TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Q4ALL: How do you predict gender dynamics will evolve over the course of the 21st century? What do you think will happen in future generations?

HopefulAboutADHD

April 10, 2017
22 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Q4ALL: How do you predict gender dynamics will evolve over the course of the 21st century? What do you think will happen in future generations?
Author

HopefulAboutADHD

Upvotes 22
Comments 279
Date April 10, 2017 6:17 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/64lbaj/q4all_how_do_you_predict_gender_dynamics_will/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/q4all-how-do-you-predict-gender-dynamics-will.268969
https://theredarchive.com/post/268969
Top posts by HopefulAboutADHD

CMV: Women are scared of TRP because if men wake up to the reality of how badly men are getting screwed then life won't be on easy mode for women anymore.

53 upvotes
June 18, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

What are your favorite TRP threads that maybe have slipped under the radar a bit and aren't incredibly high-ranked? And who are your favorite TRP users?

52 upvotes
August 10, 2017
/r/askTRP

Q4ALL: What do you guys think about the fact that paternity testing is illegal in France and Germany?

42 upvotes
April 11, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

What are your favorite askTRP threads that are "gems" that might not be well-known or among the "all time" top threads?

38 upvotes
October 8, 2017
/r/askTRP

CMV: Only a tiny elite of men are able to spin HIGH-QUALITY plates. To say otherwise is a TRP fantasy.

32 upvotes
November 22, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

What do you guys think about "Agree and Amplify?"

31 upvotes
July 17, 2017
/r/askTRP

CMV: It's better to be beautiful than smart in this world.

30 upvotes
April 16, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

Is the look of lust/desire alien to most average-looking men? If so, does that lead to any harmful psychological consequences?

27 upvotes
June 15, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]bala-keyMarried Red32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

My predictions:

  • Tinder like services becoming even more widespread.
  • More herbivores and dead bedrooms like in Japan.
  • Increasingly immersive porn. Interactive. VR. At some point in this century: sex robots.
  • Attention that would have went into relationships going into online activities instead: video games for men, social media for women.
  • More and more children born outside wedlock. (2011 OECD average: ~30+ % and quickly increasing). Marriage losing its importance and meaning even more.
  • Pervasive mass automation destroying the the male 'provider' role even further. This will include white collar and service jobs too.
  • More female than male college graduates outside a few niches. Women out-earning men. (On average.)
  • Possibly: paternity tests becoming generally illegal without mother's consent. (Like in France and Germany today.)
  • Non-monogamy becoming normalized.

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

what a horror show lol

[–]findingmrnemo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But how awesome it be for men than for women. As women would lose their shit in such a society.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's interesting. What do you mean by that?

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That they lose any and all dating privileges they once held/had. Its going on right now as we speak. Women saying they can't find men to date etc etc.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women won't get the baseline attention that they thrive on, if that's what you mean. It's definitely already happening. "Can't find a gentleman" "He doesn't try to kiss me is he gay?" etc

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That but also not having a large supply of men to date from anymore. And having to go dutch, men not being men (ie man child), etc etc.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Can you elaborate on the point about paternity testing?

Is it really illegal in France/Germany?

Why do you predict generalization of that trend?

[–]Jaxx_Teller26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'd imagine his thinking lied along the lines of:

Women trying to legislate away the consequences of fucking "bad boys", with their increasing freedom of choice without consequence. This stems from the current norm that women shall not be shamed for being promiscuous. So in the future, cuckoldry will be an acceptable practice, and a woman will not be shamed for having kids with someone other than their husband. They will be able to marry someone who is safe and provides, and if they get bored of their marriage and fuck a Chad-type guy on the side and get pregnant, they will still be able to have their husband pay to raise the child.

If they are able to make paternity testing illegal, then women will be able to execute their Alpha Fucks Beta Bucks mating strategy when they can't find their Alpha Bucks.

[–]bala-keyMarried Red7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, pretty much.

The nominal reason given is "preservation of peace within the family".

[–]fatchobanispliff-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If promiscuity in women angers you, you should also be angered by male promiscuity.

[–]Jaxx_Teller2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Nothing in my prediction indicates an emotion of anger in any of this. I stated it overtly unemotional for debate purposes, and I suggest you do the same if you have any motivation to be taken seriously on this forum.

Although I do think that if a man wasn't sure if his wife was cheating on him and found out that it was illegal to check and see if the kid that he is paying for and raising is his, that the situation would illicit a response of anger.

On matters of promiscuity, I think being promiscuous is a bad personal habit from both genders, but I have no right to pass judgment on others over it. But if I were choosing someone to be in a relationship with, I will use past sexual behavior as an indicator of their fitness for a relationship.

[–]fatchobanispliff-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yet redpill in general always supports male promiscuity and condemns female promiscuity. Every time anyone discusses female promiscuity, redpill acts like its the fall of human civilization but pat each other on the back for "spinning plates". You know the double standard is getting old and dishonest by now.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The nature of opinion on promiscuity is borne from the biological differences between men and women, and nothing more.

Jesus fuck, men get one advantage, and women lose their shit over it.

[–]fatchobanispliff0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is nothing in a woman's biology preventing a woman from being promiscuous, otherwise where would redpill get this idea of hypergamy from? ;)

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing in a woman's biology preventing a woman from being promiscuous...

Except for that whole "pregnancy" thing where a woman's fulfillment of her sexual imperative imposes a nine-month cost upon her continuing sexual activity, while the man is ready the next damn morning to fulfill another woman's sexual imperative.

...otherwise where would redpill get this idea of hypergamy from? ;)

The evidence? The argument isn't "women can't be promiscuous" or "female biology prevents promiscuity," the argument is "promiscuity costs a woman far, far, far more than it costs a man," and when men object to being forced to part with the fruits of their labors in order to "correct" nature's injustice, they're labelled sexists.

[–]Eastuss 10 points10 points10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In france it's legal to do a paternity test.... to know who is your father, not to know who is your child.... :p

Only the child can ask for a paternity test.

[–]salami_inferno10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Fuck that. If a man isn't allowed to know if the child is biologically his the kid doesn't get to know if the father is biologically theirs as well. But I'm sure they would see that as morally wrong.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But I think it has a good side of this.

I believe that if I don't legally recognize that child, I have no child support to pay.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok sorry for the flood, I just checked.

Apparently if the father doesn't recognize the child, but the mother still wants the father to pay, she can put that to a court, where the judge will be the only to decide if the "father" should pay and if an ADN test should be done.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Everything is done in favour of the child. It needs a father no matter what, disposable father...

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah someone doesn't unilaterally demonize a gender's activity! Stop right here with your sane objectivity!

In France it's not the mother's consent, it's the CHILD's consent.

[–]sunkindonut149Blue Pill Mouse2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More and more children born outside wedlock. (2011 OECD average: ~30+ % and quickly increasing). Marriage losing its importance and meaning even more.

AFAIK, 2014 stats are ~55% for American parents under age 35.

[–]findingmrnemo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tinder like services becoming even more widespread.

I doubt it unless they get their act together when it comes to fake accounts. As I bet most people especially guys have stop using Tinder like apps or use them less because of getting liked with such accounts.

More female than male college graduates outside a few niches.

This is already a thing unless you mean the gap becomes bigger (its already 60/40).

Women out-earning men.

Kind of a thing with college educated women in their 20's.

[–]trpobservereats ass11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Japan

[–]flashbang1235 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

> Japan

Japan is like looking into a crystal ball. Terrifying stuff.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I didn't understand. Can you elaborate on that?

[–]trpobservereats ass6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

http://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fotolife/n/nbakki/20140626/20140626124207.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cllO4KcdwLc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Wow...the fertility rate in Japan has really plummeted. That's a remarkable graph. So what makes you think that that trend will be generalized to the US?

[–]trpobservereats ass7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Its a side effect of a modern society. The trend can be generalized to any high-tech first world country. Japan is just at the spearhead.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Not all modern countries are the same. There are lots of different ways of being 'modern' and Japan is just one version of that.

[–]trpobservereats ass4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Approximately gender equal job market, most citizens have internet access. Food, shelter and clothing are relatively plentiful. There is a decent standard of living for most people and a strong legal system is in place. I'd say basically that's all you need to get the ball rolling on birthrate decline. When people can afford to not have to deal with the stresses of monogamy, they are less inclined to do so.

[–]Unabummer80 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Japan is a tricky one although it does seem to mirror a more advanced version of the West sometimes. Some issues though

  • it is only very recently that women have really entered the workforce. They have big issues with lack of access to childcare and mechanisms to get women back into work after child birth. A lot of women quit their career when they get married still. For a lot of women it is a straight up choice - kids or career.

  • The lack of sex thing is, and has always been greatly exaggerated IMO. Western media eats up anything weird about Japan. There was an hour long BBC documentary about virtual girlfriends there making out as if it were commonplace, go there and you'll see it really is not. Go to a major Japanese city and there is a clear hook-up culture. If you're in the know, Japan can be a fuckfest.

  • They dont do immigration, yet. No nationalised Muslims/Mexicans to pop out huge broods, surely this buffers the West's birthrate?

[–]trpobservereats ass1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A lot of women quit their career when they get married still.

And many women are focused on career and hence do not date, and when they do date they struggle to find a man who meets their standards.

Go to a major Japanese city and there is a clear hook-up culture. If you're in the know, Japan can be a fuckfest.

Yeah people who want to can go experience it. Its not like nobody is having sex. Its just that a larger proportion are not, relative to most other countries.

No nationalised Muslims/Mexicans to pop out huge broods, surely this buffers the West's birthrate?

Yes, and what a surprise: Japan's crime rate is one of the lowest in the world.

[–]Unabummer80 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And many women are focused on career and hence do not date, and when they do date they struggle to find a man who meets their standards.

What I am getting at here is that Japan is quite a bit behind the West in terms of gender relations, not ahead. This is something they are starting to change now. There are no laws against firing a woman if she gets pregnant, for example. This is not going to last much longer, and in coming years Japan will probably experience something like we have over the last 20 years. What this will do to fertility, I dont know, but feminism is only just starting to take hold in Japan.

Yeah people who want to can go experience it. Its not like nobody is having sex. Its just that a larger proportion are not, relative to most other countries.

I'm not sure about this either. A good deal of countries seem to have a declining birthrate, doesnt mean they dont have sex. On top of this, you have to consider the state of the cultures. America is obsessed by sex, it seems to be the major point of validation for many people. In Japan, whether or not you can get laid is far behind how hard you work in terms of your worth as a human.

Yes, and what a surprise: Japan's crime rate is one of the lowest in the world.

But like with feminism - watch this space. Japan has the biggest debt to GDP ratio in the world, and they have stubbornly resisted cultural changes. You can respect them for that, but something will give. A wave or two of Chinese economic migrants could boost their fertility rates beyond ours.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They dont do immigration, yet. No nationalised Muslims/Mexicans to pop out huge broods, surely this buffers the West's birthrate?

Ah this is a good point.

[–]harbo2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Approximately gender equal job market

If anything, the job market is extremely unequal, which together with the fact that the market for daycare is nonexistent is one of the things contributing to the fact that women don't want to have children. If you don't get it, compare Norway and Italy. It's the same shit.

[–]speltspelt1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of the ultra low fertility countries, including Japan, have socially conservative views on the role of women.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Um there's really not an equal gender job market in Japan.

Never disagreed other countries aren't going to experience a declining birth rate as GDP per capita rises. Below replacement rate is another thing altogether.

[–]trpobservereats ass2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't have to be totally equal, as long as many women are out of the home and working.

Below replacement rate is another thing altogether.

Half the world's population lives in countries with below replacement birthrates.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, Japan doesn't have many women out of the house and working - one of the things Abenomics hasn't changed yet. That's one /of the big differences between Japan, and certainly the UK and probably the US.

Could you give me a source for that second statement? I don't believe it's correct, but I may be wrong.

[–]trpobserver1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Could you give me a source for that second statement? I don't believe it's correct, but I may be wrong.

http://web.archive.org/web/20121028012124/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_8.htm

Yeah, Japan doesn't have many women out of the house and working

Not sure where you get that idea

[–]littlemetalfollicle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

http://web.archive.org/web/20121028012124/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_8.htm

Guess I was wrong.

Not sure where you get that idea

That's still compared to an over 90% participation rate for working age men! Also, lots of that work is part-time and/or at a lower rank within companies, and therefore lower paid than for men.

