The Dating Pool Dropouts - They've got the dream, but not the drive.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account


The Dating Pool Dropouts

Young men today feel they must be six feet tall, make six figures, and have six inches downstairs to get a girlfriend—so many have given up trying.


By Olivia Reingold

September 13, 2023


“Are you religious?”

The question made Jammall squirm. The answer was no, but he could tell his date wanted it to be yes. And after the hour-long drive to get here, to a Caribbean restaurant in Orlando, Florida, he could tell it wasn’t working.

“I think we should just be friends,” the 36-year-old security guard remembers telling the girl he had dinner with last month after they met on Facebook.

That was his first date in three years. He says he once went six months without getting a single match on a dating app, even though he pays $30 in monthly fees between OkCupid, Bumble, and Hinge. If you count high school, when he went to the movies with a classmate, Jammall says he’s been on a total of three dates his entire life.

And now, driving home from his date, it hit him like a ton of bricks: Why do I even do this at all?

He walked into his apartment near Cape Canaveral, greeted the cats, and slumped down on his couch.

“I’m so far out of the loop,” he told me he realized at the time. “Compared to my peers, who have gone out with women, and know how to interact with them, I’m too far gone. I can’t learn that stuff.”

He trails off, then adds: “I’m just not going to try anymore. It’s not worth it.”

Jammall, who asked me to conceal his last name to protect his reputation at work, is one of a growing number of young men who are withdrawing from the dating pool. More than six in ten men aged 18 to 29 are now single, up from about five in ten in 2019, according to data from Pew Research Center. Respondents give a range of reasons for their singlehood, including having “more important priorities,” the fact they “just like being single,” or that they’ve gotten “too old” to keep trying.

But part of it also boils down to this: it’s hard for men to find partners at a moment when women are outpacing them both at school and work. Young women now hold 1.6 million more college degrees than men, and in a growing number of cities, including Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and New York, they make as much as—or more than—their male counterparts. And even if they become mothers, odds are four in ten will become the breadwinners of their households.

“What discourages me so much is that most of the women that I’ve seen on dating sites, they want a man making as much as them and they’re making upwards of like, $100,000,” said Jammall, who tells me he makes $55,000 a year.

“A lot of men are checking out,” he adds. “We’re just tired. We’re just tired of being told that we don’t measure up either physically or financially.”

I found Jammall on the online Reddit community r/TrueUnpopularOpinion, where men often vent about the dating scene. On another subreddit, r/PurplePillDebate, male commenters bemoan that they’re held to the “666 rule,” which mandates they be six feet tall, make six figures, and have six inches—or more—downstairs. (Jammall describes himself as a “straitlaced guy” who is 5-feet-5-inches tall.)

The men I spoke with—ranging from ages 17 to 33 and living in rural New Jersey to Austin, Texas—said they felt overlooked in a competitive dating market, where women often list salary requirements and height preferences on their profiles.

To see if things were as bad as they claimed, I joined two major dating platforms—Tinder and Hinge—and posed as a hip, 30-year-old business owner with a full head of hair and a degree from NYU. A few swipes in, I spotted a busty blonde leaning over in a halter dress with the caption, “Together we could find out if you’re lying about your height.”

Then, a 22-year-old, captured in a selfie at her work cubicle with her cleavage resting on her desk, wrote: “Don’t superlike me if ur ugly I already have a lot going on.”

Another woman, a five-feet-two-inch bombshell named Ashly, warned men: “If you [are] one of those ‘split the check’ or not wealthy. . . NEXT.”

That financial pressure is what screws men over most, said Jess Carbino, the former in-house sociologist for Tinder and Bumble.

“The traditional markers of adulthood like buying a home, completing college, and getting married, are all becoming far harder to achieve,” Carbino said. “Many men perceive themselves to be far less marriageable. And in turn, many women perceive them to be less marriageable, too.”

She says it’s never been easy to be Joe Average on the dating market but things are rougher now that the average man’s salary, which hovers just above $61,000 in the U.S., is hardly enough to afford rent in most major American cities. Yet still, many women hold out for men who make not just as much or more than they do, but are also wildly attractive.

