Every study that comes out seems to support some of the view points that TRP, TFL, MGTOW and Incels espouse.
How come the left is completely and utterly against even talking about this topic? Why is the left willing to let these millions of young men be roped in by reactionary right wing ideology?
They deserve their fate.
Sorry I forgot to post the source.
some of them are not even fash but some liberals, succdems, and straight commies. its not an ideological problem. its a human problem.
That's not what's going on here. This isn't just a bunch of right wingers going fash because they can't get laid. It is a massive amount of normal everyday men both right leaning and left leaning.
It's not that they're going fash, it's that the ONLY people talking to them about this are right wing parasites. Even completely normie shit like Joe Ragan is talking about this. No leftist space is talking about this or addressing it in any manner besides "fuck off you incel/misogynist".
That is a self defeating attitude for the left
howspooked.ru
also women tend to be wary of edgelords no matter what side, left, right, anarchist or authoritarian.
most women, by nature are left liberals. they also deep discussion too of anything worth discussing, Schopenhauer made an entire part of his studies on pessimism about this and you should look it up if you get the chance.
mean to say "they also HATE deep discussion…"
Contemporary capitalism causes people to become socially isolated. Nothing new about this.
It's very telling that the left failed to foresee this, and come up with a critique of this widely encompassing dialectic before deeply reactionary corners of the political spectrum.
It's not until the dialectic is so powerful that it starts producing irrefutable scientific proofs that the left begrudgingly recognizes this as even happening. Looks like the state was successful in eliminating any real leftist theorist and activist, and 3rd wave feminism was successful in spooking the rest of you that are left.
Awesome, another incel thread.
Where muh dry dick bruddas at?
Hmmmm makes me think. Reminder that if you don't read Houellebecq, you're a liberal
what do you recommend from schopenhauer
Can you please elaborate. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely interested. This dialectic is so fascinating to me.
Take for instance the growing sex doll market. Sex doll brothels are banned in Texas, and growing calls to ban them else where.
This utterly baffles me on two levels. First, the level of alienation it takes to make love to a female simulacra. It's arguable no less dehumanizing then bonding with a Movie star or watching porn, but to me it's several deviations deeper, but I'll admit I can't put my finger on it.
But why are there such strong calls to ban sex doll brothels? They would obviously weaken actual prostitution markets, and as strong as demand has been, possibly eliminate them. Isn't that what we want as a society?
I hate to say it but it seems like this and sex doll brothel banning and other dialectics is making it plain that men's behavior was being controlled by many interests with the offers of sex.
Probably because most people (even in the west) have bigger problems. Only teen boys think this is THE biggest issue out there today.
aren't most young people not getting laid in general though?
Always figured it was the left drinking all the soy.
the Left is more focused on economics and can explain this with a material analysis of Capitalism as a result of the last half of last century, sexual revolution, commodification of relationships etc.
the """left""" i.e liberals ignore this because it disrupts their fragile world view
Couple of points. First the fact that this coincides with the last global crisis which we're still not out of seems like it could be a pretty significant factor, given what we know about the economic opportunities afforded to young people in this period. That seems like the biggest angle of attack from a left perspective, as always. Additionally, I'd imagine that with certain currents of internet culture and certain subcultures arising that make something like virginity more acceptable to discuss, in addition to the fact that some of said subcultures build an identity around it could explain some of the willingless with self-reporting, but I doubt it's more than a couple of percentage points. There are also a bunch of cultural factors arising from the economic ones that we could understand with regards to relations between men and women.
It's strange that they chose adults over 18 to report on, is this because of AoC laws in the US? I'd be interested in how many of these people had any sexual partners whilst they were still teenagers. I'd actually be pretty interested in the methodology for this study more generally. The fact that it has increased by 100% for women and by 180% for men clearly contradicts any possibility of a cohesive right-wing narrative from the "Manosphere" for such a phenomenon, but I'd at least hear what they have to say if there is any serious intellectual work being done on this.
Do you have a good english translation of Houllebecq? I recall the last time I looked I couldn't find one, and I also struggled to find a decent torrent of the Whatever film adaptation with subtitles. If you could help out fam that'd be great.
also, it seems like more women want to /come across/ as sexually active more than ever. just like i'm sure in the past men would also lie about getting laid more than they actually have.
It doesn't at all, what are you talking about?
