that behavior wasn't the best way to go back then, I assume it's even a worse way to go today. So why some women still end up with those guys? probably they like the adrenaline, the rush and the sponaneity that a bully has to offer. But I feel sorry for them, because essentially they are the ones who are going to suffer because of this.

The women who go for wild, impulsive, unpredictable and savage men are essentially no better than the guys who think that they can't get girls because they are just so nice but really are just kind of platonic rather than the caring treat you like a human being, an individual person with thoughts and desires, a separate person you need to interact with while showing care and interest, type of nice, they are just not mean, which is not much to go on, they don't have any other qualities to back themselves up with. When it comes to the women who go for bad boys, isn't it obvious that if someone is bad with people around you, eventually he will be bad with you? Yes, it kind of is. It's like dating a tiger and expecting him not to bite you. He may not do it at first, but eventually, more often than not, this is what happens. Because that novelty, that _"I'm trying to conquer you"_ wears off and they become used with you, taking you for granted, and they start behaving with you like they behave with other people in general, except worse, because being his girlfriend he can afford doing a lot more with you.

Now, some things could be seen as bad by some people buy okay by others, such as teasing. In my opinion, teasing is okay as long as you start out small with very light, innocent teasing and see how they respond. Do they think it's funny? Try something small and see if you get a positive response before saying anything more bold.

It's important to have a balance between the teasing. It can't be the only thing you do. More importantly, it doesn't work if you're the only one making fun of the other person in the relationship. The point is the other person getting back at you, it doesn't have to be right away, but just striving for some equality is important. If the person usually has a positive response but rarely takes the initiative to tease you, you can occasionally make fun of yourself instead to balance it a bit.

A lot of humor in teasing is being creative instead of just making fun of the person. Make a specific joke! For example, instead of saying your friend sucks at _some sport_, make a comparison that _something/someone that clearly can't play well_ would do a better job.

Balance it by making up for the "mean" behavior by going out of your way to be friendly. Give genuine compliments, and try to have moments where you lift the other person up, instead of being just a "regular" friendly person. Give the person meaningful memories of you being nice as well. You don't have to do this constantly, but balance out your "good" and "bad" behavior.

But most importantly, it is impossible to craft the perfect theoretical formula that you then can apply to any situation. It all comes down to trial and error. Every relationship is going to be different in how much teasing/banter is part of it, and how much the other person enjoys that humor.

If you're unsure about your behavior being offensive or not, instead of overthinking it's better to just ask the person afterwards (Hey, how do you feel about me making jokes about _thing_ ?).

It's not the same thing as being 'mean', when done right, teasing is sweet. You make fun of a trait that is not so bothersome. You can win people over by teasing them. It takes a bit of guts to tease someone. But only if it's done right. And you know you've done right if you've pissed them off and they're still standing there throwing come backs at you. I think the mindset for teasing is don't be serious, to be playful and creative. The most funny thing in teasing is the narrative, how is said and what is said, rather than the most devastating insult possible, it's teasing not a roast. You're not saying anything offensive or insulting, you're poking fun at her for various things.

You don't outright say the bad, but build upon it, let the conclusion be formed. A good tease can make you feel slightly negative but mostly positive. When people get called out on their crap and being poked and prod at, it can amuse them greatly. Of course, it's only fun when both parties know it's not serious. If you pissed them off and they still like it, it's usually teasing done right. And if try try to chase you and "get you back" that means they enjoy it. Teasing only works when the person teased is confident that the teasing is just teasing. Which has a lot to do with the reputation of the teaser, how that person views him. Show your good character to make up for the bad. The 'bad' in teasing is more likely to be seen as a joke if you're thought of as as someone who would not genuinely think or do that.

However, fortunately, for most girls, you don't need to be an alpha or a matcho man, women just want a caring and comfortable relationship, just like men do. In fact, that alpha men get the girls is pure crap, you don't need to be the biggest brute or bully to get the girls. They are humans, treat them like humans, the other gender isn't a whole new country. What do I mean with treat them like humans? treat them with kindness and assume they are good natured. But also, just like humans, assume they will act in their best interest and you need to offer something of value for them to want to be in a relationship with you, you don't need to be an asshole, you just need to a good guy who treats them with care and has something to offer in terms of having fun, having a chill time together. You can be caring and fun, but also make your romantic interest clear, if you do, you'll get friendzoned. And can you really blame the woman for that? if you never make it clear that you are romantically interested in them, the friendzone is the default road. If you make your romantic interest clear and get refused or friendzone, you always have the choice of just walk away or continue to remain friends, the friendzone is always a choice.

