# 2 harsh realities that will keep most men and women alone



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

In a totally socially liberal society that is.

They are:

1) that most men (50-80%) are absolutely physically and sexually unattractive to women. Women would rather chop wood, or clean a public toilet, than have sex with most men. Their biology is repelled, even repulsed by most men physically 

2) men do not find the vast majority (much more than 80%) of women interesting. So if a woman is looking for a 'real life partner who I'm very physically attracted to', most are going to be disappointed. 
The men who would pretend to be interested in your personality are just unattractive men who are desperate for sex.
The very attractive (top 5-20%) of men who can get a new girl every week, don't need need to pretend they find you interesting. They will sleep with you and move on, not wanting to be tied down. If you are looking to tie down a very physically attractive men, unless you are one of those very special women who men find interesting beyond the physical, you will be disappointed.


In this socially liberal age, neither men or women are interested in compromise, so the majority of both will grow old alone and unsatisfied.


----------



## Phil (Dec 27, 2010)




----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

The expected lethargic, passive aggressive beta response with no argument to back it up.

So predictable!


Phil said:


>


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

rohan89 said:


> In a totally socially liberal society that is.
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...


Yeah but these days I find almost nobody in person truly interesting because it seems as if there's almost nothing left to know.

Surely we are willing to compromise? It's merely there's a sort of paralysis period of paradox of choice before certain hard realities become impossible to ignore...


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

@Six

I totally agree. Compromise is essential. Being happy with having one person for yourself, with all their flaws and strengths.

I would be more than happy with that.

It's interesting you say there's nothing left to know. I agree there's nothing to know externally, at a skin deep level.

There is so much to know about another person at an inner level which as been ignored by this society. Ie look at tinder, we are reducing people to a few pictures and a short description that we swipe left or right to.

I want an intimate relationship with one person and to know them deeply. To know their fears, and allay them. To know their insecurities, and assure them that they're good enough.

I want to be someone who can nourish a person's soul, rather than just provide them with empty physical satisfaction.


----------



## flamesabers (Nov 20, 2012)

I think you're underestimating how loneliness, desperation and never-ending rejection from their ideal persons (especially as people get older) can pressure people to lower their standards. It's nothing unique with relationships, it's just human nature. Imagine not eating any food for several days. After being hungry for so long, you'll probably be far less picky about how food tastes than if you just had an excellent meal 5-6 hours ago. 

Or consider if you were unemployed and looking for a job. At first you apply for jobs you were love to have. However, if none of these companies hire you, you'll likely lower your standards for which jobs you'll apply for as the risk of becoming homeless increases. At some point you'll decide that you're willing to work a crappy job if it means having a roof over your head and food to eat.

Some people do stay single for life. However, if having a partner and/or children is a high priority in your life, you'll have to lower your standards if you can't be with your ideal partner.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

rohan89 said:


> I want an intimate relationship with one person and to know them deeply. To know their fears, and allay them. To know their insecurities, and assure them that they're good enough.
> 
> I want to be someone who can nourish a person's soul, rather than just provide them with empty physical satisfaction.


I've passed through the center of enough people's souls at this point to feel pretty sure but for a few weird landscapes there's nothing really unique *inside* any one of them... they all have the same fears, the same insecurities - it's not exactly a broad or impressive palette - there's nothing *inside* which is inherently more precious - it's actually coterminous with what's on the outside.






You just want to feel special, you poor soul.


----------



## Janna (Aug 31, 2018)

Most men are definitely very sexually unappealing to most women (isn't this also true the other way round?), and yes most women would indeed much rather clean toilets than have sex with them (just think of the cost of buying sex vs. buying cleaning services). But surely you don't mean that 50-80 % men are sexually unappealing to _all_ women? Just by looking at what is actually happening around us doesn't support that theory. Most adults keep having all kinds of sexual relationships all the time, with people who don't look like the "top 5-20 %" physically, and most even get married and have children at some point. We have been living in a socially liberal age for some time already, and in most countries women have also, for some time already, been working and supporting themselves financially. People have all this sex mostly voluntarily. 

