This part of a comment made me laugh
>two generations have been the victims of abstinence and STD messages that moralize and demonize sex rather than present a positive message about human sexuality, and young people are fearful of marriage having seen so many fail.
Ignoring the fact that older generations preached far more against sex than the recent ones, why is this even seen as a problem? Who cares?
yeah only 1/88 people are "on spectrum" and some 1% are schizo
normiecattle will dominate this shithole planet
I have two crab brothers so it's no surprise to me. The mouse utopia study on overwhelming social stress had this outcome so I think that's just as viable an explanation as trying to make it the crabs fault.
>>156175>why is this even seen as a problem?
Not sure if you're talking about the findings of the article or that comment but monogamy is useful to society, it does harness less prestigious men to something productive if they can still reproduce. Even succubi today recognize that subconsciously since they want to settle later in life. If both young men and succubi were abstinent at the same rate it wouldn't be an issue but if it's only men that are semi-forced into this position because of social attitudes and dating habits then it's not going to lead to anything good.
As for the comment, sexual liberation is one of the few things that are sacred in the West today, so making people responsible about it is as if you were trampling on their rights. Also I'm not sure previous generations were anti-sex as much as the evangelo-cons who want abstinence taught in schools today. The boomers and hippies of the 60's seem much more pro-sex and the generations prior, I honestly don't know but it seems it was okay so long as it was within marriage.
Let's blame it on immigrants, they should go to work and have sex, instead they get on welfare and smoke weed.
But the society is becoming ever more productive, remember that chart about productivity steadily on the rise while wages are long stuck?
Whoever wrote that is an idiot. If younger generations are treating sex and marriage more warily, they're right to do so. Modern sexuality should be demonized, it's mindless atavism and is about on the same level as a heroin junkie chasing the next high. The shitty boomer generation promoted this bullshit endlessly, and thanks to them we now have hordes of dysfunctional families churning out broken individuals and super-STDs that are resistant to antibiotics. This norman shit has been going on for decades now. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn pathetic.
It's undeniable that there is more productivity but that would largely be due to automation. That chart is a bit old now, no? How is it shaping against today's dating habits with tinder and the likes? The labor force participation rate is dropping. And that productivity depends in large part on a small number of people and if the general public gets more unsatisfied either through lack of diversions like sex or by lack of meaningfulness like jobs are for many people then it's not sustainable especially if it's both that lack at the same time.
Lots of comments are blaming it on porn and pro-sex nerds
Exactly, you wrote that society needed less prestigious men to be productive, but it follows that now this need is stopping to exist.
When has babyboomers ever admitted the things they have done wrong?
>18% of succubi are not having sex
this chart is bullshit. there is no such as a female celibate
>>156188>in the last year
It sounds reasonable.
A lot of the comments have to do with how young men have stopped growing up and blame them for it but nobody's stopping to wonder why they aren't growing up anymore.
It's just the kids below 8
if you look at japan's virgins in males and females, males are obviously higher but females virgins increased over the years too.
It seems likely the same phenomenon is happening in the west now.
If I recall 25% of 25 year olds are virgin males in Japan or is it more?
We're still far away from those numbers but the same thing is happening in the west.
No jobs (labor force participation rate has been on a steady decline for years) , no pussy. Exactly the same reason.
I'm sure there are other factors too.
All what crap like this is really revealing is what was already true for a much longer time then they will admit. It isn't that this is only just happening over the past few years. They will go to all lengths to lie about the truth of female hypergamy because if the truth about succubi was known by men it would collapse societies. Most men that ever claimed to be getting laid a ton were just lying. They actually always were getting little to no sex at all.
Nothing will happen. Ever losers bully other losers. Some of the biggest bullies I've ever met were other losers.
No one will care because they want to flex on you. It's built in.
More and more men will be invalidated and will sell each other out for pussy, money, boredom, or because of simple sadism.
Men don't band together like succubi.
Impotent crab rage.
Are you saying you replied to them because their crabs or that crabs are the people who do those sort of things?
After the wizard revolution we will rule it
I mean even this site is a example of that, given our treatment of crabs and all. On the one hand we could be more understanding and try to guide them on the correct path of acceptance but they are kind of annoying and if you cut them too much slack they would ruin this site.
