Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It actually says that 27% of men in that age group had no female sex partners. That doesn't account for gay men or men who identify as bi but don't have sex with women. I'm not sure how it accounts for trans men or women. Point being it's not 27%. It's up from a decade prior, but not 4-5 times as you said earlier. And women's rates of virginity are also increasing, though less steeply than men's. I still wonder about the 27% figure because it's so close to the 28% # for no sex the past year.
If you looked at my comments in this thread I think men are having legitimate difficulty dating and in general, and it concerns me. I think you're exaggerating the problem, both the magnitude of it and by casting it as something women are doing to men. Both approaches are part of redpill and incel thought. Exaggerate the magnitude and create anxiety about the nature of a problem, and then offer solutions. But those solutions aren't actionable in this case (women aren't going to get with men they aren't into) and worse yet their solutions to a problem that essentially doesn't exist.
I don't clutch my pearls when people use 1-10 rating systems or talk about this in quasi economic terms. I like analogies and they can further discussion. So if you're right and if we could agree on the rating for women and men, and we might be able to, what's the plan to get women to date their male mirror image if they don't want to? And are our ratings really of any value if they don't correlate with actual pairings of men and women. I think they often do, but in your scenario they don't. If I've got something to sell and no one's buying it, I can either improve the product, market it better, or lower the price. Or I can choose to wait for a buyer who wants the product as is. Without yelling at potential customers that they're wrong to pass by and not buy my product. The latter seems to be your suggestion?
If there's a real problem here, and I tend to think there is, then the solution might be found in figuring out why men are ****ing up their lives in a myriad of ways. Why we lag behind women in most ways, and behind men of earlier generations. Men collectively are heading in the wrong direction, and we were long before dating apps and social media. Those things are putting men's issues in high relief, they're not causing them.
Every generation *****es about the one after them and how awful and soft they are and it’s mostly nonsense.
Also there are things you can nitpick about other genders if you really want to. To act like women all have their Sh1t together and Men don’t is kinda ignorant.
Men collectively are heading in the wrong direction, and we were long before dating apps and social media. Those things are putting men's issues in high relief, they're not causing them.
Let’s throw the “Incels” out for a second, this is a general statement about 3.5 billion people worldwide. You, as a man, are free to devalue yourself if you don’t think you’re heading in the right direction but you don’t speak for every guy. There have always been men who couldn’t cope with society, careers, or relationships… but don’t knock this generation just because you’re older.
I’m assuming you’re a boomer; many men in your generation were raging alcoholics, misogynists (especially in the work place), benefited solely from good ole’ boy networks, and were physically abusive to their wives and children much more so than today. They simply got away with it more because times were much different than they are now.
I do not view men as collectively heading in the wrong direction simply because there are a few saps who can’t get a girlfriend. If anything this generation of men is more inclusive of others, less sexist than yours, less racist than yours, and heading in an overall better direction than in the past. And men today work just as hard and are just as valuable to society as they have always been. The only difference is this group of men today are progressing past the mistakes made by drunk boomer dads.
I dunno, but all of this is ridiculous. Whether it's the '80-20' BS or purty much everything the 'incels' spout here or anywhere... it's all nuts.
Chad? Didn't know what that was until I started lurking here... and it is stupid. Really. Plenty of 'good-looking' males out there - myself included, sorry, don't mean to 'toot the horn', but I *do* get attention - but I and I'm sure more like me don't think of ourselves as 'Chads'. Why was that name chosen anyway? Not a 'cool' name IMO.
Now... is my g/f worthy of the cover of the SI swimsuit issue? No. But I don't want that anyway. She is a hard-working Salvadoran woman who has had a hard life and who is probably the kindest and sweetest person I have met. And I am falling in love with her.
The point is... it can happen anytime and when you are not looking. And it doesn't have to be someone who the incels call 'Stacy'. I don't even want 'Stacy'.
I want who I am with. The 'incels' can fantasize over 'Stacy' til Hell freezes over - I am in a much better place.
Last edited by Euskalherria; 03-25-2022 at 05:51 PM..
The problem is that so many women don't prioritize looks as being the driver for attraction.
I've said it before, if anyone had shown me a photo of my husband before we ever met, I would have given him a thumbs down. To a guy, that means I married a man that I do not "find attractive" and gosh, I can't be into having sex with him...because that's how most men's brains (and some women's, too) work. Not how mine does though, and I know I'm not alone in this. I would never consent to sex, let alone a relationship, with anyone based only on a picture. Never. I don't even know if I am attracted to someone from that. I need to talk to them and get to know what's inside their head, and if it's good, they look better and better in my eyes...if it's bad, they look worse and worse.
Sure, there's a floor of looks for me, and I've met a few guys who are indeed bad enough looking not to meet that bar, but there is also a ceiling, too. The vast majority of men are in the broad range I consider to be average, and would not be disqualified from my taste based on looks...but likely would because of other things.