As for the other figure, it sounds very optimistic to me (well, depending on what "much more than 80 %" means - for instance 99 % would be much more than 80 %...), and not just about men finding women interesting, but also the other way round. There are definitely much, much fewer than 20 men out of a hundred that I find interesting, and if I find that one that seems to actually be interesting, he'll probably start becoming more sexually appealing to me. Very few of my exes are super handsome, but I was still genuinely attracted to them at the time.

Having said that, I don't completely disagree with you. People have a choice, and that can mean less sex and more single people in the future (even though as I said, this is not a brand new development). I just don't think that it's especially sad or unsatisfying. How satisfying was it really for the ones who were having sex with the horribly unappealing, depressingly uninteresting people?


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Ultimately I think it's kinda hard to deny when you realize that people used to essentially pair off 1:1, at least to a much greater extent. Maybe it is kind of like a "channel surfing" phenomenon. When you're watching TV or listening to radio, surfing through continually hoping to find something great is a lot less fulfilling than just committing to something.

I say this because the common response to this kind of thread is a smug, "what, so you just want people to marry people they are not attracted to?" No, that's not really how things work.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

In very recent times though, far fewer people are getting together for long term relationships, marriage or to have a family.

My personal opinion is that technology has warped people's minds so much that they are not in touch with reality. Ie many young men really think they can't be happy with just one woman, and many young women really think that there is always a better guy.

We will see. 



flamesabers said:


> I think you're underestimating how loneliness, desperation and never-ending rejection from their ideal persons (especially as people get older) can pressure people to lower their standards. It's nothing unique with relationships, it's just human nature. Imagine not eating any food for several days. After being hungry for so long, you'll probably be far less picky about how food tastes than if you just had an excellent meal 5-6 hours ago.
> 
> Or consider if you were unemployed and looking for a job. At first you apply for jobs you were love to have. However, if none of these companies hire you, you'll likely lower your standards for which jobs you'll apply for as the risk of becoming homeless increases. At some point you'll decide that you're willing to work a crappy job if it means having a roof over your head and food to eat.
> 
> Some people do stay single for life. However, if having a partner and/or children is a high priority in your life, you'll have to lower your standards if you can't be with your ideal partner.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

I disagree that the inside is coterminous with the outside. I am experiencing my inner boundlessness myself.

As for wanting to feel special, you're probably right 🙂
I am an artist after all.



Six said:


> I've passed through the center of enough people's souls at this point to feel pretty sure but for a few weird landscapes there's nothing really unique *inside* any one of them... they all have the same fears, the same insecurities - it's not exactly a broad or impressive palette - there's nothing *inside* which is inherently more precious - it's actually coterminous with what's on the outside.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Certainly not all women, but my experience is that most women are biologically attracted to typically the same type of guy these days (looks, height etc).

Sexual relationships are easy to get, but there is an increasing hint of things being short term in relationships today. There's the feeling that people have so many options that they can leave at any time. I think that is unfortunate.

As I said above, we are more socially liberal today because of technology.

People have more opportunity to explore sexual options that may not have been logistically available to them a decade ago.

And you are quite correct, internet addiction has left most men utterly uninteresting as well.

As for your last part, I don't know. There were women who I gave (real) orgasms to a decade ago in college who probably wouldn't be too interested in me today because I'm not Chad.

On the other side, my first sexual experiences where we did conventional things were very satisfying to me. It is only when I went down the neverending road of internet lust did normal sexual practices become too unsatisfying for me, and the woman needed to be as nasty as the things that I'd seen on my computer screen.
See what I mean? 'Unattractive' can be relevant to the amount of (imagined or real) choice one has.