This. A male must penetrate to have sex so masturbation is not sex, but a female has to be penetrated to have sex and penetrates herself when masturbating, therefore by masturbating a female loses her virginity thus no celibate females.
while fine for normal usage, thats a largely irrelevant definition of virginity for wizchan. any sexual activity is sex, makes one not a virgin, so no handjob wizards allowed.
Define growing up?
You are indeed correct. However, I'd also like to point out that when we refer to virginity, we in fact mean handholdless, kissless, hugless virginity, which of course excludes romantic contact as well. Whilst hugless and handholdless probably apply more to relations with females than relations with males, I think kissless and no-relationship rule still applies to homosexual wizards. Thanks for bringing that up, I get annoyed when homosexuals who have had anal post on here claiming technical virginity gives them the right to do so.
>>156235>I get annoyed when homosexuals who have had anal post on here claiming technical virginity
literally when has that ever happened
By their definition, playing video games instead of being involved in the workforce and providing for your family. If that's enough to write off a man as a failure, i'm not sure why nobody's saying the same thing about succubi. Theyre just as caught up in fantasy and are more preoccupied with idealized emotional roller coaster ride relationships than giving birth to children and being the head of their household. Traditional values are rapidly becoming obsolete and it's only natural that traditional gender roles would follow, it's just easier to put all of the blame on men being losers when succubi's moral compass is just as messed up
the way you phrased it made it sound like it's a common occurrence
I phrased it incorrectly and I apologize. It was a one off occurrence in which I was arguing against two people about whether or not anal penetration counted as sex.
The "succubi have more power to pick a quality mate" argument is hilarious. I bet there were just as many miserable single moms with hyperactive niglet kids 50 years ago right?
I love when I hear that one. Appeal to nature isn't it?
Yeah because succubi are going over what is most genetically beneficial for the good of their offspring and species as a whole when they're picking out a fresh Chad to get pumped and dumped by that week. Apparently things like height and penis size are the epitome of genetic quality.
Also these people want to pick and choose what's naturally ok and what isn't when in the old old days it wasn't rare to piss someone off enough with that shit to get clobbered to death by a rock to the head.
Pretty sure people only say that about those succubi that have no children. Most normalfags say they don't want single parent.
I don't understand.
Funny, the brain of succubus hasn't evolved to think beyond cave era.
What's the use of physical might these days? A tech innovating crab will have more earning capability than a manufacturing employed 6 foot chad.
The former thus holds more benefits.
Hilarious arcane theories when it's obvious that people are simply being more asocial with digital technology
seems like erratic cycling from 1998-2008 between 10-20% and then shooting straight up after 2009
Am I the only one who doesn't buy these "millenials are having less sex than the previous generations" articles? I look around me (both IRL and online) and it seems normalfags my age are having more sex than ever
What's a crab?
Sorry I'm not very familiar with these new terms on wizchan since I come and go months at a time.
it's a wordfilter that got implemented a while back
>>156333>Apparently things like height and penis size are the epitome of genetic quality.
But they are. "Genetic quality" for a male is just how easily you pass on your genes (ie. get laid).
truwiz wizzed wizzettes
serves these degenerates right, marry and have children the proper natural way or don't have children at all, it's as simple as that.
this is actually based, dabbin on breedgroids.
Don't be disingenuous. This is an anomaly in a modern system that already goes against nature and you know it. Although in vitro birthing basically mimics the selective breeding anyway if the quality of sperm has to be tightly regulated
Fuck breeders of all kinds
What do you mean by "the natural way"? There is no such thing as an "unnatural way" of sex in the same way how planes fly in multiple directions but that doesn't mean one of them defies natural law somehow. Humans had generally been outside of western norms on marriage so even if you assume a "natural" form of marriage exist, it would be absurd to call the western nuclear family that only existed for few hundred years as "natural".
The news was fake sorry :(
Im talking of reproduction
Why do you think "natural" mode of reproduction is better? The outcome is the same regardless the sperm and the egg meets with either modes of reproduction.
What did you expect? the peons' handbook forbids it and demands celibacy. Sex ed advocates for it. You'll get beaten in a fucking mating struggle or worse.
It isn't because males are deciding not to have sex, it's because of female hypergamy and the bottom males not getting any sex at all, while the top males have 8 females each, naturally resulting in a true patriarchy.
