if you don't care about the male loneliness epidemic just leave the men alone.

Important-Back-9545 · 2024-01-26T04:37:43+00:00

the male loneliness epidemic has caused a lot of discourse online. mainly feminists laughing at the issue and mocking the men. what's weird is that...

[–]Current_Finding_4066 75 points76 points77 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]genesislotus 36 points37 points38 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconventionalXY 17 points18 points19 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]genesislotus 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wasted_Timez 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wasted_Timez 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Johntoreno 29 points30 points31 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Might_1348[🍰] 21 points22 points23 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]barkmagician 16 points17 points18 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drougent 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wasted_Timez 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WolfInTheMiddle 21 points22 points23 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AccomplishedMovie804 18 points19 points20 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Diesel_Drinker1891 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RoryTate 18 points19 points20 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WolfInTheMiddle 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Diesel_Drinker1891 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedGuru33 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morden013 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRabid 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Few-Procedure-268 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Friendly_Might_1348[🍰] 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Few-Procedure-268 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]hylander4 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -37 points-36 points-35 points 2 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]ETF-The-Token 31 points32 points33 points 2 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

We’re not talking about feelings. A lot of women also claim that women are oppressed because they can’t walk home alone at night without fear of being violently attacked, while men can. The thing is, men are more likely to be violently attacked by strangers. It may be true that women FEEL more scared, but that doesn’t make it justified or rational. You’re basically just arguing that women have a lower threshold for negative emotions. The data clearly shows men are literally more lonely in the context of romantic relationships and sex. Not in terms of how they FEEL, but in terms of what they EXPERIENCE. There is a difference, and last time I checked we base legislation and judgement on reality, not how people feel about it. Wait…. Well…..At least we SHOULD do that, but we don’t

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -18 points-17 points-16 points 2 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -14 points-13 points-12 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ETF-The-Token 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ETF-The-Token 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Don’t hate the player, hate the game:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/men-women-and-crime

This article examines several possible explanations about why women fear criminal victimization more than men, although statistics show that men are significantly more likely than women to be victims of a violent crime.

Some explain women's greater fear of crime as due to their greater likelihood of being victimized by strangers. This explanation is based on a false assumption; crimes against women are far less likely to be "stranger crimes" than crimes against men. Another explanation of women's greater fear of crime is their greater physical vulnerability. Studies show, however, that women are not more likely than men to be physically injured during a crime. A third explanation for women's greater fear of crime is that they have greater appreciation for the risk of victimization and take precautionary measures. This theory fails to take account of many women's failure to take precautions against those crimes for which they are at greater risk, that is, threats of spouses and acquaintances. A fourth explanation of women's greater fear of crime is their risk of being sexually assaulted. This explanation does not explain why women are more fearful of many other crimes for which they are at low risk of victimization. The author supports the theory that women fear crime more than men because women are culturally conditioned to view themselves as vulnerable and as targets for victimization, while men are raised to perceive themselves as strong, brave, and invulnerable. 34 footnotes

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ETF-The-Token 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainlessKey 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vaudeville_Clown 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

"Men have always" is a big generalization. If it's any indication, nearly every mainstream published article on women's dating woes/lonliness issues is framed in a "it's not you, it's them" way, systemic and certainly never the consequence of women's own choices.

Meanwhile, nearly all "men's lonliness epidemic" articles you can find are insincere excuses to push feminist narratives, and make the argument that men suffer from their own masculinity construct, patriarchal programming or whatever. It passively implies that "guys should all individually break their own programming and fix their own issues". Passively implies: women did nothing, society is perfect as is, and all problems like with men themselves.

See the difference?

Perhaps we can't take mainstream publication as indicative as a template for the state of the larger culture, but I find it probably works better than "Men have always", at least.

Feminists often put big media house narratives (which in large part cater to feminism) on equal level with "collection of anonymous internet peesons opinions" as if they're equal contenders. No, not by a long shot.