[–]sunkindonut149Blue Pill Mouse0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think Japanese culture has traits that make them more of a spearhead for countries like India, China, Egypt, Dubai, etc rather than the more sexually-lax Anglosphere.

The biggest difference is that Anglosphere-type countries tend toward higher out-of-wedlock rates if they are secular. I expect religious westerners (like evangelicals and Mormons) to follow a more Japanese pattern, despite the general secular nature of Japanese society, because religious people hearken more toward an old school mentality.

Pew tells me that the percentage of secular people is going down in society, while Muslims and non-western Christians are on the increase. I expect, therefore, an increase in the Japanese family trend within societies in general as more people are raised in the church.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The Wikipedia article said Japanese men are more resistant to the corporate world...thus without stable jobs, the women are less wanting to marry these men. I see this trend happening in the US too.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a lot harder for women to earn a similar amount of money to men in Japan compared to in the West - their earning potential is a lot lower so they're more likely to want a partner who they can depend on financially. That's less the case in the US, where women are more able to pursue careers.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You know, in times of great national need, when the nation was at risk, young men were called upon to risk their lives to defend the state. If too few volunteers that's ok, force them to at gunpoint.

Many millions died or were permanently disabled as a result but that was seen as ok because it was necessary for the greater good.

Maybe it's time for Japanese women to have their turn and sacrifice their freedom and health and autonomy for the greater good: since too few have volunteered to preserve the next generation young women can be drafted at gunpoint and forcibly impregnated.

Two per women ought to be plenty. They can get parades and if they die in child birth their families can get medals and flags. It'll be great. They'll love the privilege.

[–]darla101 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh boy.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

Femists will ban sex robots.

Men will escape in to virtual reality.

Women will have to pay for sex. Cause they wont settle.

[–]trpobservereats ass13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

Men will escape in to virtual reality.

This is the future. There will be a point where peripherals and visuals are linked up to provide an experience that will take many of men off the market, and not just the stereotypical basement dweller.

Sex robots would just be the next phase of that industry.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

Sex robots would just be the next phase of that industry.

No, feminists will not allow men to rape them.

Of course they will sugar coat it. Like mentioning child sex robots. Or how robots are programmed and cannot consent. But in reality it is about power dynamics. Leverage that women have with sex.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lolololol at that article

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

How is this reflective of feminism as a whole? Most feminists would probably not care about sex robots just like they don't care about fleshlights

[–]buttlollipop 10 points10 points10 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it's because they're still under the impression that feminism only exists to help unattractive women get the hottest guys and monopolize the sex market, never mind that a huge percentage of avid feminists are lesbians.

[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

...and those are actually often the ones to worry about, the lesbian radfems are the ones saying the crazy shit that pisses people off.

[–]buttlollipop 3 points3 points3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

right, it's the women who aren't even interested in men who say the stuff red pillers are most annoyed about.

[–]alcockell1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Example : Julie Bindel pushed the kafkatrap change to harassment rules to Notts police.

[–]GinSmokeLies 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

There's nothing in that article to even indicate that the professor is a feminist. He's a philosophy professor and is simply discussing the ethics of sentient AI, which is a valid philosophical question that has been explored in literature and film for decades.

I get so tired of this being twisted into "Feminists are going to ban sexbots to control men!!!!"

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There's nothing in that article to even indicate that the professor is a feminist.

As usual anything they don't like is the fault of feminists

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Tell me, how many times have you lumped MRAs and red pillers together?

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You mean that one time where I lumped them together to make a point or the other time to show how, if you don't know anything about the topic at hand and use Google to inform yourself about it, one could get that misperception (and I'm still not sure why you got so massively triggered because I never said that they are the same, but that googling them can make it seem like that)?

Except for those times never.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So except for when you have you never have?

Got it.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How is it not? Has there been feminist rhetoric in the other direction?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I've never seen an example of "a feminist defense of sex toys, pornography and prostitution for men," written by a woman.

Now, it can be fairly argued that feminists are not obliged to provide such a defense and that's fine. Agreed. But they're obliged to at least not attack toys/porn/whoring for males, if they truly don't want to stand in the way of male sexual freedom.

[–]give_me_shinieshere for the bants3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

For feminists, female safety n well-being > "male sexual freedom". The health n safety of the women involved are the angle from which porn n prostitution are attacked (insofar as they're even attacked). Not a feminist desire to control the sex market so women can get hot guys or whatever nonsense. The most "sex-negative" radfems are actually full blown lesbians who don't even participate in the hetero SMP.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But how do voluntary porn and voluntary prostitution actually hurt a woman's wellbeing?

Or are you arguing that feminists are more concerned with women's collective position versus men?

[–]give_me_shinieshere for the bants2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Prostitutes, even in countries where it's legal, experience v high rates of PTSD, rape, violence n mortality, n the v majority when asked say they want a way out. There's a wealth of data on this. There have also been a few recent studies that have found that legal prostitution actually increases human trafficking.

Still, most liberal feminists are for legal sex work bc they perceive it as a choice/job like any other n believe legalisation will make it safer.

Radfems are usually Marxist n anti-capitalist n reject the choice arguments bc they reject liberalism altogether.

Feminists are more concerned with prostitutes than johns the same way ppl who agitate for better wages n working conditions for sweatshop workers are more concerned with the collective position of the workers than of the relatively privileged ppl who buy their products.

[–]funny_lyfeMostly rational3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

We will all see it in our lifetimes. Sex robots around 10 years away. AI is growing at a crazy rate. If sex robots can pass the Turing test, and they will, women become a lot more disposable to men. The US is well on it's way to become Japan.

A lot of men don't care where the intimacy comes from. Companion robots will become a thing within this century.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

So why should women base their lives on pleasing men if they're supposedly gonna be worthless in 10 years?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did anyone say you had to?

[–]funny_lyfeMostly rational1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

No one is saying women become worth less. Sex does become more of a commodity. So at that point IMO the value that the market pays for sex lowers. Women will have to increase their SMV, or increasingly be in a situation where no one wants them.

As it is family courts are heavily against men. There isn't a lot of reason for men to marry.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Yeah and women will have to compete with instagram models and the stepford wives type sex robots. So why do it instead of getting ahead the 'male way'?

[–]funny_lyfeMostly rational2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Anyone is free to sit it out. Fat women, and women with kids already have to compromise. r/incels and r/foreveralone already deal with it.

Men already have to be hyper masculinized, have a good job, be tall, be extremely social and outgoing to date a quality woman. Sex robots, if they aren't outlawed might force some women to step their game.

Divorce and custody laws will have to become fairer for men to want to marry again.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Sex robots would just make me give up entirely because I'd have to work far harder for far less. I'd become a "careerist cunt" in the words of some of the manosphere.

[–]Returnofthemack35 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

lol, for once you'd realize what it's like for average men now

[–]questioningwoman2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I will be post wall then so I don't have as much to lose in the end. What do you think women who grow up with sex bots being common will act like in response? If they become common around 2030... I imagine turning 20 around then would really be fucked.

[–]PurpleBanner2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How is that a problem for women?

Finding a sex partner for women is very, very easy.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So given the option between trying a bit or just giving up entirely you immediately go with the latter?

How is that anyone else's problem?

[–]LittleWindowpane1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nothing wrong with being an ambitious leather spinster! The manosphere is a pack of wingnuts, in many ways.

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you want kids one day?

[–]PurpleBanner1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sex robots would just make me give up entirely because I'd have to work far harder for far less.

So that's why women would be upset over a sex robot industry.

Well, that's tough shit. Men deserve to have something for themselves separate from women.

[–]questioningwoman2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Tough shit? Then don't expect an ounce of empathy from me. I don't care what you think you deserve. I don't have to deal with your attitude.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Tough shit? Then don't expect an ounce of empathy from me.

Did anyone?

You've been very clear this whole time that you don't care about anyone who isn't you.

So you kinda got that backwards.

I don't care what you think you deserve. I don't have to deal with your attitude.

This is backwards too.

[–]PurpleBanner1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Attitude? What might that be?

[–]Returnofthemack32 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

lol yeah, men have been dealing with women's bullshit since time immemorial, so fuck em

[–]dj10show1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The thing is the guys that are going to be using this technology are guys that are not getting any as is. It's not like Chad is going to replace his girls with some robot. The guys you want to fuck/be in a relationship with will not remove themselves from the marketplace, because they're still the same ones that are desired.

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

yeah it's crazy to think about. We like to pretend there is something inherently 'different' with the real thing, but that's just not the case. It's just an issue of the tech not being there atm.

[–]funny_lyfeMostly rational1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. There won't be a difference.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

And those men won't breed because they'll be too busy telling women how much better the sexbots are. This will lead to a backlash.

[–]PurpleBanner2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean a backlash?

[–]questioningwomandetached from society1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

The girls growing up seeing the older men in their lives making those comments will backlash. Of course this will be generation Alpha girls seeing Millennial males making these comments.

[–]PurpleBanner2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

ok. what do you mean backlash?

Jap sex robots sounds like a profitable industry to me. I don't see how women would be adversely affected.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Picture women shouting and protesting to ban sex bots and make it into the law. Picture them trying to ban all virtual reality porn they see as misogynistic. Picture them being very angry, passionate, and unhinged from growing up in that environment.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Women would get that upset over not getting laid?

Ha! Losers. You aren't owed sex. If you can't compete with a machine step up your game.

Men didn't get this angry over vibrators.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

The male equivalent to a vibrator is a fleshlight, not a sex robot. Try again.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well presumably they'd make sex bots with cocks too so knock yourself out.

[–]PurpleBanner1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

No its not.

[–]questioningwoman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How is the sex robot the equivalent and not the fleshlight? Explain

[–]PurpleBanner1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Its the difference between a sex robot and a vibrator.

[–]questioningwoman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I said the fleshlight was the equivalent to the vibrator. I never said the sex robot was the equivalent. You seem confused.

[–]PurpleBanner2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, sweetie.

Sex robot is totally different. And it will give us freedom from feminism.

[–]questioningwoman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sex robots will make more "feminazi cunts". It will make women have no incentive to try to please you.

[–]PurpleBanner1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why?

[–]questioningwoman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because they'd see no point in entering a race to the bottom, trying to be a cross between Stepford wives and the most extreme porn stars and starving themselves to meet the new body standards and putting on 3 hours worth of makeup for the new face standards.... and for what? for scraps if they even get that.

[–]PurpleBanner2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women already control how much sex men get anyway.

trying to be a cross between Stepford wives and the most extreme porn stars and starving themselves to meet the new body standards

It frees women and frees men. Women don't have to live up to any standards and men can be free from feminism.

[–]questioningwoman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The average woman couldn't measure up to a sex robot slave.

[–]PurpleBanner2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The average woman couldn't measure up to a sex robot slave.

The average woman wouldn't have to try to measure up.

[–]questioningwoman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They would if they wanted anything close to what they could get before sexbots.

[–]PurpleBanner2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So what. They already control how much sex men get anyway.

[–]questioningwoman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First you tell me how sex robots are gonna fuck women over but then you say not to make a big deal of it. Hmmmmm

[–]PurpleBanner1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First you tell me how sex robots are gonna fuck women

I never said that and you know it.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Scared of a little competition?

Of having to put in some fraction more effort than before to get laid?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Monopolist fears competing. Peaches doom if these upstarts aren't crushed.

That's a new story.

[–]PurpleBanner4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Picture them being very angry, passionate, and unhinged from growing up in that environment.

Women upset from growing up an environment where they are not expected to have sex (with men) or even bear children? I am honestly lost here. Sounds like a feminist paradise.

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol honestly, the movie her is probably not all tht far off, and that's not even taking into account ai plus virtual reality

[–]MissMaude 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

We don't need to ban them just make the validation of being chosen better than the act of sex which most people are already aligned to. Men won't choose sex robots because being chosen by a woman is a status/ego boost.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In other words, continue shaming men for not being "real man" enough to appease women. Because that is what you're doing; you're trying to maintain the traditional ideal of woman-as-judge-of-a-man's-manhood.

Do you enjoy being a member of the Ladies' Auxiliary Of The Patriarchy?

[–]Wolfsouls 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. Attractive men who can get the real thing will continue to do so. All we have to do is keep sex bots in the realm of Smv/societal losers.

[–]--Bob__BP Oil Spill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lmfao

[–]fetchyminx1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Stfu

[–]Battle-Scars8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should add a flair to your username. I'm thinking can you elaborate would be appropriate.

