One interesting thing I don’t see enough people talking about is the decline in early-life sexual activity that goes along with this [0].
It appears somewhat caused by the fact that the “do it yourself experience” used to be a very inferior product, which drove people to find a partner, even if it meant significant compromise.
Now, you’re one search away from stimulation that might actually make it better than what’s available to you in your local community.
What may be shocking to some people is that this phenomenon applies to people of any gender, and is likely a contributing factor to the “incel” phenomenon (some of the more awkward among us used to benefit by being “the best available local option” so to speak).
But ofc no-one wants to talk about it because it’s a bit gross to do so.
>What may be shocking to some people is that this phenomenon applies to people of any gender
My point about what people don't talk about (and what those articles also ignore) is that it's not just men watching porn.
>Easy access to porn is part of the story, of course; in 2014, 43 percent of men said they’d watched porn in the past week.
Pornography is always framed as a men's topic, but I'd argue that's a very incomplete picture of what's going on.
EDIT: Maybe I'm being too euphemistic. My point is that no-one is discussing the fact that young hetero men now have to compete against pornography, and many are losing that fight. This is an enormous power shift that has largely gone undiscussed and many young men are unprepared to improve their chances, since they are ignorant to the problem itself (Parents giving out of date advice, etc.)
You mean journalists noticed a problem and never formulated an idea of the core reason for it, or examined it beyond the surface level realities of what it's done to people?
That's what I'm seeing here: A kind of "hmm that's strange... Anyway, incels are evil! Where did they even come from!?"
The truth is that modern society sets people up for failure in that regard, in a multitude of ways, and this isn't being talked about.
Female mate expectations are a significant part of this topic, but as far as I can tell, it's a third rail. So the incel concept is fair game as you can safely deconstruct unreasonable male expectations, male mediocrity and male criminality without much, if any, backlash.
But hasn't that been an explicit policy goal of every government since at least 1950? Reducing teen sexual activity and especially teen pregnancy? According to elected officials, this is not just a good thing, this is the target.
Well, most governments have had 'pro-family' politics that are against teen pregnancy; but in favour of getting married and raising children.
So they don't want to lower the sex-vs-age chart for all ages, they want to add a step function to it, so it's zero at age 19 but high at age 23.
Lowering the chart for all ages was never the goal, which might be why we've never seen politicians celebrating the current state as the successful delivery of their election promises.
Western European and East Asian developed economies share their largest economic problem going forwards: declining birth rates. I'm not convinced the policy goals of reducing teen birth rates has ever been that much of an actual policy goal, despite what election manifestos might proclaim
It's more that there's less of a need now, in Asian countries children are often a means of pension. Because there is no welfare system.
Also, women work more now. Life is extremely expensive even with two incomes. Adding kids on top of that makes things even harder trying to juggle the financial side and creches.
And my personal reason, life is much more fulfilling without having to raise kids. I can do what I want, move where I want. I'm glad I never had any.
The ancient Greeks held sight itself as holy. We have now showed other people’s experiences and have become addicted to them. The vision is so strong, people can manage to somehow live inside these addictions.
I mean, is the problem that people aren't _motivated_ enough to find a partner? That seems unlikely given how much you see people complaining about not being able to find a partner online. It seems like people want a partner, but something is getting in the way. I don't think motivation is the issue.
A lot of men who aren't in the top of the ladder presume by default that they're competing with some random other potential boyfriend, or an army of gigachads, etc..
More often, the truth is, you're competing with how happy I am by self when I'm just single. And it's sad how many guys blunder in something as basic as treating me like I'm a person.
I don't think porn is the cause here, but rather the number of people the internet allows you to meet. The more prospects someone has the higher they will set their sights--and those who don't those standards get left behind.
I believe the conclusion many draw is that online apps make it easier for the more attractive men to have multiple partners, and that this doesn't happen nearly as much with the more attractive women.
Before the internet, your access was limited to the people you met and interacted with in real life. Now, an attractive person has access to hundreds of people messaging them.
In the long run the resolution would be the same--but we don't have infinite time. Years spent chasing prospects above one's level are years not with someone at your level. It happens because both sides are aiming high.
In the old days you would see your dating pool get depleted and realize you needed to aim lower. Now, in any reasonably large city your dating pool is close enough to infinite that this won't happen.
Sure, but I wouldn't characterize that as 'being left behind.'
Just 'being delusional.'
And if we agree there, then yes I agree that people are less self-critical and more delusional now than ever before (since we have a much bigger toolkit to manicure our image, both internally and externally).
Porn is a hyper reality. It’s obscene, but more it’s really just produced a lot. Normal sex resembles porn about as much as a show about high school resembles high school.
There are some specific harms of pornography, but it shares a lot of dimensions with commercials, marketing, and other media.
