Among foolish women. This is how I view a lot of the things you and your like-minded worry about. You’re calling things cultural or societal that I see also, but think of as things foolish people do. Insecure women look for love by sexualizing themselves. Foolish men find these sexualized women attractive and resent that they are game-players or freely offered to others. The men respond to their negative feelings/experience with these women (“sluts”) by behaving punishingly. Foolish women find this acceptable. And so on.
Edit: I guess I should clarify that if I were 35 and dating someone my age and discovered that they were a virgin, I’d wonder why in terms of emotional or personality factors (red flag). In teens or early 20’s? I don’t see why I’d care. I think losing virginity together would be lovely.
The government is changing the way they reimburse for Medicare Advantage (which our business model is based on). Expect a 5% decline in revenue over the next two years. When we acquire a clinic, it usually isn’t profitable for 3-4 years, so the powers that be have decided to halt any further acquisitions for the foreseeable future, until they adjust to the new funding structure.
This is one of the problems I have with red pill, or other similar content. It over generalizes women. Not every woman is basing every decisions on how they feel. They aren’t all suckers for certain men. It gets lots of men following it because it is true for some women. They can match what is being said to something they’ve observed, but miss all the examples to the contrary.
Exactly. It disregards those of us with contradictory experience as either uninformed or unicorns when I think we’re the majority. Not that the world isn’t completely screwy and terrifying, but that it’s because of women’s unrestrained sexuality and inherently weak nature is misguided at best, malicious at worst.
Certainly there’s been a large shift in the gender arena, but not all or even most of it is bad.
If I could wave a magic wand in hopes of curing societies ills, it would be to put social media back into the genie’s bottle it came out of. And I say that as someone who loves her social media. But it’s creating nasty, nasty problems and changing children in measurable and scary ways. Particularly the foolish ones, with foolish parents.
So far “overly” sexed equates to emotionally broken, saved for marriage is also a flag…. Is there an ideal amount of fucking that hits your sweet spot for a well adjusted partner?
Just enough restraint for masturbation when it could have been sex 67.3343% of times, or 42.349832% of times?
Self flagellation after casual sex and chastity for weeks?
Or is it more situational? Sex after a stimulating conversation of current events juxtaposed with classical psychology as a precept is a connection with “depth”, but after a good time at the beach with some alcohol it’s hollow and empty?
This sounds much more sarcastic and like an attack than intended, but I am curious where you draw your lines as you seem to be very strongly opinionated about other expressions of libido.
I don’t think I care very much about it, though I have never been drawn to promiscuity in men. I prefer more intimate and sustained interactions, so have tended to pair with men who also do. The question posed to me was whether I believe there is a stigma among women for male virgins. My point was that foolish people have hard-and-fast rules. But yes, I’d wonder why a man was a virgin at 35, and would think him a poor match for me if “saving oneself for marriage” was a value he held dear. In that case shouldn’t he look for a woman who also held that value and the other values that presumably accompany the waiting for marriage?
Red flags for me would include a libido that does not match my own, in either direction. We’d get to that after discovering whether our lifestyles, values, and leisure preferences matched.
I’m not sure how this makes me strongly opinionated about others’ libido. I really thought I was in here questioning why anyone cares about it. Just find someone who matches you and don’t worry about the rest of the people. I’m a little baffled by your post.
Did anyone here say that’s the main culprit, like anyone here actually believes the degradation of the West and/or male disenfranchisement (including suicide) is entirely because of sexual licentiousness?
I think the solution as laid out in this thread and by people adjacent to the red pill philosophy is a return to traditional values, wherein the male is the acknowledged superior and as such feels less disenfranchised (is franchised a word to be used here?). Which thread was it that talked of limiting voting rights, it seemed mostly for women?
You and I see the same problems. I’m inclined to blame the unrestrained media, particularly news and social, which celebrate poor choices and behavior. You blame the feminization of the courts and etc. We both would like to see a return to traditional values, but for me those values would focus on integrity. I would like there to be media restraint (stop grief-whoring and fear-mongering), the end of politics for profit (term limits and strict and enforced limits on contributions), things like that.
I’m against the subjugation of men, but I am also against the return of it for women.
Also, these discussions become complicated because the “sides” have posters of different experience and belief posting in agreement on some elements but not others. That’s happening here, I think. But yes, I believe there has been a suggestion that women are not able to behave logically and thus with integrity.
With my responses, they are typically in relation to the topic being spoken about. Take subway crime… if I recall correctly, we were speaking about crime rates in the USA
You brought up subway crime as a reference to show how bad it is getting in the states. My response referencing how subways pale in comparision to how they were decades ago has nothing to do with dismissiing you.
In a later post, I provided statistics, epidemiological analysis of violent crime in the states to show how rates of violent crime are not on the rise from an epidemiological perspective.
Subway crime is it’s own topic alltogether, but showing how subway crime is/was on the rise in New York (for one year during/post covid) in the face of statistics/epidemiology that doesn’t back the narrative ‘violent crime is getting worse’ entails branching out into a separate topic.
