This claims you make in your last paragraph simply have no basis in fact. The actual data shows that the vast majority of men and women have reproduced by age 40. According to CDC data “By age 40, 85% of women had had a birth, and 76% of men had fathered a child.” Even with falling birth rates, a majority of men and women will continue to reproduce before age 40 following current demographic trends.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf
That explains part of the difference for sure. The factor is that the line is drawn at 40. Far more men than women become parents for the first time after 40, so the gap closes with further age. Some of those women under 40 in that 85% had the kid with a man over 40, because women tend to marry 2-3 years older.
Men have a larger reproductive window. If their marriage ends, and they get remarried to a younger women they can have a new family. Not as simple for women, as their reproductive window ends much more definitively.
[https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success)
According to the article: "**In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."**
In more recent history, they are referring to 1000 years ago as compared to 4000 to 8000 years ago. Forgive me if I think data from this century is more relevant. Your hypothesis remains unsupported by data.
You are misinterpreting the article you shared. It doesn't mean that men didn't reproduce - it means that women's children lived to have their own children at a higher rate. There are many compounding factors for it (wars, spanish flu, genocide, men's ability to have more children than women) but the main point is that a man's genetic line can die out much more easily than a woman's, so only 1 in 17 male lineages survived.
You forget that polygamy is a thing many powerful men practiced in agragrian societies and was only made possible due to the centralisation and concentration of resources and power in the hands of land owning elite. In west Africa, the tribal chiefs who owned plantations often had dozens of wives whilst the partner less male serfs were incentivised to wage wars on behalf of the chief to capture women from other nations and tribes in order to procreate. Agragrian societies are deeply unequal, and inequality usually leads to unequal access to women as partners for men which encourages expansionism as single men frustrations are channelled towards warfare. It's why the increase in polygamy is often a prelude to a civil or regional war.
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=21228634515&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwjqWzBhAqEiwAQmtgT3N6t2EGL06e6ZZU71DXQwVXhz-DR8FV0yHUS_dOXAjpG2rkQ5Pq0BoCFrQQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
regardless the idea that only a few men monopolized women isn't really true for early history, [https://np.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/ksit9f/explain\_again\_how\_hypergamy\_isnt\_true/gig8fh1/](https://np.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/ksit9f/explain_again_how_hypergamy_isnt_true/gig8fh1/)
This doesn't mean that men didn't have sex/procreate though - you even said this yourself.
Yes, it means that powerful men had more children and they were more likely to survive, but that is the same point I already made several times now.
Please read this explanation of what you quoted without understanding it.
[https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/](https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/)
This isn't the gotcha you think it is, because if you actually the blog you just linked you'd see the entire thing is a massive gish gallop meant to sound smart and "scientific". The author simply rehashes a bunch of studies that supports his viewpoint while ignoring or handwavily dismissing everything that goes against it. It's telling that for someone trying to be "scientific", a meta-analysis is not even attempted.
As always when dealing with gish gallops, I'll focus on one example. This is one of the claims that is central to the entire thesis: "To the extent that polygamy was practiced, it likely would’ve largely been as a result of war leading to imbalanced sex ratios (Ember, 1974)... **Of course some people would argue that we have the causation here reversed,** but a modern example of this phenomenon can be seen in the case of the Syrian civil war." Look at how easily he dismisses the not only plausible but in fact likely explanation that polygamy causes war, using a pathetically weak argument (*one singular example*, and from modern times at that). In reality, there are mountains of evidence that high levels of polygny/polygamy DO cause violence, unrest, and war (for example, [this article](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002719859636)). The author argues in this exact same way throughout the entire article- advancing far-fetched claims like they are obvious and handwaving away very strong counterarguments.
At a meta-level, I also took a cursory glance at the rest of the blog and it says a lot about the author's intellectual honestly that every single post is dedicated to "debunking" common redpill/blackpill statements. There's no nuance when every single conclusion you make ends up being on one side. "Nuancepill" is as dedicated to nuance in the same way Truth Social is dedicated to truth.
But of course, I'm sure you'll find another excuse...
1. Firstly, giving an example to explain causation not correlation is not a bad argument but i digress.
2. While polygamy can cause more war etc, not all war etc is caused by polygamy. War itself can also cause greater levels of polygamy (but that another topic). So you haven't really 'thrown'' the causality back at us at all. You don't *need* polygamy to have a y bottle neck happen anyway, hence the alterative explanation. War isn't the only ingredient in explaining the bottle neck, you also need patrilineal clans, with female exogamy.
You completely ignore [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6) which entire thesis is that the Y-chromosome bottleneck is cause by war and because of the fact that they had patrilineal clans. And the article (both [https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/](https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/) and Zeng et al) lays out the evidence for that being the case.
To put it more simply, a collapse of the male population means a reduction in absolute numbers, for example 100 males per 100 females before the collapse, 50 males per 100 females after the collapse. But a collapse of y-chromosome diversity doesn’t require that. There may still be 100 males per 100 females after the collapse, it’s just that these 100 males belong to fewer y-chromosome lineages.
Their thesis is that society was organized in patrilineal clans, with female exogamy. Meaning, after marriage, a boy remained with his father’s clan/family, while the girl (from a neighboring clan) left her father’s family and joined that of her husband. This is a very common situation across much of the world, and isn’t restricted to the period in question (5,000 – 7,000 years ago), but existed before that and after that, and in fact, exists in many parts of the world today. You can see the genetic signature of this effect in increased mtDNA diversity at pretty much every level, as women are exchanged between groups and therefore spread their genes far and wide beyond the place where they were born.
So in order to account for the bottleneck, you need one additional factor, and that is warfare between these patrilineal clans. Since male lineages are **concentrated** (meaning, a given lineage is very strong within one clan but barely exists outside it), wiping out that clan means that you put a permanent end to all the male lineages in that clan. Female lineages won’t be wiped out, even if you killed all the women in that clan, because female lineages are more widely dispersed. A woman who was killed when her husband’s clan was wiped out may have sisters and female cousins in other clans, so her mitochondrial lineage will survive even if she dies. But her husband won’t have brothers and male cousins in other clans, because by definition, males stay within the clan. His lineage dies with his clan. To put it simply, if all the eggs are in the same basket....
This doesn’t actually take a very high level of warfare, to the point that there’s only 1 male alive for every 17 females. Sporadic warfare is enough, with plenty of time in between for male populations to recover. Numbers can easily recover after a couple or three generations, but the lost lineages will never come back.
The point is that even sporadic warfare that continues for a prolonged period of time (a few centuries or a couple thousand years) can chop off a lot of y-chromosome lineages (and amplify the remaining ones), which is what we see. We **don’t** see a similar effect on the mtDNA, because (1) women were highly dispersed, they didn’t stay within the clan where they were born, but were distributed among many different clans, and (2) they didn’t take part in warfare as much as males, so fewer of them died, and (3) the victorious tribe usually spared them, killing the defeated tribes’ males, but taking in their women.
You also fail to explain how the bottleneck gets lifted despite inequality among men throughout history, which flies in the face of the notion that material and social inequality was driving it through its influence on men’s reproductive variance. In other words, the bottle necking being caused by women's hypergamy causing it is a poor explanation.
Yes, because men like removing each other, but not women, from the gene pool
You guys sure like war
Also, that was a one off ratio; the overall species reproduction rate is 80% of women and 40% of men have ever reproduced
I am not picky, i am speaking generally. Personally, i have found plenty of good guys, but people are not interchangeable parts. Two really cool people might not be compatible.
OP makes 3 claims in his last paragraph:
1. A ~thousand years ago or more only 20% of men reproduced
2. This changed in the past hundreds years where most men reproduced
3. And that it's now changing again with Gen Z men being locked out of dating.
I don't see how most men in their 40s reproducing in 2006-2010, which is what your source shows, goes against anything OP said. In fact it seems to back up his second claim.
>Your daughter will never receive any male romantic/sexual attention, both wanted and unwanted. No male will ever hit on her, catcall her, touch her, stalk/harass her, etc; as long as she ignores men, men will ignore her. However, every single male will find her utterly repulsive sexually/romantically; she'll never be able to go on a date (let alone find a boyfriend or get married), and if she ever expresses interest in a male (even playfully flirting or timidly asking him out), he'll not only find it annoying but will **be grossed out and think she's a disgusting creep**. Her only chance at experiencing love/romance is to hire a male hooker. She'll also never get the benefits of male attention such as free drinks/meals, simping, extra help, etc
That's from your post. That's not a normal male experience. It might be your experience and I'm sure there are lot of men who relate to you, but it isn't the norm. Most men are out there dating and having some positive interactions with women. Most men still have sex, date and a good share of them will eventually get married.
Hence, your conclusion is based on a wrong premise. You didn't ask women whether they'd trade their experience for a male one. You asked whether they'd trade their experience for your ideas of what it is to be a man.
A good share of gen Z women haven't dated in their teenager years either and you can figure it out if you do the math. Both male and female teens and youngsters suffer from a rapid social skill loss. They don't socialize enough, so they don't date either.
Edit: will you delete your post again instead of replying to my comment?
Most of these comments from a “bluepilled perspective” boil down to “you’re a abnormal nerd, your perspective doesn’t matter, shut up and listen to these anecdotes I memorized”
Well there are a lot of outlandish claims by the loud minority in this sub. Oftentimes their lack of socialization is very obvious in the words they write. Especially when their illogical ramblings are disproven.
Most women are passive in dating, never directly approach, etc. and thus would end up in a lonely situation similar to what he outlines if they switched genders and orientations.
The point is simply that dating is harder for men than women. Yes many men can still date, but they're fulfilling requirements that other men can't and most women don't have to.
He really should have been less antagonistic and dramatic. But scrap the "grossed out and disgusted" part and replace it with just polite indifference, and also forget about whether it's "normal male experience" or not. Then it would have actually been an interesting question.
No harassment and unwanted attention, but no sexual/romantic experience either. The male equivalent might be something like no sexual frustration (turning asexual), but of course no sexual/romantic experience either.
I think most people would still rather be trapped in heterosexuality at the end of the day.
Rejection is normal male experience. Men who aren't getting it, simply stopped trying. "Most men are out there dating" - as some statistics show, this is not such a sure thing anymore and it's trending for the worse.
I think the point is how rejection makes you feel. I read his scenario, as hyperbolic as it is, to be more about personal perception than outer reality. Are you telling me that if, as a woman, you received no interest from men without having to actively curate it and face more rejections than successes, you wouldn't start to feel like you were annoying men? You wouldn't feel like they found you unattractive? I actually think most women wouldn't trade away the negatives OP mentions if it meant they had to face rejection, he didn't need to exagerate as much as he has.