While the sexual revolution freed women from depending on men for income or stability, it also means they can privilege more “frivolous” qualities in a mate, says Rob Henderson, a psychology PhD with a Substack on social mores.

“People used to care a bit more deeply about moral character and hard work, and whether the person was an ethical and upstanding citizen,” he tells me. “And now, you don’t have to worry about that quite as much. And you can sort of focus on things that are just, like, more immediate, like attraction.”

The result? Men at the tip-top of the dating pool get everything. And the men who don’t have it all get nothing.

But even the alphas are feeling the squeeze.

One New York City–based psychologist, David Gordon, says many of the high-powered men he treats—including doctors, lawyers, and financiers—fret over their ability to attract a woman, despite their enviable salaries or careers.

“It’s kind of sad or tragic, but some guys will look at their bank accounts, stocks, or credit score every day, as if it’s some sort of measure of their value,” he says. “We can look at the numbers, and I’m like, ‘Dude, looks pretty good to me.’ ”

Still, he says, “There’s this anxiety around—is this enough?”


That’s the insecurity that keeps Santiago, a 25-year-old from Albuquerque, New Mexico, up at night. The last time he dated anyone was in 2021—but that ended when he suspected she was cheating on him. Now, with the wounds still raw, he fears he’s “not worthy” of a girlfriend anymore.

“After being depressed for so long, I feel like it’s a handicap,” says Santiago, who works at a department store and has been on one date only since his breakup. “It makes me feel like, ‘Oh, he’s damaged goods.’ ”

And then there’s the problem of not knowing how to approach a woman. He suspects his coworker might have a crush on him, and yet he worries that one wrong move and he’ll be labeled “creepy.”

It’s a common worry for men in the post–#MeToo era. In a 2016 study, over 95 percent of respondents replied that men were much more likely to be “creepy people” than women. One twentysomething on Reddit, who wanted to ask out an employee at his local pet store, groaned that men are “expected to be the hunters but are shunned for doing so in public unless it’s on a stupid app.”

So Santiago does nothing.

“I’m a very insecure person—I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble or break their boundaries,” said the third-generation Mexican American.

And then there’s the cost of romance. The average date in the U.S. comes with a $159 price tag, which costs more than ten hours of work for those making a $15 hourly wage. It started getting so expensive for one bachelor, a 26-year-old banker, that he moved from Los Angeles, where rent averages around $3,000, to an apartment in Appalachia, where he and a friend now pay $500 each a month.

“I just found it’s a lot of time, and frankly, money,” he says about dating back West. “We’re risking so much for so little.”

But the dating scene in Appalachia, he says, is “not good” either, partly because he’s working remotely.

“Everyone is double my age and lives in, like, the Midwest. There’s just none of that cohesion or fun. The world has changed.”


Some men insist they haven’t checked out of dating. Rather, they have virtual girlfriends who satisfy all their needs.

Over the past few years, start-ups like Replika, Character.ai, and Inflection AI, have rolled out a universe of virtual companions that users can customize to meet their every desire. One alluring chatbot, Eva AI, woos customers with the promise: “Build relationship and intimacy on your terms.” And one influencer, Caryn Marjorie, says she created an AI version of herself—so far with more than 18,000 “boyfriends”—to “cure loneliness.”

And then there are the real-life sirens of OnlyFans, where its 240 million users can purchase the “girlfriend experience,” and get a constant stream of sexts and loving messages in return for cold, hard cash.

Aella, a top OnlyFans performer who makes $100,000 on “a good month,” says a large part of her job is doting upon her admirers like a lover would, listening to them moan about their tough days or absent girlfriends.

“It turns out the thing that men want is not just sex,” she told The Free Press. “They want sex with a woman that likes them.”

Only a minority of her customers are interested in just physical pleasure, she says. An overwhelming majority reach out to her for companionship, or simply to feel desired by a woman. A “big part” of her job, she says, is tending to men who are lonely.

“An important component to a sexual dynamic is to feel valued,” she told me.

Ethan King, a therapist who “treats 90 percent men” in Austin, Texas, says he often has to convince clients to look beyond the girls they see in porn.

“People say they’re totally happy with their porn girlfriend,” he says. “They’re like, ‘It’s too risky. I’d just rather be online.’ ”

But Ian Soltes, a 33-year-old overnight gas station attendant in Bridgeport, Connecticut, doesn’t want to look past his online “friend with benefits.”

