Socialisation is clearly important, not just for human beings but also for almost everything closely related to human beings. For guinea pigs, which as rodents are closer to us than dogs, elephants or giraffes but still 85 million years removed from the lineage we belong to, socialisation with at least one other guinea pig in captivity is essential for the sake of their mental health. All primates, with the exception of some prosimians (cute buggers), are social animals to some degree. Apes are more social yet, and humans, being the biggest-brained and most socially-complex of the apes, are social in a way that no other living thing is. In the wild, a social group is pretty much required for human survival. Without it we put ourselves at risk of starving when we fall ill or are injured, and because people who starve can't pass on their genes simply existing has reinforced the importance of social interaction in human beings. It's no surprise then that socialisation is immensely important to human beings, even compared to other social animals they are related to. If not socialised during the formative years of our lives we lose the ability to fully learn language, we become literal retards (according to IQ tests done on these people), and if socially isolated as adults our body reacts in a way that puts us at a greater risk of all kinds of chronic disease. It is no exaggeration to say that human beings need the company of other people.
One undeniably important facet of social interaction with a person is intimacy. In pg-13 terms, two people loving each other. That feel when gf. Not only does it satiate the drive for reproduction (and reproductive acts, which even if they don't bear fruit still reduce the risk of prostate cancer in men and lower blood pressure), it also has other effects. When people don't have access to this they feel bad, which might at first seem like something your boomer dad can tell you to suck up and have it be left at that, but it does kind of get worse. Bad is an understatement. Pretty much every society, present or past, in which men haven't had reliable access to female partners in exchange for putting a reasonable amount of effort into their appearance and procuring resources (in which men are promised basically nothing in exchange for work at the end of the day, in other words, no legacy or people who love them that'll outlive their parents) has been wracked by violence from low-status men very pissed off at their situation (Elliot Rodger says hi). A good example would be the Middle East, where polygamy is acceptable, buying a wife is something that happens and men who can't get laid join Jihadist groups. I'm not sure how bad things are in China, given they live under a totalitarian state and I don't go out of my way to look into their affairs, but nothing good has been said about their male surplus.
Why is this men having access to women and not the other way around? People claim this mentality is the result of objectifying women, but this claim fails to realise that a human being can be in demand just as much as a commodity can be. Women are, when it comes to reproduction (the end-goal of the intimacy of all of your ancestors who passed on their genes), much more valuable than men. Why is this? Wombs.
Suppose you have two paleolithic tribes of 100 people each on an island, each tribe has 50 men and 50 women. Tribe A loses 40 of its women, tribe B loses 40 of its men. Tribe A, now with 10 women and 50 men, is completely boned because it has no way of breeding fast enough to make up for its losses now. 1 man can impregnate 10 women and have 10 children, but 10 men cannot father 10 children with 1 women. Women take 9 months to give birth to a child, have birth canals the same width as those of chimpanzees despite having infants much larger, and have a nasty habit of dying in childbirth (given the physiology of the ordeal, who would have thought?). Considering the setting tribe A is in, not all of their kids will survive to adulthood, which makes them extra screwed compared to tribe B reproductively. When you recognise that the only way for tribe A to get more wombs is to kidnap them, t's no surprise that warfare in primitive societies has always been a certain kind of unpleasant for women while the men were just straight up killed. Because of the logistics of reproduction, women are inherently more valuable than men. Pretty much no large mammals are polyandrous, they're pretty much all polygynous.
What implications does this have? Men are expendable. Men who are below a certain grade can be set aside, with several of their female equivalents being impregnated by one high-tier male. There is a reason men are vastly more varied in IQ levels and life outcomes than women, and that reason is men are hits and misses. They aren't needed unless they can prove themselves, which is why men aren't objectified like women but instead reduced to how useful they are (when you deconstruct it, objectification of women is just reducing women to their reproductive usefulness). Look at all the men who died building the great wall before getting buried inside it, or all the men who died in every needless war ever. It also means that women can be less attractive and still score because being a woman gives them value, whereas men who are less attractive aren't so lucky.
Paleolithic? Great wall of China? Those people didn't even have NS. Fast forward to 2018.
The share of Americans not having sex has reached a record high
The economy is terrible, people are less social than ever, this makes sense to even people who ardently disagree with the above paragraphs.
That is, until you get to the meat of the article, which is who's actually celibate. It's men of course.
But among the 23 percent of adults — or nearly 1 in 4 — who spent the year in a celibate state, a much larger than expected number of them were twentysomething men, according to the latest data from the General Social Survey.