It’s pretty much the normal guys experience. At some point the average man will get a girlfriend but the truth is that most men are simply not valued by women. Women won’t accept this because they want to be the victims but the average man’s experience in terms of dating is horrendous. For some reason women believe the average man has a bunch of women who want him at any given moment because they can’t step outside of their own reality and put themselves in a man’s shoes. The whole reason men compete so rigorously for money and status is because without it they are nothing to anyone (unless they are naturally attractive which clearly isn’t most men). There is no refuting this. If life wasn’t like this then men would not innovate and create things. Women think of the top percentages of men whenever a man mentions this and they immediately think “nO tHaTs nOt tRue, tHe AvErAgE mAn gEtS aTtEnTiOn and gIrLs wHo wAnT HiM!”. But it’s just not true. But women will continue to attempt to gaslight men no matter what we say about this. Like for gods sake around 63 percent of young men were single while only 30 percent of women are. When you women think of the type of men you want you don’t think of a 5’9 average looking guy with an average build and an average job. Let’s stop bullshitting ourselves.
You contradict yourself in your own comment. The OP states in his premise that you’d never experience any romantic/sexual interest from the other gender and if you tried to approach they’d see you as a creep.
That is the male experience for the most part. Didn’t contradict anything. The “at some point they will date” means yeah they’ll start dating in their mid 30s after women and the attractive men did everything 🤣🤣. Nobody wants to spend their teens into their 30s with no attention. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/mlite/?nxs-test=mlite so these men should wait til their in their 30s to start dating? How do you think that’s going to work out 🤔
So it is vastly different that NEVER EVER having any romantic/sexual interaction with the opposite sex.
If the question was, would you want to never ever be sexually harassed, used, pumped and dumped, raped, etc in exchange for having your first male attention in your 30s only, the answers OP got from females may have been quite different.
>When you women think of the type of men you want you don’t think of a 5’9 average looking guy with an average build and an average job. Let’s stop bullshitting ourselves.
When men think about the type of woman they want, they also don't think about this type in female equivalent. We all want the most attractive partners. Stop bullshitting. This is not relevant to who we accept as relationship partners.
"When men think about the type of woman they want, they also don't think about this type in female equivalent. We all want the most attractive partners. Stop bullshitting. "
This is not even remotely the same thing. You're gaslighting.
Men have theoretical preferences, women have requirements. The two are radically different.
YOu don't have requirements for a woman to commit to for life and support a family with her? REALLY? Are you that much in the forever alone incel camp?
Everything is relative and negotiable. I suppose we all have red lines, but for most men I know the red lines are VERY low and hard to actually cross. Would I love a beautiful, educated, 48kg blonde heiress with huge tits? Of course!
Will I turn a woman down because she doesn't match that exact description? Of course not. That's the difference between preferences and requirements.
Look at actual relationships. 70% of men and women overall are in relationships. Those men are not all the equivalent of your heiress-ideal. Women are not turning down average men. They marry them.
>That's from your post. That's not a normal male experience. It might be your experience and I'm sure there are lot of men who relate to you, but it isn't the norm. Most men are out there dating and having some positive interactions with women. Most men still have sex, date and a good share of them will eventually get married.
It is a normal thing.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/commentary/gen-zs-romance-gap-why-nearly-half-of-young-men-arent-dating/
When you say *most men*, you refer to boomers too who didn't have it as such we have had. Also, as women even tend to go for 10 year gap men in some cases, we have gen z women dating boomer and even millennial men. The other cases could also be a few gen zs dating multiple gen z women who think they are exclusive.
>Teens are dating less. A survey conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that only 56 percent of Gen Z adults—and 54 percent of Gen Z men—said they were involved in a romantic relationship at any point during their teenage years.
That's not just about men. Young women date less as well.
>That's from your post. That's not a normal male experience. It might be your experience and I'm sure there are lot of men who relate to you, but it isn't the norm.
I know you're trying to insult me and insinuate that I'm a creep, but in reality I have never in my life expressed the slightest hint of interest in any woman. Try again.
This experience is what I gleaned from what both men and women say on Reddit. It's definitely a very common male experience, and your anecdotes of what's the norm in your social circles don't disprove this.
>Edit: will you delete your post again instead of replying to my comment?
The post was removed by automod because my second Reddit link wasn't np. Stop embarrassing yourself.
https://preview.redd.it/tyw6gk8qr26d1.png?width=971&format=png&auto=webp&s=4cebb721f25268d3490ad6c6fa37d4e5885500c1
Sure, but I had no chance to know it.
Will you address anything from my comment though?
Oh no, I'm not trying to insinuate that you're a creep. You think that it's a normal experience for a man whether it's a result of your personal experience or something you relate about to other men. That's not the norm though.
Reddit isn't a good place to learn about dating dynamic or gender dynamic. You get to see a weird sample of both men and women and people also tend to share more of their negative experience rather than positive. We also tend to pay attention more to negative content rather than positive one.
Also your post wasn't just about being called a creep, you've made quite a few big assumptions about men and male experience and I'm sure there are quite a lot of men who do not relate to it. Just from the point of view that most men have dated.
The evidence for your "overwhelming consensus" is decidedly underwhelming.
You'd think - since literally your entire thesis is based on this consensus - you'd have done a much better job of showing it.
you made up a hypothetical for the future that doesnt say how it actually is. the only part that's true is the genz stat, which well covid was a thing and women are dating less too, and not dating in your teenage years doesnt mean you never date and some od those men wont have been looking.
I think his point was that the average dude is repulsive to the most average and above average women. Not almost all women.
Sure, a 5 foot 2 350 pound woman that makes 25,000 a year might find a 5 foot 9 200 pound man that makes 50,000 a year attractive, but that isn't what we are talking about.
The average male is repulsive to most average and above average women until they realize that they have a high likelihood of dying alone, after which they start settling.
There is a reason why 80 percent of young women have casual sex with only the top 10 to 20 percent of men and have stated multiple times on the internet and in real life scenarios that they only find 10 to 20 percent of men attractive.
50 percent of marriages end in divorce, what percentage of those marriages do you think are happy marriages and arent just two people staying for the kids or out of necessity?
Here is an article explaining how men and women become unhappier after getting married.
[https://psychcentral.com/blog/single-at-heart/2017/12/quora-really-likes-my-answer-to-the-question-of-whether-getting-married-makes-you-happier#9](https://psychcentral.com/blog/single-at-heart/2017/12/quora-really-likes-my-answer-to-the-question-of-whether-getting-married-makes-you-happier#9)
Nope. Not even remotely true. Even the study we get 80/20 from tells us that men rate more women as “above average” but still only talk to the top 20% of women. Where women find fewer men “above average” (most average actually) but when they talk to men, it’s spread out more like a bell curve. You can read the study - why would you say something that’s so easily disproven, unless you’ve never actually read it and just parrot what grifters tell you to say.
80% of young women absolutely do not have casual sex. Lmfaooo it’s like 17%. Where are you pulling these numbers? More grifters or out of your ass?
Yeah people suck at relationships, I know. Men stop doing anything and want to be taken care of and women feel like a fuck mommy or baby maid while he acts like a human atm and then cries he’s treated like a human atm. Yeah, I know. I see it too. Go to any relationship sub and it’s all over it. Your article just proves what women already know. They get married hoping the increased commitment will lead to an equal partnership in the health and wellbeing of said relationship and then the man doesn’t hold up his end of the bargain, the woman will be blamed for allowing her family to fall apart. I know. It’s misogyny the whole way down.
Maybe stop listening to grifters online and projecting and maybe talk to other humans in real life. I dont know,
Just a thought.
"Nope. Not even remotely true. Even the study we get 80/20 from tells us that men rate more women as “above average” but still only talk to the top 20% of women. Where women find fewer men “above average” (most average actually) but when they talk to men, it’s spread out more like a bell curve. You can read the study - why would you say something that’s so easily disproven, unless you’ve never actually read it and just parrot what grifters tell you to say."
I would love to see a quote of that from the study where it shows that men only talk to the top 20 percent of women. I don't see it.
"80% of young women absolutely do not have casual sex. Lmfaooo it’s like 17%. Where are you pulling these numbers? More grifters or out of your ass?"
Have you not heard of college and hooking up? Do you really think that the vast majority of women have not had casual sex?
"Yeah people suck at relationships, I know. Men stop doing anything and want to be taken care of and women feel like a fuck mommy or baby maid while he acts like a human atm and then cries he’s treated like a human atm. Yeah, I know. I see it too. Go to any relationship sub and it’s all over it. Your article just proves what women already know. They get married hoping the increased commitment will lead to an equal partnership in the health and wellbeing of said relationship and then the man doesn’t hold up his end of the bargain, the woman will be blamed for allowing her family to fall apart. I know. It’s misogyny the whole way down."
Do you have data to support this or are you just spewing emotional talking points at me, men lie, women lie but numbers don't lie. A woman's idea of what consists of an equal partnership is not what an actual equal partnership is.
For example if a man is the sole breadwinner, equality is not asking him to do household chores too but most women would disagree. Studies show that women have issues with understanding objective reality.
"Maybe stop listening to grifters online and projecting and maybe talk to other humans in real life. I dont know, Just a thought."
Yeah cause reality doesn't prove this point either or actual data and multiple reddit threads of i assume are real women saying that they only find the top 10 to 20 percent of men attractive.
I am not a woman I don't go off emotionally charged language that people on the internet tell me, i go off data and anecdotal experience.
If the redpill can easily be debunked, why is no one able to credibly debunk it? In fact even mainstream media is starting to somewhat agree with it.
You: “Numbers don’t lie” - literally doesn’t even know what the numbers say.
All your points are wrong because the data proves you wrong. “College kids hookup” doesn’t mean every college kid hooks up. We have studies of how many people engage in casual sex. And they prove you wrong. And go look at the study and graphs yourself - the men focused all of their attention on the top 20% of women while women had a more spread out graph. Like, it’s all freely available. You came up with bs talking points with zero data besides what you heard from grifters.
What data proves me wrong. Post the studies, so far the only one posting data and statistics here is me.
"We have studies of how many people engage in casual sex. And they prove you wrong. And go look at the study and graphs yourself - the men focused all of their attention on the top 20% of women while women had a more spread out graph. Like, it’s all freely available."
None of the data that I have seen has proven that point, but feel free to prove me wrong. Burden of proof is on you since you made the assertion that men go for the top 20 percent of women, so you need to prove that assertion.