The rise in sexlessness for women is almost pure voluntary. It is a well known fact, across every single dating app in existence, that men approach women at exponentially higher rates than women pursue men. Simply put, almost any woman out there could easy and very quickly end her sexless period if she so desired. This is not the case whatsoever for men.
everyone on this planet has severe sexual anxiety right now
Men could very easily end their sexlessness if they just fucked each other.
It's because the left has no answer to these problems. The only proposed answers to these problems are…
To force women out of job so they are forced to get married (not leftist)
To criticize anti-male sentiment or some sort of other strategy of changing sex culture (which is a form of idpol, and inevitably includes reactionary views even if it in itself isn't reactionary).
To literally force women to have sex with men
The only positions that the left can (and does) advocate for is removing restrictions on sex work, which is controversial to some because of 'dehumanization'. Or
Not actually solving the problem but ameliorating its effects through porn, virgin acceptance, etc. Which is fine, but ignores that the social problem of loneliness goes significantly further than sexlessness.
None of these solutions or responses address the causes of these issues (including the responses the left won't touch), and there is leftist analysis of these issues, but these analyses don't come up with quick solutions. They come up with solutions like 'abolish capitalism at least in its current state' which won't get any of these people on your side.
The left could adopt a critique of anti-male sentiment and culture and some parts have to some extent, but you'd have to deal with outright misogyny being a (perhaps minor) part of your movement and would be excluded from mainstream culture because of that… It's also idpol, and thus doesn't really matter that much.
Are you saying people can just choose to become gay? lol hell yeah 90s right wing homophobia making its way back onto the left
It's fucking hilarious just how backwards the first world (especially the anglosphere) is with regards to how they are treating their young people. Just look at rents. They don't care that most young people can't afford a single room apartment, let alone a house that isn't in the middle of fucking nowhere. All they care about is muh housing prices.
Sexual orientation is a western fabrication.
was a response to
So uh, why has sexlessness for women also doubled? Guarantee you there isn't an exhaustive explanation by the Manosphere that can explain this. You are being unscientific, and this leads to magical thinking and idpol bullshit.
Forgot to restate… Even without any anti-male sentiment the problem of loneliness would still occur. The main issue is that people are becoming less economically useful to one another which makes relationships tend to just feel like a meaningless circle-jerk as you don't actually get anything out of them.
If there is a problem to solve for leftists, this should be the problem. Not the problem of sexlessness which should be seen as merely a subset.
If I was brought up in an entirely straight society I think I would have been mostly straight tbh. In any case, if you complain about women not having sex with men, and then won't have sex with men yourself then the it's easier to see the scope of the problem… The issue is being deprived of a /suitable/ mate, not being deprived of sex itself. It's hard to think of a critique of women for not having sex with low status males once you acknowledge that attraction partially defines the problem.
I'd say the terms of it will be improved in the future, and it certainly isn't entirely genetic, but sexuality isn't voluntary either.
tbh I would love to be a person who was attracted to sex dolls not just out of loneliness but just due to lack of interest in a human partner. I think that kind of person is possible and likely to appear in the future (with object sexual being a sort of hint of things to come), which scares people.
Then again I want experience machines to be real, so you probably shouldn't listen to me.
Why would the economy or even debt factor into someone having sex or having a relationship if people "marry for love", and men are getting laid based on their character.
The economy wouldn't change someone's personality or character.
Seems like Zig Forums is unwittingly admitting that men don't attract women based on how strong morality it but on other superficial aspects like wealth, beauty and social status, which often aren't correlated to someone most people would say have a good personality. A sexual marketplace if you will.
You can't choose who you are ATTRACTED to, but you can have sex with anyone. Straight feminists did it, why can't men?
Men already "date down", it's young women that are refusing to even date with their looksmatch.
go outside. ugly people are fucking each other all the time. look at all those dweebs that call themselves "sex nerds" and shit.
But they can't give a bro a handy? Why not?
I view this whole sex problem the same way I view the concept of "neoliberalism". Neoliberalism is just exposing the fundamental relationship between the working class and the wealthy that is inherent to capitalism. All this shows is the "relationships" men and women have together in industrial capitalist countries are inherently toxic and vile in nature. It just shows the only reason why women were paring up with men in the first place was for resources. Its a humiliating and exploitative for both parties. I really don't know what comes next but I hope gender relationships never return to the previous status quo of the nuclear family.
