Monday, May 21, 2018

Better prude than rude

++Addition++Heartiste reacts in detail.

---

The Derb on how the kids don't rut like they used to:
The general decline of interest in sexual intercourse must also be playing in to these numbers somehow. I have often reflected on how odd it has been, across my own lifetime, to see the general decline in libido all over the Western world. Fifty years ago — I was there, listener, I was there — when not one citizen in a hundred had a gym membership, and halitosis and body odor were common, and the male-female imbalance in workplaces, clubs, sports, schools was way more marked than it is today, making it harder to get to know the opposite sex; back in those benighted days, with all those disadvantages and deterrents, the people of the West were going at it like rabbits.

The young adults of today, contrariwise, with their buff bodies, perfect dentition, and daily showers, with sex segregation actually outlawed almost everywhere — heck, we even have women on submarines today — they can't be bothered. From a report in Maxim magazine last July, based on a different set of numbers from the CDC, quote:

"Between the ages of 15 and 19, 42 percent of women and 44 percent of men reported having sex, relative to … 51 percent of women and 60 percent of men in 1988."
The following graph is sourced from a Reuters-Ipsos poll asking women if they consider unwanted compliments about appearance to be sexual harassment. The results, by age ("don't know" responses are excluded, N = 1,958):


A consequence of this change in mores is a society heading in the direction of removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

For obvious biological reasons, women are the more restrictive sex. Men request access, women grant it. What is deemed "unwanted" is entirely up to the subjective judgment of the woman in question. It's tough for men to gauge whether or not the compliment is wanted or unwanted until after it is made.

This makes apprehension manifesting as approach anxiety relevant again for men. Exploding Muhammads excepted, today it's relevant not because the woman's brother or father might put a shiv in your ribs for approaching, as was the case earlier in human history. It's relevant instead because the woman who is approached may decide not only is the one who approached her beneath her attention, but he should suffer for thinking she'd have anything to do with him.

For alphas, this isn't that big of a deal, though it carries risks even for them. For lesser betas and omegas, however, it's ruinous.

Who is at the head of this women's march to sexual market collapse? The following graph shows the percentages of women, by race and presidential vote, who consider unwanted compliments about appearance to be sexual harassment. Sample sizes for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are too small to break out separately so they are combined and presented here as "non-white":


Some of the political disparity is on account of older women tending towards Trump and younger women towards Clinton, but the age gap only explains a part of the large gap between Trumpettes and Hillary's Harpies.

25 comments:

216 said...

I will take the contrarian position that this Neo-Victorian prudery is a good thing. The failure is not one of ends, it is one of means. That non-whites take greater offense at physical appearance comments is also good, nothing lowers TFR like feminism and neoliberal economics.

Even better if more men uphold the Billy Graham/Mike Pence rule. That is a catch-22 for feminists. Trump gets a Larry Auster "unprincipled exception" in regards to my preference of "Manners Maketh Man".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=HWYLFizhjHs
(Honestly not a great film)

Arranged marriages coming back in vogue?

IHTG said...

with sex segregation actually outlawed almost everywhere — heck, we even have women on submarines today — they can't be bothered.

Familiarity breeds contempt?

Anonymous said...

I am from North India. I have been living here in Portland since 2016. I am in a relationship with a Caucasian woman of German descent. She is 26 and I am 25. I don't think Americans have less sex. Me and my woman met last year and we are expecting a baby boy now.

Jig Bohnson said...

I'm not sure about that age chart there having much meaning.

Probably as women get older they are happy to have a compliment about their appearance, or at least any potential offense is tempered by the thought that they are still worth complementing.

Also the nature of compliments to women varies by age. A 60 year old will get a lot of innocuous "That is a stunning dress" and "Those are lovely pearls." A 20 year old will get more of "Deeeeeem check out them teeeiittiees!"

Kentucky Headhunter said...

It's relevant instead because the woman who is approached may decide not only is the one who approached her beneath her attention, but he should suffer for thinking she'd have anything to do with him.