He says he first met his online girlfriend on GameFAQs, a video gaming website that hosts message boards, when he was 13 or 14. They play video games together and message each other all day long (he told me he sent her a “hug emoji” during our interview).

“She has been more than willing to be very close and intimate with me online,” he said. “So any sexual urge I’ve had has been handled by that.”

There’s just one problem: they’ve never met in person or spoken on the phone. Soltes said she can’t because she’s mute.

“I’m pretty convinced it’s a lie,” he admitted. “But at the same time, if I challenge her on it, what’s going to happen? I’m going to find out the one person I’ve been close friends with for decades now is a guy? I don’t want to say I already know that, ’cause I don’t.”

He stumbles to find the right words.

“I’d just be losing a close friend, and I don’t want to risk that.”

The U.S. marriage rate is the lowest it’s been in over a century, with a quarter of 40-year-olds having never married (in 1980, only 6 percent of adults fell into that camp). It’s a trend that continues even though research shows married people are happier.

Americans today “discourage commitment now,” says Steven Mosher, the lead demographer at the Population Research Institute. “The expectation 50 years ago was that everyone would eventually get married and have children. Now, that expectation is gone.”

Already, an increasing number of women are going it alone as mothers, freezing their eggs and using sperm donors to procreate. At some point in the future, Mosher says the family—“the fundamental unit of society”—could completely break down. “We’re going to have children born from sperm donors, with no fathers, eggs and embryos frozen suspended indefinitely until someone wants to add a child to her life.

“This is not a happy future for most of humanity.”

Jon Birger worries about the future, too. Not just for men but for women, who he says aren’t being served by the current dating dynamic—or dating apps, which about half of American “never married” adults say they’ve used at some point.

“Their business goal is to retain users,” says Birger of apps like Tinder that want daters to keep searching for love. The day you settle down is the day their profits die.

His advice to America’s young women is to get off the apps and try “mixed-collar dating.”

“When college-educated women restrict their dating pool to college-educated men, they are effectively limiting themselves to a too-small dating pool,” said Birger, the author of Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game. “And if you exclude firemen, electricians, plumbers, and other folks that don’t have a college degree, you may be excluding people that you would actually really click with romantically.”

Jammall, the security guard in Florida, says he is open to dating someone more educated or successful than he is, and he believes he could bring a lot to the table. Sure, he doesn’t have a million dollars, but he wants to do “the little things,” like cook dinner for his partner and leave love notes around the house. “I’m trustworthy, loyal, and very direct. I’m also very protective, and I’m not afraid to try new things.”

But still, he knows that many women toggle their apps so that men like him—those without a bachelor’s degree, without a six-figure salary—never appear on their feeds.

And he says they’re “missing out” on a lot of good guys.

“The problem isn’t that I don’t have anything to offer someone—I do,” he says. “But I can’t even get my foot in the door. And if they don’t talk to me, what can I do?”
 
Is it really success if you don't have this? Hookers and porn have been brought up already, but those aren't real solutions. Really, those are symptoms of the problem: no intimacy (personal) between the sexes. Coitus is one thing but relationships are another. Of course all the incels would stop being what they say they are if they just hired a prostitute, that was never really what was wrong with them
View attachment 5432162
I mean I've had long term relationships off these apps, and that's actually the goal, it's just not what they're good for. Casually swiping on someone based on their looks alone pushes a casual and physical encounter as a baseline.
 
you can't cope out the intrinsic need to be valued and appreciated by other people
Yeah, people act like getting in a relationship is some sort of RPG stat tree: We have probably dozens of threads of actual lunatics that have gotten laid, or even gotten married. It's not natural to expect a human to make peace with themselves alone. Most people never do at all, and now people act like that's a necessary requirement to speak to women. You don't need to reach enlightenment to date.

You do, however, need to make your own opportunities. Nobody's going to come looking for you.
 
I mean I've had long term relationships off these apps, and that's actually the goal, it's just not what they're good for. Casually swiping on someone based on their looks alone pushes a casual and physical encounter as a baseline.
I've gotten pretty good results off of hinge, but you do have to actually be honest about what you want. I think a lot of dudes on dating apps really aren't.
 