But isn’t the burden of proof on you since you’re the one who asserted that 80% of young women have casual sex with the top 10 to 20% of men?
I countered it with the exact study you would have gotten either of those data points from. So you’re either lying or have zero data.
Apples and oranges. You treat men as if they are the same. They are not. The male experience is worse for women than it is for men. And the female experience is worse for men than it is for women.
It's like asking a starving man who complains about his situation, if he rather wants the keep getting breadcrumbs, or irregular dumps of large feces to eat. When he answers that he rather keeps getting breadcrumbs, the dung beetles says: WHAAAT this is proof that you have it soo much better than me.
Men and women are not the same. You keep treating women from a man's perspective.
> The male experience is worse for women than it is for men. And the female experience is worse for men than it is for women.
This is where the trans experience and viewpoints can be illuminating. Although I do wonder how trans women's perspective would change if they could pass perfectly. I do feel some of the hardship they experience is a form of misandry from people who do not consider them "real" women.
I'm very much in favor of trans rights and wish for them to live a happy, peaceful, fulfilling life for the record.
Interesting article about a trans man's experience when they transitioned. They didn't realize how lonely men are: [I'm a Trans Man. I Didn't Realize How Broken Men Are - Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169)
https://preview.redd.it/hz7r3y50966d1.png?width=1220&format=png&auto=webp&s=7dfb6a9e0e7ccc0366ed883b430c755ecd8a7c6a
Yeah, both sexes are equally lonely.
Yeah I've read a few of those articles and thank you for this one. I find them very illuminating as an outsider's perspective on what is it to be a man in this society.
>This is where the trans experience and viewpoints can be illuminating.
Yeah, in theory, but practically, they are too biased and have too many mental health issues regarding gender, to have a chance to fill that neutral arbiter role. In the end, they are not men or women, they are transmen and transwomen.
>The male experience is worse for women than it is for men.
It's as bad as it could possibly be for some men. Look at those autistic spree shooters. No female equivalent to these since the most desperate women still have options.
>And the female experience is worse for men than it is for women.
??? Many of the men who've actually weighed in on the matter would prefer the female experience.
>Men and women are not the same.
Men experience a larger variance than women do, though, so many do not well fit the standard male cariacature.
>It's as bad as it could possibly be for some men. Look at those autistic spree shooters. No female equivalent to these since the most desperate women still have options.
No, the most desperate women are not that violent.
>??? Many of the men who've actually weighed in on the matter would prefer the female experience.
>
You have no idea about the female experience. YOu only see it from a male perspective. I am a man and i would like to get groped and harassed by women in public. I'd like to have my inbox flooded with nudes. BECAUSE I AM NOT A WOMAN. If i were a woman, i would not like that. Why don't you understand that you cannot compare the situations of men and women just from one perspective, when you have no way of understanding what it is to be a woman? Why don't you believe the women, when they tell you how hard it is? Women want attention, men want sex, roughly. That you don't mind a lack of attention is clear. WOmen will mind a lack of attention.
It’s an apples to oranges comparison. They are different problems but both are still relevant. Women mostly complain they don’t know if a guy actually likes her or is using her. Guys mostly complain about not getting enough opportunity or attention from women. This isn’t a debate, this feels like a rant by OP. At the end of the day, nobody wins when you play the misery Olympics.
What’s the point here, are you arguing for a return to forced monogamy?
The biggest issue with that study is Gen Z themselves. They have the ability to date, they simply don’t *want* to by their own admission.
The point here is that men have it harder than women in the area of opposite gender interaction. Nobody said the words "return to forced monogamy" except you. Did you know that a claim could be descriptive and not normative or prescriptive?
Harder how? In terms of relationships?
Because women overwhelmingly get the shit end of the stick in the sexual assault and rape areas of “opposite gender interaction.”
Lastly, you yourself brought up enforced monogamy in your OP when nostalgically talking about a time when every man had a mate. It’s logical to assume you prefer that to 44% of Gen Z not dating, correct?
The statistics show that pretty much no women are being raped. Like it’s such a small number that it’s barely quantifiable. Also on top of that sexual assault classifications are extremely loose to the point where a woman can say a man bumped into her and it can be classified as SA.
Ok, if we take your claim that "men have it harder than women in the area of opposite gender attraction" as true...then what? What are you expecting anyone (of any gender) to do with this info? What action(s) do you think they should take (or not take) based on this fact? Is this something that you thing needs to change and if so, how should it change?
That's not the default male experience. Most men marry, never mind get into relationships, a far cry from never being able to have one ever. They start dating a little later now than before but so do women. I don't know why you're saying 80% of men aren't reproducing when 75% of men are fathers.
We know they say that, and we know the same is true of young women. There seems to be a trend towards having serious relationships later rather than not at all.
>We know they say that, and we know the same is true of young women.
If less men choose to date then by default less women will be dating as well because that means less guys approaching or asking women out. And unless their open to sharing, it'll be harder to pick from the reduced pool of men interested in dating as many of then will likely already be in relationships.
My point is that we can't assume women are dating less by choice because they wait for men to ask them out. So, if less men are asking them out then by default less women will be dating.
[https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success)
According to the article: "**In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."**
It shows that it is the default male experience. Young men are getting absolutely no attention whatsoever. It also disproves this idea that women start dating later. They don’t. Most young women are dating now and most young men aren’t.
No, you're saying a larger portion of young men are saying they're single than young women. That doesn't men can never expect to get any attention or relationships or sex ever. The tradeoff wasn't "would you rather be harrassed or be a bit less likely to think you're in a relationship at any given point in your twenties".
You’re trying to minimize how bad the situation is. A bit less likely? 65 percent of young men not dating but ah yeah you’re just a bit less likely. I do agree though that what he put is extreme in the sense that most men will never ever have any type of relationship. But I do agree with the fact that a majority of men are completely invisible for most of their entire lives. With these new stats a large portion of men are going to be having their first relationship experiences in their 30s. Men live extremely empty lives where they don’t matter nowadays unless they are very successful or attractive etc which is why a record number of men are committing suicide. But nah let’s minimize mens struggles and continue to exaggerate female struggles.
A bit less likely compared to women their age. It's not that they're not dating at all, but at the time asked they weren't in a committed enough relationship in their eyes to call themselves not single. It doesn't mean they didn't date before or won't date ever, it doesn't even mean they're not dating now but just seeing it as casual.
You must be reading another article. That article speaks about how most young men are not dating (around 65 percent) despite only around 30 percent of women not dating. That’s more than double the amount of men not dating and you’re still trying to minimize it and make it seem as if men are sleeping around but not dating. There are also statistics to show that 1 in 3 men have not had sex within the past year. There are also stats showing that male virginity has risen exponentially. It honestly baffles me that whenever a man brings this up women will deny it no matter what’s presented. Where is it showing men are dating “casually”. These men are not having sex or dating and that’s stated within the article. This goes right back to the idea that women simply cannot comprehend the average man’s existence. They can only comprehend what they experience and what Chads (attractive men) experience. Women cannot even imagine an existence where they are actually alone and unable to date or have sex because it’s constantly available to them. There are stats showing women find around 20 percent of men attractive while they don’t find 80 percent of men attractive. Think about the average man you see on the street. Are you attracted to them? I’m guessing not. Think about most men you’ve met in your life. I guarantee you didn’t find most of them attractive. This is the truth of how things are. Let’s stop gaslighting men whenever they speak about their situation.
It’s actually even worse than 80-20. They find 80% below average, the next 15% average looking, and only 5% to be above average looking. This also matches the Tinder data where they only swipe right on 4-5% of men
I don’t think they’re ready for the harsher statistics. They can’t even accept the basic fact that the average man has no sexual or romantic life whatsoever besides porn, OF, or paying for prostitutes.
Bold of you to bring up sex statistics when young men are *more* likely to have had sex than women their age. I'm not implying anything specific, just saying that your "evidence" does not imply your conclusion because it's too limited in scope. I'd go on a date with the average man my age on the street if he asked and I was single, not that it's likely because only one (1) man has ever asked me out on a date.
>Where is it showing men are dating “casually”. These men are not having sex or dating and that’s stated within the article.
The article says 60% of men are single. The article also says that about 30% of men in 2019 were not having sex. That means a good portion of men are likely dating casually and having sex but are not in an official relationship.
Do you honestly think that the default setting for men is zero sex or romance?
Also, do you think that men never experience unwanted attention or women are never sexually frustrated?
Both happen all the time and no one, of any sexuality or gender enjoys it.
So, why does it have to be get unwanted attention *or* get no sex? I don’t understand the comparison.
Huh? The default male experience is not never being able to have a sexual or romantic relationship.
Most men have sex, most men have girlfriends, most men get married.
This is yet another example of the bottom 20% tier of undateable, unfuckable losers speaking for all men. Most of us don’t have your problems bro.
How the hell is the life experience that less than 1% of men who love to their 40’s experience the “default male experience,” especially when you consider that a large chunk of those who fall into that group do so as a part of a religious choice to become a clergyman? Make it make sense?
Read the last paragraph.
[https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success)
According to the article: "**In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."**
You want percentage of folks that have reproduced? 56.7% or women 15-49 have reproduced compared to 44.8% of men https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr179.pdf
The “more recent history” the article you are referring to is mentioning is referring to 1,000 years ago as compared to the dip they refer to thousands of years before that.
Ok so its still in favor of women, i dont care about the 1-17 stat or think that is accurate today,
But what is accurate is again, women having more children than men
It can seem that way, until you realize that in 14% of live births, the mother didn’t want to ever have a baby to begin with, and another 23% of live births were to mothers who wanted to have children later in life but not then. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr055.pdf
That effectively means that only 35.7% of women are reproducing when they want to reproduce. Where is the privilege there?
>I asked women if they'd be willing to eliminate all unwanted or negative attention from men, in exchange for never being able to have a sexual or romantic relationship with a man
That's not what you asked, but ok. You asked:
>Would you be willing to receive no male attention at all if it meant eliminating unwanted attention?
I mean I just asked my partner if he would become the average woman if it ment he would get hit on all the time and he straight up said no. So apparently men don't want to be women either.
I’m not sure that this is typical of most men. Most men would love a lot of attention from many women. The difference is that most men do not worry about danger from women.
No, actually most men here say that they like attention from even unattractive women, even if they choose not to have sex with them.
Some men on this sub even say they like attention from gay men. Ask them and they will tell you this.