If you want to know who controls you ...

Anonymous said...

Wow, Folks do you see what this guy from North India is saying here.

Tashkent Lutsow said...

Wow, Folks do you see what this guy from North India is saying here.

Anecdotes trump data?

Derby said:

The young adults of today, contrariwise, with their buff bodies, perfect dentition(...)

Derb should go out more and spend less time on Instagram.

Chris Lutz said...

Familiarity breeds contempt?

IHTG, I was thinking the same thing. I think there are a host of reasons.

1. Your point. You deal with women all day. You want to deal with them later in more social situations?

2. Prevalence of porn.

3. The loose sexual mores have created a situation where it's the Alphas getting the girls and the rest are stuck on the sidelines.

4. Toxic feminism which makes interacting with women in social situations legally dangerous.

Sexualizing everything has killed sex.

Lance E said...

What is he even talking about? Obesity and mental illness were nowhere near as rampant 50 years ago as they are today, and that's to say nothing of all the self-mutilation (blue hair, tattoos, and so on). Men may be more soyified than ever, but women are more unattractive than ever. What self-respecting dude is going to go out on a limb for some pussyhat-wearing fatty with a nose ring?

Frickin' Boomers and their narcissism. They never shut up about how great their generation was/is, in their oh-so-humble opinion.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Right on cue, non-white fertility rates are falling the fastest.

IHTG,

It has to make friend-zoning more common, which is a sort of passive-aggressive F-to-M contempt.

The male contempt could come from exposure, too--the idea of women tends to be better than most actual women turn out to be.

Anon,

Here's to currying your halfling's favor.

Jig,

Yeah, good point. How realistic are 40 yo women about their appeal? I don't know. But 70 yo women are probably grounded.

Tashkent Fellow/Lance E,

Yeah, very roughly I'd guess that about the top 20% of the population today is fitter and stronger than the top 20% of the population a couple of generations ago. The bottom 80%, otoh, are flabbier and weaker and more feminine (men) and more masculine (women) today than the bottom 80% were 50 years ago.

Chris,

Sexualizing everything has killed sex.

Great line.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Probably not a bad idea considering how limited options are for treating STDs these days. We're very close to having untreatable strains of gonorrhea, syphilis, etc. Granted, a lot of that comes from the gay community who thinks that Truvada is the only thing they need to take to protect themselves but nevertheless, we might be entering into more of a prude era. Shame that it seems to go more in the dangerhair catlady direction rather than a traditional wife who wants 3-4 kids but I think the pendulum has been swinging against feminism and cultural change doesn't change on a dime, especially something that is over 50 years old like feminism.

Feryl said...

Advances in medical care mean that people are technically living longer, but better? And are they really more attractive?

The workout-warrior/fad diet trends that all generations bought into in the 70's and 80's (when we simultaneously had prosperity yet for much of the upper middle class it was becoming common to ignore one's duties to the commons, hence the mastubatory/status driven working out and goofy diets) but of course hit Boomers hardest never really went away although they aren't dumb as they used to be.

Vegetarianism peaked in the 80's and 90's with Late Boomers and early Gen X-ers, before everyone told these tools to STFU about tofu burgers (the chattering classes have gone way back into meat since the early 2000's, because after all, meat tastes good).

The Fitness Mutant (hard and jaundiced skin, stringy hair, a lack of body fat, and bizarre proportions) look is nowhere near as common with later Gen X-ers and Millennials as it was (still is?) with Boomers and early Gen X-ers. Working out and dieting to extremes (whether it's weight lifting, cardio, PEDs, low or no fat diets, or whatever) is a risk taking behavior, and as such you just don't see such excess among people born since the mid-70's.

People who were younger and in decent shape looked much better before the 1970's. Fewer fatties and no women denying their body important nutrients found in fatty animal products, and no guys trying to look like Schwarzenegger. The 70's is the decade where so many normies bought into so many obnoxious things, some of which are declining due to Boomers aging out of cultural relevance (thank God for that).