Since 2008, the share of men younger than 30 reporting no sex has nearly tripled, to 28 percent. That's a much steeper increase than the 8 percentage point increase reported among their female peers.
This is self-reported as well. Men usually feel inclined to lie about having partaken in these things, women feel inclined to lie about having not partaken in them. A good key can unlock many locks and take you places, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is not one worth guarding the security of. Although obviously it's very uncouth to do it and it isn't justified by it, I would say there is an innate element to men's slut-shaming. Men tend not to pass their genes onto the next generation when they are perfectly fine with other men playing womb raider with their wife. The lock and key analogy, as sexist as it is, becomes ingrained into our psychology through natural selection inevitably. The face of celibacy is probably even more male than this study tells us.
Also, is it purely 2008 that's caused such high male celibacy? As you can see here, male celibacy increases some time after 2008, in the early 2010s. Women's celibacy rates, although higher than they were before the GFC, have plateaued while men's have skyrocketed.
It's also the young. If you weren't removing the phytochemicals from the almonds inside your brain cavity (usually by soaking them in water for 24 hours and drying them over a low heat) before, you are now. What are young people doing that started to really take off in the early 2010s? Social media. Dating apps. Tinder. Bingo
How does this make sense though? Shouldn't tinder make the dating process easier for shy, introverted people and reduce the celibacy rate? Free love man.
Nope.
To quote the wikipedia page of Tinder here and activate a whole orchard's worth while still on the tree:
As of June 2015, 62% of Tinder users were male and 38% were female.[65] According to University of Texas at Austin psychologist David Buss, "Apps like Tinder and OkCupid give people the impression that there are thousands or millions of potential mates out there. One dimension of this is the impact it has on men's psychology. When there is ... a perceived surplus of women, the whole mating system tends to shift towards short-term dating,"[20] and there is a feeling of disconnect when choosing future partners.[66] In addition, the cognitive process identified by psychologist Barry Schwartz as the "paradox of choice" (also referred to as "choice overload" or "fear of a better option") was cited in an article published in The Atlantic that suggested that the appearance of an abundance of potential partners causes online daters to be less likely to choose a partner and be less satisfied with their choices of partners.[67][68]
Tinder CEO Sean Rad has said that Tinder removes the "friction" associated with walking up to someone and introducing oneself.[69] However, in March 2015, the website Medium published a statistical analysis quantifying the degree of inequality on Tinder as a dating market. The analysis concluded that "the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder dating market based on 'like' percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world's national economies. In addition, it was determined that a man of average attractiveness would be 'liked' by approximately 0.87% (1 in 115) of women on Tinder."[70]
These are some good damn almonds, I'll pass you the bag if I'm done and have any left. Not only is sexual inequality huge on tinder and male disposability is on full display, but it's actually in line with the pareto principle people on incel forums talk about. It's almost, now hold me back if I suggest anything too nutty here, like the dudes who aren't getting anything have correctly identified why they aren't getting anything. Could it be people who don't have something available to them but who have access to information are able to lucidly identify why it isn't available to them?
You might say that, sure, women are more selective of men's attractiveness because of the logistics of reproduction and Tinder reflects that, but Tinder is only something they use for quick flings. How can it represent real life? Women are attracted to dudes who are decent, likeable people, worthy of trust, or (if you don't agree with that) exciting badboys who hold more frame than a scaffolding truck. Some might even say they're "assholes" if they're really butthurt, these people are called nice guys and they are commonly lumped in with blackpilled incels who talk about looks but this is a very big mistake.
Nope.
When you think about it, you should be able to remember a million examples of things in your own life that people did, but that they wouldn't have been able to get away with doing had they been unattractive. If you're super good looking, your personality flaws can even become positives. Instead of being the weirdo at the back of the class you're worried might reach into his bag, an attractive man is mysterious and brooding. A pretty young woman is cute and ditzy, but her older, less attractive equivalent might just be a pain to deal with. These are cognitive biases we can't help, and when it comes to attraction they are king.
Personality literally does not matter when it comes to attracting a mate. Women love all kinds of guys with all sorts of personalities, hobbies, socioeconomic standings and of all different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, as long as they are attractive. Women are just as physical as men are, and the myth that they have lower sex drives is only because they aren't as interested in as much of the opposite sex. How good a woman says your personality is is just her rationalising her physical attraction to you. Given that this is innate, she shouldn't really be looked at as shallow, but instead shallowness should be looked at neutrally and clinically as the way things really are.
What is attractiveness? Isn't it in the eye of the beyolder.
Definitely not.
