MGTOW, Minimalism, dating and the Establishment reaction.

[bullethead]

So, is this because A. Men are afraid of commitment, or B. Men aren't very interested in job interviews to be lifelong ATM machines to a "modern woman"?

If no guys showed up, I think very relevant questions are "Where the hell was this advertised?" and "What did the ads say?"

Because it's very possible they advertised on a social media platform guys don't know or care about, via some method that didn't work at all for the audience, and/or had wording in it that made guys go "Nah, not worth my time."

 

[Ixian]

If no guys showed up, I think very relevant questions are "Where the hell was this advertised?" and "What did the ads say?"

Because it's very possible they advertised on a social media platform guys don't know or care about, via some method that didn't work at all for the audience, and/or had wording in it that made guys go "Nah, not worth my time."

Solid point, I mean surely at least a few men would have shown up if it had halfway decent advertising?

 

[Zachowon]

So, is this because A. Men are afraid of commitment, or B. Men aren't very interested in job interviews to be lifelong ATM machines to a "modern woman"?

Additionally, how can they claim this was a "safe space" for men... when no men felt "safe" enough to show up?

Woman goes to singles mixer—only women show up, sparking debate

'Somebody literally created a space where men can approach women that want to be approached ... and men saw that as strange.'

www.dailydot.com

Because like the male comments said.

They would have probably been judged the second they drove up, women would move if a guy sat they didn't find attractive and everything.

That is why more then looks matter in these things and it seems a lot of people both male and women don't realize that.

Some of those women could have been like me, hardly getting anyone on dating apps and was hoping some guys would be there that would be into what they were looking for, and not just for looms.

I literally got my wife because of my bio, not my pocs

 

[Stargazer]

See, the problem with this for many, including me, is that we aren't non religious, but atheists. I see no evidence for God, and the only way I'd become religious would be lying, something I'm not willing to do.

On top of this, there is a deeper, even more fundamental flaw. Believing in a religion to get some advantage/avoid hell isn't a genuine belief, and isn't how one should go about life. One should believe in a religion because they believe in the religion. Or, as in my case, not believe because I don't believe, not to fit in or some such.

Yes, I understand you're an atheist, and I did specifically suggest you should "genuinely" change that. I would never say you should pretend to believe something you don't, pretend to be something you're not, in order to attract the kind of partner you like. That would be reprehensible in a whole other way. So my advice in that case doesn't really help, like I said. Without some sort of transcendent foundation to your worldview and your belief system, I don't think there's much escaping nihilism, whether it's relational nihilism or existential nihilism.

So, is this because A. Men are afraid of commitment, or B. Men aren't very interested in job interviews to be lifelong ATM machines to a "modern woman"?

Additionally, how can they claim this was a "safe space" for men... when no men felt "safe" enough to show up?

Woman goes to singles mixer—only women show up, sparking debate

'Somebody literally created a space where men can approach women that want to be approached ... and men saw that as strange.'

www.dailydot.com

Yeah, men being wary of relationships and averse to judgement and rejection by women could have factored into this, but for the event to fail so utterly that no men showed up? That's on the event promoters and advertisers.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes, I understand you're an atheist, and I did specifically suggest you should "genuinely" change that. I would never say you should pretend to believe something you don't, pretend to be something you're not, in order to attract the kind of partner you like. That would be reprehensible in a whole other way. So my advice in that case doesn't really help, like I said. Without some sort of transcendent foundation to your worldview and your belief system, I don't think there's much escaping nihilism, whether it's relational nihilism or existential nihilism.

There's literally no way to genuinely change that. And no, there's no need for nihilism. Seriously, the belief that some has that being areligious or athiest leads to nihilism is something I've never got. Yes, we don't have a higher power telling us what the point of our existence is, but we can find one, just like we can find a basis for morality. Mine is trying to expand liberty for all, which is very related to my moral beliefs stemming from the NAP.

 

[LordsFire]

There's literally no way to genuinely change that.

No longer being in denial about the material evidence for Intelligent Design is a good place to start.

That aside (and it should remain aside, as there's another thread for it), Libertarianism isn't likely to be much help finding a woman. I'm sure there are a few exceptions out there, but by and large libertarian women are libertarians because they're libertines, and basically just want to sleep around.

 

[Abhorsen]

No longer being in denial about the material evidence for Intelligent Design is a good place to start.

There isn't any, but that's for another thread. And it still wouldn't end up in a religion.

That aside (and it should remain aside, as there's another thread for it), Libertarianism isn't likely to be much help finding a woman. I'm sure there are a few exceptions out there, but by and large libertarian women are libertarians because they're libertines, and basically just want to sleep around.

I never expected it to? That's not why I'm a libertarian.

 

[ParadiseLost]

So, is this because A. Men are afraid of commitment, or B. Men aren't very interested in job interviews to be lifelong ATM machines to a "modern woman"?

Additionally, how can they claim this was a "safe space" for men... when no men felt "safe" enough to show up?

Woman goes to singles mixer—only women show up, sparking debate

'Somebody literally created a space where men can approach women that want to be approached ... and men saw that as strange.'

www.dailydot.com

I'm going to go with C: Reality has a reality bias.

When my university hosted a charity speed dating event the female:male ratio was skewed significantly. Honestly, I am quite certain a speed dating event would be a waste of time as a guy unless you're in the top 20% looks/charisma ratio. This type of event is naturally heavily waited towards going for guys based on looks plus the first 30 seconds of conversation.

At least with online dating you can put unique interests & hobbies. Plus, if a woman decides to go on a date with you because of online dating, she's going to be more invested in you than she would be if she met you at a mixer.

 

[Zachowon]

Wrong thread? What do the Georgia Guidestones have to do with dating?