It also looks as if embarrassing status conscious behavior is in remission among most younger than 45 people. That also seems to be the case with older people too, although with some of them you still get resistance to the idea that the striving Olympics are nearing an end (when to the eyes of anyone with a conscience these Olympics reached self-parody by the mid-1980's). 25 years from now, people are not going to be so partisan, so cynical, so superficial, and so quick to make decisions based on convenience and greed, as opposed to making decisions motivated by selfless interest in the common good. Many Boomers adamantly want to go to war for Team Liberal or Team conservative to this day, while younger people sigh and wish that we'd all grow up. We need to get cracking on re-norming modest and responsible values of the type that most people had in the 1930's-1960's (with 1900-1930 showing gradual progress at cleaning up society's act).

Feryl said...

Tats and piercings are an ugly and decadent trend, no doubt. All the same, it's a poser trend because there's minimal effort involved and very little danger. The Boomers who got coked up at Studio 54 looked glamorous and even to some degree clean cut, but what difference does appearance make? The behavior of the Disco era was about as depraved as "civilized" Western man could imagine, outside the context of military and authoritarian atrocities.

As any Gen X-er will tell you, the Boomers always came to play on the appearance side of things, it's the substance where they can be counted on to fall short. And I'm sure conservative Boomers (and Boomer parents of any political stripe) are glad that younger generations aren't going to take a dump on common decency because it's "rebellious" or because "it just feels good, man".

"Probably not a bad idea considering how limited options are for treating STDs these days. We're very close to having untreatable strains of gonorrhea, syphilis, etc. Granted, a lot of that comes from the gay community who thinks that Truvada is the only thing they need to take to protect themselves but nevertheless"

Disease epidemics are a tell-tale sign of a higher striving era, where lots of amoral transients figuratively and literally infect others, with society doing the bare minimum to restrain the bad guys. As we work toward restoring responsible norms, we will incarcerate/quarantine/other wise shame hedonistic assholes who think with their genitals. The gay anger at Reagan era culture is not unwarranted, as it turns out that Silent and Boomer gays sometimes ran (!) public and private health agencies, and squelched research into the AIDS epidemic out of fear that gays would be treated like lepers and/or forced back into the closet that was busted open in the 1970's. As usual, lower class people were the hardest hit by irresponsible elites, and also as usual, the lower status people would've been most receptive to radical measures designed to prevent bad behavior (in a decadent era, it's always the elite professionals and activists who feign outrage at any measure that smacks of prohibiting decadence, such as halting immigration which would reduce urban crowding, disease epidemics, and low wages among workers.)

Days of the Broken Arrows said...

Not only are teens having sex less, but they're getting driver's licenses later. I see a connection. Kids grow up slower these days.

It seems the opposite of the way it was when we were young and we couldn't get the car keys or the backseat fast enough.

The other thing is that older generations might have had more sex because there wasn't that much else to do, comparatively speaking. My teen nephews constantly have their noses in their annoying smart phones and don't seem to see much in the real world. Conversely, we had no smart phones, no portable video games, and no online culture, so our reality was made up of social interaction (imagine that!) the girls we knew, and of course that led to...

Sid said...

In a number of blue cities in North America, especially those in tech, talking up women is honestly more trouble than it's worth. I could repeat what everyone has said here, but why bother? You all know what I'm talking about.

For a lot of guys, the best that happens is that they get laid more frequently. To do so, you need to scour your ego with an acid bath, talking with girls who honestly have few positive qualities but a lot of entitlement, snarkiness, and just plain rude behavior.

At worst, you can be accused of sexual harassment and rape, the definitions of which become blurier every month.

After a certain point, spending your free time playing video games and watching pornography is a whole lot less painful and not all that much more shallow of a way to while away your hours. I think pornography is corrosive to the male mind, and while the occasional video game isn't bad, you're definitely not living up to your potential if you're playing 100 hour long fetch quests. Even so, I can't call either activity all that much better or worse than talking with a feminist woman in hopes of getting a date.

