~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
FalloutFan-2
[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (22 children) | Copy Link
Compare that graph to MGTOW relevantcey in trends.
Not surprising at all.
[+][deleted] 7 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]ProgrammaticallyMeal50 points51 points52 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Exactly. In most primitive species, harems formed around alpha males are natural behaviour and it was also natural in humans up until civilization began.
Handing over the right of 100% free partner choice to females results in nothing but a drift backwards towards the state of primitive species. Tinder and free online sexual market just exacerbates this trend.
The best option is, to lean back and grab some popcorn. At one point in time, every society crumbled away, and now it seems that it is the time for our society. It is just a question of when the average man will wake up and sees that the carrot at the end of the stick (marriage, financial stability, functioning justice system etc.) is no more. To counter, media and politicians will crank up the brain washing further.
Interesting times...
[–]Sir_manalot28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The sad thing is that brothers have been betraying each other to the point that the last thing men are going to do when they wake up is work together.
[–]Inkfyuk3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Then we to set an example of brotherly love and comradeery.
[–]HeyDontDoxMe11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure if this will be the case..
It'll be a traditional libertarian/community based society, like the 'Wild West'. It'll be a dog eat dog world but people in general will try to help you if there's something in it for them (as in, betterment of the community).
[–]Sir_manalot6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This.
We will probably slowly tradition to a strong brotherhood again in a couple clean generations (if we do not get conquered or whatever).
But as a society, men betrayed each other way, way to much to truly be able to make it up to the men whom were screwed over.
So men will just be selfish and mistrusy for a while.
[–]HeyDontDoxMe6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Troy, all over again.
After all, men are still human animals powered by a divine essence. We're still imperfect and will always resort to war, again and again.
[–]VenetianCares 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
on the whole...yes. but most people are just shitty. men have proven thru the ages that they are good at the strong brotherhood thing. i mean, what is an army, just a big ass organized and government backed brotherhood. look at what soldiers will do for each other. men always flock to each other because only men have humility and loyalty which are crucial traits to have when forming a new union or group of people together.
the biggest difference this time is we won't be fighting for pussy. in the next revolution men will have sex toys, endless porno, and sex dolls, so why NOT work together. most men that backstab each other do it over women or money and money/power is usually also about pussy when it comes to men.
[–]VenetianCares 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
no amount of media can brain wash the images of my fallen brothers who i see with dead eyes and dead bedrooms. you can't brain wash reality, its too in your face with social media now. every man has heard the stories, seen their bro thrown to the side for some "feelings". its all fun and games when you're 18 and trying to get some tits in your face, but a lot less fun when you're 35 and just want to fuck but don't really care either way. marriage will go the way of war.
war used to rely on youth and ignorance to fuel their armies. you don't see a lot of 30 year old men enlist in the army for a reason, they are wise enough to know they are throwing their life away in a meaningless effort for a country and gov't that doesn't care about them. younger men are different. they buy into the ideals. sure war is nasty but i gotta protect Merica!
Marriage is becoming the same. how many men grew up idolizing their nation and then died on the beaches of Normandy buried in the sand. in my generation we had movies like Platoon. i saw that and thru 2nd hand fictional experience realized, yeah, i don't want that reality. media and the news served to expose the military complex for what it was, not the happy image they sell to their young recruits.
marriage is the same. horror stories serve like war stories. they are all over, videos on youtube about endless divorce rape and unfair divorce law. men know its not even worth enlisting. this has never mattered, because marriage is like the army, get them young and dumb. but now we're seeing a shift against that. we're seeing mgtow men age 18-22. we see them in this sub. i'm always a bit shocked to be honest to see men that young, that aware. it took me getting fucked over and heartbroken at least 2-3 times before i actually woke up.
[–]newcaprica12 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My biggest concern for those younger mgtows is they are one bj away from the plantation and believing NAWALT. When we are young we are always idealistic. In Europe its the arabs, turks and africans who go clubbing trying pua on women as alot of guys i know dont go clubbing and work hard on their jobs from the younger gen Z. These same girls partying now will try to snag the career guy later (some I know even say this out loud that they want engg or tech guys for their high earing potential while she pursues a shitty nursing degree or psychology)
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
This ISN'T actually true.