What you are seeing is the end result of Jewish subversion of the traditional marriage, monogamy and civilization. This isn't sustainable and we all see the effects this has on the West already.
Most males should just be castrated, seriously, most males are just useless and have shitty DNA, if we want what's best for the human race we would keep the crappy beta males as a genderless underclass of eunuchs. Look what traditional marriage and bullshit has done to us, it has made a bunch of weak and diseased people that are unfit for life.
females have the same dna
By that logic, most succubi too. After all, how many retarded succubi do get to breed just by virtue of being succubi?
If "betas" don't get sex anyway in the current system then there's no point castrating them because they're not reproducing anyway.
Talent for attracting females by no means necessarily implies intelligence. It implies talent for attracting females. There are plenty of dumb bitches out there fucking equally, if not more retarded, guys.
You don't belong here
> What's the point of having 200IQ but never having children
Assuming that you're implying that the consumation of a human life is found, if not in the simple perpetuation of biology represented by the reproductive act, but in "contribution to society", and that having children serves as this contribution, this is an absurd proposition. Plenty of geniuses celebrated and unknown have made great "contributions to society" in the areas of science, math, invention, culture and technology far more important than the children they or anyone else did or did not spawn.
No, but I pity you
I'm not sure I understand your reply. You said beta males should not reproduce because of their shitty DNA, but do you not see how succubi also have bad genes for things like stupidity, ugliness etc AND also likely have genes that in males produce "betaness" ? By your own logic, we should also not allow many succubi to reproduce, for the good of the many.
that person wasn't me, but as long as one mate is always of superior dna it will eventually even out as a net gain of better quality dna, it's easier to just castrate the males since females have two X chromosomes and so are more likely to have at least one healthy X chromosome to give, even if their expressed X chromosome is shitty
No what we should actually do is kill stupid females at birth and convert the best into lobotomized flesh tanks optimized for reproductive output. A succubus will be able to birth about 25 healthy young in her life, assuming breeding is initiated around 15. This large number will make up for the loss of baby output from killing the faulty females. We will minimize their food intake to a flavorless nutritional slop injected directly into their stomachs and recycle their shit into useful methane that will be used to power the cyclopean breeding facilities they are stored in. This will solve the dysgenics problem and the problem of females being a lifetime net economic negative / societal nuisance. With the advent of hyper-realistic, subservient sexbots as well as effective human gene-editing, dysgenic males will be placated and simultaneously kept out of the reproductive cycle which will take place wholly in the aforementioned large breeding complexes/sperm banks, administered by qualified eugenicists. The race of supermen created in the first couple of generations will be tasked with creation of artificial wombs superior to the succubi, after which succubi will be phased out and humanity will conquer the stars finally unfettered from the cycle of civilizational birth and death fueled by succubi's avarice.
This system is more economical, realistic, and humane than your proposal, because succubi are objectively worse than men and love being degraded.
that sounds retarded and like too much work, it's easier to just snip shitty male's testicles when they show signs of not being quality material(shyness, physical weakness, etc), it would be like one short doctor's visit whereas your idea could only exist in some over-the-top scifi setting
also I should probably add low iq to the list of signs of a low quality male, I don't want to seem like I am looking only for dumbass meatheads to breed
No you're retarded because you don't get it and I'm right
didn't Elliot Rodger write a manifesto proposing this?
iq is a meme regardless how you think.>>159654
retards think alike
yes essentially. This is the ludicrous proposal thread with special guest troll
My ideology is male supremacy through eugenics and the subjugation of the inferior sex.
As males of the human species, we must conquer the opposite sex and eventually the entire universe.
how dare you ask one of the male elect such a question, worm. Escaped from your breeding pen have ye!?
>>159657>iq is a meme regardless how you think.
maybe, but if you score sub-standard on an iq test(below 90) you are probably visibly retarded
Not really. IQ's in the 90's, 80's and even 70's are not actually as rare as many beleive, even in developed countries. People with such "IQ's" are pretty often able to lead fairly normal and competent lives, you wouldn't know them if they passed you on the street or stood next to you in a line.
>>159664>IQ's in the 90's, 80's and even 70's are not actually as rare as many beleive, even in developed countries.
