The Sexual Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[KirthWGersen]

Okay, it looks like you're new here. So it seems you're still in the phase where you think women are not any of those two I mentioned. I'll let you wander around until you figure it out.

We all know that women are more sexually deviant than men from experience and from all the secrets they confide in us.

If you think the more men a woman ****s makes her less happy, it is because you have been speaking to her as a provider not a lover. There is that temporary sadness when realise they can never have the kind of relationships Disney says she should have, unless they lie to some poor sucker. And that joy when she read realises you truly understand and, yes, you are going to **** her again.

You have to understand women as they are, not as you wish they were.

 

[HaleyBaron]

We all know that women are more sexually deviant than men from experience and from all the secrets they confide in us.

If you think the more men a woman ****s makes her less happy, it is because you have been speaking to her as a provider not a lover. There is that temporary sadness when realise they can never have the kind of relationships Disney says she should have, unless they lie to some poor sucker. And that joy when she read realises you truly understand and, yes, you are going to **** her again.

You have to understand women as they are, not as you wish they were.

I don't care what women think. I just want them to shut up, dress nice, keep skinny, and learn to suck a dvck. There's literally classes for that, ya know.

 

[KirthWGersen]

I don't care what women think. I just want them to shut up, dress nice, keep skinny, and learn to suck a dvck. There's literally classes for that, ya know.

Then we'll flirt together again when you have taken them.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

Here is an article about the Sexual Revolution. Its a long but quick read.

Thoughts?

———


While it gave (young) women and a small percentage of men the ability to sleep around willy nilly without commitment I firmly believe that the overall result of the sexual revolution has been so negative its long term badness lies somewhere between the Taiping rebellion and the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Previously society was at an equilibrium that as an average man you would find yourself an average wife who was (ideally) dedicated to you and you would support each other in your journey through this mortal coil. That we were in this situation was not an accident but the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution. It wasn't because some council of patriarchal elders decided to enforce traditional norms but because societies with traditional norms were better fits for human civilization so they outcompeted other ones until the alternatives were wiped out and trad norms became dominant (and no your two examples of current matriarchal societies are not a counterexample, look at their size and influence versus ours, if we wanted to we could remove any traces of their existence in less than a few months).

However with the sexual revolution this contract has been destroyed and we are in a state of free for all. The consequences have been dire, from Japan's unproductive herbivore men to the pandemic of single mothers in the west, especially among lower class people.

While loose sexual norms might work well for the sort of upper class elites who have safety nets to fall back on (and are the main people pushing this stuff) they wreak absolute havoc on the working class who don't have this support. Yes the Yale graduate who slept around will still be able to find a high quality husband to stick with her due to her class and connections but the community college woman risks being pumped and dumped into a single mom despite the fact that there are an order of magnitude more of the latter than the former. What's worse is that the Yale graduate will continue to support sleeping around saying that it did her no harm and ignore the destruction of the social contract and damage it does to people less fortunate than her (ironically she probably identifies as an intersectional feminist...).

Indeed there was research recently showing that while back in the day both rich and poor kids were roughly 95% likely to live in a two parent family at the moment although the rich still have a 85% two family rate the amount of poor kids in the same situation has dropped to 30%.

The sexual revolution has given men the freedom to not commit, while 100 years ago if you got a woman pregnant both social norms and her family would oblige you (forcefully if needed) to marry her and provide. Now as a man you are free to abscond your duty to your own child. Once again it is not the UMC doing this because they are better able to plan pregnancy and better abilities to handle unexpected ones but poorer people who don't enjoy any of this luxury. This is so extreme that among older working class women "Where are all the good men?" is now becoming "Where are all the men?"

This is before we have even gotten to the point of the damage the sexual revolution and our sex obsessed media which exaggerates everything further to maximize clicks has done on average and below average males. Your average man sees Chad on the TV screen effortlessly getting women to spread their legs (sometimes with a scene in which Chad meets a new woman which immediately cuts to one in which she is in his bed) and starts to believe that this is what life is like for the top 20% even though this is total media fiction (compare to how people overestimate the percentage of minorities in the country; minorities are overrepresented in the media, again due to our Yale Graduate believing this helps corrects for some past discrimination, then normal people see this increased amount and believe this reflects the real world).