[–]UhKhatWhen I am formulated, sprawling on a pin7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully we'll all start communicating better and stop seeing such a war between the sexes. That's the dream. The reality is probably that more and more men will turn to virtual reality and sex dolls and women will somehow convince themselves they're better off for it. That would be so incredibly sad though....

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

and stop seeing such a war between the sexes

tough to do when the feminist religion's word for Satan basically translates to "anything male"

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Well, individualism is quite Satanic. Men's nature is evil. Woman's nature is less evil, more neutral, but still power hungry.

Whats changed? Women want to enjoy the evil life too.

It is fun after all, ISN'T THAT THE POINT of consumerism + hedonism while sitting on top of our world's hierarchy of slavery?

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Woman's nature is less evil, more neutral, but still power hungry.

lolnope. If you are going to go biblical, you need to go FULL biblical.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Whats changed?

only technology.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Woman's nature is less evil, more neutral, but still power hungry.

lolnope. If you are going to go biblical, you need to go FULL biblical.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Adam is already evil, Satanic by nature. He can't be deceived into becoming more so, rather he must control his sinful nature to be virtuous. The woman was deceived, as women easily are, and was led to Satan where she wasn't there to begin with, women are inherently neutral, nothing.

God put women on earth for men, to give men love and beauty above all other beauty.

Not that this isn't duplicitous also.

Whats changed?

only technology.

More like, ideas specifically. Even with lesser technology plenty of Civilizations end up in Feminism.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Adam is already evil, Satanic by nature.

not even close. Adam represents human intellect, and temptation can only get to the intellect through the body (eve).

he must control his sinful nature to be virtuous.

according to the bible, sin did not exist before the fall. So you are extrapolating. "the lord said unto me, these people are constipated, for they are full of shit."

God put women on earth for men, to give men love and beauty above all other beauty.

wrong again. God specifically states that women are intended to be a "helper" to man. Not a hindrance.

Even with lesser technology plenty of Civilizations end up in Feminism.

and then they die.

Ecclesiastes 7:28 while I was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.

[–]Wolfsouls 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Wrong, the apple represents human intellect and knowledge. Adam was content with a life of ignorant bliss, Eve was not. Eve is a metaphor for human curiosity and the thirst for understanding, which admittedly can get people into trouble. The garden of eden myth is a warning written by people in power, the lesson being that only the wicked question the status quo.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the apple

it is not an apple. Closest thing would probably be a fig.

The garden of eden myth is a warning written by people in power, the lesson being that only the wicked question the status quo.

not really, the story is unique among the early genesis tales because it is more locally based than the others. Most other tales are based on babylonian myths. Even if Adam is based on Gilgamesh's companion "Enkidu" made by the gods, Adam and Eve is fully intended as state propaganda against the Asherah cult in the Kingdom of Judah.

Many Asherah figurines have been discovered around Jerusalem, showing that it was a major problem for the kingdom. She is often depicted holding up her breasts

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)

Asherah is represented as the tree of life, and Yahweh specifically tells his followers to destroy the Asherah poles that were worshiped.

The lesson is: "now that you have knowledge, stay away from Asherah" Why is this? Because god states:

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Eve is a metaphor for human curiosity and the thirst for understanding,

nope, if she was naturally curious there would be no need for the tempting serpent. The fall is also partially Adam's fault, since he added the commandment to not even touch the fruit of knowledge. Breaking this human barrier opened the way to break god's commandment.

the lesson being that only the wicked question the status quo.

no, the story gives its own etiological lesson through god's punishment: pregnancy is painful and farm work is laborious.

[–]Wolfsouls 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Very cool, I've never heard of Asherah. So, the snake would represent missionaries of the Asherah cult, tempting people to "take from the tree of life"?

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

So, the snake would represent missionaries of the Asherah cult, tempting people to "take from the tree of life"?

the snake represents just temptation in general (it is described as "clever"), but the Asherah cult was involved in ritual prostitution at the "high places" or hilltop shrines in the Judean countryside.

This kind of temptation is basically impossible to resist for a single man and has the potential to greatly damage the society (as seen in the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38). It helps that the snake can be seen as phallic (in addition to its original role in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where it eats the fruit of immortality and begins to shed its skin).

This is part of why Judean religion was eventually focused only on the Temple and why the Judean cult decided to clamp down so harshly on sexual immorality.

Remember that the Old Testament is intended to be a NATIONALISTIC text, based on god's initial promise to Abraham to "make of him a Great Nation" in chapter 12 of genesis. Even the earlier stories have this in mind.

If you are interested in the bible - which you should be regardless of how religious you are - I highly suggest looking through the 1 hour lectures at the Yale Free Online Courses. Professor Christine Hayes gives a great intro to the subject, and each lecture is packed with context.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Adam is already evil, Satanic by nature.

not even close. Adam represents human intellect, and temptation can only get to the intellect through the body (eve).

Temptation to learn of forbidden knowledge, evil knowledge.

he must control his sinful nature to be virtuous.

according to the bible, sin did not exist before the fall. So you are extrapolating. "the lord said unto me, these people are constipated, for they are full of shit."

Which I find to be hilarious. Man is created in God's image, he has His attributes, all of them minus direct immortality, which includes the propensity for a sinful nature. God's attributes enable both good and bad and evil actions by men.

God too is manly, he is polarized, where as Satan is androgynous, both man and woman.

God put women on earth for men, to give men love and beauty above all other beauty.

wrong again. God specifically states that women are intended to be a "helper" to man. Not a hindrance.

I didn't say hindrance. It is a helper in a sense, beauty is a way God speaks to man and shows His existence, and women are the most beautiful objects on earth.

Even with lesser technology plenty of Civilizations end up in Feminism.

and then they die.

Yeah, but the enabler isn't only technology. It's abundance, which is created by peace and non-violence, and technology merely speeds the process up.

Ecclesiastes 7:28 while I was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.

1 in 1000? Hmm. Sounds about right I suppose.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Temptation to learn of forbidden knowledge, evil knowledge.

nope, tree of knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL.

all of them minus direct immortality, which includes the propensity for a sinful nature.

nope, not only do Adam and Eve need to constantly eat from the tree of life, but they were built lacking knowledge of good and evil.

where as Satan is androgynous, both man and woman.

not at all, Satan is an Angel and Angels look like men. The serpent is not written as Satan to begin with, Jesus is the one that makes the connection hundreds of years later.

I didn't say hindrance.

"above all other beauty" starts to sound like the hindrance of idolatry, which is what Femen activists believe

but the enabler isn't only technology. It's abundance,

Not exactly. Abundance is eventually scaled back. Technology on the other hand can produce radical shifts in a short amount of time, like the birth control pill.

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It is fun after all, ISN'T THAT THE POINT of consumerism + hedonism while sitting on top of our world's hierarchy of slavery?

Man this is the kind of super sharp edge I expect to only see on /r/LateStageCapitalism

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Am I wrong?

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes you are wrong, there is no hierarchy of slavery. There are small amounts of true slavery in shitty parts of the world, that much is true.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What is China but a poor house to make rich people goods?

Oh yeah, they're treated humanely and on American labor standards. Sure.

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What is China but a poor house to make rich people goods?

They consume a great deal of what they produce. And you do realize they get paid for those exports right? Employees at those factories want those jobs, they are eager for those jobs. It typically is a step up from alternatives. The economy is accumulating capital, and since at least the 90's has been using this "evil Capitalist oppression" to pull millions of people out of extreme poverty.

The only "slave labor" China uses is the same slave labor America uses: prisoners.

Every time some American decides to be the hero and close down sweatshops in third world countries (though China specifically is not precisely third world at this point), all they end up doing is supplying the local brothels with more child prostitutes.

Oh yeah, they're treated humanely and on American labor standards

Countries only develop labor standards after they can afford them. Unions and governments fundamentally do not give you labor standards, capital accumulation does. The lower the price of goods, the more ability workers have to reject businesses that treat everybody like garbage. It slowly becomes cost effective to have air conditioning and bathroom breaks.

But if you want to talk about the lack of workers rights talk to the Chinese state. They actively suppress unionization. However, we get a lot of ridiculous exaggerations like massive suicide problems at FoxConn when in reality Foxconn has a lower per capita suicide rate than most US states.

[–]flashbang1238 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

The reality is probably that more and more men will turn to virtual reality and sex dolls and women will somehow convince themselves they're better off for it. That would be so incredibly sad though....

Isn't that what we are seeing play out now? Men are retreating to the world of high-speed porn and video games, effectively removing themselves from the dating pool. Women, while working full time and online dating refuse to date down - thus, the emergence of single girls in the city with cats. We are starting to see men and women outright reject each other. Both sides want each other, but aren't willing to try. I'm using a small percentage of men and women, but these trends are growing. Marriage among millennials is at the lowest levels, and porn usage is only growing. I really think people are misunderstanding how men are using porn as a crutch, and what those unintended consequences are going to look like in a few years.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

time to invest in women's depression medication/cheap wine and cat food.

[–]dicklord_airplane2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And fertility treatments for women.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no, most of the high earning women don't want to go through pregnancy. If they somehow moved from cats to humans, they would adopt, then have the poor brown nanny take care of the kid. Yay feminism!

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

this. mgtow type mindsets arent as rare as a lot of people would like to believe. It IS happening, and were only now starting to realize it.

People like to blame the economy and men, but in reality it's women driving this trend. This could change if women renegotiate what governs their attraction, but how much of that is cultural and able to be changed is debatable.

[–]flashbang1235 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

this. mgtow type mindsets arent as rare as a lot of people would like to believe. It IS happening, and were only now starting to realize it.

The thing is - this is a natural reaction. These guys don't even know what mgtow is or what it's all about...they are naturally gravitating towards porn/video games/isolation. They grew up with this stuff, know nothing about women/dating/game - this is how their brains are wired.

Imagine 10-20 years from now, guys with an average age around 40 who grew up with porn - many of these guys will never had had a sexual experience (or very little). Imagine what the gender dynamics will be. Japan is half way there, and unless we fix things - we will be there soon.

[–]nemma8830/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This would suggest it's not women driving the trend but in fact men, without overtly stating that in the comment.

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

womens pickiness got the ball rolling

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is interesting that women would prefer being single to attaching themselves to a lower status men. Then they blame men for their eventual cat lady status.

Self enforced gender roles that only hurt those enforcing them, that would be toxic femininity wouldn't it?

[–]Wolfsouls 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Biological attraction ques are not self imposed.

[–]marianasentmenudes1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully we'll all start communicating better

Lol.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's interesting.

Why did you write "lol?"

What did you mean?

[–]marianasentmenudes1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Buddy thinks the sexes can eventually communicate as easily as figuring out what 2+2 is.

Truth is they won't.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

AI will make most male jobs useless. Women will still be able to sell their company (Japanese hostess bars), bodies and wombs, but strength and intelligence that men have will be made redundant. Beyond that it's really hard to tell. Who knows, maybe we'll live neutered lives in human zoos (hello Matrix) while our robotic overlords become the new humans

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What are these "Japanese hostess bars" all about? You just pay for women's "company?" You just pay to hang out with women?

[–]wub12345 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't think there will necessarily be a huge change. But if we continue with the current economic system, with the level of debt that exists now, with the declining value of labour, increasingly globalised economy, and, as others have said, AI / robotics rendering many jobs obsolete, then I feel there will be an increasing pull factor towards economic status.

Already in Britain, if you're 20 years-old and growing up in London...good luck buying a house. Someone with the means to buy a house suddenly becomes an attractive proposition.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think there will necessarily be a huge change. But if we continue with the current economic system, with the level of debt that exists now, with the declining value of labour, increasingly globalised economy, and, as others have said, AI / robotics rendering many jobs obsolete, then I feel there will be an increasing pull factor towards economic status.

That's interesting. Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by "an increasing pull factor towards economic status?"

[–]wub12345 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

For example, I went on a date with a woman who was born in China recently, and obviously she knows the Far East pretty well. And she told me that if you've got a BMW in Thailand, for example, you will be treated differently. That's quite logical because people are poor.

If you imagine developing economies and Third World nations, if you have even what would be considered a moderate amount of money in the West, you're loaded over there. In some countries, the native women would be almost stupid to turn you down.

I don't think things will get that bad in the West, but I anticipate that there will be an evening out of living standards between the developing world and West. Their living standards will get better and ours will get worse! Already if you look at the division of wealth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOJ93tAbPP0

It's pretty bad. I can only see that situation becoming more ingrained, and those with money will become an increasingly attractive proposition.