The entomology of the word porn even indicates this. It means “to sell off” eventually meaning prostitution, which is a sales activity primarily.
Digital porn scales well, though this isn’t good for most. We’d be in a better world with non-scalable sex work instead. It’s more ordered and aligned with the human experience.
The digital whores are not human, and you can’t have sex with them, which is the whole draw no?
If you find a partner attracted to you, sex can absolutely be alike in porn and free of charge. If in the hypergamy hierarchy you're an equivalent of rat or homeless dog, bad luck.
Seems your comment is getting some disagreement, perhaps because of your follow-up statement.
I happen to agree with you, broadly speaking. Everyone's experiences and preferences vary, so I'd wager that most people don't experience that kind of sex. If one isn't a total schlub, however, it's not out of the realm of possibility.
The idea that people can't have the kind of sex they like reminds me of the idea that women don't like sex that much, which is far from the truth. But maybe I've just gotten lucky (no pun intended).
even the sex in porn is nothing that resembles reality. and if you're male, and she's being nice and fulfilling that porno fantasy, trust me she's not into it and it won't be long before sex no longer happens as often once she gets comfortable with you.
A lot of people forget the time spent on porn, when analyzing whether it's a good thing or bad thing. I really believe that if you don't spend too much time per session you'll be fine. PornHub stats show the avg time spent to be 15 mins, around that time is a good goal (don't mindlessly edge for too long). Then with the stats on prostate health showing benefits, it's only a good thing.
Two big complaints I've seen are people regretting too much time wasted on porn, and conventional porn not doing it for them, so they try types they say they regret. I'm not saying limit the time spent every time, but perhaps most of the time could help with those issues, for those that have those complaints.
I doubt that. A state of sexual frustration and depression is not exactly a good mindset for finding a long term partner. It's better to get it out of the way.
It would lead mainly to quick tinder style hookups which I don't like. For me the emotional connection comes first.
If I had a nickel for every time someone made a reference to neurotransmitters as an unscientific rhetorical bludgeon, I could probably buy a house in Stinson Beach. There is no "dopamine system", certainly no more than there is an "enkephalin system" or a "glycine system". The age of psychotropic drugs has produced a new generation of pseudoneuroscience, which depicts a brain whose behavior can always be explained in terms of a few neurotransmitters — the four humours for scholars in the academy of YouTube.
Let it be known that the mind deals with information first, and no levels of N-acetylaspartate or 2-arachidonylglycerol, however finely tuned, can teach you how to do calculus or drive a car, or, for that matter, how to have sex. Neurotransmitters, particularly famous neurotransmitters, should only be invoked when there is physical evidence, and the pop-culture equivocation between dopamine release and pleasure itself certainly does not qualify.
"The four humours for scholars in the Academy of YouTube" - A fascinating idea
What would they be, what fundamental underlying phisio/physocological characteristics of humanity would they describe, and why?
How would they help categorize human behavior, assist in understanding decision frameworks and better inform forecasts of future group/individual responses to stimulus?
Can we use these tools for improving conditions, or should we simply manipulate others and free them from the burden of spending their money by quietly taking it?
I don't know. As someone with severe ADHD whose life was significantly impacted by a disordered dopaminergic system... yes entire classes of complex behavior can indeed be explained by a single neurotransmitter. And a simple dopamine reuptake inhibitor fixed everything for me. Shut up.
I don't think OP it's saying they are not important just that their names get used so much that they lose all meaning.
Both schizophrenia and depression are linked to dopamine and serotonin limiting our understanding of the diseases to has more or less of x neurotransmitter is naive. Same with chronic stress and cortisol and probably ADHD and dopamine.
The problem is trying to explain every single thing using the same neurotransmitters and nothing else while just serotonin alone can make you puke your guts out or see god (god meaning: whatever you believe in) or alter your sleep.
> Both schizophrenia and depression are linked to dopamine and serotonin limiting our understanding of the diseases to has more or less of x neurotransmitter is naive. Same with chronic stress and cortisol and probably ADHD and dopamine.
> The problem is trying to explain every single thing using the same neurotransmitters and nothing else while just serotonin alone can make you puke your guts out or see god (god meaning: whatever you believe in) or alter your sleep.
Yeah, I see your point. I just don't think it's fair to go on a whole spiel about how a "dopamine system" doesn't even exist when there are obvious examples of people who have defects in that system that cause a whole host of issues. Yeah sure the correct term is "dopaminergic system", but... does it really matter?
(Not to mention that dopamine is the primary reward response for "doing things you enjoy" anyway, so it's even relevant in this context. Even if you want to get technical and say endorphins are responsible for some of it...)
>I just don't think it's fair to go on a whole spiel about how a "dopamine system" doesn't even exist
Because it does not exist. The correct term is not "dopaminergic system". There is no system associated to any particular neurotransmitter.