Don't get me wrong, I believe it, I myself tested at 94 iq and in school I remember people that were clearly much dumber than me, so I could only assume they sat somewhere in the 80s, or worse. These people should be castrated because they are a drain on society and will just keep creating more useless drains if they are allowed to reproduce.
Nice /pol/ derailment
you make it look as if it's less than a quarter of a percent of men
One day you will realize that everything material and even immaterial is /pol/. This is a political, ethnic and spiritual war you find yourself in. The understanding of /pol/ is the understanding of life and the divine itself.
is this an average male user of a dating app?
Based. This means wizards are being made.
>>156175>and young people are fearful of marriage having seen so many fail
They're right on that but I fail to see how that would increase the number of celibates as normans have more sex outside marriage than not. But anyway, we can't expect an honest explanation from the washington post.
IMO, the obnoxious r9k faggots have it right on this matter. Now that all moral sanctions on succubi have been lifted, they're free to pursue the most attractive men with no commitment and leave the others behind. Almost any single succubus can get a harem of orbiters of her own with relative ease these days and select the more attractive men, especially with the internet. And dating apps just make it easier for succubi to just go straight to the more attractive guys looking for easy sex.
>>159666>tfw probably 120 IQ high school dropout
At least I have a full-time job for 30k a year now.
If you are defining quality DNA based on "alpha"/"beta" then that is based on whatever succubi prefer, which is based on the potential for survival in a primal world we no longer exist in. Or if you are defining quality simply based on whatever gives higher odds of breeding, then a rat should be said to have higher DNA than a human.
We know it is only the cultures that put a check on hypergamy that even evolved the ability to build a civilization while those that let succubi call all the shots languish in cowshit and starvation for eternity. And despite this, somehow the logicians who want to "save civilization" believe it would be a good idea to do away with men who don't appeal to the natural impulses of succubi?… Instead of doing the exact opposite of that?
Objectively, the ideal genetic superman of the future should be:
-slower to age, with longer lifespan (opposite of what succubi prefer)
-lower sex drive so reproduction is driven by reason (opposite of what succubi prefer)
-less impulsive and more careful in planning (opposite of what succubi prefer)
-better able to appreciate mental pleasures over the physical (opposite of what succubi prefer)
-odorless (opposite of what succubi prefer)
-smaller so as to consume less space and resources (opposite of what succubi prefer)
Sadly, it seems just as succubi generally have a natural preference for dysgenics, men also have an illogical natural admiration for the same (not having such an admiration would be another good trait for the list).
we're headed for idiocracy. The Only reason we wont get what the film depicted is AI/China, otherwise that film would of been what 2050 would or probably looked like. Genius tier AI will yank the rug out from under the roast
People aren't being more asocial the internet has made large gatherings easier than ever, the reason that even normans aren't having sex though is because the internet has allowed dating apps to blossom and for succubi to now be even more hypergamous and filter out all sub 9s at the push of a button
Most men throughout history from all walks of life were prevented from breeding. IIRC there was a study that reported most succubi in history passed down their genes while most men had the privilege of not having that same opportunity; while the men who did have that opportunity where literally using succubi as cumdumpsters. It is almost kind of what most people say about hypergamy being a 'recent' phenomenon when in reality it has happened throughout all of human history and continues today.
There is a concerted push to increase the noise:signal ratio concerning this topic.
You must understand we are all being manipulated.
Feminism was pushed by the UN in 1975 in order to reduce birth rates and destroy the nuclear family.
There are many people who want you to think this is normal, or fair, or something else like that. They will insist succubi are protected by society because of "survival and wombs" but if that was really the case, post-menopausal succubi and infertile succubi would be treated worse than men since they can't help survival of the group.
Have you ever noticed how everything awful and bad toward you is called "natural" by those who want to manipulate and break you, but other "natural" behaviors are stymied?
Civilization required monogamy and sexual pairing. We are seeing the beginning of the creation of a global slave underclass. There are people, paid or otherwise, who want to increase the noise ratio so this is difficult to talk about, or want to 1984 "we were always at war with eastasia" -esque handwave it away.