Janna said:


> Most men are definitely very sexually unappealing to most women (isn't this also true the other way round?), and yes most women would indeed much rather clean toilets than have sex with them (just think of the cost of buying sex vs. buying cleaning services). But surely you don't mean that 50-80 % men are sexually unappealing to _all_ women? Just by looking at what is actually happening around us doesn't support that theory. Most adults keep having all kinds of sexual relationships all the time, with people who don't look like the "top 5-20 %" physically, and most even get married and have children at some point. We have been living in a socially liberal age for some time already, and in most countries women have also, for some time already, been working and supporting themselves financially. People have all this sex mostly voluntarily.
> 
> As for the other figure, it sounds very optimistic to me (well, depending on what "much more than 80 %" means - for instance 99 % would be much more than 80 %...), and not just about men finding women interesting, but also the other way round. There are definitely much, much fewer than 20 men out of a hundred that I find interesting, and if I find that one that seems to actually be interesting, he'll probably start becoming more sexually appealing to me. Very few of my exes are super handsome, but I was still genuinely attracted to them at the time.
> 
> Having said that, I don't completely disagree with you. People have a choice, and that can mean less sex and more single people in the future (even though as I said, this is not a brand new development). I just don't think that it's especially sad or unsatisfying. How satisfying was it really for the ones who were having sex with the horribly unappealing, depressingly uninteresting people?



Thank you. I agree with you. 



Amine said:


> Ultimately I think it's kinda hard to deny when you realize that people used to essentially pair off 1:1, at least to a much greater extent. Maybe it is kind of like a "channel surfing" phenomenon. When you're watching TV or listening to radio, surfing through continually hoping to find something great is a lot less fulfilling than just committing to something.
> 
> I say this because the common response to this kind of thread is a smug, "what, so you just want people to marry people they are not attracted to?" No, that's not really how things work.


----------



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

rohan89 said:


> In a totally socially liberal society that is.
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...



Assuming we brought back a more traditionalist, conservative society... What exactly would change in regards to what you're saying? Because I'm sure nothing much would, we'd just be more sexually repressed. 

Would women stop being repulsed by the majority of men? Would men find the majority of women more interesting if we were more conservative? 


I bet we'd still be rather spending our time on the internet or with other technologies. Especially once AI becomes a bigger thing.
The internet might be even more addictive in a more conservative world since it becomes even more of an escape from all these social taboos present in conservative societies (assuming this conservative society wasn't too rigidly authoritarian about how people use the internet).


Not forgetting to mention the effects of income inequality due to conservative / neo-liberal economic policy and how that impedes on social mobility within the young, thus making it harder to form romantic relationships or marry.
For example, if I can't afford a home, I'm not likely going to find someone to live with me.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

idealism-paralysis is a personal problem, not a societal one. Our modern socially liberal society merely allows it to flourish, and even cultivates it in some instances. It's still a personal issue though.


----------



## Janna (Aug 31, 2018)

rohan89 said:


> On the other side, my first sexual experiences where we did conventional things were very satisfying to me. It is only when I went down the neverending road of internet lust did normal sexual practices become too unsatisfying for me, and the woman needed to be as nasty as the things that I'd seen on my computer screen.


Ok, I see what you mean. That is indeed a problem that'll keep both parties from having satisfying sex.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

As is a situation where an objectively mediocre, or even below average looking woman decides she won't 'settle' for men who aren't 6'3 and 7 inches.

There are women who I gave (real) orgasms to a decade ago in college who would probably give me a dull stare and speak to me in a monotone voice If we'd been in college today, and I'd approached them.

Because of the illusion of choice, people rationalize that they don't 'like' something.

Hell, when I was addicted to fast food, lean chicken skewers would've tasted pretty bad to me.

Now I love them, as my mind isn't conditioned anymore to the empty dopamine hit.



Janna said:


> rohan89 said:
> 
> 
> > On the other side, my first sexual experiences where we did conventional things were very satisfying to me. It is only when I went down the neverending road of internet lust did normal sexual practices become too unsatisfying for me, and the woman needed to be as nasty as the things that I'd seen on my computer screen.
> ...


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

rohan89 said:


> In a totally socially liberal society that is.
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...


As a 57 y/o male I can speak from experience that your theory is false
I’ve been propositioned by 30 year olds
Most senior women do date men of similar age
While it’s true that many a senior finds the [10-20] age gap more attractive
Many will not date someone 20 years their junior


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Extreme sexual liberalism was never widely practiced, our strong pair-bonding instincts preclude that. The only example I can think of are hippie communes. Even the weaker version known as open relationships is falling out of fashion, millennials are less likely to accept cheating than Xers and boomers.