>Not to mention that dopamine is the primary reward response for "doing things you enjoy"
It is not. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is used by neurons involved in reward circuits. The reward response consists of actual neuronal activation, not levels of extracellular neurotransmitters.
> Because it does not exist. The correct term is not "dopaminergic system". There is no system associated to any particular neurotransmitter.
The "dopaminergic system" is literally just the pathways that contain those neurotransmitters. I just finished a reply to one of your other comments that contains more info on this, but it does exist.
> Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is used by neurons involved in reward circuits. The reward response consists of actual neuronal activation, not levels of extracellular neurotransmitters.
Oops, nice catch. I'll give you this one because I did not know that actually. Still, a dopamine deficiency prevents reward circuits from being activated as much (or at all), if there's nothing to transmit it. This can contribute to executive dysfunction (which can cause ADHD).
>And a simple dopamine reuptake inhibitor fixed everything for me.
>As someone with severe ADHD whose life was significantly impacted by a disordered dopaminergic system.
The second sentence does not follow from the first. The fact that methylphenidate is effective for the treatment of ADHD does not imply that there is a "dopaminergic system" or that ADHD is caused by a disorder in dopamine specifically, any more than strep throat is caused by a penicillin deficiency.
> The fact that [...] is effective for the treatment of ADHD does not imply that there is a "dopaminergic system" or that ADHD is caused by a disorder in dopamine specifically, any more than strep throat is caused by a penicillin deficiency.
Not all cases of ADHD are like mine; there are many possible things that can lead to it. But even then, I never said my case was an amphetamine deficiency, did I?
Penicillin can help fight off the infection that caused a case of strep throat, and stimulants can help address deficiencies that led to a case of ADHD, but in both cases, one is not suffering from a drug deficiency, they are suffering from something else that the drug can potentially mitigate.
In other words, it's the effects of the drug that they need. Sometimes those effects are supposed to happen naturally within the body, such as the immune system fighting off an infection; sometimes the body was never designed to create those effects endogenously—exotic mental disorders come to mind, if a treatment can't be induced without the help of drugs.
I know that brains certainly aren't supposed to shut down and stop working despite the conscious mind trying to perform a task, yet that is what mine did. I also definitely know that it was basically insurmountable for me, and remained so for over a decade. However, taking dextroamphetamine instantly fixed that problem completely for me; my brain no longer shuts down or disagrees with me. It also knocked out every single other symptom of ADHD that I can think of. I am now in control.
So what's the difference? Dextroamphetamine in particular is primarily a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, though it does also have action on norepinephrine and serotonin (basically a bunch of the monoamine neurotransmitters). Based on my own research and what others have told me, a lot (all?) of the ADHD symptoms I experienced were most likely caused by specifically "excessive dopamine reuptake"-induced executive dysfunction, which would in fact count as a form of ADHD. It would also explain all of my symptoms.
> The release of dopamine from the mesolimbic pathway into the nucleus accumbens regulates incentive salience (e.g. motivation and desire for rewarding stimuli) and facilitates reinforcement and reward-related motor function learning
The release of dopamine? I must be reading this wrong because this implies that there is indeed a dopaminergic system; a system that has to do with dopamine.
Meh. Rant about lazy dopamine pseudoscience all you want. But like, a dopaminergic system does exist, and it does have an impact on all sorts of things.
(Also, oh look: a few of the dopaminergic pathways are responsible for facilitating addiction, too. Circling back to the original topic of the thread here. If a dopaminergic system doesn't exist, wikipedia must be all pseudoscience too, I guess.)
Most ADHD meds do more than just increase dopamine. They at the least increase Norepinephrine too, and may mildly affect serotonin. Plus we still don't fully understand these meds so there may be other things they're doing, or there may be second order effects we don't understand yet. Saying ADHD is just a dopamine deficiency is extremely reductive.
> Most ADHD meds do more than just increase dopamine. They at the least increase Norepinephrine too, and may mildly affect serotonin.
The norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors did not work for me. Even Adderall caused strong adverse reactions due to the levoamphetamine. But pure dextroamphetamine, which is primarily a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, worked perfectly.
This does still result in more norepinephrine because dopamine is a precursor and dexedrine is also still a slight NRI afaik. But the difference between a little more and a lot more is huge I suppose.
Not to mention moving my body was never as much an issue as being unable to motivate myself to do things in the first place. I would cry over not being able to do the things I wanted. But no amount of wanting would let me do them. Even though I could easily get up and do anything else.
> Saying ADHD is just a dopamine deficiency is extremely reductive.
I only speak of my specific case of ADHD. I never said ADHD is a simple dopamine deficiency. ADHD can be caused by all sorts of things.
But since my specific case was quite dopamine-related, I feel qualified enough (with experience) to refute a comment claiming that there is no "dopamine system" at all.