How is becoming your own point of mental origin cope?
kind of answered your own question there
This is the kind of mental gymnastics people do to convince themselves they're in a better position than they really are. From a complete normal person's perspective, you come off as a narccisistic rather than whatever it is you think you are. I can delude myself into thinking I'm the second coming of Christ but that won't actually change anything. This kind of shit isn't normal or healthy. Really, it's delusional.
 
Even the butterfaces and chubs have overly-inflated expectations and/or are chasing Chad Thundercock-McMoney.
Agreed, expectations from women are sky high, because they get sometimes literally hundreds of messages. Guys shotgun blast a hundred messages a day hoping a couple of them go anywhere but the fat chick thinks that all these good looking guys want her. So that becomes her new baseline. Of course, all she’ll ever be is a slumpbuster but that’s all it takes. After a few dozen hookups, she gets angry at men and society for not giving her a committed six foot tall dude who has all his hair and makes a quarter million a year so she can sit on her fat ass and watch TikToks all day for a living.
 
From a complete normal person's perspective, you come off as a narccisistic rather than whatever it is you think you are.
How exactly is me putting my best interests first bad? Secondly, why should I care what a normal person thinks? What does it mean to be a normal person? To light yourself on fire to keep others warm? To never think about your interests and instead put everyone else's first to the detriment of your own?
I can delude myself into thinking I'm the second coming of Christ but that won't actually change anything.
How exactly is being your own mental point of origin equal to that? I think you misunderstand what it means to put it into practise.
This kind of shit isn't normal or healthy. Really, it's delusional.
Actually, you're right. As it'll then cause men to start putting their best interesting first instead of marrying washed up 30 y/o single moms that have found God.
 
Last edited:
How is becoming your own point of mental origin cope?
I'd phrase it better than that, sounds like woo when you put it that way.
kind of answered your own question there
This is the kind of mental gymnastics people do to convince themselves they're in a better position than they really are. From a complete normal person's perspective, you come off as a narccisistic rather than whatever it is you think you are. I can delude myself into thinking I'm the second coming of Christ but that won't actually change anything. This kind of shit isn't normal or healthy. Really, it's delusional.
It's only delusional if you seriously believe that basing your self-worth on the opinions of others is somehow anything other than being a closeted attention-whore.
 
How exactly is me putting my best interests first bad? Secondly, why should I care what a normal person thinks? What does it mean to be a normal person? To light yourself on fire to keep others warm? To never thing about your interests and instead put everyone else's first to the detriment of your own?

How exactly is being your own mental point of origin equal to that? I think you misunderstand what it means to put it into practise.

Actually, you're right. It it as it'll cause then men will start putting their best interesting first instead of marrying washed up 30 y/o single moms that have found God.
I'd phrase it better than that, sounds like woo when you put it that way.
Yeah, you sound like a lunatic when you put it like that.
It's only delusional if you seriously believe that basing your self-worth on the opinions of others is somehow anything other than being a closeted attention-whore.
Having self-worth and wanting to be valued and appreciated are two entirely different things. Fact of the matter is you'd be hard to find a single person on this earth that doesn't like it when people appreciate them. Want? Probably less hard but still. You're mistaking my recognition of humanity's innate social element as saying everyone needs it. A person can love themselves to a non-narccisistic degree and still feel like something is missing or wrong with his life. The anon in that screenshot was just venting on how empty life felt for him, not basing his worth on it.
 
Having self-worth and wanting to be valued and appreciated are two entirely different things. Fact of the matter is you'd be hard to find a single person on this earth that doesn't like it when people appreciate them. Want? Probably less hard but still. You're mistaking my recognition of humanity's innate social element as saying everyone needs it. A person can love themselves to a non-narccisistic degree and still feel like something is missing or wrong with his life. The anon in that screenshot was just venting on how empty life felt for him, not basing his worth on it.
I'm not talking about loving yourself, or whatever. There's a difference between deriving your fulfillment and contentment in life from yourself and your accomplishments, and deriving it from the people and things you have.