What is to be done? I frequent manosphere and PUA forums and blogs far, far less frequently than I used to, but I don't think I've heard a solid answer.

Game and self-improvement only go so far. Both are essentially zero-sum endeavors on the dating market, though I guess the average guy being able to talk to a girl competently MIGHT make the dating market more egalitarian. I don't know.

One thing we'll need to do from a policy perspective is ensure there aren't so many young male migrants. Europe will be in for a world of hurt by importing so many young guys to gawk at their women.

It's hard to find a good answer. But what I will say is that guys used to not get into MGTOW. Male sexual desire being as intense as it is, guys rarely gave up on getting girls. Nerds would wish that they could get girls or had the moxy to talk to them, but they would not declare the endeavor wasn't worth it.

Wency said...

In my 30s and recently got back into dating. I think a lot of people overstate how obnoxious women are to deal with. Maybe it's that I'm in a conservative place, and the girls here are probably of better stock than on the coasts (though fatter on average, but enough are slim).

Screen out all the single moms and women with visible tats and piercings (here, that's about 50%) and the fatties/super-ugs (another 50% or so), and there's still a huge supply of women with whom a perfectly pleasant evening can be had. Certainly more than I can get around to dating, and I'm not even particularly good looking.

The pleasant ones might not sleep with you on the first date. Fun fact: it's possible to have a good time with a woman even when you're not currently inside her.

I do agree that Derb is off his rocker, as my basic criteria that screen out 75% of women today would have screened out maybe 10% a few decades ago. But if you can treat women like human beings instead of meat for at least the first few minutes, while still acting like a man and not an obsequious incel/soyboy, you'll be vastly more charming than 90% of the men they otherwise meet.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

My guess is it's bad in the short term but might be good in the longer term. This is another illustration of how fornication and procreation are separating. We may not even be all that far away from them being cleaved apart entirely with artificial insemination and embryo selection.

Feryl,

How do you gauge the fading away of the cardio/aerobics/distance running trends towards things like cross fit? Seems like a modest improvement to me. The late 90s/early 2000s might be Peak Aesthetic Revulsion, but I could be wrong.

Days of Broken Arrows,

This clip can't be shared often enough. You're describing the transition towards it.

Sid,

At a broader social level I don't have a comprehensive answer, either. Game is an effective tool, though, and it doesn't have to be used in pursuit of shallow ends. I've worked a lot of what I've picked up from Heartiste into my marriage, and it's as strong as it has ever been with baby #3 on the way.

And NAWALT, while cliched, is not inaccurate. There aren't as many women worth pursuing as there used to be but the competition is weaker than it ever has been, too.

Wency,

Responded to Sid before getting to your comment. I should've just referred to it.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I'm on the older side of the millennial generation and didn't have much issue with women because we still asked girls out face to face. The younger side of the millennial generation tends to do it a lot more through Tinder or online dating. Online dating has a meat market component to it where if you're not exceedingly high value, it's going to be tough to get girls. My younger co-workers, fresh out of college with a good middle class salary struggle and when I suggest they talk to girls IRL, it's like I'm asking them to reinvent the wheel. Many of them just spend their nights and weekends watching soyboy media instead.

The media's schizophrenic portrayal of dating plays a key role. Every man is a rapist but then young girls are encouraged to sleep around, especially with non-white men who on average are more dangerous to young white women than young white men, who they have largely beaten down into meek and submissive bugmen who are only allowed to channel their emotions into what products they consume. It's a tough world out there but the solution is obvious: stop depending on looking at a screen to do everything for you. Many won't so looks like it's going to be Sexual Siberia for them.

Feryl said...

"The late 90s/early 2000s might be Peak Aesthetic Revulsion,"

There are a lot of terrible trends that need to be reversed. White Americans as I recall are shorter than they used to be. The later Silents (the ones who were 1-10 years old when the post-WW2 boom took off) and early Boomers are probably the most physically robust generations to ever exist in this country, since they got to experience the boom of the late 40's-1960's and were too old to be terribly affected by the god awful food and diets that began to take over in the 70's (too much sugar, too many carbs, too little meat and animal products in general, low fat blah blah blah).