If you want me to respond on subway crime ALONE i’d also say “one year of subway crime getting worse, but still not being on par with pre-pandemic levels means nothing from an epidemiological scale.”
The rate of serious incidences on the subway is 2-3 per million citizens. If we WERE having a discussion about subway crime, it would not be dismissive for me to say ‘media coverage of crime has increased dramatically’ and that crime increased everywhere during the pandemic in part due to civil unrest… as you were using sources from the media.
There has also been a reduction in subway crime over the past year. For a city that supposedly doesn’t take crime seriously, the degree to which the police got involved when rates of subway crime increased to a degree that couldn’t even mirror pre pandemic levels (pre 2019) indicates that New York doesn’t ignore criminality.
You frequently use personal anecdotes to push a point home, and at times rely entirely on anecdote. The life experiences of those around you, including yourself are not necessarily reminiscent of the viewpoints, experiences and perceptions of others.
And I know you’ve grown up in a diverse neighbourhood, and have interacted with people from all walks of life. I’ve also seen more faces come and go than most have seen in a lifetime… that doesn’t mean my experiences emanate ‘what is’.
" Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence. If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization"
Also… how can I disagree without coming across as an asshole when you talk about specific cases that are admittedly horiffic.
For instance… your friends kid getting strangled… that’s terrible… absolutely terrible. If we were having a discussion about the rate of serious violence in schools. How can I come out now and say "school violence as a whole is on the decline’'.
No matter what I say now… I come across like a dick because I’m going against your narrative. I’ll be called dismissive. But if we are speaking about the rate of school violence in a broader context, anecdote doesn’t belong in that conversation… it only serves to invoke an emotional reaction within the reader as opposed to the eventuation of a logical conclusion.
My response to a conversation about RATES OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE
“School shootings have increased, although school shootings represent a fraction of all violent crimes commited in school. It is tragic that school shootings occur”
“Here’s the rate of violent crime in American schools though”
And no… if you told me that your son was strangled I wouldn’t bring this up. Just like I wouldn’t bring this up to your coworker this happened to.
Your coworkers kid getting strangled is an example of school violence. In the face of statistics inferring that serious violence in schools is not on the rise, that anecdote doesn’t provide evidence to the contrary because anecdote is not a reliable gauge of what is, never has been and never will be.
And see… I sound like a dick saying that because you’ve chosen an emotionally charged anecdote to use. But regardless of whether I sound like a dick, it still rings true.
Did I say ANYWHERE that I thought it didn’t matter that your coworkers kid was strangled? No… and if we were having a conversation about your co-workers kid getting strangled I’d say
“I’m really sorry to hear this. This is beyond unacceptable! I’d ask if the kid is ok, if the coworker was considering taking legal action against the school etc.”
Pandering towards emotion is an effective strategy to get people rallying behind your narrative… but what happened to one person… or even a group of people that you know has nothing to do with whether things are actually getting better or worse for EVERYONE.
It’s not lopsided… it’s not selective empathy
It’s more “you want to say the USA is becoming more violent (and the variables you link as being responsible)” then use subway violence, suicide and incarceration rates as proof by including frequent anecdotes that invoke an emotional response within the reader
I disagree… but now I come off like a dick for disagreeing even though I can PROVE the mass incarceration here wasn’t related to an increase in major criminality.
You’ve said the 1950s represent a more ideal time period… you’ve actually SAID that.
And the policies you frequently support are usually 1950s or pre 1950s. Your idea of social optimisation that you’ve outlined on t nation is a mix of 1950s and early 1900s… in some cases 1800s.
With the suicide rate… I’ll take what you’ve given me. A 33% increase over a 20 year period is concerning. But if social instability and whatnot is the culprit for this increase in suicidality… why did suicide rates decrease between 2018-2020… why haven’t suicide rates continued to increase from 2020-2023 and why were suicide rates equitable to or higher than they are now in the early 1900s, 1950’s-1970s?
If social instability, the femininisation of men, an incel crisis and all of the variables you’ve outlined really were driving this you’d be looking at record suicide rates by now. Except suicide rates were higher during periods where practically none of what you mention even registered in peoples minds.
Another way of looking at this could be… suicide rates were at their lowest on record 20 years ago, and now they’ve increased back to where they were in the 1950s-1970s.
Perhaps financial stability plays a large factor (I know it does), perhaps the great recession (2007-2009) drove up suicide rates… perhaps the opiate epidemic drove up suicide rates? Perhaps the housing crisis will cause an uptick in suicide rates as more and more young people find themselves struggling to provide (or homeless).
No. Serious problems deserve to be looked at in hierarchical order from most to least important.
Actually the US has a way higher prison population. For a country that is soft on crime, if you look at bills that have passed to tackle crime, the advent of private prisons (right when incarceration rates shot up) the USA appears to be remarkably punitive. Russia doesn’t have private prisons. A lack of private prisons with quotas that incentivise courts to hand out harsher sentences coupled with courts and police being on that payroll tends to lower incarceration rates.