Me (and many women) rating men on looks is freaking meaningless.
"That photo of the mansion you said was the most attractive house? Let's say you can afford it, do you want it? Yes? You think? Well, what I didn't tell you is that it's in a wildfire prone spot in the forest in a country controlled by drug cartels. But hey. That doesn't matter though, right? Oh, it does? Yeah."
(Most women will need more information than the photo. As we should.)
True, but it *does* help. I know from experience - and not just with women.
**********
LOL... forget about it being in a wildfire zone. How about just cleaning it and maintaining it? LOL. Nope, not for me!
True, but it *does* help. I know from experience - and not just with women.
**********
Well no sh*t Sherlock - "and not just with women" - oh, so straight and gay and bi men regard good looks as important (whether talking about men or women as potential dates). You're proving the point, loud and clear. Most men regard looks as more important than most women. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.
Well no sh*t Sherlock - "and not just with women" - oh, so straight and gay and bi men regard good looks as important (whether talking about men or women as potential dates). You're proving the point, loud and clear. Most men regard looks as more important than most women. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.
What in the bloody hell is your problem???
Now pay attention... you may learn something.
I was referring to people who are/were attracted to ME. As anyone who actually knows me would know - I do not 'approach' anyone, so what you said is 100% irrelevant.
True, but it *does* help. I know from experience - and not just with women.
**********
LOL... forget about it being in a wildfire zone. How about just cleaning it and maintaining it? LOL. Nope, not for me!
Right, but looks only get you so far.
And I think you would also agree about that from how you describe your girlfriend, attractive but if anything appreciated more for who she is, not just for being some hot chick. Right? (Also congrats on the falling in love thing, that's happy news and I'm happy for you!) So rating photos means nothing when it comes to who one would date or have sex with or form a relationship with. It might prompt some people to walk up and talk to you, but if you (or me or anyone) then opened their mouth and crap fell out, that person would walk away.
Well. You would. I would. Most women would. These dudes that think this way would not, because they don't care what a hot woman thinks...after all, they are gonna tell her what she thinks anyways.
But these guys are so very, very focused on something that is really narrow in scope, dating apps, with an insistence that's just how dating is done these days, I think mostly because they can't imagine having to go interact with women in person. Like that situation with Cuddle Monster where he plotted and schemed to give or get phone numbers, either cold calling women out of nowhere or flinging a number at a stranger and running off... As though dating would not involve eventually having to interact in person? Like there are ways to work on one's social skills. But these dudes do not want to work on themselves. At all. They want to complain about the whole conspiracy against them.
And so, they're gonna stay stuck. Because if there's one thing that being part of some believer group around a conspiracy theory does...it's alienate you from the rest of society and keep you feeling stuck. But at least they get to feel superior to everyone else while they stay stuck and lonely.
Most men regard looks as more important than most women. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.
So you’ve dated, married and/or had children with most men? I love when people, who hate sweeping generalizations, have the audacity to make them.
You’re wrong by the way; there are shallow men and women, and there many men and women who ARE NOT. Feel free to change the channel, your program is out of step.
Well no sh*t Sherlock - "and not just with women" - oh, so straight and gay and bi men regard good looks as important (whether talking about men or women as potential dates). You're proving the point, loud and clear. Most men regard looks as more important than most women. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.
Here's how it works with most men, it's very simple. There needs to be baseline sexual attraction, based on face/body/way of carrying oneself. Some men are flexible on that, others are more rigid/have tighter standards. After that it's all about personality/character. A woman rarely needs to be off the charts beautiful, even for the best-looking men. A good example in proof of this would be Janis Joplin who had a few men fall for her who could get women of any beauty level. She wasn't ugly but certainly not model material.
Yes, it's true that perhaps unlike women, a man can't will/develop sexual attraction into existence. I would say it needs to be there from the start (and that's what leads to the myth that men care mainly about looks). But it's absolutely not the primary consideration or even a primary consideration. If a woman were a bimbo, I couldn't make it past one day with her, if even that depending on her personality. Some men can go a little longer but they would never make her a wife or girlfriend. Only pathetic former-incel types (picture ultra nerdy guy who gets rich in IT or something), ironically, fall for that kind of thing because they're so inexperienced and 'thirsty' that they just get dazzled/starstruck by it.
So you’ve dated, married and/or had children with most men? I love when people, who hate sweeping generalizations, have the audacity to make them.
You’re wrong by the way; there are shallow men and women, and there many men and women who ARE NOT. Feel free to change the channel, your program is out of step.
Well, most of what's said on here is one generalization or another. Duh...shallow men AND shallow women? Are there more of one than another when it comes to the importance of looks....yeah, most definitely. Just because there's not a lock doesn't mean it doesn't get weighted more by one gender than the other. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
...how many thousands have you dated, btw? ugh...doesn't matter and I don't even wanna know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ugh...doesn't matter and I don't even wanna know.