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Prudent-Conflict-557 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vaudeville_Clown 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pilotIet 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Hi;

I appreciate you citing that statistic. However, I have several questions.

Can men and women be compared under the same social conditions and requirements? I mean, Do both sexes start from the same social reception?
One of the "social epidemics" associated with man is objectively inceldom: many heterosexual men - and even gay men - can't find couple no matter how much they want. Is this comparable between sexes? Can a female inceldom really exist that is not purely a voluntary celibacy if we speak about the majority of women?
While feminism has promoted women's liberation as well as promoting the general empowerment of women, Do you objectively consider that man has been given that option or on the contrary is he more contradictorily bound to follow much stronger roles that the woman?
Is the woman forced to be alone or does she want to be alone voluntarily?

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -10 points-9 points-8 points 2 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

Can men and women be compared under the same social conditions and requirements? I mean, Do both sexes start from the same social reception?

No. This article is an interesting read on the issue. An excerpt:

"Consider the simplest fact that everywhere, when you want to humiliate a boy or a "real man" you accuse him of being a "girl." If the U.S., if he's a rookie football player, you give him a little girl's backpack to show him his "place"; if he's an Iraqi prisoner, you make him wear girls' underwear to demonstrate your complete power over his body. In Afghanistan, cross-dressed dancing boys are "invisible victims" of rape. It's a shaming tool and a cheap weapon."

Can a female inceldom really exist that is not purely a voluntary celibacy if we speak about the majority of women?

Women who are involuntarily celibate would be in a relationship if they could find a partner. If the argument is that there's always someone willing to fuck them, we would have to look for a definition of partnership that would include pump and dump.

While feminism has promoted women's liberation as well as promoting the general empowerment of women

The idea behind feminism is that human rights exist and that withholding these rights (i.e. the right to vote, have a credit card, be a homeowner) from one gender is a mistake that needed to be corrected. I'm unfamiliar with a good argument against that.

Is the woman forced to be alone or does she want to be alone voluntarily?

That depends on the individual. The idea that there is some dude who would want to fuck her if she cooks, cleans, and pays half the bills is not something that puts women as a class in a better position than men.

[–]Johntoreno 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Consider the simplest fact that everywhere, when you want to humiliate a boy you accuse him of being a "girl

Conversely, if you want to humiliate a woman, you accuse her of "Looking like a Man". You can also cut a woman's hair short like a man or make her bald for maximum humiliation. Does this mean Our Society is an oppressive matriarchy?? Why are masculine Women called "butch" but masculine men are praised by everyone?

If the argument is that there's always someone willing to fuck them, we would have to look for a definition of partnership that would include pump and dump.

There's a difference between Vocel&Incel, just cus you can't find a partner that meets your standards doesn't make you an incel. Incels cannot find a partner regardless of how low their standards are because they can't meet the average standards.

In Afghanistan, cross-dressed dancing boys are "invisible victims" of rape.

I know boys get raped in Afghan but its not because of cross dressing, its because of pedophilia and secondly Men are the invisible victims of rape because you feminists fight to downplay male rape victims. Femininity is a source of power for Women in society. Men are not allowed to be non-Masculine but that doesn't change the fact that Feminine Women have power. Men don't suffer because of Patriarchy's "hatred for women&femininity" no, men suffer because the male gender role is rigid and there's no such thing as "Male Privilege" that you think exists.

The idea behind feminism is that human rights exist

Stop LYING. The idea behind Feminism is that men created Society to oppress Women for the benefit of Men. Defend your real beliefs, don't hide behind ideas that no one has a problem with because that's not why people take issue with Feminism.

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Johntoreno 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]IamDanLP 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]IamDanLP 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pilotIet 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for your answer. I hope we can have a fruitful debate.

No.