What you're describing is a materialistic view of the world in which friends, family, and a spouse aren't that different from having wealth or property. The guy feels empty because he's wanting something that ultimately leaves everyone who chases after it, hollow. It's the same attitude that leaves rich men with everything a man could ever want staring listlessly off the deck of their yacht, wondering what it is that they don't have.

What I'm saying, and get the vibe @Spud is saying as well, isn't to love yourself, but to derive your foundational, inner conceptualization of fulfillment from who you are. You can do that separately and distinctly from whether or not you love or even like who you are. Needing "validation" through external sources isn't healthy even if it's so commonplace in our society that many people think it's as much a need as food or water.

Put in a simple way, knowing that no amount of success is going to bring you happiness in and of itself in any realm of life is part of that.
 
I'm not talking about loving yourself, or whatever. There's a difference between deriving your fulfillment and contentment in life from yourself and your accomplishments, and deriving it from the people and things you have.
Of course the problem with this line of thinking is you can't ignore the material world exists either. What are your accomplishments actually from if not due to outside sources? It sounds good in theory. In practice, it's far harder when you can't even feed yourself or have a place to live. Who ever takes comfort in a dire situation that they're still themselves? Little better than religion and little different than prayer. Just me, I suppose, and I ascribe to your worldview more than anything else while lacking things even normal people would think necessary. Maybe I'm just being a contrarian, but there's flaws in the mind over body way of thinking even if I do prefer it.

It doesn't change the fact this is still a societal issue that will worsen everything else in it, for example.
 
Wrong, prostitution (real one, not e-girls) is a service that covers a need just like any other.
Yes it is, and it’ll never go away. But it’s also extremely destructive and should remain illegal. The number of happy hookers who want to be there and are making bank is tiny. When it’s legalised the market expands, which means the pool of punters outweighs the supply which means women getting coerced or outright forced into it. Entire nasty industries of trafficking and abuse spring up. Women dont want to be hookers or used for sex where they don’t choose in general. If they did , you’d not be paying for sex.
What I'm saying, and get the vibe @Spud is saying as well, isn't to love yourself, but to derive your foundational, inner conceptualization of fulfillment from who you are. You can do that separately and distinctly from whether or not you love or even like who you are. Needing "validation" through external sources isn't healthy even if it's so commonplace in our society that many people think it's as much a need as food or water.
From what Ive seen, very few people are able to truly do this. It’s also not exclusive to also want to be loved if you’re in relationship. The point of relationships is to form that kind of mutually beneficial arrangement. The key is to be happy in and of yourself before you go looking for another, because if you’re looking for someone else to complete you, you will make bad choices. I have lost count of the number of women I know who just have to be with someone and who end up with a wrong ‘un becasue they took anyone over no one. Also a lot of men who just want feet under the table or to be a cocklodger. Different motivations but same result.
I would bet that the number of people who can truly derive that centre-of-being from an inner source is a tiny minority. Even the ones who do are not wrong if they then stipulate that IF they are with someone, it needs to be with mutual love and affection. That’s not negating your centre of self.
ETA ‘happy’ is the wrong word - perhaps accepting is better. Be able to be by yourself first
 
Of course the problem with this line of thinking is you can't ignore the material world exists either. What are your accomplishments actually from if not due to outside sources? It sounds good in theory. In practice, it's far harder when you can't even feed yourself or have a place to live. Who ever takes comfort in a dire situation that they're still themselves? Little better than religion and little different than prayer. Just me, I suppose, and I ascribe to your worldview more than anything else while lacking things even normal people would think necessary. Maybe I'm just being a contrarian, but there's flaws in the mind over body way of thinking even if I do prefer it.

It doesn't change the fact this is still a societal issue that will worsen everything else in it, for example.
It's less mind over matter and more matter doesn't mind.

No amount of material or interpersonal wealth will ultimately make someone who isn't capable of this separation of themselves from the external feel whole. That isn't to say that you shouldn't feel like shit over not having people to talk to, a girlfriend/wife to share your life with, or a house/car/etc if those are aspects or things that a person feels like they should have in their life. Just that to derive your contentment of being to the point of feeling existential angst at lacking them speaks to a materialistic outsourcing of one's own sense of both self-worth in at least a majority, and a person bereft of any understanding of what validation/contentment/fulfillment/happiness/whatever you want to call it truly is as well as where it comes from.