Things are getting much worse.
your definition for virginity is the intact hymen?
please grab a dictionary before it's too late
health, aesthetics, social rank…
unless no one values those
and when they actually marry some uglier rich fucks they will be regarded as thots, whores, gold diggers
and how many crabs are doing the innovations? most of them are code monkeys who don't know how to talk to girlss, with the advancement of automation and third worlders let's see how many can keep their jobs
and don't kid yourself as if men or wizards are some kind of higher beings, there are threads on wizchan about height, balding, face, alcohol, drugs, sex dolls
how have you defeated it?
It is very annoying in links…
nothing wrong with discussing alcohol
>>162141>primal world we no longer live in
Wrong. We still live in that world. When all of this bullshit tumbles down, if you ain't alpha you are dead.
more porn - more masturbation - no sex.
hilarious thread, here, lemme pull this chart out my ass quick, there you go, read THIS statistic
I enjoyed this post.
Another based post.
I believe there is a clear eugenics system being implemented in developed nations selecting against non compliant genes.
the whole point of those articles is to make straight white males feel like they are a bunch of losers. crab is a tag they want you to place on yourself so they can then attack you with hammy arguments and moral panic.
Truth is sex has never been more accepted and marketed , wizards and males with low score on the sex market have always existed its just now they want to sell the idea those who don`t focus on sex or are monogamous, have moderate habit or are family oriented are retards that are counterevolutionary to their hipergamy agenda.
You know that you can't make a claim without backing it up with evidence right?
Maybe i should interview 20 college kids from the same campus, ask them about it and pretend their responses are a national epidemic, like the studies our friends from the washingtonpost and other such news outlets like to shill as totally real science you guys.
That's a quarter century outdated and only shows white males, which are fast becoming a minority.
This is most likely all due to economic conditions. We're essentially in the same spot we were right before the great depression. The entire economy is about to crash because debt burdens are rising faster than incomes. They have just been printing money to try and deal with it, but that just exacerbates income inequality and makes the poor poorer because now their money is worth even less than it used to be. Printing money is essentially a secret tax the wealthy bankers impose on the people to keep their pyramid scheme from collapsing for just a bit longer, but it will collapse eventually no matter what they do. Combine that with the three pressures of automation, globalization, and immigration which have increased competition across all sectors while decreasing the quality of life for workers, and you have a perfect storm of people simply opting out of the economy and in life in general. When you don't have a job you don't have a social identity and succubi will not consider you as a viable mate unless you have some other source of income like being a drug dealer which functions the same as a job.
I can't even with that gish gallop.
It would take all day and I just don't care enough to correct you.
Just let it all collapse already
Not him but grats on you no-argument.
Remember when paypigs were a funny curiosity? I met some random thots that told me about their paypig escapades. The loser that made the "Welcome to the Game" indie title was one of their victims. Sent her 500 dollars for a few texts.
The amount of men addicted to giving their money to succubi for meager sexual attention is depressing. Seeing a family member do that shit made my disinterest in sex even stronger.
>>162530>The entire economy is about to crash because debt burdens are rising faster than incomes.
True-ish, but what do you mean by "entire economy?" Because currently the American economy is doing alright, that's what the data says, but there are many warning flags worth looking into. I wouldn't gamble on a wiz having special economic insight over actual economists, especially one using vague terms like "entire economy" or is highly skeptical of debt burdens, possibly out of a naive assumption that austerity is an advanced IR plan (hint: it's not)
>They have just been printing money to try and deal with it, but that just exacerbates income inequality and makes the poor poorer because now their money is worth even less than it used to be.
that is what printing money does, but i don't think anyone has been doing that outside of nations already steeped in political turmoil, e.g. Venezuela, so largely irrelevant to the global economy
>Printing money is essentially a secret tax the wealthy bankers impose on the people to keep their pyramid scheme from collapsing for just a bit longer, but it will collapse eventually no matter what they do.
bankers don't print money lol, banks only create credit, and how much credit they are actually willing to lend is always predetermined in a central banking system
>Combine that with the three pressures of automation, globalization, and immigration which have increased competition across all sectors while decreasing the quality of life for workers, and you have a perfect storm of people simply opting out of the economy and in life in general.
none of those three are bad, they're far more beneficial in scope and the pains of progress are only amplified by the fearmongering wealthy that want to keep status quo. doesn't it make sense to blame a decrease in the quality of life for workers on corporations and employers? also, what do you mean by "increased competition?" did you mean "increased consolidation", which is extremely observable and actually leads to decreased competition? an increase in competition would be a good thing, not a bad one.