Thus these average men get disillusioned with women and society (some even turning to in*cl movements), believing that all women get into bed with Chad two seconds after meeting him - because it is what they see on TV, and TV has become the main way most of us get information about the state of the world. Due to this these men are much less invested in their community - having a family meant that you wanted society in general to thrive because it meant your family would also be better off and it discouraged you from acting like a loose cannon because then your family would suffer e.g. the dad of two kids is much less likely to go on a shooting spree. Your slightly below average modern man does not have this moderating influence upon him anymore.

Thus in exchange for about half the population being able to sleep around no strings attached for a few years we have irreparably damaged the bonds holding society together. This damage to the social contract is likely irreparable. In the best case we may be able to adapt to this being the new normal while spending more and more resources on ersatz remedies to mitigate the negative effects. In the worst case western culture may just be in for a real time demonstration of why cultures with loose sexual norms did not survive long.

TLDR: Title

Enjoy the decline

 

[mrskinnypantz]

Seems like a woman’s point of view mostly.
cant blame men for not lookin for marriage or Ltr anymore. Lookin for an Ltr too quickly will scare most women off these days as it stinks of neediness and desperation anyway
how tf can you “over represent “ a “minority” ?
that’s an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp.

 

[SW15]

While it gave (young) women and a small percentage of men the ability to sleep around willy nilly without commitment I firmly believe that the overall result of the sexual revolution has been so negative its long term badness lies somewhere between the Taiping rebellion and the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Previously society was at an equilibrium that as an average man you would find yourself an average wife who was (ideally) dedicated to you and you would support each other in your journey through this mortal coil. That we were in this situation was not an accident but the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution.

The sexual revolution has given men the freedom to not commit, while 100 years ago if you got a woman pregnant both social norms and her family would oblige you (forcefully if needed) to marry her and provide. Now as a man you are free to abscond your duty to your own child.

Thus these average men get disillusioned with women and society (some even turning to in*cl movements), believing that all women get into bed with Chad two seconds after meeting him - because it is what they see on TV, and TV has become the main way most of us get information about the state of the world. Due to this these men are much less invested in their community - having a family meant that you wanted society in general to thrive because it meant your family would also be better off and it discouraged you from acting like a loose cannon because then your family would suffer e.g. the dad of two kids is much less likely to go on a shooting spree. Your slightly below average modern man does not have this moderating influence upon him anymore.

Thus in exchange for about half the population being able to sleep around no strings attached for a few years we have irreparably damaged the bonds holding society together. This damage to the social contract is likely irreparable. In the best case we may be able to adapt to this being the new normal while spending more and more resources on ersatz remedies to mitigate the negative effects. In the worst case western culture may just be in for a real time demonstration of why cultures with loose sexual norms did not survive long.

TLDR: Title

In terms of sex, the average man hasn't tremendously benefitted from The Sexual Revolution. However, women's hypergamy didn't really take off until website dating started around 2000. The increase in sexlessness rates for a large percentage of men correlate well with increases in use of website dating and later swipe app dating.

There was an era from the early 1970s until the mid to late 1990s where the The Sexual Revolution had happened but technology had yet to affect male sexlessness rates. That was probably a better era for me. There are Boomer and first half of Gen X guys who would have faced more sexlessness had they faced the conditions that the Millennials faced after 2000.

Technology in conjunction with The Sexual Revolution has been the worse outcome that the Revolution alone.

The Boomer and early X'er guys who dated under the age of 30 from the 1970s until the mid-1990s did have to deal with more broken women too as divorce rates were escalating.

The Sexual Revolution and technological changes working together has benefitted the Top 10-20% of men while the rest of men post have been worse off in the last 15-20 years.

When a large amount of men opt out.