I AM THE 8%
I AM NOT ON THIS GRAPH BECAUSE GODDAMN SON, I'M 33
Please can you actually act like an adult instead of a smug child, like if you actually want to have discussions about this instead of merely point score and stroke your cock you have to at least pretend to be mature. You know full well that there are a whole host of complex factors that make up this discussion, and if you were being honest, would also know that the reason people on Zig Forums shit on people like you is because you're acting like incel faggots instead of people who are being intellectually honest. So what is it going to be? Are you going to engage faithfully or are you going to make snide shitposts which never do anything to help your situation, assuming you actually give a shit and aren't just trolling. Your choice, you can rest comfortably thinking you're "right" whilst derailing a thread until it gets anchored or deleted, or you can do something productive. It's no skin off my nose.
best and only good take itt
Literally all strawmen. Damn even Abrahamic religions have a simple answer to this.
Just stop sex outside of marriage. For both men and women. It's simple math. A woman is better off economically as part of a harem of an oligarch like Bill Gates, then they are being the wife of some poor schlub.
If you don't enforce this women will just group into de facto harems. That's what's going on on Tinder right now, even if no one will admit it. Women are not arbitrary choosing men to sleep with under feminist sexual liberation, they're all having sex with the same high status men.
You don't even have to do anything physical, just make it socially unacceptable. The spread of super STDs alone justifies it.
I would agree with most of what you said, but I've dropped that "marketplace" bit. I don't think the metaphor holds if you actually push it. You can make it work for a bit, but you've got to stretch it. You want to call it a market because you've been cucked by capitalism.
Because under capitalism that literally does not happen (in he purest sense of those terms at least.) Capital lives in our own consciousness and influences every thing we do. Its logic cannot be ignored while living in a capitalist system. Like seriously how sheltered and suburban do you have to be to not see this?
It is literally impossible for Communists to discuss this issue seriously on this board because as soon as we do, it immediately gets derailed by unironic incel retards who literally never want to do anything to help their own situation. Absolutely pathological.
Because they don't necessarily
Yes it does? It does literally all the time. It obviously effects confidence for instance. IIRC most marriages end because of money concerns.
tbqh that's why I kinda consider myself to be a "volcel" nowadays. I have finally come to terms with being busted and "dating down" means desperate gargoyles. I'd rather not spend my energy on a relationship that will become toxic or simply end with her heart broken, it's unfair to her.
source?
I can do that, but can you stop pretending this righteous indignation is because you're so concerned about discourse, and not because you're humiliated about failing to grasp these basic social dialectics that people with a faction of your education grasped years ago.
Yeah, and Zig Forums was more than willing to shout down anyone that brought them up until they couldn't deny the truth anymore.
Ho ho ho the old "you're an incel" insult. I'm actually in a loving and reciprocating relationship thank you very much and have been for many years.
Looks like you have learned nothing from your utter failure to empathize with people that you don't share any common ground with, a failure I didn't suffer because my intellect allows me to look at things like the incel phenomenon critically.
Have fun being made even more irrelevant by people like the Yang Gang as your autism pushes you ever further down your self imposed ideology purity spiral.
You got to be kidding. I'm not a spooked triablist like you. You're failure to foresee and come out in front of the incel dialectic is on you.
Keep on ignoring your intellectual short comings and soothe your ego by policing "shitposters" like myself. It's you for whom the bell tolls.
I was right, holy crap, you really need to get outside if your ego is so fragile that you can't accept someone else is right.
How is pointing out that Zig Forums was wrong about his "derailing"?
God imagine being a western male ages 15 to 25 and wasting your youthful energy writing these long unhinged rants about women online.
The socialists don't have any answers that people want to hear, while reactionary ideology puts sexualism and biological essentialism at its core.
Short of advocating an end of sexualism, I don't see any real answer. Population control is an agenda of virtually every state for a multitude of reasons, and I don't see those states abandoning the agenda any time soon. There is nothing for families when your children are literally considered lower than animals.
Even if the family weren't disintegrating as a political or economic unit, technology has rendered sexual reproduction obsolete. Only the vaguest instinct requires children to have parents to raise them, and those habits are being systematically destroyed as institutions push themselves into that sphere (forced schooling, mass propaganda, the need for states to control peoples' behaviors and the number of people alive, etc.) Conservatives offer an answer that feels good, but it's an empty answer given to the ignorant and desperate as an opiate.