>When you don't have a job you don't have a social identity and succubi will not consider you as a viable mate unless you have some other source of income like being a drug dealer which functions the same as a job.
very norman philosophy, did you mean to post this on r9k instead of wizchan? i don't think crossposting is condoned here
>>162742>I wouldn't gamble on a wiz having special economic insight over actual economists
Meh, I would trust a random anon on an imageboard over the average economist. The entire profession is a form of pseudo-scientific ideological prostitution to the wealthy.
is the only true post in this thread, everyone else is clueless and ignorant.
>>162742> what do you mean by "entire economy?"
The Global economy. It has become more ever-connected than ever and synchronized than ever before. The last recession was a global event for the most part and the next one will be too. If you look at the individual economic data coming out you will see Europe is in trouble, as is China, Japan, the UK, much of Africa, and the US, all happening at once. The US economy is not doing alright btw, the fact that the fed was not able to raise interest rates above 2.5% and has lowered them again during a so called expansion should tell you all you need to know. The fact that the money has been forced out of bonds and into equities just means everything is much more unstable now. Additionally manufacturing has been in decline and the bond yield curve has inverted and the fed is pumping hundreds of millions into the repo market on a permanent basis. The economy is literally on central bank life support right now and most people haven't realized it. If you ask economists or financiers or bondsman, they will tell you everything is about to crash. The IMF for example has said that 40% of US corporate debt will be insolvent if we enter a recession just half as bad as the last one. Freddie May and Fannie Mac are bigger than ever as a share of the US mortgage lending market (over 2/3rds) and they are currently operating at a leverage ratio of 500:1. This is crazy as the big banks are normally limited by law to a leverage ratio of no more than 10:1. They will not survive a recession. Things like employment rates are lagging indicators of recession but they're the ones most people pay attention to so everyone just assumes things are fine as long as people are employed but that's not true. The truth is America has never been this leveraged, the low interest rates have encouraged everyone to take on more and more debt, that has created a lot of credit which makes everyone feel rich for a time, but all that credit can simply vanish into thin air along with the debt if the debtor cannot repay what he owes. 97% of the money in circulation today is actually commercial bank created credit, base money (ie actual bills in circulation) only accounts for 3% of it. The economy is literally a house of cards balanced on a knife's edge.
> but i don't think anyone has been doing that outside of nations already steeped in political turmoil, e.g. Venezuela, so largely irrelevant to the global economy
This shows just how little you know. There are literally competitive currency devaluation wars going on between central banks right now. It's why Trump has said the dollar is "too strong". He's right that it does lead to a trade deficit as it becomes more attractive for the citizens of a country to purchase foreign goods when its currency is strong. BTW in case it wasn't obvious, when I say "printing money" I don't just mean literally printing it, I mean other ways of increasing the money supply as well.
>bankers don't print money lol, banks only create credit, and how much credit they are actually willing to lend is always predetermined in a central banking system
The central bank does. The one who "predetermines" that as you put it is the central bank. They can change the reserve requirements, print more reserves, or buy government securities, all of which increase the amount banks can lend. When a central bank buys a security btw it does so with money it prints out of thin air on a computer.
>none of those three are bad, they're far more beneficial in scope and the pains of progress are only amplified by the fearmongering wealthy that want to keep status quo.
They're not necessarily bad, but when applied to an economic system where everyone is supposed to work for a wage in order to survive they absolutely are because they make it harder to do that. If you are a paralegal for example who gets replaced by an AI machine, you have lost your job and now can't support yourself. The legal discovery has become better and cheaper because of the AI so in that sense it's "good" but because it has made someone's skills worthless and removed their ability to support themselves it is bad. Although it has other benefits, migration drives down wages and increases competition for jobs, and globalization allows those jobs to be shipped elsewhere. The expansion of jobs this time around has been mostly from shit like food service, the quality of jobs has been decreasing steadily which is why it's not surprising you still see many prime age working males simply opting out.
>very norman philosophy, did you mean to post this on r9k instead of wizchan? i don't think crossposting is condoned here
A social identity and a personal identity are two different things. One is determined by society, how society views you, and the other is determined by the individual. Nothing norman about acknowledging this exists and that one's mating prospects are dependent upon the social identity rather than the personal identity.