People who experiment with sexually liberal lifestyle as young adults often settle down during their 30s. No reason to worry about the OP's scenario.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

@VinnieBob 

Did you consider the idea that they found your money attractive?


Many young men in the west don't have the opportunities for a steady, well paying job that men of your generation had.

For that reason I'm not surprised that women who are at an age where they are trying to find a provider, were interested in you


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

rohan89 said:


> In a totally socially liberal society that is.
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...


Many however, can compromise. It developes with age and experience.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

And regarding your second post. Wow. 

Are you sure you're not a man? Because you showed a lot of insight on men that I've not read from women online.

You're right regarding coming across as masculine being more important than looks.

I am 5'8-5'9 and maybe slightly above average in the face, and I was seen as one of the biggest 'players' in my year at university (2007-09), and the main thing that separated me was coming across extremely comfortable with myself and masculine.

I live in Australia though, and the culture has become so surface level and vapid in the last decade. Here, I believe women are now much more obsessed with looks, but they are unappealing to be with themselves, with their shallow personalities.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

See now this thread's getting good...



Catwalk said:


> It is not really genetic(s). About %50 of men I see I would call attractive enough, but rate them a 2/10 if someone asked. And male models are not that sexy. Most men women have casual sex with just come off as extremely masculine & interested in women --- so they [know women]. They are more attractive & appeal to female specimens because they do not ask women to 'accept them as they are' -- they instead go out and learn all of what women like, get fit, & go fuck bitches.
> 
> Most 'average men' are physically attractive by the virtue of just being unappealing to women - too much "obsession" in appearance is a sign of femininity for a lot of women. If he is repulsive somewhat to her he is likely (LTR) material & less sex-driven because most women will be turned off, anyhow.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Six said:


> See why does it have to be wounded egos? Couldn't it be genuine pain? Would that be beneath contempt - and again: Why? I'm really curious about this - what is it about these guys whose tax is still green which isn't worth giving a fair hearing?


I've heard the exact same things over and over from similar guys. I'm not a shoulder to cry on.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

rohan89 said:


> @Catwalk
> 
> Your first post reminded me of this section of a David Deida talk I saw a couple days.
> 
> ...


The correct statement is: "Young women find it difficult to meet anyone attractive at their level". There are male specimens [to be fair] that are equal & better than me but none are that attractive. I cannot remember ever finding a majority of my male 'peers' in uni attractive. I always dated street-smart men outside of school and academic circles.

But fair enough, I am probably one of the few (NT) women that does not find "smart" males sexy. More often than not it makes them anxiety-ridden/paranoid/socially-inept with women & mentally unstable with limp dicks. The only males I know that wear "intelligence" sexy are the ones that haven't lost or sacrificed their masculinity in the process, and they are mostly in the Boomers/Gen-X crowd.




rohan89 said:


> And regarding your second post. Wow.
> 
> Are you sure you're not a man? Because you showed a lot of insight on men that I've not read from women online.


No, I am far from a man but have been said I think more masculine than most men lul. Fair enough. I am not on "men's side" at the expense of women. I am not going to agree with whatever males make up.

Most women are blue-pilled/blue-leaning. But they are not wrong -- most female specimen(s) ARE 'satisfied' with "providers" and (LTR) husband types, or men with a high amount of comfort traits. And most men are unattractive, but it isn't because they are genetic failures or something. That is just an excuse to develop man-boobs if they aren't already there.



> You're right regarding coming across as masculine being more important than looks.
> 
> I am 5'8-5'9 and maybe slightly above average in the face, and I was seen as one of the biggest 'players' in my year at university (2007-09), and the main thing that separated me was coming across extremely comfortable with myself and masculine.


 The only exceptions are my (INFP) exes, who I think were far more attracted to me personality than me so much theirs. Although the relationships were tolerable, one was a 6'4" pothead that went to the gym with feminine tendencies. His look(s) and emotional awareness made up for the beta comfort traits - since I tend to come off "lacking empathy" according to most men. I don't. I just find men begging women for sympathy/nurturing trait(s) to be feminine and gross. Females do not owe wife/girlfriend/therapist treatment to males that ware not their boyfriends or husbands.