I have not seen any criticism of population control from the socialist camp, and quite a bit of support for strict population control beyond even current policies. In the long run, the only way population control can be enforced is through the abolition of family in a literal sense, where children are born and raised through industrial processes completely. Such a process would also necessarily involve indoctrination on a massive scale and a dramatic change in how people think and feel. I see the incel thing and the self-absorbed narcissism inherent in it as a symptom of this change - that is, people will be reduced to a base existence for the most part, cajoled through their instincts. That would be a necessary condition of population control, until we are able to move past all sexualism and related impulses. Sexualism, then, is in its death throes, and the malignant mentalities surrounding sexualism today are just a symptom of both technology and the population control agenda.
Of course a socialist could just categorically reject population control, and it wouldn't be incompatible. I have yet to see this in a serious way though. I'm honestly surprised no socialist is taking up this cause, because I know of many people amenable to socialist beliefs (and explicitly so) who are sick of the totalizing control population control entails.
Was this ever a problem in socialist countries? These places had a great deal of financial independence for women, so to me it seems relevant to the claim that greater financial independence for women has led to this "crisis".
Pretty easy answer, leftists are still obsessed with idpol and muh feminism despite the fact that they've had more rights and privileges than men for decades now. Also, capitalism will commodify everything it can, including human relationships/intimacy. Stuff like Tinder would very likely not exist under communism. And the failing neoliberal late-capitalist economy means large swathes of men are now considered "undesirable" due to having little/no money. I don't think it's right, but it is a fact.
That narcissism wasn't born out of nowhere though. They weren't just born like this. It is a reflection of the atomization of individuals and the treatment of people as commodities which feminism and liberalism both wholly embraced.
I actually am concerned about this discourse, stop pretending that this board is a monolith
You're new as fuck lol, otherwise you'd know full well what exactly I'm talking about.
Looks like you have learned nothing from your utter failure to empathize with people that you don't share any common ground with, a failure I didn't suffer because my intellect allows me to look at things like the incel phenomenon critically.
I was using the provervial "you", as in the contingent of people like the tripfag Swedish Socdem Incel who has been proven to troll and derail under multiple different identities because we didn't aquiesce entirely to his myopic worldview. No-one gives a shit whether you're in a relationship or not, relations between sexes or even just people under Capitalism in general & loneliness extend far beyond getting laid.
Lol fucking outed yourself, great job retardo
You got to be kidding. I'm not a spooked triablist like you. You're failure to foresee and come out in front of the incel dialectic is on you.
Again, pretending Zig Forums is a monolith and then becoming offended when someone lumps you in with your own monolith
Except I literally agree with a large part of your original post, it was the way in which you framed it, like a gloating little idiot, just as you're doing now, that is essentially proving my point that you don't actually want to have discussions about this.
No, though some guys in East Germany did apparently complain about need to be "interesting" to get a woman (whereas before he could just flash his wallet and job at a woman and immediately get put on her short list of partners)
No it doesn't, are you saying that someone who is employed and suddenly becomes unemployed is a different person?
That rich people are different from poor people personality wise. Not only is this disgusting it's been disprove by science.
The old "poor people commit more crimes" is disproven. Poor people are 'more vulnerable to crimes, so poor areas have higher crime rates.
Seems like women were using "confidence" as a gauge of economic status all along and not some character trait they were looking for. Since as you just admit, it's effected by poverty. It's a good gauge since having an entire society either bolster your ego or tear it down will manifest itself in behavior that is hard to fake.
Like fun it's not. I've been here for several years and can remember when anyone that brought up these dialectics was labeled an incel then dogpiled on. You seriously going to try to revision history like some Zig Forumsyp.
Wow, they can hear words and meanings that I'm not expressing. Like some misogyny detecting priest class. Couldn't be that the very work incel (involuntary celebrate) undermines liberal's myth that capitalism is a meritocracy could it?
They just attempt to discredit anyone that critics them, b-b-b-b-but they don't disagree.
It's funny who you feminists pearl clutch about state mandated girlfriends, while the state will destroy financially any man that wants a divorce. This somehow doesn't constitute violent coercion but imagined state mandated gfs does.