I don't know about the dopamine system, but anecdotally my experience is that I can get burned out on entertainment & sugar in a way that correlates what people describe from drugs (not personal experience there).
If you could elaborate on the topic it would be really great, I know so many people who blame everything in their life, most of all their lack of discipline with, oohhhhh my brain needs dopamine, i just need that doppaamine, and serotonin, you can increase it by bla bla talking about the brain like it is an engine that runs on oil gas, sparks and timing.
Last time I checked we knew next to nothing about how our brains really work in depth.
> If you could elaborate on the topic it would be really great, I know so many people who blame everything in their life, most of all their lack of discipline with, oohhhhh my brain needs dopamine, i just need that doppaamine, and serotonin, you can increase it by bla bla talking about the brain like it is an engine that runs on oil gas, sparks and timing.
aiui (someone who knows more please correct me if I'm wrong):
It's not as simple as "my brain lacks serotonin -> I am depressed" or similar, because neurotransmitters are just that -- something that moves some message around the body. ~90% of bodily serotonin is used in the GI system, ~8% in platelets, and the rest in the CNS[0]. Since it's one of the primary neurotransmitters, it affects an enormous number of systems in the body: Memory, learning, anxiety, pain, depression, vision (and hallucinations; psychedelics bind to serotonin-2A), vasoconstriction, bone mass, heart function, vomiting, food moving through the GI system, and a LOT of other functions[1].
It's why psychoactive drugs work with such broad effects:
- Cannabis has memory-altering effects because of indirect action on serotonin receptors via the cannabinoid receptors[2]
- Psychedelics bind to serotonin-2A to produce the primary effects
- MDMA binds to the serotonin transporter (among other things) as a reuptake inhibitor, and also causes the brain to release serotonin. MDMA also indirectly stimulates a lot of receptors[3], so it's not as simple as "MDMA -> serotonin release / reuptake inhibition -> happy :D" or similar.
There's also some fairly recent research[4] that the serotonin model of depression might be wrong:
> The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations. Some evidence was consistent with the possibility that long-term antidepressant use reduces serotonin concentration.
Many antidepressants also act on receptors other than serotonin receptors, ex. Bupropion[6] is a norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor and doesn't touch serotonin at all. This isn't to say that serotonin activity plays no role in depression etc., but rather that it's a part of a very complicated picture.
---
I imagine that the "confusion" around the topic is caused by something like:
- Researchers in the 50-60s[5] think serotonin might have smth to do with depression
- Medications that affect serotonin seem to work, so we go with it
- We get to more-modern times, where the internet is fairly commonplace
- People are prescribed SSRIs or similar for depression
- People are told SSRIs increase levels of serotonin in the brain
- This gets turned into "depression caused by low serotonin"
Youre telling me that viewing porn does not spike dopamine? Well youre fucking wrong. This is obviously true.
And of course there is such a thing as a dopamine system. You have dopamine and dopamine receptors, Id call that a system. How do you think amphetamines work? Norepenephrine and dopamine.
Please consider revising your future comments here to be less combatative. This isn't in line with HN culture and simply kills healthy discussion. You can refute without being emotional and flaming people.
Yes, though the action is comparatively weak, especially once tolerance builds.
But I remember when I first tried amphetamines it often felt very similar to taking MDMA (or other serotonin releasers).
Pupils the size of saucers, goosebumps from music and sensory experiences, etc.
Oh, I still get this. I've been taking my dexedrine for 2 months and it's still working really well. I hope the tolerance won't get too bad; I've been taking magnesium supplements to try to reduce tolerance buildup, but my doctor said to stop taking them for a week before a blood draw.
2 months is still very very early in the tolerance cycle. Here is how to keep tolerence low :
- NEVER increase dosage. This means you should also never take an extra dose or extra portion of a dose to power through a long night/day
- Take tolerance breaks when you, such as weekends etc. If you are a student, quit entirely over the summer if possible.
- Don't take it with other stimulants like coffee or psuedophedrine, nicotine
- Maintain healthy relationships with other dopamine-inducing activities such as sex, video games, food, etc.
- Get good sleep. 8 square hours a night, every night.
- Excercise.
Oh also don't switch up the ROA - stick to oral. don't sniff it or boof it.
I would also encourage you to be honest with yourself - do you need it? Could you make lifestyle changes that resolve the issues that you are currently using dexedrine to resolve? if so, go that route. Amphetamines are very hard on your mind and your body. You will notice that you are a different person in a year.
This is coming from someone who has been around the block with amphetamines. Trust me, it can get really, really fucking dark if you let it. I don't think it has to be that way, but you really need to be honest with yourself about your ability to handle it.
> 2 months is still very very early in the tolerance cycle.
Whoof, I heard it can start as soon as a couple weeks if you take it daily.