Imagine unattractively asking a strange non-girlfriend to be 'nurturing' to his low self-esteem. That is a libido killer for any woman. 

Most women however, will compromise so long as he compliments her in some way - usually with masculinity. Females ratings are based off more than 'looks'. Their sexuality is not like a male. A male that look(s) like he put in effort would just from a 3 to a 5. 



> I live in Australia though, and the culture has become so surface level and vapid in the last decade. Here, I believe women are now much more obsessed with looks, but they are unappealing to be with themselves, with their shallow personalities.


Everywhere is vapid. Just in different ways. I don't see what this obsession is with coming off "less shallow". 

Why would I be with a male that doesn't want to fuck me on spot? He can virtue signal my personality and career later if we decide to get serious -- why would you treat some strange woman like a wife? Also most men/women do not have most hobbies in common -- looking for a male best friend in a woman will not work.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

rohan89 said:


> The expected *lethargic, passive aggressive beta response* with no argument to back it up.
> 
> So predictable!


It's kind of become a common occurrence for PerC to see some sort of incelesque dudebro venting in here every week or so acting like their thoughts are somehow original or factual and not variants of the same exact tired and narrow minded depressive rant. 

So maybe don't do predictable threads if you don't want predictable responses. 



Alice Alipheese said:


> Also i see society slowing going the "japanese way" where both sexes just do NOT want to interact with each other and everything is for sale in the romantic sense.


You mean the capitalist way? Because that's the logical outcome of a system that is fixated on social strata and materialism. It's also kinda why the US will remain hopelessly steeped in bigotry for the foreseeable future. 
Also, the Manosphere really is helping hurry things along.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Tell the feminists that who control the school systems that are teaching boys from a young age that there is no such thing as being masculine and that they need to 'show their feelings' more.



Roslyn said:


> Six said:
> 
> 
> > See why does it have to be wounded egos? Couldn't it be genuine pain? Would that be beneath contempt - and again: Why? I'm really curious about this - what is it about these guys whose tax is still green which isn't worth giving a fair hearing?
> ...


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

rohan89 said:


> Tell the feminists that who control the school systems that are teaching boys from a young age that there is no such thing as being masculine and that they need to 'show their feelings' more.





The only feeling you've shared here is HATE. You've joined an echo chamber of hate.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

This reply from you was more venomous and hateful than anything by anyone else in this thread.

There have been multiple women who've all but agreed with me.

Take your medication, Karen, I mean Roslyn.


Roslyn said:


> rohan89 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell the feminists that who control the school systems that are teaching boys from a young age that there is no such thing as being masculine and that they need to 'show their feelings' more.
> ...


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

rohan89 said:


> This reply from you was more venomous and hateful than anything by anyone else in this thread.
> 
> There have been multiple women who've all but agreed with me.
> 
> Take your medication, Karen, I mean Roslyn.



No insults have been leveled at you by Roslyn, only your arguments and ideology. The treatment has not been reciprocated, as evidenced by your post.
So, the only way your post makes sense is if you think not agreeing with you and actually voicing as much is venomous hatred.
For someone who's resentful of being taught to show his emotions you really are capitalizing on them. Same old, same old.


----------



## Alice Alipheese (Aug 16, 2019)

rohan89 said:


> Pretty much what's going to happen for the most part,
> unfortunately.
> 
> So much p*ssy for sale today it's unreal.
> ...


you can always say fuck it  



Necrofantasia said:


> It's kind of become a common occurrence for PerC to see some sort of incelesque dudebro venting in here every week or so acting like their thoughts are somehow original or factual and not variants of the same exact tired and narrow minded depressive rant.
> 
> So maybe don't do predictable threads if you don't want predictable responses.
> 
> ...


Manosphere? explain.