Incel and religions have, it's call no sex before marriage. Don't need any violence to back it up, just make it socially unacceptable, it'd make 99% of men and women stop.
There are a bunch of articles and books about sex in Socialist nations and how generally people had more of it, but people were also in relationships more; there likely isn't much research on the inability of people to find partners.
Sorry I just forgot about the 'return to monogamy' argument. The other positions are literally advocated for though, they might not be your position, but they aren't strawmen.
in any case
is literally a "a strategy of changing sex culture" so it has already been accounted for. Changing sex culture for the explicit reason of more men having sex makes it almost explicitly against the interests of women as a whole making it incredibly unlikely that it will get picked up. Furthermore our social mores right now aren't even strong enough to prevent rapists from being in the white house, it's not going to be strong enough to enforce even harder to prove accusations of sluttery when there inevitably become pockets of society who disagree with you.
In any case it doesn't actually solve the issue of loneliness or societal uselessness. It would at most be treating a symptom.
Literally what data-point could possibly suggest anything here? I don't really think that there is much of a possibility of going past anecdote here.
Like people will perceive prettier women to have better personalities due to the halo effect (and other effects), so it's not like you just ask them.
Any study of dating profiles wouldn't say anything for similar reasons.
I could point to /a/s taste in women for instance and how all of them are annoying hot women, or the vapidity of 3d porn for men in general, but those wouldn't count for ///reasons///.
Literally, what potentially could I point to that wouldn't be anecdotal or interpretive?
Young women are beating young men in both money and education. This is pretty much never talked about in mainstream discourse though.
The fact that every single dating app study has shown that men are massively more receptive to women's looks than women are to men's? I posted an example right here in this very thread.
The fact that you cannot even comprehend the idea that material reality can affect relationships makes it quite clear that you have very few real life experiences and/or are extremely sheltered. Go outside. Burn your shitty suburb to the ground.
yes it is. the guardian and all them report on that all the time. it doesn't change the fact that most people are still working class.
Stop pretending that not generalizations can be made about this boards politics.
>You're new as fuck lol, otherwise you'd know full well what exactly I'm talking about.
Uh-huh
Lol, get bent faggot. You implied that I wasn't in a relationship in attempt to discredit my critique. A logically fallacious argument but socially effect argument. You're butt mad you got caught.
You sound like some Hillarybot just before the 2016 election. Someone like Yang shouldn't even be on the playing board. Yet hear your are "holier than though" sneering at him. Yeah, I can tell you're going to need to learn about your hubris the head way.
Again pretending Zig Forums doesn't hold political stances.
Yeah because I'm literally not an incel. Incel is material condition as well as an idenity. I"m literally neither. You're just some liberal shocked that anyone could give icky incels any deference even when growing bodies of evidence continue to prove their critiques correct.
You just took it that way because you don't want admit how wrong you were about this. Sorry, but there's not a way to tell someone their wrong that leaves their ego intact.
Wew…look in the mirror buddy.
If I wanted this reductionist downplaying of material conditions I'd be on a liberal forum not leftypol. Fuck off you parasite.
It was, but socialist countries on some level rejected eugenics in full, and had some sense of the dignity of a person.
You also have a feedback loop like in China where a low birth rate leads to economic problems, which leads to more sexual failures, etc.
I don't think it is necessarily tied to the economic system, but the ideological aims of population control and eugenics. China does practice eugenics quite strongly, but the USSR seemed to do so a lot less. I don't have proofs for this though, just a hunch.
It occurs as a reaction to population control/eugenics policies and the necessary implications of them. Eugenism itself promotes these negative ideologies, and they are even useful for its aims since they act to reinforce self-destructive behavior in target populations for elimination.
No one should be asking themselves why this happens. The path to incel couldn't be any more obvious to me. I don't understand why there is so much autism and just-world thinking on this topic. When I bring up the matter with normal people who aren't bullshitting me, they are quite aware of what is going on and its causes (even if they haven't pieced together a full theory, they are aware enough that what I'm saying doesn't come out of left field). Anyone who would pull the whole "just world" thing is obviously hostile and malevolent, just like bullshitters on any other topic.