Having someone who cares about you doesn't make you feel good because that person exists and has that feeling for you, it's a feeling ultimately derived from an inner acknowledgement that you as a human being are at least capable of being loved, that acknowledgement not coming from that person but rather a subconscious understanding that takes place within yourself.

It's a difficult topic for me to articulate primarily because I'm not a philosopher and I'm definitely not trained enough in philosophical-mumbo-jumbo-to-English to be succinct about it.
From what Ive seen, very few people are able to truly do this. It’s also not exclusive to also want to be loved if you’re in relationship. The point of relationships is to form that kind of mutually beneficial arrangement. The key is to be happy in and of yourself before you go looking for another, because if you’re looking for someone else to complete you, you will make bad choices. I have lost count of the number of women I know who just have to be with someone and who end up with a wrong ‘un becasue they took anyone over no one. Also a lot of men who just want feet under the table or to be a cocklodger. Different motivations but same result.
I would bet that the number of people who can truly derive that centre-of-being from an inner source is a tiny minority. Even the ones who do are not wrong if they then stipulate that IF they are with someone, it needs to be with mutual love and affection. That’s not negating your centre of self.
ETA ‘happy’ is the wrong word - perhaps accepting is better. Be able to be by yourself first
You pretty much summed it up better than I did, in a different way. If you're a person who's wanting such things while never having sat down and wondered about what actually makes you happy or would hypothetically make you happy, and analyzing the answer that you've come up with to that in a deep and honest manner, you're putting the cart before the horse.

Validation should come from within before seeking the things you use to validate yourself. Relationships included.
 
Yes it is, and it’ll never go away. But it’s also extremely destructive and should remain illegal. The number of happy hookers who want to be there and are making bank is tiny. When it’s legalised the market expands, which means the pool of punters outweighs the supply which means women getting coerced or outright forced into it. Entire nasty industries of trafficking and abuse spring up. Women dont want to be hookers or used for sex where they don’t choose in general. If they did , you’d not be paying for sex.
Even if prostitution was legal in the US, coercion would still be a crime. It would be possible to go after pimps without the government dictating on what conditions adults should have sex with other adults.
Also,
>Women dont want to be hookers or used for sex where they don’t choose in general. If they did , you’d not be paying for sex.
Generally, a job is something that you don't want to do, but you do because it pays. And prostitution pays a whole lot more than something like nursing old people, to say another low level job typically performed by women. Yeah, it's not for everybody, that much is obvious. Most people would consider doing sex work as something disgusting. But the minority who don't mind it? There shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't just do what they want.
>used for sex
It's not "using" someone, it's having consensual sex with someone after having accorded a payment. It's not like you get there, hand the cash over to some gangster, and then get to whip the hooker around while she's chained to the wall. You might as well say the hooker is "using" the man for money.
 
Wrong, prostitution (real one, not e-girls) is a service that covers a need just like any other. It has the added benefits of ending inceldom and de-sanctinfying sex so that guys don't think they're worthless because they're unnatractive. This weird almost puritanical view of sex as something sacred but also as the way to build one's self-esteem is something that only creates fucked up people with complexes like the aforementioned incels.

That's one thing about our modern culture that drives me bonkers. This schizophrenic double-think that sex is both the most causal and banal of things, and some religious sacrament. No wonder so many people get mentally fucked up over a basic human drive being cast into these severe black and white, absolutely contradictory positions. It has to be full of all sorts of double binds. And that leaves out the fucked up religious moralizing. Humanity's views on sexuality have to be one of the most irrational aspects of our being.

Yeah, people act like getting in a relationship is some sort of RPG stat tree: We have probably dozens of threads of actual lunatics that have gotten laid, or even gotten married. It's not natural to expect a human to make peace with themselves alone. Most people never do at all, and now people act like that's a necessary requirement to speak to women. You don't need to reach enlightenment to date.

You do, however, need to make your own opportunities. Nobody's going to come looking for you.

Agreed.

How exactly is me putting my best interests first bad? Secondly, why should I care what a normal person thinks? What does it mean to be a normal person? To light yourself on fire to keep others warm? To never think about your interests and instead put everyone else's first to the detriment of your own?

