Men v Women : Sexodus

[Charismatic]

Genuine question, not trying to troll:

I can understand not wanting to date or relationship or whatever. I can also understand the old-timey notion of a one-night stand coming only after $40 in drinks and rolling the dice on a drunk-rape charge, whatever.

But like, and I haven't done it personally since I've been in a relationship since it gained popularity, swiping right on Tinder for anyone other than CS is the easiest way to just have random sex. Even troglodyte dudes I know (and girls) can get their rocks off with a random while sober in the middle of the afternoon before the gym or something.

It literally is as simple as swiping right and asking "Hey you want to make parts of each other wet and sticky without conversation?" If Y proceed if N -> next. Pickup artists have been saying for years that getting laid is just a numbers game and Tinder gives you access to orders of magnitude higher numbers than any of us would've previously had.

So I guess to succinctly sum up my question: are these dudes just not looking for sex at all? Or just so not into relationships that the previous falls out as a result? Or, and probably very few of us here are qualified to discuss this as it falls into pure psychology, is there a chance that the increase of dudes who dont want to waste money getting off with women correlates nicely with the rise of availability and ease of access to more porn than our parents ever could've dreamed of; starring girls hotter than anyone any of us would ever even dream of seeing naked?

Edit: or a correlation with a generation raised on the internet having zero social skills with which to maneuver the real world?

Not saying that applies to all parties considered, but one of the quoted articles references the hikkikomori in Japan. That is literally the textbook definition of someone who can only function online and literally, psychologically, "can't even" the real world.

It honestly depends on the person.
There's actually a surprisingly high number of men that aren't really looking to just bone someone either so Tinder and the like does nothing for them. A lot of them end up getting emotional fulfillment though other means. (Hence the rise of things like cuddle cafes. We also have a few of those here in the states and its growing more popular all the time)

People are finding it easier to get all the benefits of being in a relationship and being able to get them in a transaction and find that easier than dealing with people who might be in a bad mood or might betray you or whatever other risks may come along with a relationship. So basically all and none of what you said is valid because like FFXI... shit's situational.

[thetruepandagod]

In the wise words of Young MC

"But every dark tunnel has a light of hope
So don't hang yourself, with a celibate rope"

[GoggleHead]

Why is a woman who has sex with multiple partners like men do, undesirable for a serious relationship?

For the same reason it's undesirable in a man when seeking a serious relationship.

[Charismatic]

Also, is anyone else here at all familiar with John B. Calhoun's mouse experiments with the "beautiful ones"?
I see a lot of similarities here and I really think its interesting to see that this kind of phenomenon isn't exclusive to human society.

In the early 1960s, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) acquired property in a rural area outside Poolesville, Maryland. The facility that was built on this property housed several research projects, including those headed by Calhoun. It was here that his most famous experiment, the mouse universe, was created. In July 1968 four pairs of mice were introduced into the Utopian universe. The universe was a 9-foot (2.7 m) square metal pen with 54-inch-high (1.4 m) sides. Each side had four groups of four vertical, wire mesh “tunnels.” The “tunnels” gave access to nesting boxes, food hoppers, and water dispensers. There was no shortage of food or water or nesting material. There were no predators. The only adversity was the limit on space.
John Calhoun meeting Pope Paul VI on 27 September 1973.

Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against. After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones.”

The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

Calhoun saw the fate of the population of mice as a metaphor for the potential fate of man. He characterized the social breakdown as a “second death,” with reference to the “second death” mentioned in the Biblical book of Revelation 2:11 His study has been cited by writers such as Bill Perkins as a warning of the dangers of the living in an "increasingly crowded and impersonal world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun

I don't remember where I originally read about this and I reformatted my computer recently so I don't have better links but there's a wealth of information about those experiments out there.

[thetruepandagod]

When i first read it as a child I knew i was destined to be one of the beautiful ones.