Population control in America really took off in the 1970s, once the pill was introduced and welfare agencies placed a soft two-child limit on women (a policy which is still in effect - I remember my mother complaining about this policy and the indoctrination she received on this topic, and she was really bitter when my sister parroted the line). It is not a surprise that, in the instant that population control really took off as a social policy, insane behavior relating to sexualism skyrocketed once the change had time to reverberate in the general population. If it was just capitalism and the abolition of the family as a political and economic unit, these changes would have been more gradual and apparent long in advance.
...
Did you even read what I posted. I was ridiculing people that said that in the past. Learn to read you functionally illiterate brainlet
lol you're the one who sounds like a liberal. just because black women are at a record high of college graduates doesn't mean much for black women as a whole.
It's very simple, you need money and free time to go outside and socialize. If you need to juggle two jobs and higher education for bottom of the barrel survival (like an ever-increasing number of young people in the West does), chances are you won't be dating or fucking much.
*Yeah, I can tell you're going to need to learn about your hubris the hard way.
it was an ironic post you self fart smelling idealists
You can socialize without money, or very little money. Goddamn how do you think yeomen, slaves, indentured servants, or proles working 12-14 hours 6 days a week in the past did it.
This is just an inadvertent admission by you men are primarily judged by their socioeconomic status, and not their personality.
The fact that you cannot comprehend a relationship built on trust, and love that's not effected by outside factors like economic status show how alienated from a true reciprocating relationship you are. Sorry, but your mommy was wrong to divorce your daddy just because she was bored.
Imagine being this idealist.
Man I was a loser well before social media took off, since I graduated hs in 2004.
I think I am just a shitter of a man tbqhwyf.
Muh dick.
Imagine internalizing capitalist logic so much you abandon people when times get hard.
No it's a literal fact.
...
Capitalism is perfectly fine then if our relation to capital has no effect on relationships or it's effect can be completely isolated because of "love".
I'm sure the daughter of some bourgeois propertarian will take a liking to me because I can provide "love" or she feels she can trust me although I am a poor nigger.
I'm saying they change over time? Are you saying personality is genetic or something because that's the only way that a stationary personality makes any sense.
I never said that.
Do you think this is a conscious gauge? Do you think it is the evolutionary reason they like confidence? Do you think it's subconscious? You're equivocating pretty hardcore here.
Yes the history I can revision for conversations I haven't been a part of and haven't seen? If you say 'women just pick men who have money and are tall' of course people are going to dogpile you, because they think you're dog-whistling a different position if you say 'height and wealth are factors for women' and they don't sense that you are actually arguing for something else no one cares, because those are obviously true. Even on liberal sjw tumblr spaces people accept that as a fact. It's just when you say it people think you're saying "black people have a higher crime rate"
I never said it doesn't, I'm saying it shouldn't
Yes why is the concept of love so hard for you image board troglodytes to understand. I thought leftist were supposed to be more enlightened? People will run into burning building for someone they love. So no, it's not unheard of to weather financial difficulties for someone you love.
Well first of all women have to not need to pair up for resources. We're heading in that direction but the thing is a lot of women like the idea of not having to work or not having to work as hard and enjoying the lifestyle their husbands can afford them. This is disguised by an idea of the "romance" of marriage and all that, which is mostly about displaying how much wealth you can afford to waste. In spite of the history of marriage being related to the exchange of women and eugenics, it's genuinely in women's material interest to try getting married.
More women going to college than men and starting to out-earn men is making this less viable every year, but there's still a culture of "marrying up" and at some point it's going to hit that it's just not possible any more. There will probably be a lot of lonely old women and lonely old men for a generation because there just plain aren't enough men out-earning women for that family style to work any more. The LGBT ones are going to have better conditions to realize that maybe they don't actually want an opposite-sex partner, and we'll probably see a small boost in those numbers as people start seeing non-hetero, non-nuclear relationships as more normal.
The scarcity of high-earning men is likely going to cause an increase in polygamy at the higher socio-economic end as some women care more about muh lifestyle than pride or dignity. Rich men already often have affairs and side chicks, they'll just do it more often and more openly. At the bottom we'll have more men than women and might see an increase in polyandry, with women increasing their lifestyle by being supplemented by more than one man, the cuck fetish thing likely helping to normalize this.
It's very unlikely to affect the base given the ability of our social relationships to adapt. In general I would think that increasing the number of adults per family is an improvement, since it makes it easier for a family unit to weather difficult times and share the burden of child rearing. As porky realizes that "alternative" lifestyles like this are actually useful for sustaining the working class, they will likely start pushing it as progressive, building entire new houses/apartments to accommodate 3+ adults and stoking a cultural battle with older generations to distract people from class struggle and to sell polyamory pride flags.