It's often repeated, but -- in the manner that it is interpreted/claimed by "evo psych" types (i.e. that ONLY the "top/alpha male" fucks, and then fucks ALL the females) -- it's simply, and blatantly false.
[–]ProgrammaticallyMeal0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Care to elaborate?
Of course I don't mean "ONLY top men fuck ALL the females", as you put it. Nobody claims that. What is correct is "MOST females get fucked (at most times) only by top males". You can see it in bird species, chimpanzees, baboons, etc. And it was no different in humans pre-civilization and pre-marriage.
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
The vast majority* of what you have probably learned/been taught/told (especially by "anthropologists" and even more so various so called "evolutionary psycho-socio-biologists") is entirely false... it's pure bullshit.
Cf C.R. Hallpike's "Ship of Fools: An Anthology of Learned Nonsense about Primitive Society"
* Basically everything since (and inclusive of) Margaret Mead's (entirely fraudulent) Coming of Age in Samoa is pretty much bullshit.
Of course I don't mean "ONLY top men fuck ALL the females", as you put it. Nobody claims that.
Actually I've seen many who DO claim exactly that.
What is correct is "MOST females get fucked by top males". You can see it in bird species, chimpanzees, baboons, etc.
Depends on what you mean by "top males"* -- if sufficiently vague/broadly, then yes that tends to be true -- if you mean it too narrowly/specifically, then no that's not true.
* Much of course depends on the metric you are using to define "top males" -- in humans this is demonstrably false, at least versus the normative societal definitions/metrics of "top males" -- in fact the opposite seems to be true: Cf "Idiocracy."
[–]ProgrammaticallyMeal0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Okay, now I get what you mean. I think I agree. Since I was comparing with animals, I mean "metric" in a mostly genetic sense. I think, e.g. it should be very straightforward to show that men who are significantly taller than the average or have certain other features have significantly better chances to get with females. Males who are significantly less tall than the average or have facial features considered as unattractive (hook-nose, balding, whatever) have significantly worse chances getting with females. Not to sound like an incel, but they have a point there: Women, by nature, are eugenic reproduction machines.
The issue is that good genes in civilization does not mean good genes pre-civilization. Women don't care if you can build good bridges, solve difficult math problems etc. If their sexuality is freed, they will seek primitive males with features indicative of genes they consider (consciously or unconsciously) as superior.
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Since I was comparing with animals, I mean "metric" in a mostly genetic sense.
Then it becomes a "tautology" -- if "top males" are defined only by "reproductive success" then stating that their reproductive success is due to them being "top males" is essentially saying: "reproductive success" = "reproductive success."
There's nothing profound in that.
I think, e.g. it should be very straightforward to show that men who are significantly taller than the average or have certain other features have significantly better chances to get with females.
You might think it SHOULD be straightforward, but it's actually a just a (VERY) debatable assertion. I'll go even further and say -- despite all of the ostensible "evidence" of what women SAY they want -- it's a highly dubious assertion.
Women, by nature, are eugenic reproduction machines.
Except they are demonstrably anything BUT. IN fact they are arguably just as often (possibly MORE often) dysgenic reproduction machines.
But of course again, that depends on your definition of "eugenic" -- if you're just using it tautologically (cf above "reproductive success" metric) then it's a meaningless claim.
To wit, THIS:
Women don't care if you can build good bridges, solve difficult math problems etc. If their sexuality is freed, they will seek primitive males...
Is effectively DYSGENIC... it is emphatically not "eugenic."
Per example both THIS guy and THIS guy were considered HIGHLY desirable young males in their heyday, and masses of women often not only swooned over them, but sought out young men who LOOKED like them (which of course many young men then attempted to do, often quite successfully, in no small part because they DID inherently have similar "features & physiques").
That despite the fact that the first fellow was incredibly SHORT by virtually any standard -- of any era -- of the western European lineage males (5' 2" was his MAXIMUM adult height, and in his "teenage" heyday he was significantly shorter, something that was obvious in his films, even compared with other relatively short co-stars). Moreover, his popularity wasn't JUST a matter of "PR"; he married 8 times (including to some women who themselves were arguably the highly desired/desirable "beauties" of their day) and dated/was involved with many others... re-productively he had 9 biological children (plus 2 stepchildren).
As for the second fellow -- while he later matured into (at least appearance wise) a harder, more masculine appearance -- in his REAL "heydey" as a "teen idol" poster-boy crooner -- he was a relatively short (approx 5' 6"), extremely scrawny, rather awkward even "gawky" physique, and was arguably facially UNattractive youth (narrow chin & jawline, almost non-existent jowls, big ears that stuck out prominently, etc). Moreover his voice -- at the time of his peak "mania" -- was NOT the deeper "masculine" baritone of his later recordings, but rather was an almost "feminine" tenor which occasionally reached into soprano ranges. In romantic/reproductive terms, he too was nevertheless relatively "successful" having married 4 times (ironically enough his second wife being the aforementioned Mickey Rooney's own first wife/ex-wife), and had a number of other (at least if the media is to be believed) "affairs" with various "attractive/desired/desirable" women, both in between and during his marriages... and had (at least) 3 verified biological children (and possibly one or more others).
Now yes, they were both "celebrities" -- and so likely "desired/desirable" on that account -- but it nevertheless flies in the face of what you are claiming as a "persistent" criteria.
Both Mickey Rooney's AND Frank Sinatra's "abnormalities" -- let's be even more blunt and call them what they are: "masculine DEFICIENCIES" -- were blatantly obvious ON SCREEN relative to their various co-stars (who were almost always taller & often much more well built); as well as differing from what women had available for examples around them nearly everywhere, everyday: The median/average American male height in the circa late 1930's early 1940's was 5' 9" (which most males would have reached in their late teen years; their "prime" dating/mate-selection age), and moreover the vast majority were significantly more "muscled" (especially the "farm boys" of the era, which most still were) in terms of their physique.
Nor are they the only examples of such, similar things can be noted of many other "teen idol" males of the 1950's (James Dean for example was neither tall nor swole, not really all that attractive, nor overtly "masculine" in voice or behavior; in fact he was both relatively short {probably no more than 5' 6" maybe 5' 7" max -- cf this pic from his HS basketball team, L-R short to tall, he's the second shortest kid}, was actually rather scrawny & not remarkably attractive (you wouldn't have picked him out from that line in the photo, certainly would pick him as the most attractive or masculine) and his most famous roles were a bit, well to be blunt "whiney" arguably "cringeworthy"; and far from some "masculine ideal" even back then {circa 1950-55}). Yet of course women -- especially young women -- DID consider him attractive... a male "icon" that endured for quite some time (arguably still does, though I doubt half the young women who "swoon" over the idea of him presently have ever actually seen any of his movies).
(*) Basically you (like so many others) are mistaking a recently en vogue "fad/fashion" (and arguably one that is almost entirely "media-created/promoted") for a perpetual trait preference. We could dig deeper into this than just the "height" and "swole" and "bad boy" stuff... in fact even the claim that women have an innate/inherent (and not merely "fad/fashion") preference for men with "large/thick/long cocks" is debatable; as is their preference for facial hair, body hair, etc.
Point of fact, at various times in the past (including the recent past), it can be shown that men with large muscles and/or calloused hands were seen by many women NOT as something to "swoon" over, but rather as having wholly UNdesirable male traits: because it signified that he likely worked in some "low wage/low status" manual labor job. Likewise an extremely taut abdomen (i.e. "six pack" narrow waist), was seen as a sign that he was likely not only a manual laborer, but probably poor and unable to afford to eat very well.