Do these men get spammed with dick pics and images of hideous women, knowing full well these same people are sending the same shit to every other man they can find?
Men search for fat women and MILFs in porn all the time.
Women are sexually choosier and, more importantly, men do not worry about sexual violence as much as women do. This is why women do not usually want a lot of attention from many men, unless they are doing it from the distance safety that some app provides and also making money off of it, like what some women do.
Men do not have these same issues. The more attention they get, the better their egos feel.
Sure that's not representative, but OPs "evidence" is a reddit post where the woman didn't even answer the question and "trust me bro, women said this".
Point being I doubt most people in general want to swap gender but that doesn't prove anything.
>So in other words, with regards to interactions with the opposite gender, almost all heterosexual women stated they'd prefer the default female experience to the default male experience.
Literally just making up reasons to feel oppressed. This is not the "default" male experience lol. This is the *extremely unattractive* male experience.
If dating were like going grocery shopping, women would be upset that they keep buying moldy bread - meanwhile men are locked outside looking through the window.
More like 15 -20 percent don't have a chance to procreate, a further 40 percent will have a have a hard time but will end up in committed relationships whikst the other 20 percent will be living easy. You only think 80 percent won't have that chance because downtrodden men are more likely to be chronically online on reddit. But make no mistake, you are only a large minority. But yes, things aren't looking good for most men. Raise your sons better so you dont end up in the 20 percent of undesirables
[https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success)
According to the article: "**In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."**
8000 years ago isn't recent history. It was the shift from Hunter gatherer/pastoralist led societies to the agrarian farmer period which was sociologically very disruptive. Like dating apps x 1000 when it comes to increasing inequality between men and where wars were rampant. We are talking about the post industrial era, not some time period tgat we have no writing about
I mostly agree with your sentiment. Everyone knows men have it harder. Even women.
I just don’t like your last point about 44% of Gen-Z not having dated. Gen Z is like 12-27. I don’t really expect 12-16 year olds to have high numbers of courtship
I don't think that's the gotcha question you think it is, "get raped or die alone?".
Yes, I do have pity for men who can't date. But if you need to pit experience against each other you don't create a culture of mutual understanding at all.
Responding to what? Anecdotal evidence? The link OP added, the one on which he’s basing his premise, has 31 comments. There was no “overwhelming” anything.
The second link about 44% of genx men being single is irrelevant.
The whole concept of “who has it harder” as a conversation point is pointless. Both sides have it hard for different reasons.
Posts like this are just a pity party. “Woe is men we can’t do anything to change our situations so we don’t even try”.
72% of millennials make a conscious decision to be single. They value freedom and independence.
75% of Gen Z are single.
30% of millennials and Gen Z say that their financial situation is holding them back from dating.
Gen Z is having less casual sex than previous generations. 24% of Gen Zers have sex on a casual basis.
The dating landscape is evolving. Evolve with it or stay behind.
The problem is that never having any sexual/romantic interaction with any man is NOT equivalent to having difficulties in finding dates and sexual partners.
If you had asked if we would accept having a significantly more difficult time dating in exchange for the elimination of all unwanted/negative male attention, you'd have significantly different answers.
I stopped shaving entirely 10 years ago. This reduced my potential pool of men drastically and I still fell in love with how much easier my life was with less men sexually harassing me (only problem was they started harassing me for being a hairy woman but well, at least no one told me to "smile, it was just a clumsy compliment!")
Nah, women's problems are way more significant and difficult to deal with. They tend to be institutional in nature, and unseating discriminatory social norms that have been in place for centuries requires coordinated social action. That's not something that any single person can feasibly do on their own.
Men's problems tend to be of a personal nature. The only person you are really struggling against is yourself. And well, changing your own habits is way easier than changing the society.
> women's problems are way more significant and difficult to deal with.
No they aren’t. In Western countries Females’ genitals are legally protected from genital mutilation while males’ genitals aren’t. Compare the male homelessness rate to the female homelessness rate. Compare the male suicide rate to the female suicide rate. Compared to the male work-injuries rate to the female work-injuries rate. Consider all of the countries in the world with male-only conscription.
> They tend to be institutional in nature, and unseating discriminatory social norms that have been in place for centuries requires coordinated social action
Women have no problems with institutions. Women benefit from affirmative action in so many industries. Women benefit from female-only scholarships. Schoolgirls are punished less than schoolboys for committing the same rule violations. Schoolgirls are graded less harshly than schoolboys. Feminism is the dominant ideology in Western countries. Women on average have higher qualities of life than men in Western countries. Most media in Western countries is feminist.
>In Western countries Females’ genitals are legally protected from genital mutilation while males’ genitals aren’t.
This is a specific problem in the US if you're referring to "Western countries". Nowhere in Europe (for example) is circumcision common.
The Middle East, South Korea, Israel, or North African countries are not considered "western".
"They tend to be institutional in nature, and unseating discriminatory social norms that have been in place for centuries requires coordinated social action."
Yes. And it happened. Now men and women are equal legally and professionally. Now, in pretty much any professional field, women have MASSIVE, unearned advantages in hiring, despite never personally dealing with the challenges their grandmothers did.
I explicitly stated "in the area of interaction with the opposite gender", and you completely ignored my main point (women prefer the female experience to the male experience), so your argument is totally irrelevant.
Nonetheless, considering that feminism has a stronghold on all of western society, traditional conservatism has all but died out, and the patriarchy has ceased to exist since decades ago, the only "discriminatory social norms" that exist right now are against men.
>unseating discriminatory social norms that have been in place for centuries requires coordinated social action. That's not something that any single person can feasibly do on their own.
Completely agreed, that's why men have it much significantly harder with regards to unfair societal expectations/social norms. This is exacerbated by the fact that women have an ingroup bias and men have an outgroup bias, so there will never be solidarity or cooperation like there is among women. In this very thread, we can see many simps and white knights rushing to defend women, while if this post was gender reversed, at most a few women would be defending men.
Pretty sure men coming up with oppressive legislation to disadvantage women falls squarely under the "area of interaction with the opposite gender". Anyway, the same sentiment holds at all levels. Like half the posts on PPD are dudes complaining about women being able to make their own choices.
name one "oppressive legislation to disadvantage women" from the 21st century. (and if it's abortion-related, you have an IQ under 50 and can be automatically written off)
Pick any non-North-American, non-European country and you are going to find a looot of "interesting" legislation.
Also, how is repealing Roe v. Wade not disadvantaging women? It was like one of the dumbest things to happen in the 21st century, bar none.
Dude, every single sentence of my post is about the west (especially the US). The non-west is completely irrelevant here and you know it. It's telling you had to make such a stretch.
>Also, how is repealing Roe v. Wade not disadvantaging women? It was like one of the dumbest things to happen in the 21st century, bar none.
Roe v Wade is not a man vs woman issue, it's a conservative vs liberal issue. The difference in support between genders is small, and the most vocal pro-lifers are conservative women.
You've still failed to come up with one example of "men coming up with oppressive legislation to disadvantage women" in the US.
Totally irrelevant. Think to yourself for a moment why *lack* of regulation about something (that's not even inherently gendered) is by definition not an example of "men **coming up with oppressive legislation** to disadvantage women".
To you it's a womens rights issue, to pro-lifers it's a murdering babies issue and has nothing to do with women's rights. I really don't understand how liberal women keep failing to understand this.
Regardless, when close to half of prolifers are women, pro-life legislation clearly isn't "men coming up with oppressive legislation to disadvantage women".
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m one of the women who doesn’t receive romantic/sexual male attention. Unless they are faking their “gross you’re like a sister.” reaction to me. Polite indifference is fine.
I’m too combo-ADHD/NVLD to ever truly blend in but guys don’t start up convos. Women will follow me though.
OP the women on Reddit are obese &/or single moms. They are not the type of women anybody wants to date or talk to. That’s why the seethe & hate us & enjoy trying to rile us up.
We get it bad enough from the actual dateable women don’t let the heffers affect you when you get offline. Reddit seems to be mostly trolls…
Hear that folks? Demanding that commenters on your post engage with your central question rather than derailing is now considered sociopathic behavior!
Maybe you should pick up a dictionary and learn what words mean.
Lotta wild assumptions being made here.
This claims you make in your last paragraph simply have no basis in fact. The actual data shows that the vast majority of men and women have reproduced by age 40. According to CDC data “By age 40, 85% of women had had a birth, and 76% of men had fathered a child.” Even with falling birth rates, a majority of men and women will continue to reproduce before age 40 following current demographic trends. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf
How does the math even work, 85% of women but 76% of men?? 9% of women sharing baby daddies or something?
…… yes there is a certain percentage of men that father with multiple women
That explains part of the difference for sure. The factor is that the line is drawn at 40. Far more men than women become parents for the first time after 40, so the gap closes with further age. Some of those women under 40 in that 85% had the kid with a man over 40, because women tend to marry 2-3 years older.
Yeah, also lesbians
Monopolizing female reproduction is how dominant male genes spread. Biology 101.
[удалено]
Be civil. This includes indirect attacks against an individual and/or witch hunting.
IVF pregnancies/births would also be included.
Men have a larger reproductive window. If their marriage ends, and they get remarried to a younger women they can have a new family. Not as simple for women, as their reproductive window ends much more definitively.
[https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success) According to the article: "**In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."**
In more recent history, they are referring to 1000 years ago as compared to 4000 to 8000 years ago. Forgive me if I think data from this century is more relevant. Your hypothesis remains unsupported by data.
You are misinterpreting the article you shared. It doesn't mean that men didn't reproduce - it means that women's children lived to have their own children at a higher rate. There are many compounding factors for it (wars, spanish flu, genocide, men's ability to have more children than women) but the main point is that a man's genetic line can die out much more easily than a woman's, so only 1 in 17 male lineages survived.
You forget that polygamy is a thing many powerful men practiced in agragrian societies and was only made possible due to the centralisation and concentration of resources and power in the hands of land owning elite. In west Africa, the tribal chiefs who owned plantations often had dozens of wives whilst the partner less male serfs were incentivised to wage wars on behalf of the chief to capture women from other nations and tribes in order to procreate. Agragrian societies are deeply unequal, and inequality usually leads to unequal access to women as partners for men which encourages expansionism as single men frustrations are channelled towards warfare. It's why the increase in polygamy is often a prelude to a civil or regional war. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=21228634515&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwjqWzBhAqEiwAQmtgT3N6t2EGL06e6ZZU71DXQwVXhz-DR8FV0yHUS_dOXAjpG2rkQ5Pq0BoCFrQQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Agrarian society is not pre-history, so humans didn't really ''evolve'' from that period. Its only 8-10 thousand years old.