Won't happen unless there are really good sex robots. Men are too thirsty for it to happen. Yes, there have been more MGTOW men lately. A lot of the MGTOW men are incels though. The average man is not a MGTOW. The average beta male is some chump trying to get laid on Tinder/Bumble/Hinge and/or doing approaches at bars (pre-pandemic).

 

[MatureDJ]

I like the analogy with the burning of the library at Alexandria. The author is preaching to the choir here; we, and our 'cel brethren, know what the deal is.

I think one of the main reasons (besides demographics) that there is such a dearth of folks wanting blue-collar jobs is that the men in that socio-economic group have just determined that with no steady poon and family to support, what's the point? While middle-aged 'cels don't make it on the sociologists' radar (i.e., because they can be discounted as simply having had a career in which their skillset is no longer economically viable), it will be the younger 'cels that go NEET that will get noticed, especially as we continue on in what appears to be a decade long labor shortage (in the USA). Oh sure, they'll work a little, but they know that if they can't make it to the next level and at least have a chance at getting poon by being an upper-tier BetaBuxxer, they have already been relegated to the "single mommy" market, and they will be damned if they work hard to support their woman's ex's spawn.

Men will look at every situation with a woman as, "unless she sexes me like she sexes Chad, I'm not going to play the game". I think I'm already there; I will have to feel like a woman looks at me as Chaddish, or I'm not playing.

 

[SW15]

they have already been relegated to the "single mommy" market, and they will be damned if they work hard to support their woman's ex's spawn.

Being relegated to the single mommy market isn't worth it, unless your plans are to only have casual sex with single moms. There's no potential for even a medium term (1-4 years) boyfriend-girlfriend type relationship there.

 

[MatureDJ]

There was an era from the early 1970s until the mid to late 1990s where the The Sexual Revolution had happened but technology had yet to affect male sexlessness rates. That was probably a better era for me. There are Boomer and first half of Gen X guys who would have faced more sexlessness had they faced the conditions that the Millennials faced after 2000.

It did feel like the dating market was working decently, although it did have its warts for short men. I had always blamed the Baby Dearth following the Baby Boom (i.e., which meant fewer younger chicks ) and younger women just getting fatter.

The Boomer and early X'er guys who dated under the age of 30 from the 1970s until the mid-1990s did have to deal with more broken women too as divorce rates were escalating.

These broken women were invisible to me back then, up until such time that prime childless, slender women just seemed to have evaporate. I kicked the tires a bit on these single mommies, but I could never go through with a 2nd date. By the late '90s I was full-bore into foreign chicks.

 

[MatureDJ]

I don't care what women think. I just want them to shut up, dress nice, keep skinny, and learn to suck a dvck. There's literally classes for that, ya know.

I'd actually be OK if the gal could just do a good handjob; I think that is very underrated, and indeed, that skill becomes an asset as a man matures. A hand can apply pressure better than any vajaya could.

 

[SW15]

It did feel like the dating market was working decently, although it did have its warts for short men. I had always blamed the Baby Dearth following the Baby Boom (i.e., which meant fewer younger chicks ) and younger women just getting fatter.

These broken women were invisible to me back then, up until such time that prime childless, slender women just seemed to have evaporate. I kicked the tires a bit on these single mommies, but I could never go through with a 2nd date. By the late '90s I was full-bore into foreign chicks.

Dating for short men has always been bad. A short man from the 1970s-1990s was 5'7" and under. Since the late 2000s with the explosion of tech, a short man is now considered under 6'0" if this is a tech assisted match. 5'10"-5'11" is meh. 5'9" is really pushing it short. A 5'10" guy in 1990 would not be considered problematic whereas it can be an issue now.

Gen X (1965-1981) was a smaller cohort than the Boomers. A fat, 25 year old woman in 1995 probably wouldn't be as fat as a fat 25 year old now.