And yes, capitolistic and leading to ever shallower and more hollow relationships that leave people disatisfied, in part becuase of the instant gratification we have everywhere.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Alice Alipheese said:


> you can always say fuck it
> 
> Manosphere? explain.
> 
> And yes, capitolistic and leading to ever shallower and more hollow relationships that leave people disatisfied, in part becuase of the instant gratification we have everywhere.


How conductive to good relationships between the sexes would you say it is for there to be a widely parroted ideological cluster that 1) Essentially uses cherrypicked, obsolete or heavily distorted data to push a rigid, heavily reductionist, otherizing and inaccurate narrative about themselves and about the psychology of individuals of one sex? 2) Encourages scapegoating and objectification as a lens through which to view interactions between the sexes 3) Paints the validation of the one sex as contingent on their ability to con the opposite sex into NSA sexual commoditization? 

You could give me the bullshit spiel about self-improvement, but isn't painting a whole group of people with the same wide, degrading (and weirdly self-victimizing?) brush in the interests of self improvement kind of...self-defeating? Many self-improvement frameworks don't need to scapegoat or parrot idiotic pseudo sci-fi narratives against a whole demographic.

It's exhausting to deal with, to the point many women I know just....don't.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Necrofantasia said:


> .
> 
> It's exhausting to deal with, to the point many women I know just....don't.


You're 'exhausted' from reading some text on a screen?

Maybe you have coronavirus, you precious pettle


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

How did this thread veer into social justice and taking about bigotry?

Does anything not trigger you?




Necrofantasia said:


> It's kind of become a common occurrence for PerC to see some sort of incelesque dudebro venting in here every week or so acting like their thoughts are somehow original or factual and not variants of the same exact tired and narrow minded depressive rant.
> 
> So maybe don't do predictable threads if you don't want predictable responses.
> 
> ...


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

rohan89 said:


>



Mmmhmm...


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Relationships between people are entered into and maintained for mutual profit. If one person does not view association with the other as beneficial to them then no contact will take place. If I have my own car I don't need a taxi and won't hire a driver. If I have my own house I don't need accommodation and won't hire a room. And so on.

Until quite recently, a woman needed to be in a relationship in order to have financial security, mainly because there was no welfare system in place and governments kept them out of the workforce to reduce the labour pool, which increased wages for men and thus their sexual desirability (also, it meant more capital for the women who married them to spend, which also benefits the economy). The idea of marrying for love, therefore, was looked down upon and "prince charming will rescue me" fantasies were seen as juvenile and selfish. A significant moral objection to that kind of relationship is that if a relationship is based upon love, falling out of love would be a reason to terminate it (this, btw, is the logic behind no-fault divorce). 

Young people need to understand that marriage was never an institution designed to provide personal fulfilment - this comes through faith in God and one's works. Along with strict monogamy and social sanctions on adultery, it was designed to create social and economic stability. After all, if no man could monopolize sexual access to women, intrasexual violence would be reduced and the tax base would increase as more children would be born. Children also benefitted directly from marriage as it created a stable, safe environment for them to grow up in. Polygamous societies have a much higher rate of infanticide because only one parent, the mother, is strongly invested in offspring.

By creating a welfare state that allows women to raise a child alone, and sending them out to work (which reduces the value of labour), two powerful incentives for commitment were removed. Women now seek men primarily for sexual gratification, and this is dramatically changing the traits which are being selected for in men. Intelligence, rationality and productivity are now not as valuable in attracting a mate as physical strength and social confidence - this is because men are being evaluated on aesthetic grounds rather than for their creative potential (and the latter is what underpins advanced, innovative economies). As the Ancients knew, what gets women wet at an individual level is not necessarily good for society as a whole, and this is the real reason why female sexuality has been heavily regulated by all of the most successful civilizations.

I predict that the trends I've described will only worsen in the coming years, and men will increasingly be forced to use technology as a substitute for sex with actual women. As this forum amply shows, in the absence of social pressures most women will ignore the consequences of their behaviour and make choices on instinct. However, if men can get sex elsewhere, this will remove the sexual leverage women currently use to influence male decision-making. Only then will the base, primitive desires destroying our culture be subsumed, and people valued for their insight and intellect over image and sex appeal.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Yeh lol. But I am 31 and am no longer that excited by sex. Have had a lot of it with a lot of women 

My last lay on online dating last year was the final straw for me. Felt like 2 robots interacting- sex (first, weirdly enough), walk on the beach, dinner and drinks.