[BerenTebogo]

Also, is anyone else here at all familiar with John B. Calhoun's mouse experiments with the "beautiful ones"?
I see a lot of similarities here and I really think its interesting to see that this kind of phenomenon isn't exclusive to human society.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun

I don't remember where I originally read about this and I reformatted my computer recently so I don't have better links but there's a wealth of information about those experiments out there.

There's a number of problems scientifically with comparing the results discussed here with human society.

For the test to even come close to representing humans you would need to have roughly 500,000 people residing in A landmass roughly the size of India, and over the course of ~300-400 years grow to around 1-2 billion.

All without any change in social structure, infrastructure, society, technology, food source, water source, etc.

It is wildly unrealistic by even the furthest of desperate reaches. Humanity isn't even close to something that could be considered the halfway point of that experiment either time-wise or resource-wise. ESPECIALLY in first world countries which, as far as I can tell, is the only place this phenomenon is occurring. The poor and desperate third worlders who are actually having population and resource problems are still screwing away.

Bad science is bad. It's okay though. Not much psychology that came out of the 1960s has survived past the 1990s. It's junk science.

Edit: Math error. Doubling, not exponential growth. Fixed.

Edit 2: From the wiki about the experiment itself, "Behavioral Sink"

Controversy exists over the implications of the experiment. Psychologist Jonathan Freedman's experiment recruited high school and university students to carry out a series of experiments that measured the effects of density on behavior. He measured their stress, discomfort, aggression, competitiveness, and general unpleasantness. He declared to have found no appreciative negative effects in 1975. Researchers argued that "Calhoun’s work was not simply about density in a physical sense, as number of individuals-per-square-unit-area, but was about degrees of social interaction."[12]

[Rhyis.]

In the wise words of Young MC

"But every dark tunnel has a light of hope
So don't hang yourself, with a celibate rope"

Stop sign motherfucking shorts. Awww yeah

[Charismatic]

There's a number of problems scientifically with comparing the results discussed here with human society.

For the test to even come close to representing humans you would need to have roughly 500,000 people residing in A landmass roughly the size of India, and over the course of ~300-400 years grow to around 1-2 billion.

All without any change in social structure, infrastructure, society, technology, food source, water source, etc.

It is wildly unrealistic by even the furthest of desperate reaches. Humanity isn't even close to something that could be considered the halfway point of that experiment either time-wise or resource-wise. ESPECIALLY in first world countries which, as far as I can tell, is the only place this phenomenon is occurring. The poor and desperate third worlders who are actually having population and resource problems are still screwing away.

Bad science is bad. It's okay though. Not much psychology that came out of the 1960s has survived past the 1990s. It's junk science.

Edit: Math error. Doubling, not exponential growth. Fixed.

Edit 2: From the wiki about the experiment itself, "Behavioral Sink"

I don't want to call you an idiot or anything but sometimes I wonder because the quote you put in at the end shows the actual relevance.

Researchers argued that "Calhoun’s work was not simply about density in a physical sense, as number of individuals-per-square-unit-area, but was about degrees of social interaction."

I'm not sure if you realize that's exactly what we're talking about. And people aren't comparing it directly as if to say WE'VE FOUND THE CAUSE. More that its an interesting analog.

Also, tangentially related, is normal conversation difficult for you?

[BerenTebogo]

You're right about the part I quoted. I managed to misread it 2-3x.

I also read up more on it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636191/

Which is a more modern look at it in relation to prison crowding and urban population density. Confirming the original premise has application to humans in a few levels.

I still don't think it's a good analog for the topic at hand. nowhere in my perusal of actual literature (that I am willingly offering up in agreement of your most recent point) did I see even an inkling of reference to anything sexual or psycho-sexual regarding humans. But do different people respond differently to being over / under crowded? sure.

Edit: also really, do you think going on the offensive is going to work on ME? I'm not bane. Cmon chari.