You think succubi stick together? Lololol
Read that book this guy wrote in the 90s about people who are ‘love-shy.’ That’s what they called it back then. It’s from having a strong headed mother. Feminism is to blame. Feminism is toxic shit to young developing boys’ brains.
loveshy was like r9kcel community for boomers of 2002
Females form longer lasting relationships with each other than men do. Men tend to hang out in large groups whereas females tend to form more intimate one-on-one long term relationships. This is a robust finding, go google it. >>162210
This guy knows what he's talking about.
Throughout history 2 females reproduced for every man. Around 12000-8000 years ago there was a huge spike in the female-male ratio up to 17. The only way this happens is prolonged reproductive inequality. Think a society where the emperor has 1000s of wives, chiefs of 10 men get 2-3 wives, and ordinary guys get nothing.
Inequality has always fluctuated. Paleolithic era inequality (2:1 female:male reproduction ratio) was heaven compared to what happened after agriculture was invented. Early 20th century America was probably as close to paleolithic level equality as we're going to get. The way society is currently headed it looks like we're going right back to agricultural era inequalities.
>Putting any credence in what the IMF says.
The IMF has predicted a recession in the following year, where none has subsequently occurred, 24 times in the Spring WEO, and 23 times in the Fall WEO. The signal-to-noise ratio in IMF forecasts is poor, in other words!
The concept of marriage was likely invented as a solution to this inequality problem. The invention of birth control made succubi free to not give a shit about marriage anymore, meaning only the best men get to mate. The left likes to call the sexual social progress but it is literal social regression.
>only the best men get to mate
Not quite. Dysgenics is a thing. Retarded low IQ people will always have teenage pregnancies and lower the quality of the gene pool in the long run.
As long as the government pays welfare checks to single teenage mothers the genetic IQ will keep falling even while improvements in nutrition and educational environment mask the effects of dysgenics (Flynn effect).
Whoever wrote that is a jew.
Or suckling a jew.
The article does have the stereotypical Sexual Revolution slant on it, but the data is correct - a lot of men are having less sex due to how succubi are given higher preference for relationships along with the breakdown of the family itself. For sowing the wind, the normcunts will reap a megastorm.
What was going on in 2008?
Smartphones made it easier to hook up for one night stands? Random variation?
Same thing as in 1997.
>succubi not having sex
What a joke.
The hunter-gatherer era had higher sexual inequality/more polygny than the post-Neolithic era. Hunter-gatherers had extended family units, based on bands of men and their multiple wives. Neolithic era/agriculture led to the sedentary nuclear houseold replacing these nomadic polygynous bands as society's basic unit. Monogamy/nuclear family was just a more practical way to organize farming societies, but it suppressed mankind's natural tendency toward polygny/succubi's tendency toward hypergamy.
So, ironically modern society is moving back toward the more natural pre-modern/pre-agricultural patterns.
If we've had monogamy for the past several thousand years, it's time to question how long a behavior needs to happen before it is considered "natural".
Oh god. Why are people talking about how to encourage/facilitate reproduction? I'm guessing some people here want to have kids without sex or who knows what?
How am I supposed to NEET if no one has kids to keep the system running?
are you really expecting to live 18 years+
Well I'm already more than 18 years old, so yes? I'm not suicidal like most of the faggots here, and if I plan on living to 60 I'll need at least a generation and a half to keep things going.
I meant from now. Why do you expect people will let you NEET for that long? If you're on disability, eventually that'll get cut. If you have some sort of stockpile of assets, then it makes more sense.
Train gropings are common in Japan.
Okay but what does male virginity have to do with train gropings and female only trains? Is he saying virgins grope succubi?
I doubt they're virgins. They're probably married dudes. Virgins are too timid to do that shit unless they're going all out like that guy who shot up the disabled people in Osaka.
>>167347>Virgins are too timid
Men have a tendency towards tribes while being less extroverted. Obviously tribalism for men is more suppressed in todays society.
succubi screwing over other succubi including their "friends" is a common enough theme
oh, I thought it meant men who put down other men in search of pussy. Like a crab in the bucket metaphor
That is what it means. The mods here are openly hostile to the users.
can we ban the word sex its unwizardly
That's how babies are born
The internet is a powerful tool to hone your wizard powers.