 

[BadBoy89]

Very good analogy of giving children power. But I think it was less about giving women power and more about removing power from the "common male". This feminsed society, made the common male weak,...and made the oligarchs and people in power,...more powerful. Feminised societies do not rise up against their rulers as long as the rulers keep handing out the "free goodies".

Exactly.

Powerful people do anything to keep the power.

China -> All allegiance to the Party and State. Full control over people. Ban Bitcoin. Keep the politicians pockets fat.
Iran -> All allegiance to Islamic Republic. Full control over people. Keep the Ayatollahs pockets fat.
West -> Full democracy. Land of the free. Home of the Brave. What to do to keep power? Give young hot fertile women power. Keep their pockets fat.

So the question is: would a man rather live in country where he has no political freedom and it’s hard to get rich, but he can get sex from hot girls and marry them when they are young? Or would a man rather live in country where there is political freedom and you can get rich, but it’s ridiculously hard to have sex with young hot women?

 

[andreihaha]

Exactly.

Powerful people do anything to keep the power.

China -> All allegiance to the Party and State. Full control over people. Ban Bitcoin. Keep the politicians pockets fat.
Iran -> All allegiance to Islamic Republic. Full control over people. Keep the Ayatollahs pockets fat.
West -> Full democracy. Land of the free. Home of the Brave. What to do to keep power? Give young hot fertile women power. Keep their pockets fat.

So the question is: would a man rather live in country where he has no political freedom and it’s hard to get rich, but he can get sex from hot girls and marry them when they are young? Or would a man rather live in country where there is political freedom and you can get rich, but it’s ridiculously hard to have sex with young hot women?

The quick answer is this: neither.
Either relocate or be a the driving force that tries to change the system. Tough to say which is harder.

 

[MatureDJ]

This is totally untrue. Have you never read the Bible or any classical or medieval literature? Until the 19th century, women were considered to be the sex with the highest sex drive.

Women do have a higher sex drive ... for Chad.

 

[lost_blackbird]

And realize they are being ran by mostly women. If the boy gets out of control, he is put on medication (I have very big beef with the medication industry's tie in with schools to the point I blame them also for making autism and adhd a bigger deal than it really is

Can't argue with this, I'm too old to have been brought through a predominantly female school system, about
half of my teachers were male in secondary school. But only one or two of them had that male energy and
presence that made the class hush just by them walking into the room. I also am too old to have been fed a
bunch of pills for my developmental issues. I was an exceptionally bright child, it gave me a pass for some of
the stupid sh1t I was always up to. We still had the cane when I was at school and I was introduced to Mr Whippy
on more than a few occasions, not that it particularly made much difference. My father is also autistic to some
degree and his way of coping with that was to join the Navy when he was 16 and have someone else make all
his decisions for him. My sisters son is 9 and as autistic as they come, more so than me and my dad combined.
At school they have essentially treated him like a defective female, labelled him and now he's on all manner of
medications to modify his behaviour. They won't refer him to a specialist school because they get extra funding
for additional classroom and playground assistants to help with his challenging (literally challenging sometimes)
behaviour, so he's a cash cow for the small village school he attends. He really does need some help but encouragement
and engagement work a lot better than drugging his fromage frais (the only way my sister can get a pill into him)
does. I truly worry what the state is going to turn that boy into.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Can't argue with this, I'm too old to have been brought through a predominantly female school system, about
half of my teachers were male in secondary school. But only one or two of them had that male energy and
presence that made the class hush just by them walking into the room. I also am too old to have been fed a
bunch of pills for my developmental issues. I was an exceptionally bright child, it gave me a pass for some of
the stupid sh1t I was always up to. We still had the cane when I was at school and I was introduced to Mr Whippy
on more than a few occasions, not that it particularly made much difference. My father is also autistic to some
degree and his way of coping with that was to join the Navy when he was 16 and have someone else make all
his decisions for him. My sisters son is 9 and as autistic as they come, more so than me and my dad combined.
At school they have essentially treated him like a defective female, labelled him and now he's on all manner of
medications to modify his behaviour. They won't refer him to a specialist school because they get extra funding
for additional classroom and playground assistants to help with his challenging (literally challenging sometimes)
behaviour, so he's a cash cow for the small village school he attends. He really does need some help but encouragement
and engagement work a lot better than drugging his fromage frais (the only way my sister can get a pill into him)
does. I truly worry what the state is going to turn that boy into.