I'm not surprised, though. They've been a boogeyman in some conspiracy theories for years.

Yes wring thread

 

[bullethead]

Here's a pretty good podcast about the biology and sociology of sex that I think has a lot to do with why MGTOW is taking off:



TL;DW:
-The male genome is much more variable and faster to change than female genome due to men having the Y chromosome, which omits some redundancies the XX pairing has.
-Guys generally maintain a steadier level of sex drive throughout their life, with a general slant towards quantity and novelty.
-Most male behavior is shaped by the female... in situations where male demand for sex is higher than supply.
-In situations where fewer males are available, men gain the ability to shape female behavior.
-There's an evolutionary mismatch between male and female orgasms developed and what their purposes are. Female orgasm developed much later in human evolution.
-Humans basically evolved in a way that they'd pair up for 7-8 years, long enough for a child to mature enough to point where it could keep itself alive, then separate.
-Female sex drive consistently reduces after long-term bonding with a mate.
-Female sex drive/expression is far more controlled by social factors like education and religious adherence than the male sex drive.
-The Victorian era was the most prudish era, which was driven by women's response to the industrial revolution reducing the value of their labor, forcing them to rely more on sex appeal to attract mates, while also dealing with the sudden jump in life expectancy that stopped serial monogamy.
-Slut shaming is women's in-group method of preventing casual sex from happening at a level of dating that most women are uncomfortable with.
-Simp-shaming is men's in-group method of preventing resource extraction/emotional entanglement without gaining sex in return.

What I'm thinking is that there are two main root causes that are combining in MGTOW:

1. A biological mismatch in sexual desire and function between men and women.
2. Female societal behaviors caused by that biological mismatch.

If you follow the podcast's supply/demand analogy for sex, men are producing high demand for sex, while women are constraining the supply through social means.

But that's because men and women have completely different reasons why they want sex, plus completely incompatible sex drive profiles. The venn diagram of the two is basically only overlapping at "pleasure and making babies", and on an individual level, it's probably closer to just "pleasure". Men and women are basically on two totally divergent courses, which is exacerbated by female societal behaviors created by said mismatch.

Basically, I think MGTOW is a backlash against the basic reality that human women haven't kept up with biological demand and the social behaviors they use to exploit that fact. This would explain why shitty robot prostitutes can put actual women out of business, despite looking pretty terrible. Robot prostitutes easily meet the demand at a much lower rate of resource extraction, with the only negatives being lack of emotional connection and child birth.

Once you get really good AI, either in virtual or physical platforms, better looking hardware, and artificial wombs, there's no reason for a guy to actually bother with human women outside of philosophical or possibly economic reasons that make human women the cheaper option.

 

[Bassoe]

Once you get really good AI, either in virtual or physical platforms, better looking hardware, and artificial wombs, there's no reason for a guy to actually bother with human women outside of philosophical or possibly economic reasons that make human women the cheaper option.

Natural selection will take care of that. Expect the instinctual uncanny valley effect to get much stronger as soon as being disgusted and afraid of sexbots becomes essential selection criteria for reproductive success.

 

[Cherico]

Natural selection will take care of that. Expect the instinctual uncanny valley effect to get much stronger as soon as being disgusted and afraid of sexbots becomes essential selection criteria for reproductive success.

or people just make it so sex robots are capable of producing off spring.

 

[Bear Ribs]

or people just make it so sex robots are capable of producing off spring.

"I'm not sure about letting my Sexbot help raise our daughter, I don't want my little girl to have as low standards as her mom does."

 

[Cherico]

"I'm not sure about letting my Sexbot help raise our daughter, I don't want my little girl to have as low standards as her mom does."

Men will likely have some other name for their sexbot when it happens companion bot, or waifu bot or just wife.

 

[Ixian]

I Tried This AI-Based App That Removes Makeup On Celebs And Here’s The Result

The MakeApp uses neural networks to let you add or remove makeup from photos and videos.

www.boredpanda.com

Feminists bigley mad.

 

[Cherico]

I Tried This AI-Based App That Removes Makeup On Celebs And Here’s The Result

The MakeApp uses neural networks to let you add or remove makeup from photos and videos.

www.boredpanda.com

Feminists bigley mad.

A lot of the women are not that worse off looks wise

 

[Ixian]

A lot of the women are not that worse off looks wise

Agreed, and yet they continue to fume over it.

 

[Cherico]

Agreed, and yet they continue to fume over it.

Women don't wear make up to compete for men mate, they do it to style over other women.

 

[Ixian]

Women don't wear make up to compete for men mate, they do it to style over other women.

Of course, which explains why they are so angry with this app.

 

[Agent23]

I really love Wealthion, but sometimes Adam brings in real fucking tools like this AEI tradcuck.
And one of the funniest punch lines is "...but single men out of work are actually doing better than single moms."
Pffttt.
A lot of the people that are lying flat in the USA can probably afford a far less affluent lifestyle exactly because they do not have mortgages, student debt or need to buy cars and drive to work 5 days out of seven.
If a person can cover their expenses with a minimal amount of work put in why the fuck should they aim higher, people work to live, they do not live to work.
Maybe they should take a very good look at all of the anti-straight white male policies and all the WOKE SHIT AND FEMINAZI GIBBERISH.


As to the prime age women going out of the work force, well, methinks a lot might be going into the OnlyFans trade.

What did Thatcher say, there is no such thing as society, just a bunch of individuals?

Well, if some of those individuals have enough savings and alternate income streams to lie flat and do with just part-time occasional work then more power to them.

The second I can make enough money from a well-diversified portfolio that can support my lifestyle, perhaps with a bit of a cushion, I will be dropping out, too.

I might move to some part of Indochina, or North Korea if it opens up by then, or even Central Asia or the Philippines.