How exactly is being your own mental point of origin equal to that? I think you misunderstand what it means to put it into practise.

Actually, you're right. As it'll then cause men to start putting their best interesting first instead of marrying washed up 30 y/o single moms that have found God.

Therein lies the problem with your thinking, though, IMO. Of course with the right foundation, that is the goal, and with the right foundation, nearly everyone can find that"internal locus of self-value" or whatever. But the problem is that our social upbringing doesn't always ensure that, and I suspect it does so less than half the time. Look into attachment theory. The damage to the psychological sense of self is profound, and you can't affirm or think your way out of it. It can only be healed in relation to other people. Sure, there is no need to become a waste of space, a BPD whore, or an addict, but a lot of humans are so fundamentally damaged, that that acute early need is still being chased, and can only be fulfilled from the outside. They are still trying to get those attachemnt needs met, years later.

Whether it's right or wrong of them, whatever. It just is. But a "just love or respect yourself" haws been the attitude for the last 50 years in psychology, and it's made things worse. These people have3 no baseline for what their SELF even really is, hence the simping guys who define their value by whether a woman fucks them or the BPD broads with the boundaries of a nuclear explosion.

Personally, I think the main driver of this shit has been feminism and women increasingly in the workplace, so although some needs are met, the attachment needs of their kids never are, and they all end up being walking pathologies.
 
That's one thing about our modern culture that drives me bonkers. This schizophrenic double-think that sex is both the most causal and banal of things, and some religious sacrament. No wonder so many people get mentally fucked up over a basic human drive being cast into these severe black and white, absolutely contradictory positions. It has to be full of all sorts of double binds. And that leaves out the fucked up religious moralizing. Humanity's views on sexuality have to be one of the most irrational aspects of our being.
Ah, yes. Sex is simultaneously one of the most defining features of a man's worth but also something they should be ashamed for wanting.
i don't know why you're bringing up religion when they had the right idea of it should only be for creating children lest people go batshit with it (Sodom and Gomorrah, A.K.A Now)
 
If you can't get laid then jack off to free porn and buy a hooker every now and then.
Prostitution is illegal in most places. If you're caught, there can be severe legal, social, and career consequences.

But it's not really about sex. It's about partnership. Men and women are rapidly becoming unsuitable partners for each other. Young women are becoming more educated than men and have more successful careers, shrinking the pool of men they consider fit. They're becoming more liberal while men are not, making it difficult to form morally aligned families and raise children. And they're becoming less attracted to men and more attracted to other women--I think the fashionable academic term is "lezzing out." While these trends can't continue forever, they are having an effect. And while the purported changes in men are treated as moral failings or psychological problems (in extremis they are), the changes occurring throughout womankind are ignored or considered progress.


The underlying subtext I'm getting from all of these articles is that non-chad men shouldn't just aim lower, but just scrape from the bottom of the barrel.
Exactly. They always say "adjust your standards" but they mean "have no standards." This springs from society's ubiquitous assumption that any standard or expectation applied to a favored group, even in a domain as subjective and personal as attraction, is oppressive and wrong. This isn't limited to highly-red-pilled preferences like "I need 18-year-old size zero tradcath virgin who can cook;" even something as anodyne as "don't be morbidly obese and please no tattoos" is cissexist, heteronormative, patriarchal body-shaming.
 
Society as it stands right now will simply not survive. There is little to no incentive to date anymore. And as the west declines further, they'll be making ads for people to marry and reproduce... but never addressing the reason why no-one is doing that anymore. The fact that raising a family is akin to pulling out all your teeth as well as the very real risk of the government taking everything away from the man just because the woman complains about anything. In a sense, when you marry a woman nowadays, you're not really marrying that girl. You're marrying the state. And the state wants to take everything from you.

If the choice is between being alone and being broke and alone, the former is better.

You can buy sex, you can't buy love. The false smile plastered on her lips wouldn't hide the disgust in her eyes.
And that just about sums up the Dubai Toilets. Get paid alot, have to pretend to love and like every single abuse the buyer throws (scat, dogfucking, you name it)... and the buyer knows for a fact that this person they're paying hates it and they get off on that.
 
Back
Top Bottom