Without it, I'd probably have continued my futile quest of becoming a normalfag, and maybe I would've even started a relationship with a morbidly obese single mother.
"Eternal virginity is a valid life choice" never even crossed my mind before I started chatting with some like-minded people on the internet.
Even a wizard can be targeted as a victim for wrongdoing by succubi. Never forget that. You should really hate crabs because they give the inferior gender too MUCH leeway, and ultimately want to work with them or come to a cohabiting compromise.
>>170665> crabs who would setup their so called uprising and chase us for not agreeing with their policy
dep in a nutshell, delete it before it's too late
This. Also, abortion poisons the womb and it warps the values of the children who are raised by the very person who murdered their siblings and was never punished.
So abortions are a murder? Bitch please
They are and it should be punished with the death penalty.
What do you mean by 'warps the value'?
If your are raised to love and respect the same person who murdered your siblings, then your entire value system will be inverted without you being aware of it. Even if you are taught traditional morality from the Bible, you will still make stupid and fucked up decisions.
Not really, abortions are great and should be required for some people
The death penalty should be required for all succubi who have abortions and for all medical and administrative personnel who participate in the abortion industry.
Also, if you murder your child and then rationalize that murdering your child is justified you will not value the life of any children you happen to have in the future.
no, abortions should be required and be even less expensive and encouraged. It is not a murder.
Once the child begins generating brain waves, there's no difference between abortion and murder. Otherwise there'd be no logical reason not to allow infanticide. I assume you don't want to allow succubi to dash the brains of their infants?
For such an antinatalist site it’s interesting to see people against abortion.
Abortion causes succubi to become more evil than they already are. And it causes suffering for children who are gestated in poisoned wombs and raised by murderous whores.
this is because a number of wizards are right-wing LARPers, polacks, MAGAs, etc. It gives them the sensation of power and being 'elite' (don't get me wrong, I believe in a lot of /pol/ related things but I know that in the end real polacks would want to gas wizards)
For anyone being raised in a broken family, by only mothers, by old parents, etc (as many wizards are, there have been multiple threads on this), you would expect more objective comprehension of the dismal fate of humanity.
So would you support straight-out legalizing all murder? It would reduce life and therefore reduce suffering, right?
If you actually are against murder you need to explain why violently taking the life of a thinking human being that happens to reside inside a succubus's womb isn't actually murder.
People have become more shallow and self centered through internet era. Before internet era succubi have to meet men face to face and there was effort.
Now , it is just few clicks and touch to get a man to your choosing. Modern succubi are not worth the effort.
Easy come, easy go.
Yeah, a lot of the time, idk how dedicated these are to remaining wizards. They like to talk about nuclear families, preserving culture, etc.
What made you think so? I also have my /pol/ish side but… such things?
The fact of being a /pol/ and /wiz/ is, that even being antinatalist, you'd wish that breeders do not end screwing up much what they're still decided to do while breeding, so you support eugenics and similar things…
actually redpilled poster
But what is the benefit of breaking up nuclear families? The kids more likely to end up as criminal and eventually the whole society falls apart.
You can't rule people who revolt against your system, even out of a criminal tendencies. You can't enslave criminals.
Without a family to support you you're much more likely to be willing to let the government take the role as your parent – vote for increased welfare, increased taxation, bigger government, less freedom, etc.
Brain waves are electrical activity in the brain, that control bodily functions. They have nothing to do with consciousness on their own. Vegetables have brain waves and no consciousness. It's not murder, never has been. If you're below 80 iq it's not murder either, it's a net positive to the world.
Well okay, as long as you're consistent. Killing infants and toddlers isn't murder either, right? And where are you getting the 80 IQ number? Are all the Africans who have less than 80 IQ okay to hunt for sport? Do people who have higher IQ have more rights than those who have average IQ?
[Last 50 Posts]
they are not enraged about the not having sex part
they don't care if you get your dick wet
they don't even care if you have a roof over your head and food in your belly
but when 30% of males give up on sex it means that the marketing industry cannot sell them designer clothes, brand perfumes, sports cars and gold jewellery anymore because they have nobody to impress