As you might imagine, with shorter heights you also got other signs of poor nutrition like dull skin, stringy hair, and weak muscles, ligaments, and bones. To make matters worse, the Western world started becoming hysterical about perceived level of danger in society in the 80's, which has only gotten worse as each successive generation is more sheltered by their parents who'd rather that their kid be parked in front of a screen than go outside.

As usual, a lot of these well-intentioned trends may have had some benefits but overall we are paying the price in the long run for denying ourselves basic and important things that develop us. See also Boomer parents and politicians and prosecutors in the 1980's raising the age of consent and tightening statutory rape laws; whatever it takes to stop your precious kids from growing up. I put this down to status anxiety also; by the 80's Boomers didn't want their daughters being contaminated by "losers", so to help prevent that from happening we started to heavily punish adults for the "crime" of sexual behavior with teens old enough to have a driving permit. WHAAATTTT? Isn't that pedophilia? Uh, no. Before the 80's relationships between "adults" (sometimes 18, 19, 20, etc. years old) and teenagers was much more accepted. But thanks to the Boomers, society (read: lawyers and judges) had to get involved and expand the adjudication of adult-minor relations, because apparently all adults are pigs and teenagers are incapable of getting anything of value from intimacy with adults. Even though once upon a time it was not uncommon for 14,15, 16, 17 yr old girls to meet a slightly older man, fall in love, and eventually marry and have kids with the guy.

Alex Jones talks about society reaching an Idiocracy level stage where people practically don't even wipe their butts anymore, and until we reach some kind of sanity again WRT intimacy and relationships, it's hard to not got frustrated.

BTW, irony is that as we've made easier and easier to pathologize male sexuality (via amorphous standards of consent, supremacy of female feelings, and statutory rape), we've also endangered females. Before the late 60's, women didn't "give out" easily, and when they did give it up it was often to just one or two guys, from whom a marriage and kids and a good salary would be expected. Now plenty of girls either don't give out at all, or they recklessly play around with a series of dudes none of whom are really expected to become the husband. This is a slight change from the Boomers, many of whom chose to "play the field", and when they did marry the marriage was often half-hearted and fleeting. Point being, total sexual abstinence and totat slut-dom (in tandem lately with rising financial insecurity among younger people) are destroying the building blocks of healthy maturity in both guys and gals. The guys are pissed off, the women are prevented from finding Mr. Right at a young age and settling down early so as to really set themselves up for the long haul.

Feryl said...

Silents: Married at a young age, very little social ado about their behavior.

Boomers: Deliberately delayed FF and lots of sex. When they did go into FF, it was often short-lived, and many adult Boomers presided over wrecked homes.

Gen X-ers: Enforced delay of FF (esp, for the later born ones), more sex as teens than Boomers but much less sex as adults than Boomers (perhaps the statutory hysteria can be put down to so many X-ers getting it on in the 80's). X-ers have not had the same opportunity to blow up their families as older generations did, being that they aren't getting married or having kids like older generations did.

Millennials: Heavily enforced delay of FF, not much sex.

Like with most trends, the Boomers got to pick how they wanted "it" (whatever it was), while younger generations came of age with those norms being established, evidently for the foreseeable future. However, Millennials *did* avoid the casual sex that Boomers and Gen X-ers thought was the youthful norm (a norm for your generations, but not for others).

Feryl said...

The "conservatism" of Gen Z could be put down to them coming of age with the violence, disorder, and dramatic dysfunction of the late 60's-1990's being totally irrelevant to them. They can't understand why older generations are so up in arms about so much, and are probably tired of adults being such worriers and school marms.