It's already not that uncommon in some cultures for women to simply seek a man with money to marry. It's not even uncommon in Western society. I can't see any compelling reason why it won't become more common.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Or there'll just be less emphasis on house ownership as there is in Germany where a lot less people own their own houses? Or people's standards when it comes to dating just falls - like tbh I'm a lot less likely to match with a guy on Tinder in London who owns his own home compared with if I was swiping in Portsmouth, for example. Or the housing market will just even out as its kind of being doing since Brexit/new taxes on property/new laws on occupancy?

The value of labour isn't declining, its becoming more unequal, and government debt isn't a big issue by itself.

[–]wub12342 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Or there'll just be less emphasis on house ownership as there is in Germany where a lot less people own their own houses?

Unlikely, because you just get ripped off in the private rental market. There is already completely inadequate social housing provision.

Or people's standards when it comes to dating just falls - like tbh I'm a lot less likely to match with a guy on Tinder in London who owns his own home compared with if I was swiping in Portsmouth, for example.

That is certainly possible, but in the longer term women tend to want children, and children tend to need a stable environment. If you can provide a stable environment 20-30 years from now, maybe less than that, I predict you will have very high RMV.

Or the housing market will just even out as its kind of being doing since Brexit/new taxes on property/new laws on occupancy?

If you look at the amount relative to salary required to buy the average house, it is completely out of control. According to this it's nearly 8 times. In desirable areas of the country, it's far worse than this.

So looking this up, based on a borrowing calculator, HSBC may lend you about six times an average salary of £25,000, if you have a deposit of £20,000. Even then you still don't have enough for the average house. Plus, you're mortgaged up to the eyeballs.

Thus, as things get worse economically, I can easily see someone with a house, money or both, will become a more compelling prospect.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unlikely, because you just get ripped off in the private rental market. There is already completely inadequate social housing provision.

Depends on who you're renting from! I've had mixed experiences, and some have been ok. I think as more people rent, there'll be increased pressure to change the law, and there has been some progress already eg. letting fees being dropped.

That is certainly possible, but in the longer term women tend to want children, and children tend to need a stable environment. If you can provide a stable environment 20-30 years from now, maybe less than that, I predict you will have very high RMV.

I think you can bring up children fine in rented accommodation - many people do. You could also choose to move out of London to raise children. Don't most men want to have children in the long run too?

If you look at the amount relative to salary required to buy the average house, it is completely out of control. According to this it's nearly 8 times. In desirable areas of the country, it's far worse than this.

That's a good point - I think you're right the housing market is very bad, and worse than I thought before. However I don't think that's going to lead to a big change in gender relations, as I don't believe women will value that so highly it will affect their dating behaviour as I don't think there's a big emphasis on house ownership when choosing a partner.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Or people's standards when it comes to dating just falls - like tbh I'm a lot less likely to match with a guy on Tinder in London who owns his own home compared with if I was swiping in Portsmouth, for example.

That's interesting.

What did you mean by this?

And can you explain your Tinder example of London vs. Portsmouth?

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks!

Erm, basically house prices in London are far, far higher than anywhere else in the UK. So it's a lot harder to buy a house, especially if you're younger. So I'm less likely to find a guy on Tinder who owns his own home in London vs anywhere else in the UK, all other things being equal.

[–]buttlollipop 15 points15 points15 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While I do think that VR porn/sex robots/what have you, may become more prevalent, their overall effect on the sexual/relationship marketplace won't be much. Why? Because men have sex for validation. Those things don't provide validation.

I could see those things replacing the porn we use now, as a fun side-hobby for guys already in relationships, or a sexual outlet for guys who aren't in relationship, but no guy who would otherwise be desired by women is going to opt out in order to fuck robots. This is some Margaret Atwood revenge fantasy shit. The only men who would ever opt out of dating entirely are the men nobody was interested in, in the first place.

[–]trpobservereats ass10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Those things don't provide validation.

You underestimate what the VR+peripheral experience could be like once the models are outside of the uncanny valley.

Have you seen the movie "Her"? AI + 3D models will create a weird and fascinating change in how we interact with technology and each other, but there is still many years of work to get there.

[–]buttlollipop 8 points8 points8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, "Her" was fictional.

But even then, if there are guys who decline to see hookers because the hookers don't really desire them (seen this argument regularly on this sub) I would venture the same thing applies to women who aren't even real.

[–]trpobservereats ass9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Well, "Her" was fictional.

"Her" illustrated a fascinating concept of an emotional connection with an operating system. That level of AI is very far away from what we can do now, but you don't need that level of AI to create the experience needed to draw a guy in, to make him feel a connection.

I would venture the same thing applies to women who aren't even real.

If she is programmed to desire him completely, how is that not desire?

Its either a real girl with fake desire, or a fake girl with real desire. But the latter has the capacity to be a lot more real in the future. And not the distant future.

[–]buttlollipop 7 points7 points7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If she is programmed to desire him completely, how is that not desire?

Because it's not real desire because it's not a real person, lol. That's like saying my Sims feel pain when I drown them in the pool because they're programmed to feel pain.

And for many mean, a real girl with real desire is possible. It's called self improvement and being an attractive/fun/interesting person to be around. It's a cop out to say this isn't possible. What's probably really going on is that guys who want real desire can't spark that real desire from women who are physically attractive enough to meet their standards. But hey, we can't have everything we want, and I don't see anyone feeling bad for ugly women who can't secure commitment from hot guys.

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

hahahahaha are you kidding me? Of course that shit is desire. As long as its convincing, thats all the desire men need.

And youre wrong btw. men can get into relationships, but not with women they actually want. thats whats awesome about the sex robot thing, an average guy can get someone he actually wants, and not have to settle for a below average woman cause shes there.

[–]buttlollipop 2 points2 points2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And apparently women are the ones trying to date up. Meanwhile: dowdy men would rather date robots than average women. Ok.

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Men would rather date/fuck someone ( or in this case, something ) they are attracted too. Most men would happily date/fuck their SMV equal while young. The issue lies with women shooting for the golden rung and eschewing her male SMV equivalent, while young and most attractive, for a temporary spot in random Chad harems/or just holding out for more. So obviously young men that arent Chad are going to be unhappy with the below average women available.

Also, a robot doesnt have conditional desire, while a real woman does. The robot score just keeps going up lol

[–]buttlollipop 1 point1 point1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, this is where we disagree on a fundamental level because I don't think most women date up. I think porn has conditioned men to believe their "equal" is higher than it actually is. Every study done on the topic of people pairing up shows that people pair up with those who are roughly equivalent in looks to themselves. That doesn't take casual sex into account of course, but I don't think casual sex is something that most people engage in very frequently. And I can think of plenty of women I know who got drunk and had sex with some schlubby guy because of beer goggles, it's not unique to men.

Red pillers have much higher physical standards for women than they do for men, so an equally-matched couple looks like the woman is dating up. I mean, what else do you expect when y'all say Scarlett Johansson is "barely a 6"?

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The dudes who say shit like "Scarjo is barely a 6" and the like are obviously being over the top or are clinically retarded. Any chick thats thin nowadays is a 6+, and they damn well know it. Sure, later on they "settle down" closer to their equal, but only when older. When women are younger and hotter, its all about getting a Chad, even if its just for casual sex. Which, as you yourself said, isnt included in studys. Which it should because, believe it or not, lots of women do it if the guy is hot enough.

And Im still laughing at the ridiculous notion attractive women getting drunk and hopping into bed with chubby men. Thats hilarious. But, honestly, men would be more than happy with their young SMV counterpart. RPers have pretty lenient and open standards too, mainly be nice and dont be fat.

[–]GroovyEFS 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

men can get into relationships, but not with women they actually want.

Speak for yourself. This is just pure projection. "I can't get hot girls so no man can." Lol.

[–]nemma8830/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You pay hookers to create the illusion they desire you?

Surely SOME are good at acting?

[–]GroovyEFS 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Her" illustrated a fascinating concept of an emotional connection with an operating system. That level of AI is very far away from what we can do now

Nah fam AI is already smart enough that even Siri knows to reject me.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, "Her" was fictional.

But even then, if there are guys who decline to see hookers because the hookers don't really desire them (seen this argument regularly on this sub) I would venture the same thing applies to women who aren't even real.

It may be more that the girls don’t act as if they desire them, hence the Girlfriend Experience. Obviously, if a woman is watching the clock and unenthusiastically going through the motions, that’s going to hamper a man’s enjoyment of the experience.

Once men realise that the desire expressed in relationships is equally superficial, they will not see it as inherently superior to simulated desire paid for by the hour.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because men have sex for validation.

Wrong. Men have sex because on the surface because it feels great, and on a biological level it's what we are programmed to have the urge to do all the time for many years.

[–]squidracer 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

men have sex for validation

Nope. I get plenty of validation otherwise. I have sex for fun

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Lol, what did you have in mind regarding "Margaret Atwood revenge fantasy shit?"

Which of her books were you thinking of?

Is the idea that men would get "revenge" on women by only fucking robots, so it's a male revenge fantasy of having unlimited sex and not needing women anymore?

[–]buttlollipop 12 points12 points12 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is the idea that men would get "revenge" on women by only fucking robots, so it's a male revenge fantasy of having unlimited sex and not needing women anymore?

Yes. Although I just said Margaret Atwood because she writes dystopian books with issues of gender and sex, not because she specifically writes MGTOW erotica lol.

A lot of guys like to dream of a world where women are as thirsty and desperate for sex as men are, particularly from the guys they aren't currently attracted to. That's where you get the slightly-more-believable but still absurd story of "All the popular girls rejected me when I was in my 20s but now that I'm middle aged, they're all coming back and throwing sex at me!" Like really, what women troll Facebook to hit up nerds they rejected 20 years ago for sex? It's a revenge fantasy because everyone wants to be able to reject people who rejected them. It's why I see so many threads on MGTOW about how ugly certain women are, women who don't even personally know any of the users. They get off on pre-emptively rejecting women who probably wouldn't want anything to do with them anyway because it makes them feel better about presumably having been rejected a bunch of times.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks. Excellent elaboration. Very clear and very insightful.

I hope this thread takes off.

It's interesting to speculate where all the dynamics will lead to over the course of this coming century!

[–]francisfitzgerald 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I've had 4 do exactly that thus far.

[–]buttlollipop 3 points3 points3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Assuming it's been more than a decade since you graduated high school, are you really saying that four popular girls from your school who rejected you back in high school, solicited sex from you 10+ years later?

[–]francisfitzgerald 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm 28. The girls weren't just girls I knew from high school but, girls I knew back when I was younger (around town, other high schools, church, the neighborhood). And no...they didn't solicit me for sex. But they all wanted to "get back in touch" or "catch up" and it was almost always after they had one or several children.

My High School Ex-girlfriend. The Ex from hell. We broke up via her ignoring my phone calls for 2 weeks. When I went to her house eventually I caught her fucking another guy. That was how we broke up. Years later she hits me up on Facebook wanting to reconnect. Saying she knew she was the last person I ever wanted to hear from but, she was thinking about me and wanting to see how I was doing. Didn't respond. Fuck her.

A girl I knew from church. Pretty. Chased bad boys back when we were younger. We never talked growing up because she thought she was too good to be spoken to. Years later, she has two kids out of wedlock and the bad boys she dated are in and out of jail. Back when I went to church more frequently, my pastor called me up to the pulpit everytime I had a major milestone in life. So, I guess it made me look good to the parents and some of the girls there. So after a while, that girl started talking to me more. Wanting hugs. Wanting to see how I was doing. Her mom talking about setting us up with the girl looking at me smiling. Weird and awkward. This is the same girl who used to ignore me and my friends when we were 17. Now she has two kids she wants to be friendly. Fuck no. I ignored her from then on.

This other girl went to a different high school but, we had the same circle of friends. She chose one of my friends over me (me and that guy aren't friends anymore). I had a major crush on this chick. But my friend was taller, more handsome, more charismatic, more of a ladies man. The girl I crushed on tried to pair me off with her best friend, who I wasn't interested in at all. This was like 12th grade IIRC. My old friend smashed and dashed my crush. He thought she was a bust down (slang for "hoe"). To add insult to injury when all the guys were hanging out once, he showed us her nudes and it was real fucked up because I would have LTR'd her but, she chose him instead and he pumped and dumped her and treated her like trash. Like 3 years later I had to go back to my old community college for transfer paperwork and she was there. She just had a baby girl by this "hood" type dude. They literally broke up 3 months after the baby was born. So, me and my old crush ended up having a deep conversation waiting for our meetings and she ended up asking me why we never got together lol....saying she always imagined us being together one day (even though she fucked my friend instead before). Got awkward for me. Told her I didn't see her that way and it would be wrong considering she messed with my friend already but, the real reason was I'm not anyone's second choice. And there's this recurring theme of girls with kids wanting me.