You can attract with empathy, by showing care for her. You don't need to be a brute or macho man, you don't need to be this strong though guy who can always stand up for himself when wronged, and not doing so won't make you a wuss, it simply makes you a normal person. In fact, _"wuss"_ is usually a term used by those toxic Chads, alpha men or matcho men who get the women that you yourself have described, but in my opinion, they are not quality women, a quality woman would never go for such a thing. Don't go on the other extreme with this, not list your own opinions out of fear of disapproval or be desperate as in seem too pushy and insistent with her. And don't try agree on everything they say and do which seems fake, I mean really? if someone always agrees with you, something is off, it's essentially you're trying to please and and conform to her own views to get her like you, you are basically forcing yourself to be validated which is not good, rather than being your own individual person with your own opinions about things you consider good or bad in the world. Being disrespectful or offensive is bad, disagreement is not bad, you can be your own person expressing your own opinions while being essentially a kind and nice guy, a fundamentally good person. You got to have some decency as a person. If anything, the ability to stand up for yourself when wronged only makes you more powerful in relation with other men.

I don't support beating your kids, I support talking nicely to them and explaining them what they did wrong and why they can't have this and that and so on, and if they still misbehave cut them access to something they like, but be careful if they are misbehaving out of a lack of attention, because even negative attention is attention, that's probably your fault and you should give your kid more attention, but never beat them. Anyway, I'm getting off-topic, the point I wanted to make is that I heard this father once saying _"if I ever come to highschool and hear that you had a fight, if it was your fault, I'll beat you as well right there next to the teachers, if it wasn't your fault, go ahead and beat those who started a fight with you"_. And this, although a bit exaggerated, kind of illustrates what having some decency as a person while standing up for yourself when wronged is. If you are at fault, you deserve the bad and you should try to change your behavior into a more decent one, if you're not at fault, you should stand up for yourself when wronged.

Now, with girls, you are hopefully never pick any fights with them ever. Even when the girls is clearly unambiguously at fault, picking a fight with a girl is kind of a bad thing to do, you should probably use your superior strength to just stop her hitting you. But you can stand up for yourself when wronged in non-fighting scenarios or ways. You can even be diplomatic about it, standing out for yourself doesn't mean automatically shouting or screaming, but the idea in standing up for yourself when wronged is that you do something about you, you don't just stand there and take it. You can be fundamentally a good person and a gentleman who is able to stand up for himself when wronged.

Much like the kids example, take people with a nice approach, talk nicely to people, this will make them much more likely to be responsive to you, and won't lower your value unless you do it in an undermining yourself humble way. Having some decency as a person as a person implies that when you see a conflict you try to solve in a diplomatic and reasonable way that satisfies both sides, even say _"hey look, I noticed this and I don't like it"_ or _"it makes me feel this way"_ followed by _"could you please stop"_, hoping the other person will be understanding of you. If the diplomatic and reasonable way doesn't work, then try to put your feet in the ground and be more authoritarian or strict, but above all, do stand up for yourself when wronged or else you may end up being used. It's somewhat moral and a show of strength to stand up for yourself when wronged, but it's not a wuss thing to do but normal person not to stand up for yourself and wronged and react, not everyone does that, although ideally, even if it implies conflict, be a guy who can defend himself when wronged, but not a guy who attacks others.

It's rather humiliating for you to be the one taking the lower position when you were the one wronged, so don't do it in a way that comes across as humble or inferior despite you being the one wronged, a _"may I please as for your mercry to stop_" or _"I humbly request that you won't do that again please"_ pretty please sort of way, but in a polite way where you try to explain what they did wrong _"you're doing this and I don't like, it makes me feel this way, could you please stop doing it"_ or _"this is a problem, it creates an inconvenience for these people, let's see how we can work this out"_ way, you are nice and try to solve the conflict hoping the other person will be understanding, but also have your pride and dignity, you're not lowering yourself, but simply trying to be diplomatic and reasonable to them. You don't need to be a jerk or a bully, you just need to be a person with a moral compass and strength and stand up for yourself when wronged, in relation with other men, but sometimes with women too, this doesn't make you a bad person or the bully if you are the one being wronged. But this does not say much in relation with women, it's a nice to have, it's nice to have someone who can stand up for you or them, but there are a lot more things more important in a partner for a woman, such as the experience she is having with him, you can do very well with women without the ability to stand up for yourself. And if you have the ability, don't put it to practice that often, and when you put it, do it verbally, followed by threatening to talk to their boss or call the police depending on the scenario, only pick up a physical fight if there is absolutely no other choice and you aren't the one who stared the fight.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

MoStoner12 said:


> Hmmm, okay...
> I mean....🤔 I’ve never thought about how I choose my male friends and why they chose me, that’s a good question....
> 
> 
> ....men and women make friends differently.


So.... You've never thought about how you choose your friends, or how they choose you, BUT are certain that men and women make friends differently? 

And that makes sense to you?