From this study it is very clear that sexual dimorphism, good facial harmony (called "symmetry" and "averageness" in this article), and good skin are more or less what makes a face attractive.
If you're a man these combined mean a strong chin (recessed chins are a no-no), a strong mandible with a clearly-defined ramus and jawline (overbites, recessed jaws are a nono), a philtrum that isn't too long or short and that certainly doesn't look too long compared to your chin (that would give you a small chin and jaw), almond-shaped, hooded eyes with low upper eyelid exposure, strong zygos, cheekbones which are prominent and form a dovetail with your jaw to create hollow cheeks, not too big of a forehead, not balding, good skin, not weird lips, not asymmetrical, good under-eye support (bones) to avoid eye bags and also to avoid "doe eyes" (bad eye shape in general). A guy on youtube who goes into the minutia of this and who I'd recommend you watch if you are morbidly interested in this is FACEandLMS, I've spoken to him one on one and he's a good bloke. He could have written this post ten times better than I have, I'm sure of it.
Social media doesn't reduce things to looks, as shown by the halo effect, it just gives women easier access to more attractive men and makes the process of sorting through men more efficient. The fact that so many women are content sharing so few men on Tinder, and that there are the SAME men selected based on the SAME characteristics, just goes to show that this really is just nature in action. While it is true that the genital anatomy of humans suggests monogamy more than the genital anatomy of our closest relatives, chimpanzees, does (chimps have very big testicles to produce more of the ol baby gravy to make them more competitive maters, because in chimp society everyone's getting freaky with everyone, gorillas also have small testicles because one guy can pretty easily monopolise the ladies, look it up), the logistics of reproduction combined with women's psychology makes this inevitable when you guide society in this direction with the technology we've developed. Tinder is science gone too far.
I would post the okcupid articles of their dating data demonstrating that women rate ~80 percent of men as of below average attractiveness, to the extent that if it was an IQ bell curve women were assessing somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of men would be mentally challenged, but those articles were nuked in the aftermath of the Toronto van attacks, perpetrated by an incel.
That brings us to why this is an issue. When men don't get laid, they chimp out (maybe that isn't fair on the very sexually open chimps though). It's not male entitlement, it's not toxic masculinity, it's 3.6 billion years of natural selection in the form of 70 kilograms of muscle, bone, fat, skin and organ tissue with a very big brain and opposable digits, capable of wielding complex and very dangerous weapondry, recognising that its line is going to end and getting very, very angry at whatever it blames for that. Few people allow themselves to be killed without at least a little of thrashing, and genetic death is no exception to the rule. It's also a social animal and the lack of validation by the opposite sex drives it even more nuts. Even if the attacks aren't explicitly because of inceldom, being involuntarily celibate will still leave men more open to all kinds of radicalisation (they nuked the article so here's a lookism thread jfl) that will have them commit terrorist attacks anyway.
Seriously, even involuntarily celibate male elephants lose it. Should we start looking into their bad personality and toxic attitudes towards female elephants?
Also, it should be noted that these mating patterns are rapidly becoming breeding patterns too. The future is top-tier men with harems of single mothers, while average and below men work as wageslaves to feed the children of those single mothers with their tax dollars.
Finland to find itself in uncharted demographic territory no matter what
“When a Finn turns 30, two-thirds of women and four-fifths of men are still childless,” highlighted Rotkirch.
Who's fathering these kids? For this disparity it can only be significantly older men, that is if it isn't hypergamy. However, If Finland is anything like America, older generations are not plagued by inceldom because they tend to use dating apps less. The birth rate in Finland is also dropping NOW, with COUPLES delaying children, so the men aren't breeding with younger models. Chad is breeding with three of the girls you looked at from the back of the class and leaving them to be raised on your tax money. This is inevitably going to piss off men. When the state becomes a better provider than these men, they have absolutely nothing on their now easily-accessible genetic superiors. The vast majority will tolerate it in silence, but a non-negligible minority won't.
How do we deal with this issue? We could try pacifying men culturally somehow to avoid the outbursts, but attempts at that by defanging so-called toxic masculinity only seem to be used as justification by the people who were going to do it anyway. You can't really shut down tinder or dating apps in general without another one popping up, unless you wanted to destroy digital technology and the society capable of creating it. Should we just get used to these outbursts and place bollards on the streets of our cities to avoid worse van attack results? Should the state subsidise paid intimate experiences for people with psychiatric issues (which usually arise as a result of inceldom)? Is there a way of reversing current mating pattern trends somehow? What do NSG? I have no idea how to deal with this problem to be honest, beats me.