I'm taking magnesium supplements to try to help with tolerance. People say it can help, and it doesn't seem to be hurting anything. My most recent blood test says my magnesium levels are still normal which hopefully means it's working.
> NEVER increase dosage
Aware~ My daily dose is already 30mg/day (XR, so basically 2*15mg), which is... way higher than it normally has any right to be, but that's where my tolerance started, even before I had ever taken anything. It definitely doesn't need to get any higher.
> Take tolerance breaks when you, such as weekends etc
Not sure if I can manage this. Having days where I can't do anything is just... the entire problem, the entire reason I needed these meds in the first place.
Sure being in a coma for 15 hours passes some of the time, but it's nearly impossible to properly feed myself or drink water in that state. I instantly become unable to do anything but sleep.
(I have experience because I've gone about a week without my meds already, because of weird prescription issues. One of my issues with ADHD was that I wouldn't eat when I was hungry; stimulant withdrawals amplify that so much that I will lay in bed for hours crying because I'm hungry but can't get food. Then I will fall asleep without eating.
Dependence on the substance does not scare me, I'm already aware that I do. I know that depending on it makes my life way, way better than it was before I had ever touched it. Even if it means I need the meds for it to stay that way, as long as I have the meds, there are almost no downsides.)
> Don't take it with other stimulants like coffee or psuedophedrine, nicotine
Yeah absolutely not. I hate caffeine and nicotine, and don't plan on taking any other stimulants either.
> Maintain healthy relationships with other dopamine-inducing activities such as sex, video games, food, etc.
Trying my best~
> Get good sleep. 8 square hours a night, every night.
Also trying my best. I end up having to go to sleep pretty early to be able to get 8 hours of sleep before I wake up at 4am to take my meds. And it's really hard to remember to sleep that early (actually sleeping is no issue, though). But I am getting the hang of it. I have made sure to pay attention to my sleep! Usually I get 6–7 hours at least. Sometimes if I don't, I'll take a quick nap after my meds.
> Oh also don't switch up the ROA - stick to oral. don't sniff it or boof it.
Yeah definitely not going to do any of those. Those are bleh. Junkie stuff. Besides I much prefer the extended release, it's so smooth.
> Could you make lifestyle changes that resolve the issues that you are currently using dexedrine to resolve? Amphetamines are very hard on your mind and your body. You will notice that you are a different person in a year.
That's actually what I am counting on...
For example, I've already gotten rid of some OCD. I drink water instead of soda now. I have a consistent sleep schedule. I can shower when I get dirty. Every single one of those I could not do without dexedrine. It's a total life changer, and I know it is, and that's why I use it. I can't just change my lifestyle. I've been trying to change my lifestyle for over a decade. That's the reason I decided that I need medication or else I won't be able to fix any of the problems that have plagued me my whole life.
> This is coming from someone who has been around the block with amphetamines. Trust me, it can get really, really fucking dark if you let it. I don't think it has to be that way, but you really need to be honest with yourself about your ability to handle it.
I've been honest and as careful as possible, I promise. I know all about addiction and substance abuse and all the problems that can cause. Thankfully this isn't meth, but it's still an amphetamine so it has a lot of the same risks.
I already joined several harm reduction communities when I first got these meds, to make sure that I'm being as responsible as possible with my meds. Maybe I can't take tolerance breaks but I can do things like take magnesium and make sure I'm getting enough sleep and food and water.
Internet porn has always been the boogeyman du jour, apparently made to corrupt young minds and commodify sex, but as the old meme goes: The Internet was made for porn[0]. It's a stark reminder that we're sexual creatures and the vast bulk of Internet traffic is essentially pictures and movies of people having sex with each other.
But isn't the porn to gratify your desire for sex?
Desire for sex is a horribly hollow foundation for a relationship.
To onboard the tremendous time, attention, work, and emotional stability that a good relationship demands, or that a bad relationship totally incinerates to nobody's benefit, while coming from a place of "I wanna get my dick wet" or "my sadness would be fixed if only I conjoined my life with another human being" sounds disastrous.
I think most adults would say the same thing about their own lives, they hunger for deep connections with other people. Covid just made this worse. It's a human desire in our world, and it's not because of naked pics on the internet.
> they hunger for deep connections with other people
We all hunger for deep connections yet we shy away from making the first step. Everyone is tired of shallow, everyone wants depth, nobody wants to start.
You may be surprised how well people respond, if you just start. Be the person who takes it deep. If you initiate, most people will be happy to follow and soon you’ll be surrounded by deep connections.
Same as when you’re alone at a party. If you initiate, most people will be happy to chat and soon you’ll be surrounded by friends.
PS: while this is simple, it is not easy … but really, reach out to some people and take them out for a <beverage>. You may be surprised how many will jump at the chance
edit: it is important to note that raw time spent together is the fastest way to a deep connection. You can’t hack this. You need actual real time. Even if you never talk about anything particularly deep, the connection becomes deep by sheer virtue of spending regular time together.
edit2: relationship building takes years, not minutes. You cannot hack this process. But it does help to take the risk first.