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

MoStoner12 said:


> Women don’t provide emotional support for men so what else would men value women for apart from their sexual pleasure and baby making. If I open up and tell a woman about my problems she’s going to treat me like I’m weak and lose respect for me. Men don’t have as many needs. Emotional satisfaction/Physical pleasure are the only two things men want from others. Women only provide those things with their bodies. You can resent it but it just is what it is.


Who started this rumour? I've seen it thrown around this forum so much, and have yet to see an actual good source that "women lose respect for a male telling her his problems." I'd lose respect for an so that didn't open up to me. My husband talks to me about his feelings.

Hell, i have an intp good friend, who is the most likely person to downplay his pain and problems in the world. I'm pretty much the only person he will open up and talk to about that shit easily. We're genuinely good friends and i don't have less respect for him because he actually opens up. We don't ONLY talk about emotional issues/problems (his or mine), we mostly talk about shared interests, hobbies, random weird shit, and such. Would it annoy me if he only contacted me about problems? Yeah, because that's not what friends do. It would probably annoy him if I did that.

If some guy I didn't know, didn't really have a friendship with, etc started talking to me about his problems, that would be weird. It would be weird if a woman did that as well. It would be the weirdest if it was a crow, but out of the three, I'd absolutely figure out a way to help that crow fix their problem.

Also, i don't think those are the only things men want. If I stopped having actual conversations with either my husband or my intp friend mentioned earlier about hobbies and interests, and only had emotional conversions, I'm pretty sure neither would enjoy that. If I stopped wanting to engage in hobbies and interests and such, our entire dynamic would change massively. I TRY to get my husband to go hangout with his friends. He genuinely doesn't think it's as much fun without me going as well. I've TRIED to get him to. Edit: no one mentioned wants more children. 

Sure, my sample size for this post is only two intps. They're the two adults i talk to the most.

Also, how am I supposed to make friends if not over interests? I've genuinely made at least two friends by arguing with each other first and then we both realized the other was pretty cool. I think I'm apparently doing this wrong and need more clear instructions.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Dezir said:


> The women who go for wild, impulsive, unpredictable and savage men


I've severely ADHD (99th percentile) and a woman. I'm impulsive, unpredictable, and savage, and impatient, etc, enough for two. I guess this explains why I haven't really been into men like that. 

...But what the hell is wrong with the men who have liked me then? Lmao


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

> Why is male anger chalked up to not getting a lot of sex nowadays?


For the same reason female anger is chalked up to either not getting enough sex or being on the rag.

It's just an easy thing to blame. I'm pretty sure no one actually believes it, from what I understand it's virtually the same thing as saying a person has a stick up their ass.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Hexcoder said:


> For the same reason female anger is chalked up to either not getting enough sex or being on the rag.
> 
> It's just an easy thing to blame. I'm pretty sure no one actually believes it, from what I understand it's virtually the same thing as saying a person has a stick up their ass.


It is known who is fucked well and who is not from miles away.
If they are with their partner, you have to analyze their behavior when they are together for 3 seconds and you already know all the dynamics in the bedroom.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

impulsenine said:


> It is known who is fucked well and who is not from miles away.
> If they are with their partner, you have to analyze their behavior when they are together for 3 seconds and you already know all the dynamics in the bedroom.


Sometimes you can tell just by looking in their eyes. Cross-eyed people have the best sex of all.

The funniest part is that the OP was also a bit snippy in this thread, lol.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Hexcoder said:


> Sometimes you can tell just by looking in their eyes. Cross-eyed people have the best sex of all.
> 
> The funniest part is that the OP was also a bit snippy in this thread, lol.


Why do those cross-eyed have the best sex?
I don't know who OP is and I have no idea what this thread is about, I cared only about your post.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

impulsenine said:


> Why do those cross-eyed have the best sex?
> I don't know who OP is and I have no idea what this thread is about, I cared only about your post.


Lmaooo


* *






Their eyes get stuck


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Hexcoder said:


> Lmaooo
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


🤣🤣🤣
_I'll fuck you 'til your eyes sit still _- is what they say one to each other?


----------



## 497882 (Nov 6, 2017)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Here's the fact of the matter. If I were to suddenly get a lot of action, I wouldn't suddenly become a nice, male-feminist piece of little bitch shit.
> 
> I'd simply be an angry narcissist who also just so happens to get a lot of action. It would change literally nothing.


Okay you don't want to hear this but a lot of it is due to hornyness. Since a lot of men become enraged when they can't stick thier hose in something. Like if a girl rejects them or they feel you ow them love and sex since they were nice to you. Society normalizes this behavior so much that people just assume that rage filled hornyness is just a male condition. Once we teach people that nobody cares how horny someone is it's not a reason to have a tantrum we can get to the root of anger that are coming from other sources. Until than all Society sees is angry hornyness.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

I dunno, maybe it has something to with Blackpillers and Inc5ls writing maninfestos before they go on a bang bang shooting spree. That kinda leaves an impression on people (and not a good one), do you get me?


----------