While this article raises a fundamental issue, which is based on the feminization, genuine or metaphorical, of the weak man, Your no answer straightforwardly, but the article does not answer the essence of the question, which is extremely multifactorial and spans from childhood to adulthood, going through an immensity of experiences that both sexes will not coincide and will not receive the same treatment.

Women who are involuntarily celibate would be in a relationship if they could find a partner. If the argument is that there's always someone willing to fuck them, we would have to look for a definition of partnership that would include pump and dump.

For statistical purposes. Can we really talk about women who are truly involuntarily celibate? That is, no matter how hard they try: voluntarily and actively.

If sex were the only concomitant reason, We know with good faith that prostitution would solve these situations in equal parts, But the truth is that the phenomenon revolves more around the craving for loving experiences and deeper connections than the fact of fucking.

If we affirm that the majority of women can actually access pump and dump sex, While most men don't, we have here the first biological inequality: and access to the sexual market is much more favorable to heterosexual women than to heterosexual men on average.

If we add to the equation It seems to be a mathematical matter that the majority of sex-relationship demand (based on dating or sex social media statistics) are men. Can we not affirm that objectively the majority of female celibacy is voluntary and not involuntary?

The idea behind feminism is that human rights exist and that withholding these rights (i.e. the right to vote, have a credit card, be a homeowner) from one gender is a mistake that needed to be corrected. I'm unfamiliar with a good argument against that.

If this is feminism, So, it is obvious that any rational and compassionate person (this conjunction is not always interrelated) would agree that feminism It is a great advance for humanity because, theoretically, it seeks equality in rights and opportunities between both sexes.

However, How do the concepts of "empowerment" and "equality" fit together? As we have seen before, and in relation to the conversation that concerns us, It seems more feasible to affirm that women have more social incentives, from sex, dating in general and in modern societies, before the law, they enjoy the same rights as men – in some cases, more than them.

That depends on the individual. The idea that there is some dude who would want to fuck her if she cooks, cleans, and pays half the bills is not something that puts women as a class in a better position than men.

It seems that the trend is that many men would want to fuck her and that in the heterosexual market there is a tendency to take relationships as pure contracts, in the same way that romanticism and other quasi-religious idealisms have died. Hookup culture and de facto relationships differ; even more so marriage and all the concomitant bureaucracy.

Everything indicates to me that women suffer less from their loneliness because they are voluntarily (maybe biologically) dissatisfied with the options presented to them while many men have no choice at all.

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Everything indicates to me that women suffer less from their loneliness because they are voluntarily (maybe biologically) dissatisfied with the options presented to them while many men have no choice at all.

This ties back to my initial comment.

Female loneliness has been labelled as an individual choice because women could lower their standards.

This line of thinking has predetermined the thinking about male loneliness as not a systemic issue but a case of men who are unwilling to try and meet higher standards by improving the patriarchal bargain they're offering.

Either both are systemic or both are caused by individual choices.

The fact that men count it as a woman's advantage that men will fuck pretty much anything makes this debate difficult.

It would be possible to consider both male and female loneliness as interconnected but then we would no longer be able to blame one gender as the one at fault but rather would blame culture and capitalism for the problems all genders are facing right now.

[–]Johntoreno 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Male feminists and OnlyFans Subscribers exist because they're just that desperate for female validation. Without Male feminists, your movement would have no muscle power to threaten other men. You already know just how advantageous it is have a bunch of Men willing to do your bidding. Saying that Women don't have a social advantage due to the nature of dating market is the same as me saying that men don't have any advantage over women despite the fact that Men's bodies create more testosterone.

but rather would blame culture and capitalism for the problems all genders are facing right now.

What's more Capitalistic than telling Women that being a Mother and a Wife is oppressive and that being a Career Woman is the only "liberation"? Capitalists love cheap exploitable labour and a Society that only values money, no one hates the traditional family unit more than Capitalists&Feminists. And you wanna tell me that you're against Capitalism?