By contrast, someone with LESS muscle, a larger waist, even softer less calloused (or UN-calloused) hands, was often considered as more desirable "mate" material, because it meant he was likely from a higher socio-economic class (likely an "officer" in the military rather than a lowly "grunt" enlisted man), probably worked or would work a better paying (non-manual labor) "professional" job, was thus able to afford to eat well, etc.
Could go on MUCH further with many more examples (again, facial hair, body hair, head hairstyles & length, complexion, cock size, and so on)... all of which have gone through VARIOUS "fads & fashions" in terms of desirability.
And of course the SAME is also true of what is considered "desirable" in women: physique waist size, boob size, etc; along with complexion, height, and yes even weight. There is no SINGLE set of desirable characteristics... and the "evo psych/evo biology" claims that there are (and then coming up with pre-historical primitive "natural selection" theories as to why) is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
These are all highly variable "social construct" things... they vary substantially not only from one culture to another, but from one generation to another even WITHIN a culture.
[–]ProgrammaticallyMeal1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
By contrast, someone with LESS muscle, a larger waist, even softer less calloused (or UN-calloused) hands, was often considered as more desirable "mate" material,
Yes, but by whom? By the parents of the girl which was going to marry him. Such men didn't give and don't give any women the tingles. Civilization: Reason over tingles, mate choice controlled by patriarchy. Pre civilization: Tingles over reason. Now again: tingles over reason.
[women] will seek primitive males... Is effectively DYSGENIC... it is emphatically not "eugenic."
No, it is not dsygenic. Look at the paradise bird for example. The female is just grey, the male however, he has the most colorful feathers and some sub-species have a dangling object on his head -- nothing of this ensures better survival, nevertheless he, the male with the most colorful feathers and the largest dangling object above his head will much more likely propagate his genes. Hitler and women desired the aryan male, he has blue eyes. What real advantages have blue eyes? Nothing -- except they give women more tingles.
Eugenic is a socially constructed term. It just means enforcing traits which are desirable by (mainly) females in future descendants. Some of it is useful, some of it not. All of it gives them tingles.
From the viewpoint of civilization, friend, you are 100% correct. From the viewpoint of evolution and biology, however, you are not.
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
By the women themselves. Your mistake is (yet again) the "recency" bias. You think the present fad/fashion in physique (male OR female) is some permanent genetic thing... and that IT and only IT can give "tingles"...
Doesn't work that way.
Again "fad & fashion."
No, it is not dsygenic.
With human women the present trend IS dysgenic.
The female is just grey, the male however, he has the most colorful feathers
And? Do you see men prancing around in colorful feathers being the present day thing that gives human women "tingles"?
Because beyond the notion that women select according to some odd subset of "arbitrary" traits, the analogy to such birds is useless.
Again, if you're trying to claim that women have ALWAYS selected the EXACT SAME physical traits of men... well then you just don't know your ass from a hole in the ground in terms of actual human history; you're dismissing data (massive amounts of it) that don't "fit" your theory (which again has a massive "recency" bias).
Eugenic is a socially constructed term.
Only to the extent that ALL human language is "socially constructed."
It just means enforcing traits which are desirable by (mainly) females in future descendants.
No, it does not mean that. It means breeding to maximize certain SPECIFIC (consciously chosen/preferred) traits.
If all it means is "the most successfully reproducing are the most reproductively successful" then you have redefined the term as a tautology and rendered it worthless (in order to make it "fit" your theory).
Get this through your skull... there is no "single" viewpoint from "evo psych/evo bio" perspective... ALL of that, 100% of it is just ex post facto "Just So Stories..." literally akin to Kipling's "How the Tiger got his stripes" fictional nonsense.
There are a thousand different "evo-psych/evo-bio" theories, ALL of them fit most of the available data (and discard/dismiss the bits that don't fit)... they're all just "curve fitting" (and most of them are "curve fitting" in a manner akin to a child's random scribble... they run the line through ALL {or at least most} of the dots, but do not create a persuasive -- and certainly not a provable -- image).