Then there was this other chick. Same as the others. Was hot shit when she was younger. Nobody could talk to her except the players and the bad boys and the pretty boys. Wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Then we got into ours 20s, her looks started to slip and she went from a 8/9 to a 5/6. Think Lark Voorhies in terms of how beautiful she was before and how she ended up looking later (and I feel bad for saying that because Lark has some kind of skin disease but, that's the best comparison). At this point, I moved from my small town to a major city on the East Coast and she moved there a few years after me. And she kept wanting to catch up. I ignored her every time. Shit was laughable. This is a chick who would've laughed at any guy who wasn't Chad/Tyrone talking to her before but, now she wanted to get drinks and be best friends and shit. Umm...no.

[–]-clickhere-5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I wanted to comment simply to say thank you for your detailed response. Sometimes comments are too short, and other times too long winded without providing any substantive info (I do that sometimes as well, sadly). Instead, you hit the perfect ratio of detail/substance. I read the whole thing captivated by your story while also learning something new about the topic. Thank you.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wtf kind of high school did you go to, my classmates were all in panic about getting above a 2100 on the SAT's and becoming doctors.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's kind of interesting. In your case, I think it's warranted to be suspicious of those girls.

However, I had two LTRs that we broke up for similar reasons. I do genuinely like to see how they're doing with no ulterior motive. The first one I called and we had a nice chat catching up with no strings attached or no harsh feelings. The second one was extremely pissed off at me for calling and kept accusing me of "wanting" something from him, even though I had a new LTR and was living a 16 hour flight from him. I genuinely wanted to see how he was doing and he was so angry at me for calling, and he was the one to bring up our past relationship again. It turned into a fight and I cried a lot on the phone. I felt pretty hurt and confused, again I didn't have any bad intentions, just wanted to catch up...but there was such a stark difference between the conversations of the first ex boyfriend and them second. Any idea why...???

[–]doochie123 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So why didn't you just lower your standards earlier? Like you talk about how hot all the girls you crushed on were but are bitter they wanted hot/high status guys during their peak years.

This is a common theme I see on the Manosphere. A sensible person would have adjusted their standards and pursued women in their league. Maybe you would be in a healthy relationship right now.

Your post just makes you come across as quite entitled. Surely there must have been plain girls interested in you.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nope. Its the womens fault for being picky bitches

[–]KV-n0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because humans cant just dcide to start to be attracted to someone not attractive

[–]buttlollipop 1 point1 point1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

same with women then, but for some reason it's only bad when they do it

[–]KV-n1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That double standard probably stems from subchad men not being able to get any girl while womens standards are through the roof. When "starving" men see at best average girls freaking out how they can only get fastfood and not a 5 star michelin menu ofc we get pissed off.

But im generally against anyone having to lower their standards because as i wrote, its simply impossible.

[–]hauswyfetechno 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll take r/thathappened for 1000 Alex

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

While I do think that VR porn/sex robots/what have you, may become more prevalent, their overall effect on the sexual/relationship marketplace won't be much. Why? Because men have sex for validation. Those things don't provide validation.

Men have sex for pleasure, first and foremost.

Male validation comes from an awareness of one's own ability, which translates into value.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It also comes from the looks of envy of men that cant get someone they are attracted too. Fewer things feel better than that

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It also comes from the looks of envy of men that cant get someone they are attracted too. Fewer things feel better than that

No it doesn't and yes they do. Men don't get off on making other men feel envious. Men are largely indifferent to what other men feel. That’s more of a female attribute, trying to keep up with or impress the Joneses. Constantly consumed with what other people think about you.

Men’s pleasure and validation is closer to an internal experience, not requiring external endorsement. It’s about personal contentment and wellbeing.

I think that men generally have a much richer inner world than women and greater philosophical aptitude. They don’t look outwardly for validation anywhere near to the extent that women do. In many respects men prefer isolation, to be alone with their thoughts and interests. It’s the pull of their libidos and the resulting endorphins that draw them towards women. Patrice O’Neal amusingly describes men’s dilemma below and the men in the audience knowingly and enthusiastically applaud his accurate description, even whilst they suffer with the cognitive dissonance.

Patrice O'Neal - Bit About How Men Need Women To Stop Bothering Them

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Im a man and Id relish the opportunity to do just that. You saying Im not a man now? Cause its not a female attribute, its the human one of wanting to be top dog and gloat

[–]gasparddelanuit2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Im a man and Id relish the opportunity to do just that. You saying Im not a man now? Cause its not a female attribute, its the human one of wanting to be top dog and gloat

You’re just one man. I’m talking generally.

It’s more of a female attribute to want to outdo people for the sake of outdoing them and then revel in the glow of having outdone them.

This provides scant satisfaction for men. If a man wants to be top dog, it’s usually because he’s either competing for females, trying to survive, pursuing knowledge and mastery as ends in themselves or testing his capacity. There’s no nourishment for men in gloating over having outdone others, unless they are enemies of some sort.

You often see the difference in the sporting world. There tends to be more camaraderie and sportsmanship amongst male competitors and more bitchiness amongst female competitors.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Those things don't provide validation.

But don't all healthy people derive validation completely from within themselves and isn't it immoral and unhealthy for them to seek validation from another human being? If validation is a non-factor, then sex-bots are a very attractive option which it only makes sense to take advantage of.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Wow people here are really pessimistic!

I think things will become more flexible:

  • Greater acceptance of non-heterosexual relationships (although we're well on our way here)

  • More 'non-traditional' households eg. polyamorous households, more openly asexual couples etc.

  • A lower level of marriage, but not necessarily people being in relationships less!

  • People getting married at older ages

  • Greater acceptance of online dating

  • Reduction in domestic abuse (towards all genders)

  • Greater acceptance/openess towards couples/family counselling

  • Ofc reduction in gender wage gap, average seniority gap etc

People keep bringing up Japan as the future, where no one's having sex any more. Imo, I don't think Japan's case is going to spread to other country just because it's a rich, technologically advanced country. Despite its advances, the way aspects of its society are set up means that its become difficult to sustain more modern type relationships, eg. where both people in a marriage have jobs. The 'traditional' nuclear family has held on longer in Japan than in the West (although what was actually traditional in Japan was living with your extended family). Aspects of the way Japanese labour works: seniority-based wages, lifetime employment, company-specific training, means the emphasis is on one company investing in one employee for life and flexible working (done by eg. women who want to take time off for childcare) is more difficult to pursue. A woman who wants to pursue a career is going to find it hard to raise children at the same time, and there's more and more women who want to pursue careers or further education to some extent. A man is still expected by society to often work ridiculously long hours and not help at all with housework, childcare, etc, and this is causing problems with helping people form relationships. I don't think these issues apply much outside of East Asia.

[–]SilentLurker6661 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Greater acceptance of non-heterosexual relationships (although we're well on our way here)

More 'non-traditional' households eg. polyamorous households, more openly asexual couples etc.

A lower level of marriage, but not necessarily people being in relationships less!

Are any of these good enviroment to raise children, and if you have to ask "who cares?" can you consider at least the impact of declining birth rate in society AKA Japan?

People getting married at older ages

Another problem that current technology hasn't overcome... women do have a biological clock when it comes to child bearing, leading to less population to support the welfare of this generation when it hit retirement age.

Reduction in domestic abuse (towards all genders)

and what do you think will cause the decrease in domestic abuse? I don't see any facts or trend supporting this.

Ofc reduction in gender wage gap, average seniority gap etc

Sorry the gender wage gap doesn't exist.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#453e63ee2596

A man is still expected by society to often work ridiculously long hours and not help at all with housework, childcare, etc, and this is causing problems with helping people form relationships. I don't think these issues apply much outside of East Asia.

"the long-term trend decline in average annual hours worked per person in employment has slowed significantly in recent decades in almost all OECD countries (Germany, Japan and the Netherlands are the main exceptions). In some countries, the decline appears to have stopped, in some others it continues mainly because of an expansion of part-time working, and in a few there has recently been an increase in hours; there has been a growing diversity in hours worked by employees. While the most commonly-reported workweek in OECD countries is still 40 hours, the proportion of employees working 40 hours has fallen. Many countries have seen increases in the proportion of men working very long and/or very short hours"

https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/2080270.pdf

TL:DR. People are pessimistic and are rightly so because they are seeing the trend of decrease marriage, increase divorce, rise in the number of single parent family and the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. Stop being Naive and wake up.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Are any of these good enviroment to raise children, and if you have to ask "who cares?" can you consider at least the impact of declining birth rate in society AKA Japan?

The question was about gender dynamics, and I feel greater those three things impact gender dynamics:

  • Greater acceptance of non-heterosexual relationships (although we're well on our way here) --> so, say, if you're a gay man, the fact it's now easier to be out of the closet means you're less likely to pursue a relationship with a woman you don't really love in order to keep appearances up.

  • More 'non-traditional' households eg. polyamorous households, more openly asexual couples etc. --> Relationships with three people are going to have very different gender dynamics than those with two!

A lower level of marriage, but not necessarily people being in relationships less! --> To me, it seems fairly straightforward how this would affect gender dynamics?

and what do you think will cause the decrease in domestic abuse? I don't see any facts or trend supporting this.

I answered this more fully under a comment elsewhere, but basically increasing in reporting, better awareness that its an issue. Domestic abuse reporting is very difficult to calculate as its very underreported.

Sorry the gender wage gap doesn't exist.

I can't speak for the US as I don't know enough about it, but it does in the UK and we have policy tackling it: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-gender-pay-gap When I refer to the pay gap, I'm not chiefly talking about two people earning different wages for the same job.

"the long-term trend decline in average annual hours worked per person in employment has slowed significantly in recent decades in almost all OECD countries (Germany, Japan and the Netherlands are the main exceptions).

I'm having trouble understanding the link between the quote you gave me, which seems to be from 20 years ago, and the study you linked. Please could you clarify your point a bit further?

Stop being Naive and wake up.

I'd really appreciate it if you could remember rules 1 and 2 of r/purplepilldebate! I'm here because it's interesting and fun to discuss things with people with different viewpoints but it's no fun any more if you insult me personally.

[–]SilentLurker6660 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Greater acceptance of non-heterosexual relationships (although we're well on our way here) --> so, say, if you're a gay man, the fact it's now easier to be out of the closet means you're less likely to pursue a relationship with a woman you don't really love in order to keep appearances up.

You are the one that bought up Japan as an example, then you should know the greatest problem with the Island Nation right now is that they have a declining birthrate, leading to a declining labor force and overall lower productivity. You should also know that two gay/lesbian people can't make babies on their own.

A lower level of marriage, but not necessarily people being in relationships less! --> To me, it seems fairly straightforward how this would affect gender dynamics?

Again... what's the effect of children being raised in such families, or even the willingness of couples of having children when not in a wedlock. Your analysis is very shallow and just want to dodge all the hard questions here.

More 'non-traditional' households eg. polyamorous households, more openly asexual couples etc. --> Relationships with three people are going to have very different gender dynamics than those with two!

Not really seeing an uptick on that one either.

I answered this more fully under a comment elsewhere, but basically increasing in reporting, better awareness that its an issue. Domestic abuse reporting is very difficult to calculate as its very underreported.

Increase in reporting might lead to, but doesn't directly lower the rate of domestic abuse... so that's quite a lead of logic here.

I can't speak for the US as I don't know enough about it, but it does in the UK and we have policy tackling it: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-gender-pay-gap When I refer to the pay gap, I'm not chiefly talking about two people earning different wages for the same job.

So change the definition of "gender wage gap" when it doesn't fits the argument... also having a policy to tackle a problem doesn't mean the problem exist.. it's like saying because Ufologist exist, UFO exists.

I'm having trouble understanding the link between the quote you gave me, which seems to be from 20 years ago, and the study you linked. Please could you clarify your point a bit further?

It means that while the working hour is decreasing.. it's decreasing at a slower rate, or in some instance in OECD countries.. completely stop decreasing. It also means that while the working hour is trending downward... it's not due to people able to work less to sustain themselves, but rather the lack of available work leading people to take part-time jobs, which also means less income, benefits, and job security.