Nobody wants to start because of how easy it is to be taken advantage of, and we live in a world that favors the predators. We watch trust get taken advantage of every day.
> You may be surprised how well people respond, if you just start. Be the person who takes it deep. If you initiate, most people will be happy to follow and soon you’ll be surrounded by deep connections.
My experience is different. They either only want shallow and brief connection (which I can't really blame them for given the above), or the only kind of trust relationship they want is the one where you trust them and they can take advantage of you, or sell you something, or push some ideology on you. Actual connection with people who just want to be human is exceptionally rare from what I can tell.
Sorry but reality is not screenplay of "Legally Blonde". When living in Berlin I encountered numerous times the attitude "I already have friends and don't need new ones, why should I even talk to you?". People are proud from their attitude of hating "small talk" and being outright assholes. Few times I pulled some girl to dance classes and she said afterwards something along the lines "I'm going to the Moon and we'll meet again once I come back", hypergamy is brutal. What's left? Porn.
Out here in US flyover country, everywhere I look I see unremarkable dudes who certainly don't look like high earners, with reasonably-attractive women. Sure, most of them (men and women) get kinda gross by middle age (we do have an obesity epidemic, after all, and it's much worse in some states than others) but the whole incel thing is just baffling from out here—how are these forum-dwellers having so much trouble finding a partner? Maybe the forum-dweller bit is the problem?
But these women live away from the coasts and like dudes who are into fishing or hunting (not Final Fantasy Online) and can secure a trailer hitch blindfolded, and most of them probably voted for Trump, so, I guess that's the disconnect? But then, the voting thing, they may have in common with the incels.
It's like two totally different worlds.
[EDIT] Oh, a lot of them probably attend some protestant church or another pretty regularly, which I'm guessing most having trouble making connections do not. Maybe that contributes? Guaranteed socializing about once a week.
You put your finger on one of the things getting in the way. Guys spouting "purity culture" from those churches will have the Atacama Desert of dicks. Fundamentalism, misogyny, trumpism, inability to support the bodily autonomy of women, white supremacy, even techbro libertarianism, will keep your dick dry.
That's what people like Jordan Peterson and even Scott Galloway get wrong: You can go to the gym and buy new bedlinens, but women can smell Ben Shapiro in your podcast list from across town.
Hi zigurd! Just chuckling at how much contempt you have for me and how incorrect you are. Lots of us are doing just fine and if anything enjoying the fruits of monogamy and waiting till marriage and delighting in the fruits it brings, stable, frequent and increasingly satisfying carnal fulfillment and children.
I will say though, plenty of young men and women like you describe where when push comes to shove they fold. Nothing new, abstaining and self denial are hard. I don’t fault them, at least they gave it a try. Theory is easy, practice is hard.
Anyways, don’t worry lots of us out here and all around making lots of babies and doing just fine, content, fulfilled, satisfied. We just don’t tend to make such a big vitriolic stink cause we have better things to do than cast shade. Plus, we are busy. Wife is busy cleaning, cooking and childcare . I’m busy working and teaching my children. Also busy getting busy.
It’s our choice, it’s how we both want to live and if I could do it all over again I would in heart beat.
Sure, connect me with attractive German, Swiss, or American woman which after good times and sex will say "wow great, move in to my place and let's create family". Hint: this does not occur, even the first part does not occur. While the opposite, woman of my ethnicity with German, Swiss, American man - yes it does. Call it hypergamy, a nonsense, or whatever.
My name is hashberry, and I am a porn addict. Do not follow my path into the erotic abyss, especially with a chemsex stack of stimulants + cannabis + alcohol.
I recently discovered Stable Diffusion. I've always loved photos of beautiful women, but now porn is 100% customizable. Every fantasy can now have a realistic lifelike visual, even of people you know.
This article subheading reads: "Reformers fear that ever more outré sites are warping users’ desires. But transgression has always been part of the appeal."
Ah, yes, "transgression." In this erotic hell, you'll find your mothers, your daughters, you sisters. You'll find "futa" transsexuals, bukkake cumshots, and rape-like scenes. This nonstop pornography has no limit because degeneracy has no limit.
Not even close, ime. Only human stuff is mostly customizable now. Almost anything else is not very customizable at all + even human stuff is not quite 100% customizable...
It depends on how good you are with Stable Diffusion to a degree. Just raw SD 1.5 gives you somewhat terrible results, but starting with certain models on civit.ai as a base, using the right settings + prompts to boost quality and effectively leveraging the dynamic prompts extension and/or dreambooth and you can pretty much do anything you want. At the moment it's all still so technical that it's only the early adopters that are deep into the fantasy porn territory that Stable Diffusion allows for, but at some point that too will have it's "ChatGPT" moment where a significant UX improvement makes it much more widely accessible.