It's irrelevant how they did it in the past, because the whole point is that material conditions have changed. The costs of living have skyrocketed and people generally have much less free time nowadays.
As a side note, Engels' Origins of Family should be mandatory reading on this board.
No, you can't even remotely infer that from my post.
Yes they are. What are you some post modernist faggot? A fact is true regardless of someones opinion dumb ass.
It doesn't take much money to engage in sexual relations and have the economic base to build a family. If you're homeless or living on SSI (which has explicit rules regarding marrying which result in a termination of benefits in many cases), then yeah you can claim there's a material lack. The men working some well-paid blue collar or white collar job who claim that they need to be millionaires or something (this actually happened during my time on incel boards), they're being ridiculous.
Single women were able to get along just fine in USSR and had a generous welfare net, yet their families didn't disintegrate any more than those in the West.
I maintain that population control is by far the greatest contributing factor, as what follows from such a policy and ideological stance necessarily destroys trust in relationships, and leads the question of what the relationship is even for in the first place. These effects create a feedback loop which intensifies, as more men and women are raised in dysfunctional relationships and have no sense of how a relation is even supposed to work (which makes them vulnerable to reactionary idealism which tells them in the old days everyone was monogamous and wimmin stayed in the kitchen, etc.)
mmmm that's some powerful ideology right there
so like, do you think politics is just opinions or…?
So can we all agree that this is caused by capitalism at least?
No I'm saying personality is a pretty innate part of a person that isn't changed by economic downturns. I find people that say that it does to be the type that have poor empathy skills, and therefore can't judge a person's personality well to begin with.
Yes stop it with this "babe in the woods''' excuse feminists always trot out to rationalize reactionary behavior from women.
STOP ABUSING EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY
Well I've seen them. And they regularly linger at the top of the board when mods allowed them so I think you're lying about this to be frank.
Yeah, but if you're intellectually honest you will refute it with arguments. Dogpiling is essentially an tantrum.
No you're just torturing spooks, prescribing all these motivations without a wit of evidence.
It's very simple, people react badly to incel sympathy because it undermines the liberal meritocratic myth.
It's literately in their name, incel, involuntary, as this is not my fault. And liberals like clockwork get triggered by the undermining of this, because if more men starting thinking the system isn't working for them, then their own interest would be threatened.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Seems a likely scenario. Still better than the nuclear family. There are a lot of soft harems going on right now but women are pretty resentful about it. They want to be the high status man's only woman. Does anyone remember that Jodi Arias case from a few years ago?
Yeah why don't you jump off a bridge and see if a lack of political belief in gravity will stop you from dying.
Well how the fuck are you going to fall in love if you cannot start from a basis of trust? Nobody is going to start a relationship (which costs disposeable income) when they are broke, live with their parents (so they have nowhere that is not precarious to fuck), stressed from work. People are perfectly alienated there is no free social places, suburban sprawl ensures that.
"Love" is completely corrupted by capital. Get the fuck out of here with your idealized bullshit. People who are actually "successful" in "love" always come from a financially secure background. To be clear I am not talking about just people fucking like a one night stand.
The friends that I have that are married of course all have decently paying jobs and can afford houses.
dude this is why you need materialism
These threads are always cancer
That's why /pol keeps starting them.
Since this is caused by capitalism the solution is pretty simple: become a communist and overthrow capitalism. No idea why MRAs and incels don't want to do this.
Easy, no pre-martial sex is in the best intrests of any man or woman no in the top 20% of most sexually attractive.
Otherwise we get what we have now. Women that get sex but no commitment through out their 20's and wind up a single mother or cat lady. And men that get neither sex nor commitment when they are young, and wind up wholly unwilling to commit latter on with women.
Easier divorces for men. If neither men nor women could exploit each other via divorce then only men and women that wanted to be together for love would be wed.
It's stops haremization. The only reason why women and feminist white knights like you, are going along with sexual liberation is because women think it can be used for upward mobility. They aren't "stuck" with some poor schlub. What they are slowly realizing is that they are going to be left off alot worse then they were under more traditional ways of pairing people.
because they dream of women being their property