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What's more Capitalistic than telling Women that being a Mother and a Wife is oppressive and that being a Career Woman is the only "liberation"? Capitalists love cheap exploitable labour and a Society that only values money, no one hates the traditional family unit more than Capitalists&Feminists. And you wanna tell me that you're against Capitalism?

You're wrong.

Capitalism needs human resources. Workers, soldiers, taxpayers, consumers. The girlboss trend was fun while it lasted but now rich people are loudly freaking out at the low birth rates. So now women are told to make more people.

Many men can't financially support a single income household. This, I think, is by design. It forces their wives to continue to provide the market with cheap labor. At the same time, child labor laws are being eroded. Covid took people out of the workforce, now the workforce needs new ones.

Of course being reduced to an incubator of the future labor force is oppressive to women. But it is also oppressive to men. Men often have to pick up extra shifts to feed and clothe their offspring, instead of spending the time to raise them, until they're at an age that they're forced to be available to the job market to pay to live themselves.

Capitalism loves the traditional family unit.

[–]Johntoreno 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pilotIet 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

As I observe and on the basis of the data that we can consult statistically, it is obvious that indeed, the affective-sexual demand is more and more given by the internet and that there is also a majority of men who represent this demand for relationships, whether sexual, affective or both, by antonomasia.

The argument that "women should lower their standards" obeys a rational conclusion based on the premises described above: women receive more demand than the supply they are willing to assume, so if they do not find a good candidate, it is because their standards do not correlate to the supply available to them. It is a directly proportional relationship, however, I want you to understand as I want all possible readers who read this response to you to understand that I am not advocating some sort of dystopia in which women should be in a relationship they don't want to be in, or with a man they are not attracted to, but that it is really hard to deny that perhaps the standards demanded are difficult for a majority of heterosexual men to meet.

I understand that your point of view is based on the analysis of interpersonal relations based on a heteropatriarchal superstructure in which it is assumed that either men are fully conscious, or that they are a kind of victim-executioner of this patriarchy; but the truth is that this conception does not resolve, or even give a verifiable view of why many heterosexual men can have consensual and non-transactional intimacy with a woman. Man, as many philosophers, structuralist feminist thinkers or postmodernists have affirmed, does not have to deconstruct himself in order to be himself, but what happens is that from the view that I share, evolutionary psychology, is that man, with the death of the hegemony of religious morality and the solidity of idealistic interpersonal relationships, has been placed in a more natural state, as has woman, where affective-sexual interests are different in their strategies and conclusions.

Yes, I agree. I think it is difficult to understand social phenomena if not through systematic and systemic phenomena, not necessarily deterministic, but superstructural, with a quite direct relation to material conditions where sexual liberation has pitted men in opposing interests, returning, as I repeat, to a more biologicist approach. Perhaps more natural?

I think that from the most mundane analysis, the fact that women can have much easier access to the sexual market makes them different from men, where if the topic to be discussed is loneliness compared to both sexes, the woman benefits more for objective and phenomenological purposes, although not necessarily more interesting for the interests of said women, than perhaps, they can't access those men they want to access to.

but rather would blame culture and capitalism for the problems all genders are facing right now.

Despite the temptation of the Marxist analysis of society, I believe that the social stage in which we find ourselves is a stage of genuine return to naturalness in emotional-sexual relationships, as I repeat. We return to the natural state of sexual competition, to market anarchism based on purely biological reasons and where what is not a fully genuine attraction, It is a monetary transaction, not unlike the male offering food to a female and the young to gain her favor.

Broadly speaking, I conclude that a good part of women drown in their success because they do not find the most suitable candidate, while the man dies of starvation for not getting the grace of a woman at all. Lookism? Hypergamy? Everything points to the same thing in the end.

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pilotIet 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Again, the loneliness of both genders is virtually the same.

As I have argued before in my previous answers, The loneliness of men and women is due to diametrically opposite reasons because their emotional-sexual interests are opposite.

This leaves as the only way to reduce loneliness, a male effort to improve the patriarchal bargain they are offering.