She was surprised I didn't want to go for round two when we went back to my place again. In my mind I had already sworn off dating apps.

No intimacy or connection whatsoever. She was still hung over from the night before.

Voluntary celibacy (for both men and women probably) is underrated.



Alice Alipheese said:


> rohan89 said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much what's going to happen for the most part,
> ...


----------



## MonarK (Jul 27, 2018)

Well, there isn't a base that hasn't already been covered here, so I'll prognosticate society's course in light of this discussion. As the dust begins to settle between the sexes, and what fewer marriages are made and broken later on in life (these compromises being made possibly too late), we will see the consummation of man and machine to satisfy the human sex drive. Humanity will double down in its indulgence in the hyperreal, giving rise to the interests of (silently, but certainly with few alternatives) simulated reality, and preceding that, sex robots and the like. Now, this isn't to say that humanity will see to bind their consciousness in a way similar to the matrix; the rest of the world will have to contend with what we are dealing with now as they modernize, and the first world forges ahead. @Alice Alipheese has already made a similar observation, though humanity will not face extinction any time soon.

We have the longest history of evading extinction-level threats, and as surely as we will be able to fabricate hyperreality complete with: tactile sensation, graphics rendering on par with the human eye, and interface+control with extreme ease of simulation, then we are more than capable of establishing at least a decent alternative to traditional reproduction. Sperm and egg banks are already a thing, artificial wombs are in development, as is overwriting egg cell DNA with samples from skin cells. As we innovate further and further, the rate at which we do so has and will only increase. The reason behind this is twofold, as:
1.)As we expand our own understanding, more resources can be availed, and more technology that we develop can beget better insights, as well as better versions of itself.
2.) As the first-world society takes the course that it is, and doubles down in doing so, the increased interest in the aforementioned matters will further incentivize a solution to the mire of the hyperreal.

Do with all of this as you will @rohan89, and I would love to see the direction that this thread takes next.


----------



## Xool Xecutioner (Jul 8, 2018)

Isn't it not really surprising that some people (well, actually most, but I'll believe that it's significant to some) are not geared for sexual selection (and despite them not failing or even perfectly filling natural selection)? It's not really surprising, and this permaneces onto every facets of life. The feeling of not being desired is something detrimental to your psyche and well-being, no matter how you put it. Men feel it; women feel it. In our culture that we're living in , the undesirability the men are feeling is amplifying because of social policies that are unfair or favors the women at the expense of men. The men are getting kicked on and told that they are worthless relative to a woman, while women, told about the formers, are engaging this thought, and with their desires, are going toward men desirable to them. 

Now, preferences, I have no problem with. Dishonesty, though, is a problem, and with virtue signaling being a such a huge problem nowadays, I feel this will cause the demise of men (and quite probably civilization itself). Objectively ugly men (and to an extent women) are told that they're beautiful and that beauty is subjective (not that the people saying it will fuck them willingly and not outta desperation), giving them false hopes in that they will get a someone, someone that will love them for who they are. Right now, ugly men are subdued to the thoughts, but those who aren't or has broken out, has become nihilistic and pessimistic to their state. For this, they'll believe that they're hopeless and can't achieve something basic for the human species. What happens to them, happens. 

The undesirability did come to women on a mass scale, I believe not altered significantly before late 20th century, but I think it wasn't that detrimental because of the gender roles of the time. Women weren't, well, seen as socially and politically equal back then. Regardless of its truth, it does make women feel undesirable, and with this came revolutions and changes of thoughts. Analogous to MGTOW and incelists (the political advancement for incels, a life circumstance).


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

I dunno man, I'm not buying the whole robot thing.

I think young people today are becoming increasingly vocal about their disgust at the interference of technology in every facet of life.

Sure there will be the vapid consooomers who partake in the robot craze, or whatever technology bullshit they come out with.