[BerenTebogo]

http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publi..._TiCS_2011.pdf

The role of testosterone in social
interaction

Do testosterone levels affect status-seeking behaviors? A
first approach to this question is to ask whether baseline
levels of testosterone correlate with these behaviors. An-
swering this question has recently become possible
through the advent of valid tools for measuring bioactive
steroid hormones in human saliva. Indeed, measurements
of testosterone at a single time-point correlate positively
withhighdominanceinbothadolescents
[19,20]
andadults
[21,22]
. In addition, salivary testosterone levels correlate
with implicit measures of power motivation
[23]
and in-
creased vigilance for status threats
[24,25]
. As a result of
these relationships, and the moderate stability of testos-
terone levels over time, some have suggested that baseline
testosterone levels reflect a personality trait
[26]
.
An alternative view, however, states that basal testos-
terone levels do not only correlate with particular beha-
viors, but also respond to the social environment. We
discuss this evidence next

Insummary,recentevidenceindicatesthattestosterone
not only influences social behavior in face-to-face situa-
tions,but alsoinanonymous economicinteractions. Future
placebo-controlled testosterone administration studies
could investigate the role of testosterone in reputation
formation or the motivation to exercise authority. Further-
more, as testosterone has mostly been linked to competi-
tion in animals, an exciting prospect for future studies is
the investigation of the causal effects of the hormone in
zero-sum games.

Concluding remarks
Testosterone has been the focus of intensive research for
decades. Whereas early studies pointed towards a role in
physical aggression, recent evidence suggests that this
simple view needs to be refined. In particular, it appears
that testosterone promotes status-seeking and social
dominance motives, and thus plays an important role
in social status hierarchies. (Note, however, that most
of these recent studies were conducted on Western stu-
dent populations; it remains to be tested whether these
findings generalize to other populations
[92]
.) Most re-
cently, several studies in humans have begun to test the
causality of the link between social, emotional and eco-
nomic interaction behavior through acute testosterone
administration. These studies have confirmed that an
account of testosterone as a simple mediator of aggres-
sion falls short of the truth; instead, testosterone appears
to have a more subtle and complex role in driving beha-
viors that tend to increase an individual’s motivation and
ability to acquire and defend social status. The exact
mechanisms by which testosterone has these effects re-
main elusive; however, recent research has suggested
four plausible channels, namely threat vigilance, reward
processing, fear reduction and stress resilience. The task
of future studies will be to delineate the role of testoster-
one in social interaction more precisely and to test which
of these candidate channels accounts for most of the
observed behavioral variance

Since we're getting all science-y with our analogs. It could be that these dudes acting all Beta could just be...well...Beta. This Cambridge study from 2011 links much of the behavior referenced in OP and subsequent quotes with low levels of testosterone (which promotes alpha behavior).

[Thunder]

To the guys who are frustrated with the state of women: do you deserve a quality girl? Like, what do you do that makes you so great? How humble of a person are you to even be able to answer that question truthfully?

We aren't cars that lose value as soon as we leave the lot. Our value should be going up as time goes by - the people's whose value isn't going up as time goes by will be the ones complaining about how unfair life is (girls do it too!)

The OP's articles + some posts here remind me of the 50 yr old guy who get laid off of his manual labor job and then finds himself on a michael moore documentary saying, "I don't have anything to do now.. it's so unfair" well no shit man, you just spent 3 decades not increasing your value. All that guy did was get older; HE is like a car. You don't invest in shit that just rusts/rots/depreciates.

I don't think this is so much about sexuality/feminism as it is about people getting more and more "zombified" by marketers/media. First rule of hollywood is "give the people what they want" and what they want are a list of celebrities you didn't know had surgery, new TV shows, new movies, salt, sugar, fat, etcetc. Less and less people are out there making new friends, getting better at being a leader, being a person people WANT to be around, finding/making a job that they absolutely love, hunting down mentors, and/or picking up good books to read

“How to find a good spouse?
-the best single way is to deserve a good spouse.”

“To get what you want, you have to deserve what you want. The world is not yet a crazy enough place to reward a whole bunch of
undeserving people.”

