You are a man hoe.
You are a man hoe.
You pose an important question. There are real answers, but they are waaaayyy beyond the tolerance level of this board. The increasing number of voluntary and involuntary male incels will continue apace and no amount of female complaining of shaming will reverse it. This has real civilizational impact too, as society needs men to do actual, real work like... plumbing, construction, sewer maintenance, garbage collection, welding, building and maintaining electricity grids, tech innovation, search and rescue, most agriculture, etc. To put it as delicately as possible, men will only do those jobs for a carrot or to avoid a stick. Since we all agree that slavery is bad and never making a comeback, then the stick isn't an option. So the carrot better be worth it. What is that carrot? Women. But alas, the value of that reward carrot has declined, hence along with it - male productivity. That explains unmotivated men playing video games all day, never going on dates, being lackluster boyfriends/husbands. There is a fascinating new article on Substack by "Bright Eyes" called "The f--k rate is about to implode." It goes deep on your question, but requires a five alarm trigger warning for most of you.https://brighteyes.substack.com/p/the-fuck-rate-is-about-to-implode
or maybe 30% of men are still stuck saying things like "body count"- Jamb inn or that the "value of [the] reward carrot" ie women- Kobbs Hessler and women are frankly just not sexually interested in those kind of weird people
Acceptable, and I have 0 regrets.
But how does that translate to a new generation of prudes?
Hi, I am ugly
It has no basis in reality. Seriously do only 20% of your friends have partners? And do you really think a top 20% guy is going to have sex with a below average girl?
A "body count" would imply he's not a virgin.
You seem a little out of touch.
I believe it
Yes, he used the word "body count" but is also no longer in the 18-30 year age group being discussed (inferred based on the approximate number of sexual partners with whom he claims to have been intimate). My point is that although phrases such as this were the norm, that is quickly ceasing to be the case. Men can't always get away with thinking of and treating women as merely anonymous bodies to add to a growing list sexual partners. More women are asserting their intrinsic worth and not standing for this kind of chauvinistic oversimplification of womanhood anymore.
- a generalization (as many things are), of course -
Imagine bragging about body counts in an incel thread on a running forum.
This post was removed.
What “intrinsic” worth? Are women no longer attracted to men? Men who can provide?
I think maybe the opposite is true. Let’s overSIMPlify. If birth control and abortion rulings from decades past ushered in a sexual revolution for women back then, why wouldn’t a similar revolution in women’s earning potential (careerism; postponed settling) in combination with dating (leveraged by apps) result in a generation of young low value men being left out of the sexual “marketplace?”
Add in porn and all the other factors that make this demographic low value and it’s really no surprise.
There's nothing remotely offensive in modern, secular society about the term "body count."
There probably should be, frankly, but there isn't.
This actually illustrates a modern society double standard: Modern society HATES/mocks incels, but they also hate men who sleep with a lot of women (e.g., Andrew Tate). I'm considering blogging about this at length in the near future.
I don’t think women particularly hate men who sleep with a lot of women.
And I feel for the incel.
re: blog — keep us posted!!
I agree to a certain extent but
(1) it is possible that the remnants of anti-feminist thinking is still pervasive enough to obfuscate the chauvinism that is at the core of sentiments like these, essentially providing a veneer of acceptability to such statements that, when examined head-on, cease to exist and
(2) different segments of society would deem this term offensive and others would not. for instance, I, as a female, don't feel particularly offended by this manner of speaking but I wouldn't seek out a male partner who engaged in conversation about "body counts" often or around me, but I highly suspect that most (all?) of my classmates in my Sex and the Law Workshop course (don't @ me, I needed an extra credit) at a traditionally liberal law school would be quite appalled... I think it comes down to the kind of bubble we each live in and it is those bubbles that frame how we perceive the world as well as our opinions of the acceptability of speech and conduct.
(1) I am asserting that women (and everyone else for that matter) have intrinsic worth. Do you think otherwise?
(2) Women are still attracted to men, but maybe they are more discerning in their choices these days? On this thread, I'm thinking about women who are no longer standing for men who engage in anti-feminist behavior for example. I'm also remembering a thread about how the majority of women on dating apps are trying to match with a minority of men on those apps, thereby excluding a majority of men on those apps...
(3) The ability to provide isn't considered by my argument. Both "body count" speaking and "non-body count" speaking men can likely provide for their partners so those partners are eliminating the "body count" speaking men in favor of their counterparts. Also, as you stated there is a rise in the economic independence of women, therefore reducing the need for decision-making calculus grounded in the ability of men to provide and widing the potential partner pool to include less economically stable men who are "non-body count" speaking to take the place of the economically stable "body count" speaking men.
(4) It's not necessarily a zero-sum game (not sure about this, would love to hear your thoughts). Just because women have gained economic and sexual power doesn't necessarily mean that men have lost it. Not sure how you are tying the rise of women's economic independence and dating app with the creation of a new segment of low-value men (I think you are asserting something interesting here just not quite sure what it is exactly, more info please).
(5) How does pornography make this low-value class of men? Much has been made of pornography's ability to create a low-value class of women (the objectification of women) as well as leading to a lack of satisfaction between partners resulting from the glorification of violent and/ or male-dominated and/ or kinky sex prevalent on pornography platforms.
1. No, everyone does have intrinsic value. What is inherent to women's value that is absent or so distinct from men? Seems there should be parity.
2. What is "anti-feminist" behavior?
3. So.. it's just about hook-ups? After the first sentence I legitimately cannot follow what you're saying. I didn't go to law school. FWIW no one I know would ever talk about a "body count." It's.. vulgar.
4a. You're mischaracterizing what I've said. There most certainly exists a negative-sum game if women of X (+/- a small range) value refuse to pair with men similar of X
(+/- a small range) value. Women are, after all, the discriminating sex.
4b. Never have I suggested that women doing better economically or socially is a bad thing. I simply don't believe that. There are huge benefits in fact, if she's into you.
5(a). There are orders of magnitude fewer women who create pornography than men who consume it... It creates a sizeable disjunct between reality and expectation. Something I've suggested above. It also squanders energy better placed in physical reality-- for the incel, I mean. There is also a de-sensitizing effect, which does not benefit the incel.
5(b). I have definitely benefitted from women endeavoring into interest in viewing pornography. People should do what they want. But they should understand there are trade-offs.
The biggest baby boom in America over the last few decades was in North Dakota ten years ago. Oil boom with lots of very physical, but high paying jobs for hard working men (their education level irrelevant).