Also statistics requires time to gather and analyse... you are more then welcome to provide more updated statistics if you are are so incline to prove your point.

Here's more updated statistics in terms of working hours. Warning: it's pretty bleak and definite contrary to your little rainbow and sunshine narrative.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib348-trends-us-work-hours-wages-1979-2007/

I'd really appreciate it if you could remember rules 1 and 2 of r/purplepilldebate! I'm here because it's interesting and fun to discuss things with people with different viewpoints but it's no fun any more if you insult me personally.

Not an insult. Just pointing out that your views about this world is very credulous. You'll need more to convince people of your "all is well" narrative. Also welcome to the PPD and enjoy your stay.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You are the one that bought up Japan as an example, then you should know the greatest problem with the Island Nation right now is that they have a declining birthrate, leading to a declining labor force and overall lower productivity. You should also know that two gay/lesbian people can't make babies on their own.

Then doesn't this support my view that the rise in non-heterosexual relationship has an impact on gender dynamics?

Again... what's the effect of children being raised in such families, or even the willingness of couples of having children when not in a wedlock. Your analysis is very shallow and just want to dodge all the hard questions here.

The question was on gender dynamics? Not on children? I'm confused. The purpoes of my reply was to say why my original answer was on gender dynamics.

Not really seeing an uptick on that one either.

This is unsurprising as you're not really going to find any official stats on polyamory...

Increase in reporting might lead to, but doesn't directly lower the rate of domestic abuse... so that's quite a lead of logic here.

No it doesn't 100% make it the case, but I think my causal mechanism was more likely than the alternative of a rise in domestic abuse in just the last three years.

It means that while the working hour is decreasing.. it's decreasing at a slower rate, or in some instance in OECD countries.. completely stop decreasing. It also means that while the working hour is trending downward... it's not due to people able to work less to sustain themselves, but rather the lack of available work leading people to take part-time jobs, which also means less income, benefits, and job security.

Also statistics requires time to gather and analyse... you are more then welcome to provide more updated statistics if you are are so incline to prove your point.

We were talking about Japan and the issue was I having difficulty linking what you said to Japan in particular.

I'm well aware stats take time to gather and analyse - I know this from my own stats work!

Here's more updated statistics in terms of working hours. Warning: it's pretty bleak and definite contrary to your little rainbow and sunshine narrative.

How is saying Japan isn't a good baseline to compare other nations against a sunshine narrative?

Not an insult. Just pointing out that your views about this world is very credulous. You'll need more to convince people of your "all is well narrative". Also welcome to the PPD and enjoy your stay.

Generally telling someone to 'stop being naive and wake up' isn't very civil.

[–]SilentLurker6660 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Then doesn't this support my view that the rise in non-heterosexual relationship has an impact on gender dynamics?

The question was on gender dynamics? Not on children? I'm confused. The purpoes of my reply was to say why my original answer was on gender dynamics.

My response address to the second part of the OP "What do you think will happen in future generations?" Can't have a future generation without children.

This is unsurprising as you're not really going to find any official stats on polyamory...

Thanks for confirming that there isn't one, and that's the point.

No it doesn't 100% make it the case, but I think my causal mechanism was more likely than the alternative of a rise in domestic abuse in just the last three years.

So if it doesn't directly cause the decrease in DV... then your point is kinda mute. To put it in not so kind words, you are stretching the truth here.

We were talking about Japan and the issue was I having difficulty linking what you said to Japan in particular.

Your previous post was saying that Japan is an isolated incident... I'm demonstrating (with statistics and analysis provided) that the problem exist in most OECD countries.

Generally telling someone to 'stop being naive and wake up' isn't very civil.

Again, welcome to the PPD (and to reddit in general). This is considered a neutral statement and won't trigger Rule 1 & 2 like you've like to imagined. Enjoy your stay. Finally playing the obtuse card won't help your case. It's really time for you to examine things in more depth and the implications it'll bring.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

My response address to the second part of the OP "What do you think will happen in future generations?" Can't have a future generation without children.

Cool I wasn't addressing that.

Thanks for confirming that there isn't one, and that's the point.

Again, it's an opinion in a discussion and not a debate. I feel it could be the case, and since there's no statistics, you can't say for sure I'm not wrong. Since you haven't provided me with any evidence convincing me my opinion is wrong, I'm going to stick with my opinion.

So if it doesn't directly cause the decrease in DV... then your point is kinda mute.

Just because a statement isn't 100% provable doesn't mean its completely false. I believe my view is more likely than the alternatives and again I haven't seen any evidence from you that I'm wrong.

Your previous post was saying that Japan is an isolated incident... I'm demonstrating (with statistics and analysis provided) that the provide exist in most OECD countries.

I was saying that men work particularly long hours in Japan compared to men in other countries. I don't see how your stats goes against that.

Again, welcome to the PPD (and to reddit in general). This is considered a neutral statement and won't trigger Rule 1 & 2 like you've imagined. Enjoy your stay.

Oh I see you were being sarcastic.

[–]SilentLurker6660 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Cool I wasn't addressing that.

Check the OP again. Addressing only part of the question will only get you part marks. You can't really cherrypick your way here.

Again, it's an opinion in a discussion and not a debate. I feel it could be the case, and since there's no statistics, you can't say for sure I'm not wrong. Since you haven't provided me with any evidence convincing me my opinion is wrong, I'm going to stick with my opinion.

It's call /r/purplepilldebate for a reason... because it's is a debate sub, please respect that, also you are committing an availability bias. Again... in your initial statement you are using the supposed fact that changing gender dynamics increases in "'non-traditional' households" 1) is that really a positive? and 2) if there's really no support for it... you can't state that as a point. It's call a debate for a reason because your point has to be supported with facts of logic, neither of which is demonstrated in your post.

Just because a statement isn't 100% provable doesn't mean its completely false. I believe my view is more likely than the alternatives and again I haven't seen any evidence from you that I'm wrong.

My critique of your statement is that there's no correlation between reporting DV and decreasing cases of DV. There's really no point of you bring it up when you are trying to prove that changing gender dynamics decrease DV when there's literally no causation.

I was saying that men work particularly long hours in Japan compared to men in other countries. I don't see how your stats goes against that.

that's not what you said.

People keep bringing up Japan as the future, where no one's having sex any more. Imo, I don't think Japan's case is going to spread to other country just because it's a rich, technologically advanced country. Despite its advances, the way aspects of its society are set up means that its become difficult to sustain more modern type relationships, eg. where both people in a marriage have jobs. The 'traditional' nuclear family has held on longer in Japan than in the West (although what was actually traditional in Japan was living with your extended family). Aspects of the way Japanese labour works: seniority-based wages, lifetime employment, company-specific training, means the emphasis is on one company investing in one employee for life and flexible working (done by eg. women who want to take time off for childcare) is more difficult to pursue. A woman who wants to pursue a career is going to find it hard to raise children at the same time, and there's more and more women who want to pursue careers or further education to some extent. A man is still expected by society to often work ridiculously long hours and not help at all with housework, childcare, etc, and this is causing problems with helping people form relationships. I don't think these issues apply much outside of East Asia.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/64lbaj/q4all_how_do_you_predict_gender_dynamics_will/dg3ivjw/

The problem is that men IS expected (and is literally) working longer hours (again back to your supposed wage gap), and the concept of "breadwinners" exist well outside of Japan.

Also Japan is current 19th in terms of working hours in 2015 ranking and shy just below the OECD ranking... U.S. is 13th so there goes your narrative again. Please go educate yourself some more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

Oh I see you were being sarcastic.

You like being an Armchair Mod?

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Check the OP again. Addressing only part of the question will only get you part marks. You can't really cherrypick your way here.

It had the discussion tag - I didn't take it super seriously. Feel free to mark me down - I didn't realise this was a test.

It's call /r/purplepilldebate for a reason... because it's is a debate sub, please respect that, also you are committing an availability bias.

It had the discussion not the debate tag. No I'm not, I'm constructing an informed opinion based on the available evidence. If you think there's been a different trend in polyamory, and can back it up with better evidence, that's cool.

My critique of your statement is that there's no correlation between reporting DV and decreasing cases of DV. There's really no point of you bring it up when you are trying to prove that changing gender dynamics decrease DV when there's literally no causation.

I think there is, and my point from above applies here too. I see domestic abuse as a gendered issue, I don't believe there's a direct causation.

The problem is that men IS expected (and is literally) working longer hours (again back to your supposed wage gap), and the concept of "breadwinners" exist well outside of Japan.

Yeah, doesn't make Japan a good comparison for OECD countries though.

Also Japan is current 19th in terms of working hours in 2015 ranking and shy just below the OECD ranking... U.S. is 13th so there goes your narrative again. Please go educate yourself some more.

The stats you're giving me now aren't broken down by gender, but are broken down by country. What I'm looking for is both. It would be great if you could give me sufficient figures backing up your argument that women are outpacing men when it comes to work in Japan. Until then to be honest I do feel I'm more educated on this issue than you are!

You like being an Armchair Mod?

No I just see you were being sarcastic.

[–]SilentLurker6660 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

It had the discussion not the debate tag. No I'm not, I'm constructing an informed opinion based on the available evidence. If you think there's been a different trend in polyamory, and can back it up with better evidence, that's cool.

except you are actually making an claim/assertion on the positive effects of gender dynamics in today's society. Since you aren't really making any meaning statement i'll assume you concede your point.

Also it's very nice of you to place to burden of proof on me to prove your point, but that's not how it works... you make the statement and you should own up to it, or as they say.. "man up."

I think there is, and my point from above applies here too. I see domestic abuse as a gendered issue, I don't believe there's a direct causation.

I think you lost your point here as well because if there's no direct causation, then really it doesn't back up your original statement that changing gender dynamics "Reduction in domestic abuse (towards all genders)". Again.. please take responsibility for your own words.

Yeah, doesn't make Japan a good comparison for OECD countries though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.... and not just mere contradiction.

I've just demonstrated how the the concept of "breadwinners" are universal and that Japan isn't even the countries with the higher working hour in OECD. Ball's in your court, or again.. concede your point.

The stats you're giving me now aren't broken down by gender, but are broken down by country. What I'm looking for is both. It would be great if you could give me sufficient figures backing up your argument that women are outpacing men when it comes to work in Japan. Until then to be honest I do feel I'm more educated on this issue than you are!

Again with the burden of proof bias. Also you really haven't demonstrated that you are more educated on this issue then I am, if you are the one asking me for the proof, LOL.

But just to entertain you, here's some 2011 stats:

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_1_Usual_working_hours_by_gender_July2013.pdf

Edit: also lol "It would be great if you could give me sufficient figures backing up your argument that women are outpacing men when it comes to work in Japan" isn't my point. Nice bait and switch thou. My point is that we are going the ways of Japan for various reasons, including how the plight of male in Japan's society isn't really that dissimilar with the rest of men in OECD countries.

No I just see you were being sarcastic.

No, I see you are a true scholar in leftist field of language policing, but again it has no place in the PPD.

[–]littlemetalfollicle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

except you are actually making an claim/assertion on the positive effects of gender dynamics in today's society. Since you aren't really making any meaning statement i'll assume you concede your point.

No, I'm not conceding my point. You're assuming my point is incorrect because it can't be 100% proved, which is not correct logic.

Also it's very nice of you to place to burden of proof on me to prove your point, but that's not how it works... you make the statement and you should own up to it, or as they say.. "man up."

No, I believe I had sufficient evidence to prove my point that polyamory exists more now than it did ten years ago: like it wasn't even a formal concept before, like the 1990s roughly, and I believe the increased interest, understanding and acceptance of it is likely to result in it being more widespread in the future.

I think you lost your point here as well. Again.. please take responsibility for your own words.

If you don't want to discuss this any more, that's cool, but you haven't provided me with even a shred of evidence that I'm wrong about a falling trend in domestic abuse rates in the future. My evidence is limited but sufficient to base my opinion on.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.... and not just mere contradiction.

Exactly, and you've failed to show exactly the case of Japan's labour market can be generalised to all OECD countries, or why domestic abuse rates are likely to rise or just stay the same, or why polyamory or asexuality will disappear. Off-topic, but I also like Monty Python.

Again with the burden of proof bias. Also you really haven't demonstrated that you are more educated on this issue then I am, if you are the one asking me for the proof, LOL.