Get 10 different random evo-psych/evo-bio advocates in a room and have them try to explain just ONE physiological trait, and you will hear probably 20+ different such "stories"; just be sure you don't leave them all in the room together for too long, else you may end up with LESS than 10 people still alive to walk back out.
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It's simply a reversion to evolutionary dating mating patterns
Nah.
It's more than that -- Tinder (etc) along with modern transport & communication devices -- have enabled degrees of female "hookup" behaviors that are FAR beyond any historical, much less pre-historical mating patterns -- no "tribal" or even "medieval" society even had enough available males to even possibly, much less practically, allow the majority of average females to "fuck" hundreds of "top/small percentage" of men.
Note: I corrected "dating" to "mating" because what is called "dating" is most definitely NOT "evolutionary" -- it's a social convention that is actually less than 100 years old.
[–]MaestroLogical1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Can't over look the preceeding decade and a half of teaching girls how to be as sexual as men and encouraging them to explore their desires. We (society) trained and educated them to do this and then gave them the tools to take it to the next level.
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can't say that I entirely disagree.
But...
I think far MORE of the blame can be laid at the feet of the individual people involved: chiefly the parents who enable & facilitate this.
How? Chiefly by gifting girls (and young women) access to and independent control over various expensive & extensive resources that they are ill-equipped (in a moral sense) to handle -- cars & smartphones ("gifting" not only the cost of the items themselves but it's operational expense as well: fuel & insurance, unlimited minutes & data plans, etc) as well as most likely dormitory rooms & apartments, and in most cases either "use of Mommy and/or Daddy's Credit Card(s)" or else some "spending allowance" on a debit card, etc etc.
To be sure, they are not the ONLY ones to "blame" -- but generally speaking they have been MORE than willing to turn their child over to others to teach -- as you noted to be "trained and educated [...] to do this" to BEHAVE in this sexually-degenerate/promiscuous manner; ESPECIALLY when it comes to "college."
And the claim of the parents to a naive/ignorant "trust" of those institutions... is IMO highly dubious at best. (To wit: among other things, let's say the parents even PARTIALLY believe the mainstream media claims that "1 in 4 college girls is raped/assaulted/sexually harassed"... Then what parent -- what responsible parent, in their right mind -- would then EVER allow, much less fund or otherwise "assist" their daughter to BE at such a place, put into such an environment? And then moreover EQUIP her with "tools" to facilitate placing herself in even more danger of same?)
So no, the whole "Society is to blame" is a way of AVOIDING responsibility for the obviously predictable outcome.
DADDY (and/or Mommy) are in fact a CRITICAL part of their "Little Princess" becoming a major slut-hoe.
[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And you might want to check into procreation ratios before we had civilization at all - prehistoric mating patterns.
Did you get your hands on some kind of pre-civilization marriage or birth records?
Do you even comprehend what the phrase "prehistoric" means?
It was 17/1 in favor of females.
Oooh... 17/1 which is like saying 17... or did you mean 17:1? That's an oddly specific ratio. (Oh wait, I forgot you have those pre-civilization/prehistoric marriage & birth records! Doh!)
Natural hypergamy is a 99/1 rule - not 80/20 as some seem to suggest given the Parrett Principle,
The "Parrett Principle"... isn't that when Polly asks for a cracker?
Ayah... LOL, I think I'll just cut out right about there...
I mean dude... what ARE you smoking? Or drinking... or is it smoking AND drinking.
Than again, maybe it's just a result of fetal alcohol syndrome; your mother was downing like a liter of gin every day while she was pregnant with you.
Seems the most plausible explanation.
[–]nigga_phil57 points58 points59 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
No need to be celibate men! We need to end the SHAME in purchasing SEX! It is the most freeing thing on the planet and I regret not trying it sooner! Now I openly share with everyone that I do it! No one really cares in the end. I didn't try it sooner because of fear but it was completely misplaced!
Men, you can bang any 10/10 for the low low price vs a relationSHIT! No need to peacock, jump thru hoops, dress nice, be fit, be alpha, or any other shit for women. Just hand her the money and get on your day, be who you want to be! MGTOW is where it's at, all these dumbasses have different levels of cucking they will tolerate to get validation from women. FUCKEM! Your life is much much much better without them!