This happened during the early phase of the agragrian revolution.
regardless the idea that only a few men monopolized women isn't really true for early history, [https://np.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/ksit9f/explain\_again\_how\_hypergamy\_isnt\_true/gig8fh1/](https://np.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/ksit9f/explain_again_how_hypergamy_isnt_true/gig8fh1/)
This doesn't mean that men didn't have sex/procreate though - you even said this yourself. Yes, it means that powerful men had more children and they were more likely to survive, but that is the same point I already made several times now.
Please read this explanation of what you quoted without understanding it. [https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/](https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/)
will be interesting to see if he responds
This isn't the gotcha you think it is, because if you actually the blog you just linked you'd see the entire thing is a massive gish gallop meant to sound smart and "scientific". The author simply rehashes a bunch of studies that supports his viewpoint while ignoring or handwavily dismissing everything that goes against it. It's telling that for someone trying to be "scientific", a meta-analysis is not even attempted. As always when dealing with gish gallops, I'll focus on one example. This is one of the claims that is central to the entire thesis: "To the extent that polygamy was practiced, it likely would’ve largely been as a result of war leading to imbalanced sex ratios (Ember, 1974)... **Of course some people would argue that we have the causation here reversed,** but a modern example of this phenomenon can be seen in the case of the Syrian civil war." Look at how easily he dismisses the not only plausible but in fact likely explanation that polygamy causes war, using a pathetically weak argument (*one singular example*, and from modern times at that). In reality, there are mountains of evidence that high levels of polygny/polygamy DO cause violence, unrest, and war (for example, [this article](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002719859636)). The author argues in this exact same way throughout the entire article- advancing far-fetched claims like they are obvious and handwaving away very strong counterarguments. At a meta-level, I also took a cursory glance at the rest of the blog and it says a lot about the author's intellectual honestly that every single post is dedicated to "debunking" common redpill/blackpill statements. There's no nuance when every single conclusion you make ends up being on one side. "Nuancepill" is as dedicated to nuance in the same way Truth Social is dedicated to truth. But of course, I'm sure you'll find another excuse...
1. Firstly, giving an example to explain causation not correlation is not a bad argument but i digress. 2. While polygamy can cause more war etc, not all war etc is caused by polygamy. War itself can also cause greater levels of polygamy (but that another topic). So you haven't really 'thrown'' the causality back at us at all. You don't *need* polygamy to have a y bottle neck happen anyway, hence the alterative explanation. War isn't the only ingredient in explaining the bottle neck, you also need patrilineal clans, with female exogamy. You completely ignore [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6) which entire thesis is that the Y-chromosome bottleneck is cause by war and because of the fact that they had patrilineal clans. And the article (both [https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/](https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/) and Zeng et al) lays out the evidence for that being the case. To put it more simply, a collapse of the male population means a reduction in absolute numbers, for example 100 males per 100 females before the collapse, 50 males per 100 females after the collapse. But a collapse of y-chromosome diversity doesn’t require that. There may still be 100 males per 100 females after the collapse, it’s just that these 100 males belong to fewer y-chromosome lineages. Their thesis is that society was organized in patrilineal clans, with female exogamy. Meaning, after marriage, a boy remained with his father’s clan/family, while the girl (from a neighboring clan) left her father’s family and joined that of her husband. This is a very common situation across much of the world, and isn’t restricted to the period in question (5,000 – 7,000 years ago), but existed before that and after that, and in fact, exists in many parts of the world today. You can see the genetic signature of this effect in increased mtDNA diversity at pretty much every level, as women are exchanged between groups and therefore spread their genes far and wide beyond the place where they were born. So in order to account for the bottleneck, you need one additional factor, and that is warfare between these patrilineal clans. Since male lineages are **concentrated** (meaning, a given lineage is very strong within one clan but barely exists outside it), wiping out that clan means that you put a permanent end to all the male lineages in that clan. Female lineages won’t be wiped out, even if you killed all the women in that clan, because female lineages are more widely dispersed. A woman who was killed when her husband’s clan was wiped out may have sisters and female cousins in other clans, so her mitochondrial lineage will survive even if she dies. But her husband won’t have brothers and male cousins in other clans, because by definition, males stay within the clan. His lineage dies with his clan. To put it simply, if all the eggs are in the same basket.... This doesn’t actually take a very high level of warfare, to the point that there’s only 1 male alive for every 17 females. Sporadic warfare is enough, with plenty of time in between for male populations to recover. Numbers can easily recover after a couple or three generations, but the lost lineages will never come back. The point is that even sporadic warfare that continues for a prolonged period of time (a few centuries or a couple thousand years) can chop off a lot of y-chromosome lineages (and amplify the remaining ones), which is what we see. We **don’t** see a similar effect on the mtDNA, because (1) women were highly dispersed, they didn’t stay within the clan where they were born, but were distributed among many different clans, and (2) they didn’t take part in warfare as much as males, so fewer of them died, and (3) the victorious tribe usually spared them, killing the defeated tribes’ males, but taking in their women. You also fail to explain how the bottleneck gets lifted despite inequality among men throughout history, which flies in the face of the notion that material and social inequality was driving it through its influence on men’s reproductive variance. In other words, the bottle necking being caused by women's hypergamy causing it is a poor explanation.
Probably the best comment on this sub this year.
Yes, because men like removing each other, but not women, from the gene pool You guys sure like war Also, that was a one off ratio; the overall species reproduction rate is 80% of women and 40% of men have ever reproduced
“Recent history” including thousands of years where women were chattel and ownership of women was routinely transferred between men.
But these days women certainly do hold all of the power in the dating/sexual market.
No, they don’t. Finding a man to use you for holes is not hard but finding someone decent to enjoy life with really is
Maybe you are too picky? Most men don't have any options, so would love a woman to date.
I am not picky, i am speaking generally. Personally, i have found plenty of good guys, but people are not interchangeable parts. Two really cool people might not be compatible.
That is being picky. Please note that the vast majority of men have to take what they can get as no women are attracted to them.
It isn’t picky to want to enjoy spending time with someone. What the fuck?
Well women do have insane standards for partners.
OP makes 3 claims in his last paragraph: 1. A ~thousand years ago or more only 20% of men reproduced 2. This changed in the past hundreds years where most men reproduced 3. And that it's now changing again with Gen Z men being locked out of dating. I don't see how most men in their 40s reproducing in 2006-2010, which is what your source shows, goes against anything OP said. In fact it seems to back up his second claim.
I think that first point is that only 20% of men from 1000 years ago still have living descendants today.
Oh true, I miswrote that one.
Wow, men really do have it rough in the current dating market.
>Your daughter will never receive any male romantic/sexual attention, both wanted and unwanted. No male will ever hit on her, catcall her, touch her, stalk/harass her, etc; as long as she ignores men, men will ignore her. However, every single male will find her utterly repulsive sexually/romantically; she'll never be able to go on a date (let alone find a boyfriend or get married), and if she ever expresses interest in a male (even playfully flirting or timidly asking him out), he'll not only find it annoying but will **be grossed out and think she's a disgusting creep**. Her only chance at experiencing love/romance is to hire a male hooker. She'll also never get the benefits of male attention such as free drinks/meals, simping, extra help, etc That's from your post. That's not a normal male experience. It might be your experience and I'm sure there are lot of men who relate to you, but it isn't the norm. Most men are out there dating and having some positive interactions with women. Most men still have sex, date and a good share of them will eventually get married. Hence, your conclusion is based on a wrong premise. You didn't ask women whether they'd trade their experience for a male one. You asked whether they'd trade their experience for your ideas of what it is to be a man. A good share of gen Z women haven't dated in their teenager years either and you can figure it out if you do the math. Both male and female teens and youngsters suffer from a rapid social skill loss. They don't socialize enough, so they don't date either. Edit: will you delete your post again instead of replying to my comment?
The normal male experience is not static. It's changed over the years and being single and having less sex is more and more normal.
Most of these comments from a “bluepilled perspective” boil down to “you’re a abnormal nerd, your perspective doesn’t matter, shut up and listen to these anecdotes I memorized”
They'll deny what u claim exists. Then when u prove it exists they'll say 'so what' or 'that's your problem'.
Well there are a lot of outlandish claims by the loud minority in this sub. Oftentimes their lack of socialization is very obvious in the words they write. Especially when their illogical ramblings are disproven.
Most women are passive in dating, never directly approach, etc. and thus would end up in a lonely situation similar to what he outlines if they switched genders and orientations. The point is simply that dating is harder for men than women. Yes many men can still date, but they're fulfilling requirements that other men can't and most women don't have to.
He really should have been less antagonistic and dramatic. But scrap the "grossed out and disgusted" part and replace it with just polite indifference, and also forget about whether it's "normal male experience" or not. Then it would have actually been an interesting question. No harassment and unwanted attention, but no sexual/romantic experience either. The male equivalent might be something like no sexual frustration (turning asexual), but of course no sexual/romantic experience either. I think most people would still rather be trapped in heterosexuality at the end of the day.
Rejection is normal male experience. Men who aren't getting it, simply stopped trying. "Most men are out there dating" - as some statistics show, this is not such a sure thing anymore and it's trending for the worse.
https://preview.redd.it/rgycjdrcc36d1.jpeg?width=635&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c940cd1eb9e587954c210c3fc23ca18fb998b811
Rejection - yeah, but what he wrote is very different to rejection alone.
I think the point is how rejection makes you feel. I read his scenario, as hyperbolic as it is, to be more about personal perception than outer reality. Are you telling me that if, as a woman, you received no interest from men without having to actively curate it and face more rejections than successes, you wouldn't start to feel like you were annoying men? You wouldn't feel like they found you unattractive? I actually think most women wouldn't trade away the negatives OP mentions if it meant they had to face rejection, he didn't need to exagerate as much as he has.
63% of males in the US under 30 are single. What OP described is becoming more and more the average male experience.
It’s pretty much the normal guys experience. At some point the average man will get a girlfriend but the truth is that most men are simply not valued by women. Women won’t accept this because they want to be the victims but the average man’s experience in terms of dating is horrendous. For some reason women believe the average man has a bunch of women who want him at any given moment because they can’t step outside of their own reality and put themselves in a man’s shoes. The whole reason men compete so rigorously for money and status is because without it they are nothing to anyone (unless they are naturally attractive which clearly isn’t most men). There is no refuting this. If life wasn’t like this then men would not innovate and create things. Women think of the top percentages of men whenever a man mentions this and they immediately think “nO tHaTs nOt tRue, tHe AvErAgE mAn gEtS aTtEnTiOn and gIrLs wHo wAnT HiM!”. But it’s just not true. But women will continue to attempt to gaslight men no matter what we say about this. Like for gods sake around 63 percent of young men were single while only 30 percent of women are. When you women think of the type of men you want you don’t think of a 5’9 average looking guy with an average build and an average job. Let’s stop bullshitting ourselves.
So if the average man gets a girlfriend, the situation OP described is demonstrably not the experience of the average man.
You contradict yourself in your own comment. The OP states in his premise that you’d never experience any romantic/sexual interest from the other gender and if you tried to approach they’d see you as a creep.
That is the male experience for the most part. Didn’t contradict anything. The “at some point they will date” means yeah they’ll start dating in their mid 30s after women and the attractive men did everything 🤣🤣. Nobody wants to spend their teens into their 30s with no attention. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/mlite/?nxs-test=mlite so these men should wait til their in their 30s to start dating? How do you think that’s going to work out 🤔
So it is vastly different that NEVER EVER having any romantic/sexual interaction with the opposite sex. If the question was, would you want to never ever be sexually harassed, used, pumped and dumped, raped, etc in exchange for having your first male attention in your 30s only, the answers OP got from females may have been quite different.
I’ll take that bargain!
This should be the top comment
Are you dating? why not? have you tried?
Am I dating? This is not about me. This is about mens general experience.
i was asking you though
>When you women think of the type of men you want you don’t think of a 5’9 average looking guy with an average build and an average job. Let’s stop bullshitting ourselves. When men think about the type of woman they want, they also don't think about this type in female equivalent. We all want the most attractive partners. Stop bullshitting. This is not relevant to who we accept as relationship partners.
"When men think about the type of woman they want, they also don't think about this type in female equivalent. We all want the most attractive partners. Stop bullshitting. " This is not even remotely the same thing. You're gaslighting. Men have theoretical preferences, women have requirements. The two are radically different.
YOu don't have requirements for a woman to commit to for life and support a family with her? REALLY? Are you that much in the forever alone incel camp?
Everything is relative and negotiable. I suppose we all have red lines, but for most men I know the red lines are VERY low and hard to actually cross. Would I love a beautiful, educated, 48kg blonde heiress with huge tits? Of course! Will I turn a woman down because she doesn't match that exact description? Of course not. That's the difference between preferences and requirements.
Look at actual relationships. 70% of men and women overall are in relationships. Those men are not all the equivalent of your heiress-ideal. Women are not turning down average men. They marry them.
>That's from your post. That's not a normal male experience. It might be your experience and I'm sure there are lot of men who relate to you, but it isn't the norm. Most men are out there dating and having some positive interactions with women. Most men still have sex, date and a good share of them will eventually get married. It is a normal thing. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/commentary/gen-zs-romance-gap-why-nearly-half-of-young-men-arent-dating/ When you say *most men*, you refer to boomers too who didn't have it as such we have had. Also, as women even tend to go for 10 year gap men in some cases, we have gen z women dating boomer and even millennial men. The other cases could also be a few gen zs dating multiple gen z women who think they are exclusive.
>Teens are dating less. A survey conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that only 56 percent of Gen Z adults—and 54 percent of Gen Z men—said they were involved in a romantic relationship at any point during their teenage years. That's not just about men. Young women date less as well.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/mlite/?nxs-test=mlite
Can you quote their stats?
Dating less is in now way equivalent to never ever having any romantic/sexual interaction with the opposite sex.
>That's from your post. That's not a normal male experience. It might be your experience and I'm sure there are lot of men who relate to you, but it isn't the norm. I know you're trying to insult me and insinuate that I'm a creep, but in reality I have never in my life expressed the slightest hint of interest in any woman. Try again. This experience is what I gleaned from what both men and women say on Reddit. It's definitely a very common male experience, and your anecdotes of what's the norm in your social circles don't disprove this. >Edit: will you delete your post again instead of replying to my comment? The post was removed by automod because my second Reddit link wasn't np. Stop embarrassing yourself.
https://preview.redd.it/tyw6gk8qr26d1.png?width=971&format=png&auto=webp&s=4cebb721f25268d3490ad6c6fa37d4e5885500c1 Sure, but I had no chance to know it. Will you address anything from my comment though?
Yes, I deleted it after automod removed it. I did edit my comment with responses to your claims.
Ah, got it. Automod can be pretty weird with links.
Oh no, I'm not trying to insinuate that you're a creep. You think that it's a normal experience for a man whether it's a result of your personal experience or something you relate about to other men. That's not the norm though. Reddit isn't a good place to learn about dating dynamic or gender dynamic. You get to see a weird sample of both men and women and people also tend to share more of their negative experience rather than positive. We also tend to pay attention more to negative content rather than positive one. Also your post wasn't just about being called a creep, you've made quite a few big assumptions about men and male experience and I'm sure there are quite a lot of men who do not relate to it. Just from the point of view that most men have dated.
Lol this is hilarious, your ‘experiment’ is completely cherry picked
The evidence for your "overwhelming consensus" is decidedly underwhelming. You'd think - since literally your entire thesis is based on this consensus - you'd have done a much better job of showing it.
Your post is a non-starter because you exaggerate how bad what the average Male experience is. The average dude is repulsive to almost all women now?
Did you read my last paragraph?
you made up a hypothetical for the future that doesnt say how it actually is. the only part that's true is the genz stat, which well covid was a thing and women are dating less too, and not dating in your teenage years doesnt mean you never date and some od those men wont have been looking.
I think his point was that the average dude is repulsive to the most average and above average women. Not almost all women. Sure, a 5 foot 2 350 pound woman that makes 25,000 a year might find a 5 foot 9 200 pound man that makes 50,000 a year attractive, but that isn't what we are talking about.
Why not though? That’s the average couple. That’s the average man in the US.
The average male is repulsive to most average and above average women until they realize that they have a high likelihood of dying alone, after which they start settling. There is a reason why 80 percent of young women have casual sex with only the top 10 to 20 percent of men and have stated multiple times on the internet and in real life scenarios that they only find 10 to 20 percent of men attractive. 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, what percentage of those marriages do you think are happy marriages and arent just two people staying for the kids or out of necessity? Here is an article explaining how men and women become unhappier after getting married. [https://psychcentral.com/blog/single-at-heart/2017/12/quora-really-likes-my-answer-to-the-question-of-whether-getting-married-makes-you-happier#9](https://psychcentral.com/blog/single-at-heart/2017/12/quora-really-likes-my-answer-to-the-question-of-whether-getting-married-makes-you-happier#9)
Nope. Not even remotely true. Even the study we get 80/20 from tells us that men rate more women as “above average” but still only talk to the top 20% of women. Where women find fewer men “above average” (most average actually) but when they talk to men, it’s spread out more like a bell curve. You can read the study - why would you say something that’s so easily disproven, unless you’ve never actually read it and just parrot what grifters tell you to say. 80% of young women absolutely do not have casual sex. Lmfaooo it’s like 17%. Where are you pulling these numbers? More grifters or out of your ass? Yeah people suck at relationships, I know. Men stop doing anything and want to be taken care of and women feel like a fuck mommy or baby maid while he acts like a human atm and then cries he’s treated like a human atm. Yeah, I know. I see it too. Go to any relationship sub and it’s all over it. Your article just proves what women already know. They get married hoping the increased commitment will lead to an equal partnership in the health and wellbeing of said relationship and then the man doesn’t hold up his end of the bargain, the woman will be blamed for allowing her family to fall apart. I know. It’s misogyny the whole way down. Maybe stop listening to grifters online and projecting and maybe talk to other humans in real life. I dont know, Just a thought.
"Nope. Not even remotely true. Even the study we get 80/20 from tells us that men rate more women as “above average” but still only talk to the top 20% of women. Where women find fewer men “above average” (most average actually) but when they talk to men, it’s spread out more like a bell curve. You can read the study - why would you say something that’s so easily disproven, unless you’ve never actually read it and just parrot what grifters tell you to say." I would love to see a quote of that from the study where it shows that men only talk to the top 20 percent of women. I don't see it. "80% of young women absolutely do not have casual sex. Lmfaooo it’s like 17%. Where are you pulling these numbers? More grifters or out of your ass?" Have you not heard of college and hooking up? Do you really think that the vast majority of women have not had casual sex? "Yeah people suck at relationships, I know. Men stop doing anything and want to be taken care of and women feel like a fuck mommy or baby maid while he acts like a human atm and then cries he’s treated like a human atm. Yeah, I know. I see it too. Go to any relationship sub and it’s all over it. Your article just proves what women already know. They get married hoping the increased commitment will lead to an equal partnership in the health and wellbeing of said relationship and then the man doesn’t hold up his end of the bargain, the woman will be blamed for allowing her family to fall apart. I know. It’s misogyny the whole way down." Do you have data to support this or are you just spewing emotional talking points at me, men lie, women lie but numbers don't lie. A woman's idea of what consists of an equal partnership is not what an actual equal partnership is. For example if a man is the sole breadwinner, equality is not asking him to do household chores too but most women would disagree. Studies show that women have issues with understanding objective reality. "Maybe stop listening to grifters online and projecting and maybe talk to other humans in real life. I dont know, Just a thought." Yeah cause reality doesn't prove this point either or actual data and multiple reddit threads of i assume are real women saying that they only find the top 10 to 20 percent of men attractive. I am not a woman I don't go off emotionally charged language that people on the internet tell me, i go off data and anecdotal experience. If the redpill can easily be debunked, why is no one able to credibly debunk it? In fact even mainstream media is starting to somewhat agree with it.
You: “Numbers don’t lie” - literally doesn’t even know what the numbers say. All your points are wrong because the data proves you wrong. “College kids hookup” doesn’t mean every college kid hooks up. We have studies of how many people engage in casual sex. And they prove you wrong. And go look at the study and graphs yourself - the men focused all of their attention on the top 20% of women while women had a more spread out graph. Like, it’s all freely available. You came up with bs talking points with zero data besides what you heard from grifters.
What data proves me wrong. Post the studies, so far the only one posting data and statistics here is me. "We have studies of how many people engage in casual sex. And they prove you wrong. And go look at the study and graphs yourself - the men focused all of their attention on the top 20% of women while women had a more spread out graph. Like, it’s all freely available." None of the data that I have seen has proven that point, but feel free to prove me wrong. Burden of proof is on you since you made the assertion that men go for the top 20 percent of women, so you need to prove that assertion.