Nah, I just can't be bothered really. I don't need to prove to you that I'm right, I'm more interested in finding out whether there's a good basis for your views which I haven't yet. The fact you've attempted to show evidence and failed to adequately connected to your argument gives me an insight into your education.

But just to entertain you, here's some 2011 stats:

Which prove that men have the opportunity to work a lot more hours than women do in Japan - due to, as I said in my original post, a style of labour market that favours seniority-based wages, lifetime employment and company-specific training over flexible working conditions such as part-time work, which is not applicable outside of East Asia.

No, I see you are a true scholar in leftist field of language policing, but again it has no place in the PPD.

I don't know what you're talking about but you're sounding a bit like an Armchair Mod.

[–]SilentLurker6661 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I'm not conceding my point. You're assuming my point is incorrect because it can't be 100% proved, which is not correct logic.

No. I'm saying your point cannot be asserted because you've provided no logic, stats, or facts to back it up.

No, I believe I had sufficient evidence to prove my point that polyamory exists more now than it did ten years ago: like it wasn't even a formal concept before, like the 1990s roughly, and I believe the increased interest, understanding and acceptance of it is likely to result in it being more widespread in the future.

Then demonstrate your proof or GTFO.

If you don't want to discuss this any more, that's cool, but you haven't provided me with even a shred of evidence that I'm wrong about a falling trend in domestic abuse rates in the future. My evidence is limited but sufficient to base my opinion on.

When you make a statement, it's your responsibility to prove it correct and not vice versa... hense the burden of proof fallacy. If your evidence is limited, it isn't sufficient to base your opinion on.

Nah, I just can't be bothered really. I don't need to prove to you that I'm right,

Welcome to PPD, where it's a debate sub.

I'm more interested in finding out whether there's a good basis for your views which I haven't yet. The fact you've attempted to show evidence and failed to adequately connected to your argument gives me an insight into your education.

More ad hominem? But hey at least I show evidence.. where your evidence? (hint: you haven't shown a shred of evidence throughout this discussion)

Which prove that men have the opportunity to work a lot more hours than women do in Japan - due to, as I said in my original post, a style of labour market that favours seniority-based wages, lifetime employment and company-specific training over flexible working conditions such as part-time work, which is not applicable outside of East Asia.

How do you explain the fact that the blue bars are higher then pink bars in countries outside of Japan? (and there's a lot of them)

I don't know what you're talking about but you're sounding a bit like an Armchair Mod.

Who's the user that tried to accuse other people of breaking Rule 1 & 2 again?

[–]littlemetalfollicle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. I'm saying your point cannot be asserted because you've provided no logic, stats, or facts to back it up.

Yes I have.

Then demonstrate your proof or GTFO.

I think my proof on the rise of polyamory is sufficient.

When you make a statement, it's your responsibility to prove it correct and not vice versa... hense the burden of proof fallacy. If your evidence is limited, it isn't sufficient to base your opinion on.

Limited evidence is better than no evidence, and you've only proved my argument is limited, not that yours is any better on domestic abuse. In a debate I'd win because you haven't said anything!

More ad hominem? But hey at least I show evidence.. where your evidence?

What in particular would you like me to address? We were discussing a lot of different things.

How do you explain the fact that the blue bars are higher then pink bars in countries other then Japan?

So what you're arguing is that women do less paid work than men overall? I'm not contesting that.

Who's the user that tried to accuse other people of breaking Rule 1 & 2 again?

So is being an armchair mod good or bad? You seem to want it to be good when you do it and bad when I do it.

Welcome to PPD, where it's a debate sub.

Yah, but it has a lot of other stuff going on too, like more informal discussions.

[–]SilentLurker6661 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes I have.

No you haven't. I too, can play this game in the Monty Python skit.

I think my proof on the rise of polyamory is sufficient.

when you literally provide no evidence that it's on the rise, and even stated that there's no official data on this... This is rich.

Limited evidence is better than no evidence, and you've only proved my argument is limited, not that yours is any better on domestic abuse. In a debate I'd win because you haven't said anything!

the sad fact is that, throughtout this discussion, you have provide zero evidence to back up your statement that report DV decreases DV. Also another LOL, because you think this is actually a debate to be won, it definitely show your "motivation" in posting on this sub.

What in particular would you like me to address? We were discussing a lot of different things.

Like these from your original post here :

  • More 'non-traditional' households eg. polyamorous households, more openly asexual couples etc.

  • A lower level of marriage, but not necessarily people being in relationships less!

  • Greater acceptance of online dating

  • Reduction in domestic abuse (towards all genders)

  • Greater acceptance/openess towards couples/family counselling

  • Ofc reduction in gender wage gap, average seniority gap etc

So what you're arguing is that women do less paid work than men overall? I'm not contesting that.

More baiting and switching won't help you. I'm staying on point and plainly stating that the case in Japan really isn't that much dissimilar to the rest of the OECD countries.

So is being an armchair mod good or bad? You seem to want it to be good when you do it and bad when I do it.

I dunno, perhapse, you, who tried to accuse me of breaking Rule 1 & 2, should be more qualified to state that opinion? Because I'm not the one Armchair modding here.

Yah, but it has a lot of other stuff going on too, like more informal discussions.

and Yah... that's why I won't have to take you seriously anymore. Goodbye.

[–]littlemetalfollicle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No you haven't. I too, can play this game in the Monty Python skit.

Please let me know what exact causal mechanisms you'd like me to prove. Oh ok, you've written them below.

Like all of them from your original post here:

First one I've done Second one a lot of people have said, inc red pillers - we can talk about that if you want Third one: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/5-facts-about-online-dating/ Fourth one: We've discussed at length, but here's my original link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39430629 See quote from esp. South Wales Police. Can provide more evidence if you like. Fifth one: I don't mind if we drop this one, as it is hard to prove. Sixth one: https://visual.ons.gov.uk/find-out-the-gender-pay-gap-for-your-job/ 'lowest since records began'

More baiting and switching won't help you. I'm staying on point and plainly stating that the case in Japan really isn't that much dissimilar to the rest of the OECD countries.

On stats, yes, on stickiness of labour institutions, no.

I dunno, perhapse, you, who tried to accuse me of breaking Rule 1 & 2, should be more qualified to state that opinion? I'm not the one Armchair modding here.

What's armchair modding? Maybe I'm not understanding. I'd honestly never heard the term until you brought it up.

and Yah... that's why I won't have to take you seriously anymore. Goodbye.

That's fine, I'll take your unwillingness to discuss this as an omission to concede, as you did with me then. It was fun talking!

[–]SilentLurker6661 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First one I've done Second one a lot of people have said, inc red pillers - we can talk about that if you want

Sure.. let's talk about the type of non-traditional household that's expericing the greatst amount of growth that you've negelected and/or unwilling to discuss in current population: Single Parenthood, and how it's not suppose to be pessimistic, especially within the context of future generations.

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

A lower level of marriage, but not necessarily people being in relationships less!

http://www.refinery29.com/2015/06/88879/millennial-single-statistics

Nope. especially with this graph in mind

http://s2.r29static.com//bin/entry/5ad/x/1428861/image.png

Also more UK relevant statistics, since it looks like you are from the UK

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationestimatesbymaritalstatusandlivingarrangements/2002to2015#the-percentage-of-the-population-who-are-married-has-declined-while-the-percentage-who-are-single-has-increased

People getting married at older ages

No argument there.. again as I've stated in the first response.. isn't that more of a cause for pessimism? Especically with female biological clock and decreasing birth among developed nations? (this is a point that I've also bought up in my first post, but you failed to address it.)

Greater acceptance of online dating

There was an often quote stats about how male and female rated each other on dating sites such as OKcupid. https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e

It's been discussed to the death and is still a hot topic of discussion in PPD... perhapse it is also like this in the real world but women don't like to admit it

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/64m0v4/mens_looks_matter_more_than_women_admit_study/

but again.. is this real cause for not being pessimistic?

Reduction in domestic abuse (towards all genders)

We agreed to drop this one. Fine.

Ofc reduction in gender wage gap, average seniority gap etc

Again as my first response to you have stated... the gender wage gap doesn't exist. I'll be curious to know how long the statistics has been ongoing for one to conclude that the so call gender wage gap has been "lowest since records began" is actually significant, because being a stats student.. you'll know more about sample size bias and the problem of significance level when dealing with historical data that's short term, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_1970

On that note, most developed countries have laws against gender discrimination including salary wages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

So unless you truely believe that most of the world's corporation is actively breaking the laws (and with gender wage statistics to show there's actually disparity between wages for each gender), perhaps other adequate explanation can explain the difference between wages differences... i.e. qualifications, experience, performance, and work ethic?

Another note here... looking thru the link that you've actually provided: https://visual.ons.gov.uk/find-out-the-gender-pay-gap-for-your-job/

You'll fine certain selections where the wage gap is actually negative: Mid wives at -62%, Fitness instructor at -25%, surprisingly electrical engineers at -4% and Civil engineers at -3% respectively... have you actually considered that there should be actions (from both a social perspective as well as government intervention) that there should be equality of pay for the male gender in those sectors as well?

Or perhaps it is actually common sense that the two genders excel at different line of works, and therefore wages should adjust according to reflect this fact?

This, along with the fact these so call "gender wage gap studies" are result orientated, when the tenants of equality should be the equality of opportunity , but not the equality of outcome... are my two greatest criticism of these left leaning false propaganda perpetuated by the "gender wage gap"

On stats, yes, on stickiness of labour institutions, no.

Statistics is measurable, the stickiness of labor institution is very subjective. Unfortunately, given all the data I've provided that shows the trend of labor force and how other OECD countries exhibits similar patterns as Japan, one would hardly consider Japan as an outliner, or that "just because Japan have a very distinct corporate culture", it'll turn out different for the rest of the world.

[–]GroovyEFS 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A lower level of marriage, but not necessarily people being in relationships less!

I agree with this. People talk about declining marriage rates a lot but forget that cohabitation is on the rise at the same time. People are doing the same shit just without the paperwork.

Reduction in domestic abuse (towards all genders)

I'm curious as to how you think this will happen though.

People keep bringing up Japan as the future, where no one's having sex any more. Imo, I don't think Japan's case is going to spread to other country just because it's a rich, technologically advanced country. Despite its advances, the way aspects of its society are set up means that its become difficult to sustain more modern type relationships, eg. where both people in a marriage have jobs.

I agree. Japan is result of a very specific type of society which is still very traditional and failing at its attempts to be modern. I don't understand on what basis people are acting like the West will follow suit. Japan isn't even really relevant to technological advancement anymore for the most part. China and Korea are the countries that make all our shit nowadays. Sony is the only relevant Japanese technology company on a worldwide scale and they're bleeding money.

[–]littlemetalfollicleNon-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious as to how you think this will happen though.

This is just a guess, as its hard to find good stats on it, but I believe there's been a cultural shift certainly in the UK over the past decade or so. People are saying domestic abuse reporting is going up (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39430629) and I think this is indicative, not of rates actually rising, but of people being more willing to speak out.

Domestic abuse used to be less talked about, and more poorly defined. I think people are starting to realise now more, for example, that men can experience domestic abuse, and that abuse can encompass non-violent but still bad behaviour like being very controlling or financial abuse.

I agree. Japan is result of a very specific type of society which is still very traditional and failing at its attempts to be modern. I don't understand on what basis people are acting like the West will follow suit. Japan isn't even really relevant to technological advancement anymore for the most part. China and Korea are the countries that make all our shit nowadays. Sony is the only relevant Japanese technology company on a worldwide scale and they're bleeding money.

Yay someone agreeing with me :)

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I think people might be slightly less inclined to have relationships or even date than they are right now but outside of that I don't think it'll be all that different in the future.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That's interesting. Why do you think that people will be "slightly less inclined to have relationships or even date than they are right now?" Can you elaborate?

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I think that's kind of where the wind is blowing. Surveys show that our generation has less sexual partners and is less likely to be married. I don't think that's a quirk of our generation or a trend that'll stop in the future. Most people will of course still date and have relationships but just in lesser amounts than they did in the past. At least, if they are to be any changes wrt dating in the future that would be my guess.

[–]hauswyfetechno 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Like I know that the statistics bear this out but these findings are always so strange to me. Everyone I know of in my generation bones like bunnies... where are all these sexless millennials? America? It's America isn't it...