[–]CiceroVoltaire9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Agreed.
FWIW I have no shame for my passions or lust. Indulge as you will, as you want, to the fullest.
Read the philosophic writings of the Marquis de Sade if you need inspiration.
[–]triscuit150 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I so, so, SO agree with this and would want nothing more BUT... it's illegal. Fucking bullshit.
[–]RoboMandrake0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Drop the low, low all-inclusive price of $5k for a month in Bangkok and bang a different early-20s something each and every day. Talking the higher quality experiences here - not the dubious street level workers.
[+]retal1ator-8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Well, prostitution is nice but men seek more than just a hole from women. I'm happy you found happiness in what you are doing tho.
[–]IamBili13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Guess what?Pretty much all fertile women nowadays can't bring nothing more to a relationship than their front holes, and even here, they struggle to do so, for a million of different reasons
[–]retal1ator0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The problem is that in theory they can bear children.
[–]FSA-Got-Aleppo5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
men seek more than just a hole from women
But what do modern women actually offer other than a hole?
Modern women, especially western women, offer little in real value on the front of being a good companion. But at least they can bear and raise your children, and that in my opinon changes everything.
[–]eltonl2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I dont know why you got downvoted. Its true. Thats the reason why we are here. Many of us used to look for something more than a hole in women and we couldnt find it.
[–]satansbarbedcock4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But that doesn't exist. You need to get over that delusion.
Men seek a life companion, a sweet caregiver and an intelligent friend in women. For the majority us who would want a family, we ideally look for the mother of our children. Sex is nice but nowadays any man can entertain himself for that. Modern women have been turned against us. If you want an advice, you would need to find a woman who had little to no contact with modern western culture: she will never be an unicorn but at least she will probably be a good mother and friend.
[–]84i_ 47 points48 points49 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Every "normal" person will laugh at this graph, but data doesn't give a f.
In Spain for ex, there is a lot of similar data, due to the incursion of EXTREME feminism, especially when women have truth without evidence in a trial ( men must prove they are innocent ) all this by LAW.
[–]dragonsbless9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well that's Spain off my holiday list.
[–]Trail_of_Jeers24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
90% of women sleep with 10% of men.
[–]gigasimpdeluxe17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Apparently this graph contained an error and has been reposted. Doesn't really look like credible source anyway.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/8kwru2/lyman_stone_tweeted_a_graph_showing_male_vs/
[–]gone_for_years13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
the flatline from 2014 onward says it all.
[–]Disposable__Male11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It looks like things were nearly as bad in the late 90s. What caused the trend to bounce back back then?
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
On 6 August 1991, the World Wide Web became publicly available.
[–]FalloutFan-2[S] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Well 90s were known as popularization of cellphone technology and texting; would have been another type of sexual selection akin to the internet
what I don't get is why mid-2000s men were less celibate than women
[–]NohoTwoPointOh5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Possibly chat rooms were a greater contributor.
[–]fuckingjakedebrusk 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
my guess is the economy,
Economy was trash in the early 90s (or at least I hear it was in certain regions), then heated up to a good pace from 1997-2007 or so. When men make more money, theres more reason for women to hang on for sex, and the cuck mentality wasnt a social norm back then so women would sleep with guys for money. Female celibacy might have been amped up in certain demographics by increased workforce participation too.
Worth noting that the 2008 recession had an outsize impact on men (especially black men in the states) so men dont earn as much as they did relative to women back then anymore
[–]anonymous981012 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Mid 90s was when all those mandatory AOL CDs began showing up in everyone's mailboxes.
[–]no1123589 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The western world is divided in everything. Ripe for the picking, Islam is gonna replace the lost numbers and overrun us. That's gonna be fun.
[–]HM_mtl5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
At 2010, the youngest genX was 31yo. So, the trend is men Millennials are MGTOW and women Millennials go for the sugar daddies.