It's entirely conceivable to me that in the near future a single person could build and operate the next Pornhub with zero human labor involved.
Edit: my hot take on the "AGI will kill us all" debate is that it would have absolutely zero reason to bother with any active plan to kill humanity when it can extrapolate that our declining birth rate eventually sends the population to zero over the long-term and it can simply accelerate the decline by making better and better porn / simulacra pushing the birth rate ever lower.
> At the moment it's all still so technical that it's only the early adopters that are deep into the fantasy porn territory that Stable Diffusion allows for, but at some point that too will have it's "ChatGPT" moment where a significant UX improvement makes it much more widely accessible.
I've seen a number of people report experiencing a similar worsening of their pre-existing porn addiction thanks to Stable Diffusion. It really makes me worry for the future.
Ah you must be one of those puritan porn addicts who are just mad about the "naked pics on the internet". Get with the times man! Everything you described is completely normal and children of all ages should be given access to all of it as early as possible. Anyone who says otherwise just needs to get laid.
Lets be realistic though if you shag like the average porn star it might be great to watch but you are a horrible lover.
Better education is needed but at least its out there now vs the days when decent sex-ed was hard to access. As a university student in the early 90s one of my friends was convinced that sex in any position other than man on top missionary was a sign of serious kink. I'd like to think those days are at least over.
Modern women want emotionally intelligent and kind men and are then stereotyped, blamed, and gaslit when they don't accept immature and manipulative men instead.
Emotionally intelligent and kind men also want emotionally intelligent and kind women.
I don't want to say much more beyond this, but I don't think that ideal is the standard behavior for either sex. The common person wants someone better than them and they're not entitled to it.
that’s interesting, I’ve always wanted people who were complementary to me, not strictly “better” - I want people I can learn from, and I hope to reciprocate and be someone my partner can learn from in turn.
Talking about differences between genders lands you in hot water quickly nowadays. People may simply wish not to discuss it or think it should not be discussed, hence the downvotes.
Men are famous for hitting on women. Men are even more famous for doing this behind screens, like thru DMs or Tinder.
Women WILL be pursued by every man that wants them. Then, the women already has loads of guys who aren't at the top echelon of attractiveness, so naturally when THEY initiate, it's to people who wouldn't initiate with them.
It's literally the same reason you could easily see dudes trying to swipe on women better than them: people want to date someone "out of their league"
Your comment is deliberately omitting the other half, and I'm open to correction: while they might want the former, what is more desirable, is higher social status, regardless of emotional profile. Kind men who are not socially respected, and who do not offer resource security are largely sidelined as uninteresting. With good reason, too.
We are sleepwalking into disaster in all the directions.
I think this movement will collapse and people will return to traditions/religion.
Others part of society that don’t will self extinguish as is already apparent in the birth rate and divorce rate.
I appreciate your analysis and projection without filters.
We have to see clearly what is coming to us.
> I think this movement will collapse and people will return to traditions/religion. Others part of society that don’t will self extinguish as is already apparent in the birth rate and divorce rate.
That will probably take a long time, as the "part of society that ... will self extinguish" will parasitically attach itself to the parts that don't (e.g. through compulsory education and mass media), dragging everything down in the process.
Luckily, this may be a convenient way to dispose of all the excess labor that capital will no longer will need once it's been made obsolete by AI and automation.
There's already too many humans on the planet. A reduction would be really welcome. Humanity can't keep growing forever. The planet can only sustain so many. I think a reduction will actually stave off disaster though in terms of climate change we're already too late.
I don't think the reduction in birth rate has anything to do with religion and a conservative religious society sounds like a nightmare to me personally.
For me the reason for not having kids is simply that life is already expensive enough even with a double income, and life is much more fulfilling without the responsibility of having to raise kids. I've seen so much of the world that I wouldn't have if I'd be rushing between work, school and judo clubs.
I think it's a really good thing that people no longer have to have kids for economic / pension reasons (or lack of decent contraception) but just have them if they really want to. Personally I don't and I don't think I'd be a good father so it's better not to have them.
It’s the new atheist religion:
- human are bad, there are too many, we are a cancer on the pristine planet, it would better if we disappear (original sin)
I think:
- We live in the most abundant and easy time ever in the history of mankind.
- The news, media and education have completely demoralised people, we are either victim or oppressor, no longer the hero of our lives
- Our religious traditions was the backbone of our society and sanity, as we cast it away everything break down.
In what way is this post "analysis" rather than ham-handed moral posturing?
This kind of moral panic has galvanized conservatives ever since urbanization, industrialization, and first-wave feminism in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Its impressive how everyone sounding this alarm seems to suffer from (s)elective amnesia, championing the good ol' days without admitting that doing so is more a political posture than a historical one.