But a lot of people are realizing they want less technology, not more.

My brain has been rotted from Internet p*rn for almost 2 decades, and I have given up. I feel a consciousness opening up inside of me (no joke), that I wasn't able to access because of this fake shit.

Us humans are not built for such artificiality. We have gone too far. We cannot simply 'adapt' to technology like this. People's souls are screaming out for true connection.

The problem is that when you do become more conscious, and try to meet people, you realise how robot like and empty they are.

So isolation (socially and romantically) becomes an easier option.

That's why I agree that rather than the robot craze becoming big, men and women will just get less and less interested in each other, and less and less interested in sex in general.




MonarK said:


> Well, there isn't a base that hasn't already been covered here, so I'll prognosticate society's course in light of this discussion. As the dust begins to settle between the sexes, and what fewer marriages are made and broken later on in life (these compromises being made possibly too late), we will see the consummation of man and machine to satisfy the human sex drive. Humanity will double down in its indulgence in the hyperreal, giving rise to the interests of (silently, but certainly with few alternatives) simulated reality, and preceding that, sex robots and the like. Now, this isn't to say that humanity will see to bind their consciousness in a way similar to the matrix; the rest of the world will have to contend with what we are dealing with now as they modernize, and the first world forges ahead. @Alice Alipheese has already made a similar observation, though humanity will not face extinction any time soon.
> 
> We have the longest history of evading extinction-level threats, and as surely as we will be able to fabricate hyperreality complete with: tactile sensation, graphics rendering on par with the human eye, and interface+control with extreme ease of simulation, then we are more than capable of establishing at least a decent alternative to traditional reproduction. Sperm and egg banks are already a thing, artificial wombs are in development, as is overwriting egg cell DNA with samples from skin cells. As we innovate further and further, the rate at which we do so has and will only increase. The reason behind this is twofold, as:
> 1.)As we expand our own understanding, more resources can be availed, and more technology that we develop can beget better insights, as well as better versions of itself.
> ...


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Owow, :3 we have awaken the bringers of some of the most misogynistic ideologies in here, so predictable...

I even heard through some quotes that feminists were at the direction of schools. Well, I would like that, we need also to have more LGBTQIA+ representation and discussion about those subjects within schools, that would be great. And well, anti-racism and anti-validism also.

But sadly, it isn't coming soon... still gender expectations should be abolished, and yes men should learn to speak about their emotions more freely, we're seeing the exact consequences of gender binary, here, men and women supposed to be the opposite. It's like if in the head of those people, women were another species. When you have to come to this kind of thoughts, you just completely missed what a society is about.

And I would add that a lot spoke like if hetero was the only way, try to think this through if you were homosexual. You will soon notice that those misogynistic ideologies, imagining men and women like in a war of attractiveness (but actually, it's just men forcing their desire in women throat at this point, like they never did that in the past, or leaving us alone... yeah... cool), representing a world were women are together on one side, and men are together on the other side. That sound really homosexual to me. Those ideologies are just boys club were they speak about sex, their sex and the irrepressible desire to have sex. And I can say that those homosexual spaces are actually very homophobic. And then we're asked to feel sorry for those people? They isolate themselves, then cry for their lack of desirability and attractiveness.

Feminists and lesbians got this homophobic and misogynistic stigma that we're ugly, we're those because we can't get laid by men. Let's make things clear, this isn't the case, while in those adverse ideologies, they're always speaking and shaming themselves. Do you see the difference, LGBT+ pride, feminism, empowering? They don't empower themselves, they're weakening themselves, together as a group, and then you'll hear them about being responsible individuals, having to deal with your own problem, but the group is their problem, not them as individuals. While for feminists and LGBT+, the group is empowering us, we're getting stronger because the movement is about that.

So we don't have to feel sorry for those people, they just have to leave those groups, deradicalization have to happen, but sorry, I have enough social issues, including patriarchy, so men keeping power, before putting ressources to deradicalize them. This job is on you, men, you know better on those issues. When you see them popping out on a forum, take them apart, think how you can help them to stop the delusions they got into. But just don't make us responsible or sorry for them.


----------