― Charlie Munger, who knew this old billionaire knew the way into a woman

[Charismatic]

http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publi..._TiCS_2011.pdf

The role of testosterone in social
interaction









Since we're getting all science-y with our analogs. It could be that these dudes acting all Beta could just be...well...Beta. This Cambridge study from 2011 links much of the behavior referenced in OP and subsequent quotes with low levels of testosterone (which promotes alpha behavior).

I'm a bit confused since I have only looked at the graphic so far. The graphic seems to indicate that high t promotes alpha behavior, not low t. (And that would be consistent with everything I've read prior to now)
I'll have to read it later but that jumped out at me immediately.

[BerenTebogo]

Yes, high testosterone seems to be indicative of status-seeking / power-seeking behavior.

Alpha-ness.

Edit: I guess the link may not be clear in reference to your Calhoun study. Testosterone is a hormone which has its production regulated over time by the body. It's not static. It may be subject to some genetic starting points but it can be increased / decreased from a number of things including repeated social triggers.

The behavior of the rats / some of these dudes would be in line with low T levels which would be more likely to be as a result of social conditions than a genetic change over such a short time period.

I.e. Shitty interactions whether with women, friends, school, domineering parents, isolationism from a young age, etc could be triggering lower T production in some of these dudes and it's turning off their sex drives / aggression / status-seeking / etc. Testosterone is a HUGE motivator in male sexual desire. I wonder how much of these comments are derived from deliberate choices made by these men vs. resultant from lowered testosterone?

Like the things people say when they are depressed due to chemical imbalance. They may genuinely feel the way they feel at the time, but it doesn't mean their brain is working right.

I may have just alleged that all these dudes have broken brain chemistry.

[Charismatic]

I guess it must just be your wording there.
It looks as if you're saying low t promotes alpha behavior. I'm with you now.

[Mertron]

all ive gotten out of this is I'm moving to Japan. I got what those ladies need

Spoiler: show

crippling self esteem issues

Spoiler: show

and a huge cock

[Charismatic]

And yes, to answer your question, its entirely possible (and likely) that they are beta. It still doesn't explain the change in behavior.
The fact is, something is changing and that's what is being examined.

[Blubbartron]

To the guys who are frustrated with the state of women: do you deserve a quality girl? Like, what do you do that makes you so great? How humble of a person are you to even be able to answer that question truthfully?

We aren't cars that lose value as soon as we leave the lot. Our value should be going up as time goes by - the people's whose value isn't going up as time goes by will be the ones complaining about how unfair life is (girls do it too!)

The OP's articles + some posts here remind me of the 50 yr old guy who get laid off of his manual labor job and then finds himself on a michael moore documentary saying, "I don't have anything to do now.. it's so unfair" well no shit man, you just spent 3 decades not increasing your value. All that guy did was get older; HE is like a car. You don't invest in shit that just rusts/rots/depreciates.

I don't think this is so much about sexuality/feminism as it is about people getting more and more "zombified" by marketers/media. First rule of hollywood is "give the people what they want" and what they want are a list of celebrities you didn't know had surgery, new TV shows, new movies, salt, sugar, fat, etcetc. Less and less people are out there making new friends, getting better at being a leader, being a person people WANT to be around, finding/making a job that they absolutely love, hunting down mentors, and/or picking up good books to read

“How to find a good spouse?
-the best single way is to deserve a good spouse.”

“To get what you want, you have to deserve what you want. The world is not yet a crazy enough place to reward a whole bunch of
undeserving people.”

― Charlie Munger, who knew this old billionaire knew the way into a woman

This might be slightly tangential, but I think it ties in close enough to be worth saying.

What you're talking about is a core effect of Capitalism; there is no way to maintain your current relative value unless you are constantly increasing your value. If the value of the entire community (economy) increases, and you stay the same, you are actually decreasing in relative value even though you're no different than you were before. The way that applies to the conversation at hand is the fact that we determine values of people socially, and for the entirety of human history we've expected more and more out of people just for them to get the same appreciation/value. A lot of these people that are "writing off women" (although I'm sure it applies equally to women writing off men) may just be fed up with the notion of having to work so incredibly hard just for someone to appreciate them as a person. At the end of the day, the love of a significant other is not a good enough return on investment for the ever-increasing amount of effort required to obtain said love.