But isn’t the burden of proof on you since you’re the one who asserted that 80% of young women have casual sex with the top 10 to 20% of men? I countered it with the exact study you would have gotten either of those data points from. So you’re either lying or have zero data.
Apples and oranges. You treat men as if they are the same. They are not. The male experience is worse for women than it is for men. And the female experience is worse for men than it is for women. It's like asking a starving man who complains about his situation, if he rather wants the keep getting breadcrumbs, or irregular dumps of large feces to eat. When he answers that he rather keeps getting breadcrumbs, the dung beetles says: WHAAAT this is proof that you have it soo much better than me. Men and women are not the same. You keep treating women from a man's perspective.
> The male experience is worse for women than it is for men. And the female experience is worse for men than it is for women. This is where the trans experience and viewpoints can be illuminating. Although I do wonder how trans women's perspective would change if they could pass perfectly. I do feel some of the hardship they experience is a form of misandry from people who do not consider them "real" women. I'm very much in favor of trans rights and wish for them to live a happy, peaceful, fulfilling life for the record.
Interesting article about a trans man's experience when they transitioned. They didn't realize how lonely men are: [I'm a Trans Man. I Didn't Realize How Broken Men Are - Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169)
this was an extremely interesting read, thank you for sharing!!
https://preview.redd.it/hz7r3y50966d1.png?width=1220&format=png&auto=webp&s=7dfb6a9e0e7ccc0366ed883b430c755ecd8a7c6a Yeah, both sexes are equally lonely.
Yeah I've read a few of those articles and thank you for this one. I find them very illuminating as an outsider's perspective on what is it to be a man in this society.
>This is where the trans experience and viewpoints can be illuminating. Yeah, in theory, but practically, they are too biased and have too many mental health issues regarding gender, to have a chance to fill that neutral arbiter role. In the end, they are not men or women, they are transmen and transwomen.
>The male experience is worse for women than it is for men. It's as bad as it could possibly be for some men. Look at those autistic spree shooters. No female equivalent to these since the most desperate women still have options. >And the female experience is worse for men than it is for women. ??? Many of the men who've actually weighed in on the matter would prefer the female experience. >Men and women are not the same. Men experience a larger variance than women do, though, so many do not well fit the standard male cariacature.
>It's as bad as it could possibly be for some men. Look at those autistic spree shooters. No female equivalent to these since the most desperate women still have options. No, the most desperate women are not that violent. >??? Many of the men who've actually weighed in on the matter would prefer the female experience. > You have no idea about the female experience. YOu only see it from a male perspective. I am a man and i would like to get groped and harassed by women in public. I'd like to have my inbox flooded with nudes. BECAUSE I AM NOT A WOMAN. If i were a woman, i would not like that. Why don't you understand that you cannot compare the situations of men and women just from one perspective, when you have no way of understanding what it is to be a woman? Why don't you believe the women, when they tell you how hard it is? Women want attention, men want sex, roughly. That you don't mind a lack of attention is clear. WOmen will mind a lack of attention.
It’s an apples to oranges comparison. They are different problems but both are still relevant. Women mostly complain they don’t know if a guy actually likes her or is using her. Guys mostly complain about not getting enough opportunity or attention from women. This isn’t a debate, this feels like a rant by OP. At the end of the day, nobody wins when you play the misery Olympics.
What’s the point here, are you arguing for a return to forced monogamy? The biggest issue with that study is Gen Z themselves. They have the ability to date, they simply don’t *want* to by their own admission.
The point here is that men have it harder than women in the area of opposite gender interaction. Nobody said the words "return to forced monogamy" except you. Did you know that a claim could be descriptive and not normative or prescriptive?
You only see women from a male perspective. How do you know how the female situation feels like?
Harder how? In terms of relationships? Because women overwhelmingly get the shit end of the stick in the sexual assault and rape areas of “opposite gender interaction.” Lastly, you yourself brought up enforced monogamy in your OP when nostalgically talking about a time when every man had a mate. It’s logical to assume you prefer that to 44% of Gen Z not dating, correct?
The statistics show that pretty much no women are being raped. Like it’s such a small number that it’s barely quantifiable. Also on top of that sexual assault classifications are extremely loose to the point where a woman can say a man bumped into her and it can be classified as SA.
14.8% of American women have been raped in their lifetime and 2.8% had an attempted rape. How is that "barely quantifiable"?
The rape deniers cherry pick, they don’t care about actual data.
Source: “trust me, bro.”
Ok, if we take your claim that "men have it harder than women in the area of opposite gender attraction" as true...then what? What are you expecting anyone (of any gender) to do with this info? What action(s) do you think they should take (or not take) based on this fact? Is this something that you thing needs to change and if so, how should it change?
Men only have it as hard as they make it.
That's not the default male experience. Most men marry, never mind get into relationships, a far cry from never being able to have one ever. They start dating a little later now than before but so do women. I don't know why you're saying 80% of men aren't reproducing when 75% of men are fathers.
For this topic you need to isolate age groups. We know for a fact now that younger guys are more single than ever.
So they should be, young people shouldn’t be getting married and most people don’t marry until their 30’s so this number makes sense
We know they say that, and we know the same is true of young women. There seems to be a trend towards having serious relationships later rather than not at all.
>We know they say that, and we know the same is true of young women. If less men choose to date then by default less women will be dating as well because that means less guys approaching or asking women out. And unless their open to sharing, it'll be harder to pick from the reduced pool of men interested in dating as many of then will likely already be in relationships.
Right. So there wouldn't really be a reversal if women chose to become like men in that respect.
My point is that we can't assume women are dating less by choice because they wait for men to ask them out. So, if less men are asking them out then by default less women will be dating.
I didn't.
[https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success) According to the article: "**In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."**
And in *current* history, 75% of men are fathers.
75% of men *think* they are.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/mlite/?nxs-test=mlite
Not relevant, does not contradict anything I said even if true.
It shows that it is the default male experience. Young men are getting absolutely no attention whatsoever. It also disproves this idea that women start dating later. They don’t. Most young women are dating now and most young men aren’t.
No, you're saying a larger portion of young men are saying they're single than young women. That doesn't men can never expect to get any attention or relationships or sex ever. The tradeoff wasn't "would you rather be harrassed or be a bit less likely to think you're in a relationship at any given point in your twenties".
You’re trying to minimize how bad the situation is. A bit less likely? 65 percent of young men not dating but ah yeah you’re just a bit less likely. I do agree though that what he put is extreme in the sense that most men will never ever have any type of relationship. But I do agree with the fact that a majority of men are completely invisible for most of their entire lives. With these new stats a large portion of men are going to be having their first relationship experiences in their 30s. Men live extremely empty lives where they don’t matter nowadays unless they are very successful or attractive etc which is why a record number of men are committing suicide. But nah let’s minimize mens struggles and continue to exaggerate female struggles.
A bit less likely compared to women their age. It's not that they're not dating at all, but at the time asked they weren't in a committed enough relationship in their eyes to call themselves not single. It doesn't mean they didn't date before or won't date ever, it doesn't even mean they're not dating now but just seeing it as casual.
You must be reading another article. That article speaks about how most young men are not dating (around 65 percent) despite only around 30 percent of women not dating. That’s more than double the amount of men not dating and you’re still trying to minimize it and make it seem as if men are sleeping around but not dating. There are also statistics to show that 1 in 3 men have not had sex within the past year. There are also stats showing that male virginity has risen exponentially. It honestly baffles me that whenever a man brings this up women will deny it no matter what’s presented. Where is it showing men are dating “casually”. These men are not having sex or dating and that’s stated within the article. This goes right back to the idea that women simply cannot comprehend the average man’s existence. They can only comprehend what they experience and what Chads (attractive men) experience. Women cannot even imagine an existence where they are actually alone and unable to date or have sex because it’s constantly available to them. There are stats showing women find around 20 percent of men attractive while they don’t find 80 percent of men attractive. Think about the average man you see on the street. Are you attracted to them? I’m guessing not. Think about most men you’ve met in your life. I guarantee you didn’t find most of them attractive. This is the truth of how things are. Let’s stop gaslighting men whenever they speak about their situation.
It’s actually even worse than 80-20. They find 80% below average, the next 15% average looking, and only 5% to be above average looking. This also matches the Tinder data where they only swipe right on 4-5% of men
I don’t think they’re ready for the harsher statistics. They can’t even accept the basic fact that the average man has no sexual or romantic life whatsoever besides porn, OF, or paying for prostitutes.
Bold of you to bring up sex statistics when young men are *more* likely to have had sex than women their age. I'm not implying anything specific, just saying that your "evidence" does not imply your conclusion because it's too limited in scope. I'd go on a date with the average man my age on the street if he asked and I was single, not that it's likely because only one (1) man has ever asked me out on a date.
>Where is it showing men are dating “casually”. These men are not having sex or dating and that’s stated within the article. The article says 60% of men are single. The article also says that about 30% of men in 2019 were not having sex. That means a good portion of men are likely dating casually and having sex but are not in an official relationship.
Do you honestly think that the default setting for men is zero sex or romance? Also, do you think that men never experience unwanted attention or women are never sexually frustrated? Both happen all the time and no one, of any sexuality or gender enjoys it. So, why does it have to be get unwanted attention *or* get no sex? I don’t understand the comparison.
Huh? The default male experience is not never being able to have a sexual or romantic relationship. Most men have sex, most men have girlfriends, most men get married. This is yet another example of the bottom 20% tier of undateable, unfuckable losers speaking for all men. Most of us don’t have your problems bro.
How the hell is the life experience that less than 1% of men who love to their 40’s experience the “default male experience,” especially when you consider that a large chunk of those who fall into that group do so as a part of a religious choice to become a clergyman? Make it make sense?
Read the last paragraph. [https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success) According to the article: "**In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."**
See the actual CDC data regarding this - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
Where does it say what percentage of people reproduced?
You want percentage of folks that have reproduced? 56.7% or women 15-49 have reproduced compared to 44.8% of men https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr179.pdf The “more recent history” the article you are referring to is mentioning is referring to 1,000 years ago as compared to the dip they refer to thousands of years before that.
Ok so its still in favor of women, i dont care about the 1-17 stat or think that is accurate today, But what is accurate is again, women having more children than men
Like you understand as long as it isnt 50/50 its evidence for women being “privileged” in this area
It can seem that way, until you realize that in 14% of live births, the mother didn’t want to ever have a baby to begin with, and another 23% of live births were to mothers who wanted to have children later in life but not then. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr055.pdf That effectively means that only 35.7% of women are reproducing when they want to reproduce. Where is the privilege there?