Same can be said about a number of bills imposing mandatory minimum sentences for relatively minor crimes that were pushed through riiight after Nixon came in… then again after private prisons were introduced… Bill Clinton also pushed a few bills through.
And Nixon administration even came out and said their goal was mass incarceration regardless of whether incarceration was justified or not.
For reference, modern private prisons became a thing in 1984… laws on introducing tougher sentencing for crimes that previously didn’t lead to imprisonment started in the early 1970s.
If you want I can provide specific examples. I’d actually like to create a thread on incarceration. You’ve specified that the rate of incarceration has skyrockered since 1950, and this is evident of rampant criminality. However this detracts from how the majority of mass incarceration occured post 1984… and it overlooks the entire dynamic of how mass incarceration in the states came to be in the face of lowering rates of crime between 1984 and 2020.
No… regardless of whether this was the 1970s or 2022, the aim of the game is to keep your family safe.
Do you want to talk about the safety of your son or do you want to talk about risk factors… and the prevalence of those risk factors?
If you want to talk about keeping your family safe that is OK. If you want to talk about america being an ever worsening mess that is spirraling out of control due to increased criminality I am going to push back against that narrative as I don’t believe that narrative is correct (note I said ‘I don’t believe’) as I don’t know about nor do I have the answers for everything.
As specified… what do you want to talk about. Your family/children or Americas trajectory.
If all you want to speak about is the current day, bringing TRENDS (epidemiology) into the conversation breaks that mould. But by keeping the conversation centred around your experiences I come across as dismissive by talking about those trends.
See… you want to talk about the present but bring up the past… so now if I bring up the past by using statistics that compare past vs modern day America, does that make me dismissive of your plight?
When was this once ‘once great country’ a reality. You say you don’t fixate on or idolise the past yet you keep referencing the past as a better time… ‘Once great’ infers that your idealistic society existed at one point… yet from the stats i’ve seen (especially if using suicide or alcoholism as a metric) this once great country never existed.
“I want to keep my kids safe, but I don’t feel as if current day America is safe ENOUGH”.
That conversation is about your family… about your kids and about the present.
I agree with what emily has said here. Your daughter is not expected to put out. As a matter of fact the newest generation of women (whether you can trust surveys or not who knows) have the lowest lay counts relative to previous generations by the time they’d all hit 20+
To finish… new york city has a crime rate equitable to Melbourne, Australia
I do NOT consider Melbourne a violent, dystopian hellhole. I don’t have skin in the game with kids… I can’t have kids… and even if I could I wouldn’t (50% chance I pass my disease onto any kid that I have… I’m not concieving a child only for it to suffer as that isn’t fair on the kid).
But I’d like to THINK (despite not having kids) that I’d be fine raising kids here. Statistically speaking, Australia is safer now than it was back in the day. If you look at surveys, most parents think of Melbourne as a safe place.
I would adopt though
We used to have ‘no go zones’ all over the country in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Now we only have a few.
Melbourne has less robbery… about 70% the homicide rate of New York and over 250% the number of rapes… but it isn’t considered a particularly dangerous place.
This isn’t saying you shouldn’t be concerned about your families safety. But I am saying it doesn’t appear as if things are as bad as you say they are. The statistics available (concrete numbers) don’t align with your narrative.
Btw you can use anecdote, and you can pander towards emotion… but not when talking about societal trends…
Remember… this is my opinion, there shouldn’t be anything provocative in this message.
To ME… the biggest concerns I have about America is democratic backsliding (could lead to woke tyrrany, fascism or an odd mix of both)… this would lead to dysfunction on a scale larger than ever seen before
But doesn’t necessarily lead to criminality, rather a society full of entitled brats. A paradigm that undercuts and undervalues normal people in favor of whatever mascot (demographic) is put up on a pedestal at any given moment
The real issue is the brazenness of the crimes and the fact that these crimes are committed by people with long records who are let loose by activist DAs.
Crime has gone up in places where they defunded the police. Some laws are not enforced, so those crimes are not reported, and other laws have been neutered. You can get away with shoplifting in some places as long as you don’t steal over a certain amount. I mean, is it even stealing if the law lets you get away with it?
And those policies are retarded… but you are looking at a handful of areas at most that allow shoplifting
Not to detract from how retarded that is
But I think it’s san fransisco and portland that allow this… that’s it…
For violent crime in particuar, an individual reports violent crime. Stats for public transit, assault and homicide (especially in schools) are unlikely to be neutered to a degree that makes a substantial difference.
I seriously doubt a lack of reporting can fill the kind of gap we are talking about here. If we are to adopt this belief we are crossing over into conspiracy theory territory.
And for areas where crime has increased i.e portland oregon
Crime has decreased elsewhere… any area that tolerates ‘tent cities’ winds up with a huge influx of undesirables coming in from all over the country.
The surrounding area becomes a hellhole… but overall the crime rate re national average stays the same.
I don’t believe new york has tent cities… I could be wrong…
If you compare Portlands crime rate to Melbourne it is leaps and bounds higher for reference.
In the US, if you live in certain states, California leads the way. There’s a trajectory to these things and once they are in motion they are hard to stop.