[BerenTebogo]

And yes, to answer your question, its entirely possible (and likely) that they are beta. It still doesn't explain the change in behavior.
The fact is, something is changing and that's what is being examined.

Long edit to my above post about what or why may be changing.

Let it never be said that this comic isn't 100% true.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physicists.png

[Charismatic]

Never heard of the term, so let me see if I got this correctly:

Heterosexual men are swearing off women because of the way they've been treated by women - while said women have just been acting the way men have for a long time?

If that's the case, females really are the stronger gender... Seriously, since when can't people deal with rejection?

Also, I meant to respond to this earlier.

You really shouldn’t be even asking this question. What men bring to the table and what women bring to the table in what we now refer to as the institution of Marriage 1.0, were two different assets to be exchanged for the mutual benefit of the children created by their union.

Men’s primary marital asset was their resources and ability to labor to acquire more resources, to support the family. Men with lesser means or abilities to provide were (and usually still are) viewed as less desirable marriage material, regardless of his sexual history.

Women’s primary martial asset was their guarantee to their husbands that children born of their union where his. Women with an openly promiscuous past are viewed as less desirable marriage material because of the greater chances of cuckoldry and infidelity, regardless of her ability to be a provider.

It’s not that there is a double standard, it’s just that there is two different standards: one for men, one for women – and the standards for each are simply based on what they each brought to the table by virtue of the formerly accepted and widely understood division of labor, which was based on gender. This was the essential paradigm of the institution we now refer to as marriage 1.0.

There cannot be this so-called sexual double-standard, because men’s contribution to the nuclear family unit was his capacity to be a provider, not his sexual purity. A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry her…but her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding.

Women complaining about this mythical double-standard, would be the equivalent to men complaining that more marriages should have the women be the providers while the men stay home, keep house and raise the kids.

Granted, such arrangements do occur nowadays…but for the most part, men & women both tend to look down on the men as somewhat less than masculine for doing so — hence the phrase “kitchen bitches” — just as women nowadays are free to be as promiscuous as the alpha males they wish to emulate…it’s just that most people will still regard them as sluts, no matter how bitterly they complain about this so-called “double-standard.”

This “double-standard” really only exists in the brainwashed minds of feminists and manginas alike.

Women who are caught up in obsessing over this so-called sexual “double-standard” are simply falling for the lies and propaganda promoted by the feminist kultural kommisars of our Brave New World Order, and reinforcing the memes that have contributed to the travesty we now know of as marriage 2.0.

No, the real double-standard that actually exists today, is the entire family court/divorce industry that enforces a system for which women have the right to withdraw their reproductive capacity and their nurturing and care giving – but men are not allowed to withdraw their provider role. In fact, they are explicitly prevented from doing that by the power of the Government and threatened with fines, imprisonment, loss of passports, professional practice and driving licenses, a permanent criminal record, and other sanctions our feminist-run Government has put into place to legalize this very real double-standard.

In other words, the only real double-standard that is in effect today in our declining civilization, is the one in which Women have no obligation or social pressure to live up to their marital vows, while men are forced to, even when the marriage is over.

You miss the real double-standard here: it takes two to get married, but only one — which is usually instigated by the woman – to get divorced.

[BerenTebogo]

Articles with these lines

Women who are caught up in obsessing over this so-called sexual “double-standard” are simply falling for the lies and propaganda promoted by the feminist kultural kommisars of our Brave New World Order, and reinforcing the memes that have contributed to the travesty we now know of as marriage 2.0.

You miss the real double-standard here: it takes two to get married, but only one — which is usually instigated by the woman – to get divorced.

Belong in a Mazmaz or Bum post Chari. Cmon man. You're better than that. That first one seriously looks like half the shit Bum posts in the police thread, just replace feminist with cops.