Boomers, Gen X-ers, and Millennials have a clandestine sentiment about the domestic combat zone of 1967-2000 being a black eye on their past, and are hell bent on protecting Gen Z from anything that *used* to hurt people more frequently. And now that macro aggressions are so rare, we get hysteria about "micro" aggressions. I regret the violence and arguments that were the norm from 1967-2000, but is it really necessary to get that carried away with policing behavioral norms among today's kids? It's one thing to expel kids for bringing knives to school (as was done in the 1990's), it's another to make written words (not even spoken words) a national crisis (cyber bullying). BTW, the GSS's FEAR variably declined dramatically from 1998-2003. As we lost a great deal of concern over genuinely alarming things (like rape and robbery), we became neurotic about more trivial crap.

Maybe Gen Z will get tired of older generations patronizing and coddling them.

216 said...

Feryl,

Gen Z is thought to be more financially responsible versus the debt binging Millenials. At the same time Gen Z has grown up entirely within social media. I don't think Gen Z, other than white males, are in support of free speech absolutism. In its essence, free speech is a liberal value, not a conservative one. The youth want restrictions on free speech to prevent social disorder. To the extent that the free speech restrictions are coming down from the top, they are meeting little resistance from below.


Generations after the Boomers have grown up entirely within feminism, anti-feminist communities have grown almost de novo. Gender equality is written into the constitutions of several Western countries, and our liberal judges consider it part of our "unwritten constitution". At the same time as ever-greater numbers have been shoehorned into university, the power of the campus speech codes have intensified. Corporations adopted this intro their "codes of conduct", and support of "exclusionary politics" is not considered covered under anti-discrimination laws (written by liberals for liberals only).


Sid said...

Wency and AE,

I think you two are right about women in your geographic vicinities. There are a substantial number who are good women in those places.

That said, I can't really the say the same for women in a number of blue cities. Women in a number of East Coast cities aren't bad at all, but in some places the quality of the women is so low and their behavior is crude that there's really not much of a point in bothering. Roosh V's post on Toronto from a few years ago really hits the mark; in my own home city, I would say things there are at least as bad.

Of course, I voted with my feet on a number of occasions.

So to clarify: the USA on the whole still isn't a romantic desert, but there are some places where love goes to die.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Similar experience. I was born in '83 so I think we're about the same age. I have one employee who has worked for me for a couple of years who is 26 now and he regularly asks me for responses to Tinder "conversations" he's carrying on. "Meat market" is a good description.

Feryl,

Anecdotally I hear a decent amount from younger parents about not wanting to helicopter their kids much. For what it's worth--probably not much--that's encouraging. Otoh, as parental age continues to rise, the tendency for helicoptering will, too.

Sid,

Midwestern suburbia is probably the best place in the US as far as female marriage material is concerned. Big cities on the West Coast like San Francisco, LA, and Seattle are probably the worst.

Sid said...

AE,

I can't comment on LA personally . Women are probably well above average in looks, but the stereotype about Angelenos is that they're utterly shallow.

What make San Francisco and Seattle unlivable for single men is that both cities are tech centers, so there are lots of other single guys who are nerds. They lack Game and the women, who are already outnumbered, suck in the attention and come to view men as lamps to turn on and off at whim.

It's easy to say that a real guy can stand out from the competition. Not so fast. Both cities have extreme PC cultures and have the pseudo nice West Coast attitude, so trying to stand out too much will backfire bad. It's a common theme I've read about and have experienced it first hand: being too rough or edgy offends their sensibilities and there's no winning if you want a relationship.

Women in those places reach a point where they stop being sexual. They just want neutered male attention. Of course, they're still keen on slutting it up at whim, but their modus operandi is becoming attention vampires. Think of how lesbian relationships eventually become asexual pairings, and that largely applies here.

I think the trick in those places is to come across as a male feminist who believes in SJW causes, but in truth is devoid of compassion for women and is glacially aloof. Think of how many #MeToo guys are leftwing scumbags and soi-disant allies of women. Bingo.

Of course, some guys do find great girls and have happy relationships in those places, but if Wench figured 25% of women in his area are datable, then I'd have to give my own region a much lower figure. Anyway, glad to have voted with my feet.