No matter how much there is tried to be argumented that men's loneliness is a matter of attitude, or that female tastes and preferences in conditions of heterosexuality are based on patriarchy, and not in the looks-status binomial, the heterosexual man will continue to be deceived and confused in dull ideological tangles that do not materialize in his resounding failure to understand that their affective-sexual success is proportional to their lookism (defined by measurable elements) reinforced by their ability to monopolize resources.

Not only is a vast majority of the heterosexual man generally subject to standards that no matter how hard he works he cannot achieve, but he's are also asked to deconstruct himrself and accept his total indolence but also he is blamed for attitudes that have never been able to show because many men have never had a partner or proportional, consensual and non-transactional emotional-sexual interactions.

And I also fervently believe that what is sought is to domesticate the polygamous man, Rather than supposedly seeking to correct patriarchal errors of behavior, because the average heterosexual man for a good number of women is simply an irrelevant ghost, the losing part of a dual mating strategy.

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As I have argued before in my previous answers, The loneliness of men and women is due to diametrically opposite reasons because their emotional-sexual interests are opposite.

Counterpoint:

"By far, the two most popular answers the national sample of U.S. adults gave for why they were uninterested in romantic partnering were that they have more important priorities (47 percent), and they just like being single (44 percent)."

"The men and women were very similar in 7 of the 8 reasons for their lack of interest in romantic partnering. The one difference was in their fear that no one would be interested in them; more men than women worried about that, 26 percent vs. 12 percent."

Link

So at the end of the day, the belief that nobody wants you is higher among men than among women. The economy, the birth lottery, the local environment all play a role, and social media shows off unattainable highlights of human existence and comparison is the thief of joy.

So I understand that there are pressures for everyone. But I also understand that you can escape all of these if you can be good company to someone who also wants to find an escape from all of that with you.

And it's worth asking how much pressure on men comes from patriarchy itself and to decide to dial that back on the boys of the current and next generation.

[–]pilotIet 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The counterpoint allows us to understand that part of people's loneliness is due to their own decision; however, it does not respond to the argument that I wanted to establish and that ties in with all the previous conversation, which is that in conditions of searching for an affective-sexual relationship, the interests are diametrically opposed by nature itself in the search for candidates in both sexes, so that the voluntariness in having or not extrapolates to the phenomenon that concerns this debate; since voluntariness is not a problem, but a decision; so I consider this counterpoint interesting, but irrelevant.

So at the end of the day, the belief that nobody wants you is higher among men than among women.

It is evident as a statistical curiosity, because it is the man who offers himself and is brutally judged by his physical-monetary potential. That's why we have subreddits, to give an example where There are men who scrutinize terribly about those supposed physical deficiencies that are not considered attractive (r/short r/ugly r/shortpenisproblems) and on the other hand, we have subreddits dedicated eminently to women and that reaffirm these shortcomings for eminently heterosexual women (FDS, and their "useless scrotums"). It is a dichotomy of interests and the woman is separated and herself removed to the role of sexual selector over sexual offers.

And it's worth asking how much pressure on men comes from patriarchy itself

The heterosexual man is pressured to meet physical-monetary standards, generally above an average, and the heterosexual woman, is pressured into intersexual competition to acquire the best man she can find; the rest is a tacit agreement between the parties, or so it should be.

[–]Professional_Lion713 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Lion713 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sanitaryinspector 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Consistent-Matter-59 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]queenAlexislexis 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ETF-The-Token 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DecrepitAbacus 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]David-Metty 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Roamer56 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	if you don't care about the male loneliness epidemic just leave the men alone.
Author	Important-Back-9545
Upvotes	209
Comments	84
Date	January 26, 2024 4:37 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ab9zrd/if_you_dont_care_about_the_male_loneliness/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/if-you-dont-care-about-the-male-loneliness.1243797 https://theredarchive.com/post/1243797

Comments