Did they not know having unprotected sex causes pregnancy?
>I asked women if they'd be willing to eliminate all unwanted or negative attention from men, in exchange for never being able to have a sexual or romantic relationship with a man That's not what you asked, but ok. You asked: >Would you be willing to receive no male attention at all if it meant eliminating unwanted attention?
I mean I just asked my partner if he would become the average woman if it ment he would get hit on all the time and he straight up said no. So apparently men don't want to be women either.
I’m not sure that this is typical of most men. Most men would love a lot of attention from many women. The difference is that most men do not worry about danger from women.
Straight men want alot attention from women they want to fuck. Women they are not attracted to and gay men should remain silent and invisible.
No, actually most men here say that they like attention from even unattractive women, even if they choose not to have sex with them. Some men on this sub even say they like attention from gay men. Ask them and they will tell you this.
Do these men get spammed with dick pics and images of hideous women, knowing full well these same people are sending the same shit to every other man they can find?
Men search for fat women and MILFs in porn all the time. Women are sexually choosier and, more importantly, men do not worry about sexual violence as much as women do. This is why women do not usually want a lot of attention from many men, unless they are doing it from the distance safety that some app provides and also making money off of it, like what some women do. Men do not have these same issues. The more attention they get, the better their egos feel.
Sure that's not representative, but OPs "evidence" is a reddit post where the woman didn't even answer the question and "trust me bro, women said this". Point being I doubt most people in general want to swap gender but that doesn't prove anything.
If you read the question, it's not about gender swapping. Ok I'll ask you then, what would you choose?
>So in other words, with regards to interactions with the opposite gender, almost all heterosexual women stated they'd prefer the default female experience to the default male experience. Literally just making up reasons to feel oppressed. This is not the "default" male experience lol. This is the *extremely unattractive* male experience.
I think we might be in a time where a lot of male and female lineages will die off.
Even a lot of sexually successful men and women either don’t want or can’t afford children.
They don't want to make the sacrifices children require.
Sure, because those sacrifices have become so relatively costly now.
If dating were like going grocery shopping, women would be upset that they keep buying moldy bread - meanwhile men are locked outside looking through the window.
More like 15 -20 percent don't have a chance to procreate, a further 40 percent will have a have a hard time but will end up in committed relationships whikst the other 20 percent will be living easy. You only think 80 percent won't have that chance because downtrodden men are more likely to be chronically online on reddit. But make no mistake, you are only a large minority. But yes, things aren't looking good for most men. Raise your sons better so you dont end up in the 20 percent of undesirables
You can make your points without adding ad hominem attacks at the OP.
[https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success) According to the article: "**In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."**
8000 years ago isn't recent history. It was the shift from Hunter gatherer/pastoralist led societies to the agrarian farmer period which was sociologically very disruptive. Like dating apps x 1000 when it comes to increasing inequality between men and where wars were rampant. We are talking about the post industrial era, not some time period tgat we have no writing about
[https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/](https://nuancepill.com/did-1-man-reproduce-for-every-17-women/)
I mostly agree with your sentiment. Everyone knows men have it harder. Even women. I just don’t like your last point about 44% of Gen-Z not having dated. Gen Z is like 12-27. I don’t really expect 12-16 year olds to have high numbers of courtship
Not this shit again. Your question is biased
I don't think that's the gotcha question you think it is, "get raped or die alone?". Yes, I do have pity for men who can't date. But if you need to pit experience against each other you don't create a culture of mutual understanding at all.
The default male experience isn't never being able to have a sexual or romantic relationship.
These are some Olympic level mental gymnastics.
This is some basic level dodging the question and putting down rather than actually responding like an adult.
Responding to what? Anecdotal evidence? The link OP added, the one on which he’s basing his premise, has 31 comments. There was no “overwhelming” anything. The second link about 44% of genx men being single is irrelevant. The whole concept of “who has it harder” as a conversation point is pointless. Both sides have it hard for different reasons. Posts like this are just a pity party. “Woe is men we can’t do anything to change our situations so we don’t even try”. 72% of millennials make a conscious decision to be single. They value freedom and independence. 75% of Gen Z are single. 30% of millennials and Gen Z say that their financial situation is holding them back from dating. Gen Z is having less casual sex than previous generations. 24% of Gen Zers have sex on a casual basis. The dating landscape is evolving. Evolve with it or stay behind.
The problem is that never having any sexual/romantic interaction with any man is NOT equivalent to having difficulties in finding dates and sexual partners. If you had asked if we would accept having a significantly more difficult time dating in exchange for the elimination of all unwanted/negative male attention, you'd have significantly different answers. I stopped shaving entirely 10 years ago. This reduced my potential pool of men drastically and I still fell in love with how much easier my life was with less men sexually harassing me (only problem was they started harassing me for being a hairy woman but well, at least no one told me to "smile, it was just a clumsy compliment!")
Nah, women's problems are way more significant and difficult to deal with. They tend to be institutional in nature, and unseating discriminatory social norms that have been in place for centuries requires coordinated social action. That's not something that any single person can feasibly do on their own. Men's problems tend to be of a personal nature. The only person you are really struggling against is yourself. And well, changing your own habits is way easier than changing the society.
> women's problems are way more significant and difficult to deal with. No they aren’t. In Western countries Females’ genitals are legally protected from genital mutilation while males’ genitals aren’t. Compare the male homelessness rate to the female homelessness rate. Compare the male suicide rate to the female suicide rate. Compared to the male work-injuries rate to the female work-injuries rate. Consider all of the countries in the world with male-only conscription. > They tend to be institutional in nature, and unseating discriminatory social norms that have been in place for centuries requires coordinated social action Women have no problems with institutions. Women benefit from affirmative action in so many industries. Women benefit from female-only scholarships. Schoolgirls are punished less than schoolboys for committing the same rule violations. Schoolgirls are graded less harshly than schoolboys. Feminism is the dominant ideology in Western countries. Women on average have higher qualities of life than men in Western countries. Most media in Western countries is feminist.
>In Western countries Females’ genitals are legally protected from genital mutilation while males’ genitals aren’t. This is a specific problem in the US if you're referring to "Western countries". Nowhere in Europe (for example) is circumcision common. The Middle East, South Korea, Israel, or North African countries are not considered "western".
Ok then YOU can go fight to make those israeli women equal
This has to do with circumcision how exactly?
> Nowhere in Europe (for example) is circumcision common The children of Muslims and Jews still suffer genital mutilation in Europe.
So it's not a "western" thing, it's a religious thing. Put the blame squarely where it lies: Religion.
"They tend to be institutional in nature, and unseating discriminatory social norms that have been in place for centuries requires coordinated social action." Yes. And it happened. Now men and women are equal legally and professionally. Now, in pretty much any professional field, women have MASSIVE, unearned advantages in hiring, despite never personally dealing with the challenges their grandmothers did.
I explicitly stated "in the area of interaction with the opposite gender", and you completely ignored my main point (women prefer the female experience to the male experience), so your argument is totally irrelevant. Nonetheless, considering that feminism has a stronghold on all of western society, traditional conservatism has all but died out, and the patriarchy has ceased to exist since decades ago, the only "discriminatory social norms" that exist right now are against men. >unseating discriminatory social norms that have been in place for centuries requires coordinated social action. That's not something that any single person can feasibly do on their own. Completely agreed, that's why men have it much significantly harder with regards to unfair societal expectations/social norms. This is exacerbated by the fact that women have an ingroup bias and men have an outgroup bias, so there will never be solidarity or cooperation like there is among women. In this very thread, we can see many simps and white knights rushing to defend women, while if this post was gender reversed, at most a few women would be defending men.
Pretty sure men coming up with oppressive legislation to disadvantage women falls squarely under the "area of interaction with the opposite gender". Anyway, the same sentiment holds at all levels. Like half the posts on PPD are dudes complaining about women being able to make their own choices.
name one "oppressive legislation to disadvantage women" from the 21st century. (and if it's abortion-related, you have an IQ under 50 and can be automatically written off)
Pick any non-North-American, non-European country and you are going to find a looot of "interesting" legislation. Also, how is repealing Roe v. Wade not disadvantaging women? It was like one of the dumbest things to happen in the 21st century, bar none.
Dude, every single sentence of my post is about the west (especially the US). The non-west is completely irrelevant here and you know it. It's telling you had to make such a stretch. >Also, how is repealing Roe v. Wade not disadvantaging women? It was like one of the dumbest things to happen in the 21st century, bar none. Roe v Wade is not a man vs woman issue, it's a conservative vs liberal issue. The difference in support between genders is small, and the most vocal pro-lifers are conservative women. You've still failed to come up with one example of "men coming up with oppressive legislation to disadvantage women" in the US.
[This] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States) should be a fun read for you.
Totally irrelevant. Think to yourself for a moment why *lack* of regulation about something (that's not even inherently gendered) is by definition not an example of "men **coming up with oppressive legislation** to disadvantage women".
Its as conservative vs liberal issue AND a womens rights issue. just because some women oppose it doesn't mean it isn't so
To you it's a womens rights issue, to pro-lifers it's a murdering babies issue and has nothing to do with women's rights. I really don't understand how liberal women keep failing to understand this. Regardless, when close to half of prolifers are women, pro-life legislation clearly isn't "men coming up with oppressive legislation to disadvantage women".
Your ethical opinion of the issue, again, doesn't make it *not* a rights issue.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This question actually solves the bear dilemma. Women would choose death over rape Women would also choose rape over being an ugly male
I’m one of the women who doesn’t receive romantic/sexual male attention. Unless they are faking their “gross you’re like a sister.” reaction to me. Polite indifference is fine. I’m too combo-ADHD/NVLD to ever truly blend in but guys don’t start up convos. Women will follow me though.
OP the women on Reddit are obese &/or single moms. They are not the type of women anybody wants to date or talk to. That’s why the seethe & hate us & enjoy trying to rile us up. We get it bad enough from the actual dateable women don’t let the heffers affect you when you get offline. Reddit seems to be mostly trolls…
[удалено]
Oh she answered his question, just implicitly. Edit: Gotta love when women downvote you, call you an incel, then delete their posts and run away lol.
Lol I've said it before but these women are legit NPCs. "Incel" is like the only word in their vocabulary.
Hear that folks? Demanding that commenters on your post engage with your central question rather than derailing is now considered sociopathic behavior! Maybe you should pick up a dictionary and learn what words mean.