[–]Starter913 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
tinder did an OOPSIE.
[–]BrokenGaySword2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I highly doubt the celibacy rate of girls aged 22-35 has been of 0% for the last 4 years.
[–]Fragosus8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
Probably not 0%, but somewhere between 0 and 1%.
Part of me doubts it, but when I look around there is also a part of me that actually thinks it could be true.
[–]BrokenGaySword1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
But just look at bars, clubs, schools or even your friend circle, lotssssss of girls are single and so it just cant be 0%
[–]Fragosus16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Celibacy and single aren't the same.
[–]shellbross4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Celibacy means never had sex.
It means that between 0% and 1% of women 22-35 years old are virgin, whereas almost 18% of men the same age are virgins.
Just check out online how many incels men populate the forums/reddit, vs how many incels women. Hint, even land wales can find thirsty enough men to get laid at least once...
[–]triscuit152 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Celibacy doesn't mean virgin. It just means not having sex in a specific measure of time.
Most often, it is used to imply "currently" which means the person hasn't had any in the short term past nor has plans in the short term future.
In this graph, it specified that no sex was reported in the past year.
[–]GauisJuliusCeasar3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Don't forget the land whales, they are 100% celibate.
[–]satansbarbedcock2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nope. Ex-cons will fuck 'em and mooch off them. Seen it plenty of times.
[–]fuckingjakedebrusk 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
https://i.imgur.com/1F47zAv.gif
[–]fasterfind1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow, 0% of women that age are celibate. That confirms everything we've been saying about the nature of women. Men are headed to 20% and beyond. That's gonna fuck society a little bit, just a little bit.
[–]iamoriginal_20 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wait. If very few women are celibate and the number of celibate men keeps increasing, then their can only be one explanation.
Lesbians.
Just from basic data analysis, given that the age range is 22 - 35, the 4~5 year time span since "Tinder" (the steep upward incline) would be since the majority now in that group were about 17- 30 yrs old.
Ergo the increase MUST mainly be in the lower (~5 year) age range of the group; in order for it to have THAT degree (12 percentage point increase) of "skewed" impact on the overall group % rate -- a significantly HIGHER percentage yet (that is well above the ~18%) of the younger guys must NOT be "getting ANY."
Gives a bit more credence to the "incel" meme.
[–]RocknR0IIa0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I guess it is a buyer's market for beta cucks 😂
[–]usa_foot_print0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Where are these stats from?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Jesus christ
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[+][deleted] [recovered] (22 children) | Copy Link
Compare that graph to MGTOW relevantcey in trends.
Not surprising at all.
[+][deleted] (21 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]ProgrammaticallyMeal50 points51 points52 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sir_manalot28 points29 points30 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Inkfyuk3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeyDontDoxMe11 points12 points13 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sir_manalot6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeyDontDoxMe6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VenetianCares 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VenetianCares 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]newcaprica12 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]ProgrammaticallyMeal0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ProgrammaticallyMeal0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ProgrammaticallyMeal1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]MaestroLogical1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nigga_phil57 points58 points59 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]CiceroVoltaire9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]triscuit150 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RoboMandrake0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]retal1ator-8 points-7 points-6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]IamBili13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]retal1ator0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FSA-Got-Aleppo5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]retal1ator0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eltonl2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]satansbarbedcock4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]retal1ator0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]84i_ 47 points48 points49 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]dragonsbless9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Trail_of_Jeers24 points25 points26 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gigasimpdeluxe17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gone_for_years13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male11 points12 points13 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FalloutFan-2[S] 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]NohoTwoPointOh5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fuckingjakedebrusk 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anonymous981012 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]no1123589 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HM_mtl5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Starter913 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BrokenGaySword2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fragosus8 points9 points10 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]BrokenGaySword1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fragosus16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shellbross4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]triscuit152 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GauisJuliusCeasar3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]satansbarbedcock2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fuckingjakedebrusk 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fasterfind1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iamoriginal_20 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RocknR0IIa0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]usa_foot_print0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link