Yeah that pisses me off reading that. I keep seeing boys put on drugs when it's really, boys are far more likely to have antisocial and anti female behaviors where their energy is better spent elsewhere. A school is not paramount or needed for boys. I want to say all boys should leave public schools. And have schools ran by men, likely private. Btw, I was also a wild kid in school. I was smart, but troublesome too. Im surprised I didnt get put on meds. They almost did, however. I got through however thanks to my grandfather and here I am.

 

[Alvafe]

Can't argue with this, I'm too old to have been brought through a predominantly female school system, about
half of my teachers were male in secondary school. But only one or two of them had that male energy and
presence that made the class hush just by them walking into the room. I also am too old to have been fed a
bunch of pills for my developmental issues. I was an exceptionally bright child, it gave me a pass for some of
the stupid sh1t I was always up to. We still had the cane when I was at school and I was introduced to Mr Whippy
on more than a few occasions, not that it particularly made much difference. My father is also autistic to some
degree and his way of coping with that was to join the Navy when he was 16 and have someone else make all
his decisions for him. My sisters son is 9 and as autistic as they come, more so than me and my dad combined.
At school they have essentially treated him like a defective female, labelled him and now he's on all manner of
medications to modify his behaviour. They won't refer him to a specialist school because they get extra funding
for additional classroom and playground assistants to help with his challenging (literally challenging sometimes)
behaviour, so he's a cash cow for the small village school he attends. He really does need some help but encouragement
and engagement work a lot better than drugging his fromage frais (the only way my sister can get a pill into him)
does. I truly worry what the state is going to turn that boy into.

kinda bring me back the time I had to do some teaching in a school (not really teaching I had to give support for a computer lab), for colege, here schools are all female, from dumbass to retard, every once in a while you could find a good teacher, but most ...., here is the deal in less then a week I had more presence and could make the whole class stay quiet and behave thing most teachers with several decades there couldn't, hell some kids hated me but they always did what I told then to do, hell even the cleaners said I should be the director(after some months there) because I instill discipline better then anyone there, coupled with what I remember during my time in school and HS is no wonder the teachers want all kids using drugs, make easier to hide how bad they are

 

[HaleyBaron]

kinda bring me back the time I had to do some teaching in a school (not really teaching I had to give support for a computer lab), for colege, here schools are all female, from dumbass to retard, every once in a while you could find a good teacher, but most ...., here is the deal in less then a week I had more presence and could make the whole class stay quiet and behave thing most teachers with several decades there couldn't, hell some kids hated me but they always did what I told then to do, hell even the cleaners said I should be the director(after some months there) because I instill discipline better then anyone there, coupled with what I remember during my time in school and HS is no wonder the teachers want all kids using drugs, make easier to hide how bad they are

I did see a decrease in male teachers and admin as I got through school. Overwhelming a lot of women. I was momentarily in a middle school in the inner city and that set me straight fast with the male principal and more male teachers who could discipline with a paddle. There's something to be said about male discipline. It holds to my theory that women shouldn't even be involved in the raising of children. Only in the maturing of girls into women, and only if that woman is a woman herself and not a career woman.

 

[Kotaix]

Nietzsche predicted this happening 150 years ago when he realized that religion would no longer hold sway.

The cultures that have preserved their integrity by not taking part in the sexual revolution are still extremely strong. Even in the US you have sects like Hassidic jews and the Amish who still live by traditional rules have happier marriages and also have a community that loving supports itself.

In comparison, mainstream culture is a garbage heap.

 

[Hal9000]

I don't know about the sexual revolution, but the frigging internet has definitely ruined the life of the average guy trying to find a normal well adjusted girlfriend.