Lurker > pezzicle

And "blaming yourself" is not conducive to building confidence.

No one's a victim, I'm only talking about how the framing of "men think women owe them sex" is very silly. In that sense, women think men "owe" them things, too. It's ridiculous and just not accurate.

that is in no way shape or form the same thing

men being owed sex is about men feeling entitled to receiving sex from women just for existing.

women being owed a particular lifestyle is a standard they have set for who it is that they would like to date and grow into a relationship with. Most women who have these standards do not think they should get this just because they exist. They want to participate and exist within this lifestyle by working, raising a family, taking care of a home. They are actively involved in creating that lifestyle.

What I said. I think how men were raised to behave in past eras was more conducive to them developing personalities that are intimately desirable for women.

To say men "should" do that is imposing some sense of obligation on them.

Simply put, any argument that women shouldn't improve or lower their standards applies equally to men.

My pp small, I can't compete with Chad's foot long

You had to make this false equivalency to even dispute what I said. Everyone knows women can get laid, that's not what they're after. They're usually after relationships.

No, the female equivalent is "Where have all the good men gone?". Women complain all the time about how there aren't good enough men. Far more often than men complain about it being too hard to get laid. You know this to be true, because: most men's pride prevents them from whining about that because it would make them look like losers, so I know damn well that's nothing more than a strawman. I've never heard it IRL, or anywhere but 4chan really. Women shit on ordinary men for being sub-par everywhere and constantly.

You missed the point completely. I was responding to the tired strawman that men think women "owe" them sex. It's not any more true to say that than it is to say that men "owe" women a particular lifestyle or money or whatever. People seem to like framing it as if we do though.

It's interesting that it's always framed this way and never, ever "women think men owe them (XYZ)"
Why is it just a given that men are supposed to meet women at wherever level they expect you to meet them at? Neither side owes the other anything but men are the ones who are supposed to completely revolutionize their lives just to get laid, it's hilarious where and to whom accountability gets attributed

Ironically a lot of the "social conditioning" that makes men unattractive is being done by other men claiming to know how to get you laid. Most women would rather date a guy who is funny/charming than jacked/rich. Women might like a guy who is direct/assertive, but not dudes who approach them like some kind of predator. And lastly, women do not care about a guy's body count, it's funny how men obsess over this metric that's just some kind of contest with other men.

That's what's scary about all these right wing and right wing adjacent movements though. They tell you they have the fix, when in reality they sabotage you even further, but that just makes people dig in further with blaming their chosen bogeyman. It's hard to get people out of a mindset where they're looking for someone aside from themselves to blame.

Successfully dating.

Economic and cultural factors.

Tougher economy, rising education standards, more shallow dating venues (apps), social conditioning that increasingly instills personality traits into men that are not broadly sexually attractive to women, etc.

It's quite the issue in a world where equality is normalized for many people to not actually want an equal.

If it's women who changed it's a bit inaccurate to say the men "fell". In many cases they're doing what they always did and it's just not good enough now. If someone gets pulled out of a ditch while I stay there I didn't "fall", they were just elevated.

Also just the Europa? They deserve a year in the mf championship for all the bullshit they've lied and cheated about.

And it is very likely that many are less sex focused. And that isn't a bad thing.

And the ones that may be inclined may also better understand the financial costs of being sexually active and actually know they can't afford those costs. That's not a bad thing either.

It was also easier in the 90s and 2000s and I'm pretty sure that stopped at some point within. There are other changes that worsened things.

Yep, it's rule for thee but not for thou when it comes to their own rules. There has been soo many cases of Republican/Pro-Life politicians of their loved ones/teens having secret abortions to keep up appearance. Just because those complications with birth are the exception doesn't mean we shouldn't have procedures to help with them.

If the percentage of sexually successfully people is dropping then maybe something's already wrong.

Oh I can answer this one

Pepperoni
Sausage
Mushroom
Pineapple

Freiburg is a good draw imo, they're not in great shape.

Both that and Brighton/Roma will likely be important for getting the fifth Champions League slot which Germany and Italy are currently leading. Having two teams knocked out to direct opponents would be a huge blow for England even if we all expect at least one English team in each tournament to go far.

Aston Villa are heavy favorites with this current Ajax though (and also to win the whole thing).

The counterpoint to Yanited is they are up against Mateball and Good Ebening. Emery has bottled top four before and Tottenham in general have never met a situation they couldn't throw away. So Yanited have every chance to scam top four yet again.

I don't know what's more disappointing, Arsenal trailing their first leg or Bayern Munich.

Also, Man United are so boned regarding top 4/5. Shaw's out for pretty much the rest of the season and now the club have no left backs to play and they can't play Dalot there because Wan-Bissaka's also out. Add in Martinez being out, and United have a barely functional defense.

The Room
CATS
Battlefield Earth

Less than 10% of Steam Decks have Windows installed.

About a quarter of all PS game sales are consistently first party titles, going by Sony's financial reports. That's a huge percentage, especially given how many small indie games sell on PS.

Besides, Xbox will be dead as an ecosystem by the time they could port anything over.

Sony would lose far more than they gained by putting their games on Xbox.

There's no way they announce any of that now. This is just going to be mentioning a couple games going cross-platform. I do think they'd be wise to not make a real Xbox in the future though. A Steam Deck-style thing that plays Windows games is the way to go. Add Xbox backwards compatibility to Windows, even!

Yeah I'm sorry if I'm coming off as deliberately obtuse, I'm just trying to understand if there's something more to this than "our games are going multiplatform" when it's like... bro your games have been multiplatform.

Them saying we're entering the latter stages of the life cycle is pretty crazy. I got my PS5 November and have hardly touched it. It's starting to just feel like a PS4 Pro+ at this point. Wish i'd just stuck to my original plan and upgraded my PC then waited to see what the new Nintendo system looks like.

Okami
Persona 4
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Super Smash Bros for Wii U
South Park: Stick of Truth
Pokemon Sun/Moon
AI: The Somnium Files
Final Fantasy VII Remake

Tidus
Max

Ryu
Mega Man
Leon Kennedy
Dante

Baldur's Gate 3

Johnny Unitas
Joe Montana
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning

Super Mario Bros. Wonder

Snow White
Cinderella
Ariel
Belle