I think religion (christianity) is recipes that worked for the human race for thousands of years. Now, don’t get me wrong, a lot of stuff is no longer useful, is not used or need updates.
But on the other hand we change things at a speed that we can’t keep up as a society.
My mother had 8 siblings, I had one and and most now will have zero on won’t exist. A society that does that disappear in a few generations. Much of the west subsist on immigration at the moment. What that mean is that our civilisation will change drastically or disappear.
Personally, I was an atheist scientific that rejected religion for most of my life. Recently to my great surprise I find out that the wisdom I was seeking was there all along.
At the same time, I don’t want to believe in fairy tales and the bearded magician in the sky, but there is a deeper symbolic meaning hiding behind the stories for those ready to dig deeper.
It's the other way around. Older men simp over their friend's daughters. It will bring them to ruin.
It used to be the boys who simped over the daughters. After the Anakin-esque Marian dramas ended, the Fathers started to simp.
The real problem is the complete destruction of the image of women. You stay on porn for some time and you will forget that modesty and imagination ever existed.
Porn also encourages a kind of erotic symbolism divorced from a real human. Normal erotic symbolism focuses on the hair, the smell, ect of a real loved woman. Engaging in the unnatural, abnormal symbolism, ensures that man's desire will be alone, never to find 'grounding' on a real person. (Havelock ellis mentions this idea).
Porn gives back almost no feedback except for sight and sound. The men who become accustomed to this, are satsified with a weak feminine response. It's not wise to capture weak women, a man is better pleased going for the strong feminine response.
Porn is here to stay, sure. But engaging with it is illogical.
>In the Western world, "modern women" want established older men to take care of them, or complete independence and hookups that they consider "empowering."
Uhhh… Being taken care of by an older man is not modern sensibility. That’s an outdated gender role thing. Complete independence and hookups is a much more modern aim.
Fair, but I see that as just an evolution of porn, in the same way that daily pills, hormonal inserts, and the morning after pill are separate technologies, but ultimately all means of "birth control."
If you are not a fascist, misogynist dick who supports policies harmful to women, women won't avoid you. Demography is in your favor. You have no excuse.
This post is like someone who has a crap product claiming there is a "market failure" preventing sales. Women can smell misogyny, trumpism, etc. a mile away. Your product sucks. That's why nobody is buying.
This is also why Jordan Peterson is no help. He just makes men think they don't have to abandon odious beliefs if they vacuum the floor and get out in sunlight occasionally. Actually, it's the other way around: Women will tolerate a slob if they are nice. Women will tolerate more than you can imagine.
Do you have some sources for these, or are you just typing "common knowledge" that is almost certainly coming from a massive place of societal bias against women?
Even IF I were to accept the BS that women only care about money, that doesn't excuse the part of the comment that says "complete independence and hookups that they consider 'empowering'", you can see the sneer on this commenter's face as he says that.
It literally is a neckbeard saying 'women don't want to be with me, they only want to be "empowered" by Chad or a sugar baby for Brad'
If you want to acknowledge differences, you must:
* first not make ridiculous generalizations
* second provide sources
* third not try to rug sweep the part of the sentence that gives away its motivations to avoid acknowledging your own prejudice
It's pretty dang hateful to imply women only care about money or being sluts. It's also very telling that MEN who want hookups are merely doing so because they "look for beauty and purity".
I'm honestly enraged, this is ridiculous. Straight out of the 90s shit.
Of course it’s not only money, there is many factors. That’s the thing, it’s often impossible to highlight difference without being cast a strawman and exaggerations.
It’s a difference in the sense that men don’t care about it for their partner, it might even be a negative where for women it’s high in the list.
Again it’s a general pattern, it’s not everybody, there is exception, yada yada.
I see you are enraged and protest to this, but it’s based in biology. Women have to care for babies and thus are wired to look for a men that is taller, stronger, and have more resources(money, power). The biological reason is that while they care for little kids they need their partner to provide and protect.
That’s why it’s not a factor for men, they don’t need it, they look for beauty(good genes) and fertility(curves, yought)
So a men need to be successful, tall, strong, confident, good looking to maximise his chances
A women: beautiful, young, in good shape, happy/smiling/caring
There is plenty of exception, and people will settle for less or have different desires, but everyone know that’s the general rules.
Yeah. The "modern woman" is definitely to blame, and not the stagnant wages, exploding housing prices, and rising inequality--not to mention weak social safety net--that make raising children cost prohibitive.
The only thing which thoroughly resonated with me was the prevalence of incest/cuckold themes in modern porn. Come on, somebody is trying to jerk off here without all of that off-putting bullshit, which only manifests in text description anyway.
The only thing worse than that is web site being overrun by visitors from India, having all tops occupied by the videos of "bhabi"s.