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

America

[–]dj10showhell in a handbasket0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

our generation has less sexual partners

This has to be rubbish. I'm the ugliest of my friends, and I have similar numbers just based on the fact that online dating has caused me to rapidly catch up in the last 2 years. And I know plenty of guys that use Tinder/Bumble like it's shooting fish in a barrel.

[–]littyagain111112 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same thing that is happening to the monetary economy, income inequality.

Instead it will be the sexual economy, and pussy inequality.

History has shown this is the way, the winners keep on winning and the losers lose more.

How far the divide grows is the question, not whether it will be present or come to an end.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

South Park explained it best. Women are smart, but not funny. So they will eventually enslave men and mine them for jokes and semen.

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On mars!

[–]reepbotEven when I lose I always win.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Automation will play a huge role. Millions of blue collar workers, a large majority of them men, out of a job because of robots. Too late to try and train these unemployed into a different profession. So now you have millions of unemployed in a society which values career above all. Where these people, mostly men, felt a sense of worth about being able to be independent and to provide food on the table. Now they will all be unemployed and on welfare. Depressed and angry. That can't be good.

And feminists will just laugh at them.

[–]vorverkRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Trp will become mainstream. Not the hardcore red version of it, but a slightly dirty purple...

[–]Manospherian2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

  • Number of male incels will steadily increase. These men will generally turn to more and more interactive forms of pornography, or go to prostitutes if that becomes normalized (if feminists choose to legalize it, could go either way.)
  • Steady break up of traditional family structure and traditional (financial) hypergamy will eliminate the beta bux from the SMP entirely.
  • Round 2070 or so, Sex bots and Virtual reality should reach a level where they replace actual partners for a large part of the dating market.
  • As a result, the dating market would largely be left with the most attractive of men, and above average women. Dating, I think, would largely be about social status.
  • By the end of the century, I think the people exclusively on porn and sex bots will pretty much be eliminated through gene selection. Everyone will be quite attractive. In that case, sexuality might resemble what is described in Brave New World

[–]marianasentmenudes2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

20% of men will be fucking 80% of women.

Some men might opt into fucking sex robots.

AKA I don't see marriage being viable in the future.

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I think the shift towards androgyny will continue. Women become more ingrained in the workforce and become more prevalent in areas they are less prevalent in now. The family unit will adjust to having both parents working full time. Maybe with daycare getting cheaper/universal, maybe with clusters of couples sharing duties, or older relatives watching kids. Men will take on more housework as a result. Feminine/masculine traits in partners will become less important as gender roles evaporate. Shared interests and life goals will take their place.

There is likely a natural bedrock to this trend, where women and men will some keep some stereotypes/gender roles.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

https://i.imgur.com/mXyupD1.gif

this is so laughably idealistic. I bet you are one of those people that thinks globalism is a good thing too.

[–]Returnofthemack3Purple Pill6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's laughable, is what it is. You already see these ideologies failing society and instead of thinking, hmm this probably won't pan out the way we thought, these fuckheads double down on their idiocy.

Sad, sad state of affairs

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Troll on, Morpheus. Troll on.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

sorry to burst your bubble, but humans are closer to chimps than we are to bonobos.

[–]findingmrnemo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The family unit will adjust to having both parents working full time.

Already the case.

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's definitely in transition. But childcare is still a big question with no universal answer.

[–]findingmrnemo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Its not in transition its here now. Childcare is a question only because no one can agree on well anything. Everyone agrees child care costs too much, but beyond that there's no real agreement.

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Childcare is a question only because no one can agree on well anything.

It's a question without an answer. It use to have a clear cut answer (woman looks after kids). I don't think we are going to go back to house wives being the norm. I also don't think we are going to stay uncertain on who watches the kids. We will find a new normal. We are even transitioning to one, if you will.

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We are even transitioning to one

Not really. Unless you want to argue we just started to.

[–]WeCaredALotP-P-P-PURPLE1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminine/masculine traits in partners will become less important as gender roles evaporate. Shared interests and life goals will take their place.

Agreed.

[–]hauswyfetechno -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this not already the case in most of the affluent Western world?

[–]Chocolate_Cow 1 point1 point1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

how long does you think it would take to see this happen?

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Few generations maybe? I'm just looking as how things have changed and assume the trend continues.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

assuming the inevitable collapse of capitalism doesn't happen, there will likely be a resurgence of traditionalism and stay at home housewives, as the material conditions within capitalism which created the phenomena are still there

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

That's interesting.

Can you elaborate on what "inevitable" collapse you mean?

And on what exactly you meant by "the material conditions within capitalism which created the phenomena are still there?"

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Can you elaborate on what "inevitable" collapse you mean?

The nature of capitalism is internally contradictory, with the contradictions materially expressed through economic ups and downs. Recessions happen because people come to believe that capitalism leads to the most productive society when free, but in free market capitalism, smaller companies get eaten by larger companies, causing recessions, and in contradiction lead to less production.

Capitalism will inevitably as all possible markets are exploited through global capitalism, and eventually capitalism will have no where to expand to outside of capitalizing on the government itself, which we already are seeing.

And on what exactly you meant by "the material conditions within capitalism which created the phenomena are still there?"

"Housewifery" is a rather recent historical phenomena which came about because of the industrial revolution. Women within the capitalist system are inherently seen as less efficient wage slaves, as on average they work less hours due to pregnancy and having children. This creates a culture which women's work is seen as lesser, and all of this naturally pushes women into that position.

[–]trpobservereats ass6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Recessions happen because people come to believe that capitalism leads to the most productive society when free, but in free market capitalism, smaller companies get eaten by larger companies, causing recessions

Good god, the bad economics here is going to make my head explode.

Every major recession in American history has been preceded by a banking and financial industry neck-deep in government interaction, policy making, regulation, etc.

smaller companies get eaten by larger companies

The larger companies are the only ones who can afford the legal departments necessary to wade through the legal red tape that anti-capitalists vote for.

[–]dakruNeither2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

  1. It's not really clear from your post what the "inherent contradictions" of capitalism are. Could you explain a bit more?

  2. What evidence do we have that recessions are caused by smaller companies being eaten up by larger companies?

  3. Assuming that smaller companies being eaten up by larger companies is happening and is bad, is the answer to let the largest company, the state, eat up all companies, large and small?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So women's work is seen as lesser because they literally do less work?

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Under the capitalist system, yes.

However, we have two fold issues, 1) that it assumes that women's work is lesser because things like child rearing aren't easily folded into capitalism, which well, I think even the red pill women here would find that ridiculous. And 2) women might never do any such thing, however because of the societal expectation that they will raise children and work less hours, their work ends up being valued for less, even if they work as hard as a man.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Under the capitalist system, yes.

I mean it seems pretty straightforward: do less work and your work is less than someone who does more.

However, we have two fold issues, 1) that it assumes that women's work is lesser because things like child rearing aren't easily folded into capitalism, which well, I think even the red pill women here would find that ridiculous.

You want to get paid to raise your kids?

And 2) women might never do any such thing, however because of the societal expectation that they will raise children and work less hours, their work ends up being valued for less, even if they work as hard as a man.

Because they're working fewer hours.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You want to get paid to raise your kids?

The point isn't what we should necessary do about this, but simply the observation that this is what occurs under the capitalist system. Its also a bit of a paradox that one of the most important jobs of our society: raising kids, is completely a free for all and unvalued in the system itself.

Personally, I think that under socialism, this issue pretty much disappears.

Because they're working fewer hours.

No actually. Because of the expectation that they work less, they are offered less work hours. In particular they are offered less overtime hours.

On a similar note, for higher level positions, professionals will often negotiate for higher salaries, however, women are either not told about this at all, or socialization for them to not be aggressive stops them from doing this, and then end up earning much less than their male co-workers.

One of my teachers once told me that he makes over 10 thousand more dollars than his wife a year, in the same position at the same college, simply because he negotiated his salary and she didn't. (the irony is that his wife is a gender studies teacher lol)

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually when women really do work the same hours as men they earn what men do.

The reason women are relegated to many lower paying jobs is that they choose flexibility and low hours over simply earning more.

Jobs where you can casually leave whenever or put in 30 hours a week and do just fine tend to be lower paying.

By your logic men who opt out of this whole thing and are content to live at home and earn just enough for video games and pot are bring discriminated against because the kinds of jobs they flock to don't pay well.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women can still start their own businesses. I plan to start my own and take risks no one else would before this time period happens so I can beat the system. People on both sides will have less and less sympathy for me so it will take more and more ruthlessness and risk taking on my part. It's either do this or transform myself into a discard-able Stepford wife in the race to the bottom for less and less.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you elaborate on what "inevitable" collapse you mean?

Automation

[–]WeCaredALotP-P-P-PURPLE1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

there will likely be a resurgence of traditionalism and stay at home housewives

I agree with this. Every force is one direction causes a reaction of some sort. I don't know if traditionalism will ever be as 'mainstream' as it used to be, but I do think we'll see strong niche groups of people who want traditional lifestyles.

In general, I think we're just moving towards a more fractured society where people aren't IMPELLED to live a particular lifestyle. You can have more freedom or less, commitment or not, a traditional lifestyle or something else nowadays, whereas in the past, people were more constrained in their choices.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Currently there is massive discrimination against men in education and decent male dominated fields are dying out. Meanwhile wages are flat and cost of living keeps going up.

I don't see how we could feasibly return to a system where he supports the whole family alone.

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

  • I see things improving for younger couples. Less divorces than previous generations.
  • Less people entering marriage
  • More openness to male desire and male issues from females (as they begin to realize male issues are valid when they stop wanting to marry)
  • Incels will have virtual sex available to them

[–]voteGOPkBlack Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

inevitably the happier women will be the ones who are not attracted to traditional masculinity, because that will become rare and if you really want to date have ltr and marry, you will need to be ok being with an "beta" male type who wouldn't be able to change his own oil or change a flat tire or fix a leaky faucet if his life depended on it.

[–]speltspelt1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Interesting things will happen when pregnancy robots get invented and women get access to the reproductive privileges of men.

The descendants of the generations who unlinked sex and reproduction will be less keen on sex and more keen on reproduction.

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's interesting.

What are "pregnancy robots?"

What "reproductive privileges" do you mean exactly and how will the robots give women these privileges?

Why will future generations be "less keen on sex and more keen on reproduction" and what will that mean?

[–]BlackPillReaper 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Collapse of society as we know it and reversion to patriarchy

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same thing that happens with rats with overpopulation and social overload: declining fertility, sex drives, populations, and increasing depression.

[–]UA_Hammer 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The liberals will genetically die off from all their childfree/ I'm a woman now snip snip antics.

[–]hauswyfetechno 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you realize that "liberalism" isn't passed on through genetics right?

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What does "snip snip" mean?

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

trannies

[–]MeterusUnicorn Cuck Pill Pharmacist0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Tuck and roll job.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's a "tuck and roll" job?

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" 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., 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 if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]abicus43430 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A two tier sexless, genderless servant class/slave society that caters to and is controlled by an elite few. That's the actual end goal imo and it is inevitable at this going rate. People will no longer breed and couple traditionally but will be lab grown to be androgynous, dumbed down, servant class drones and probably microchipped at birth. The elite few will live as Gods on earth.

[–]Apexk90 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Which gender they are trying to tell people there are 44 of them.

Sorry penis equals boy vaginal equals girl rare exceptions for the other 4 biological configurations.

It's gonna get crazy I tell you what

[–]HopefulAboutADHD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In what way do you think it'll "get crazy?"

[–]Apexk90 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dunno. I mean it's already crazy in my book.

We accommodate their mental illness to much as is.

If you don't think it's mental illness do you think someone cutting off their hand is sane? Because there is a subsection of body dysphoria that feels they shouldn't have limbs or appendages and they sometimes self amputate.

It's a glad, I bet a large % of transitioners don't actually have gender dysphoria.

I wonder if one day someone will try and force me to call them by a pronoun.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think as automation ends up doing 99% of all jobs the world will move towards socialism as we will not have any need for workers. Money will no longer exist. People of the arts(acting, music, etc) will be of the highest social(&SMV/RMV) status as there will be no rich class of people. People that want real human relationships will still have them, but many will opt out in favor of AI lifestyles full of people without negative traits. AI based companions will take a large percentage of people out of the dating pool, birthrates will plummet as a result.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it will end up doing 99 percent of jobs in my lifetime until I'm old and retirement age.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, I am talking about > 2060, and the transition between a our current 40 hour work week world and the age of automation is going to get VERY ugly before it gets good for the majority.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter