Current Events > Radfem biologist: many men will no longer have a sexual partner in the future

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://2iafp3idlzpjydahayrrzwlbjm-adwhj77lcyoafdy-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog /zukunft-der-menschheit-evolutionsbiologin-viele-maenner.1310.de.html?dram:article_id=492817

Not all males get a chance, many remain without females and without sex. That's the female choice, a law of evolution.

Sex is a finite resource for males that females control. The fact that males try often and persistently to establish sexual contact with females and that females almost always refuse these attempts is not a fault of the system - it is the system. "

Meike Stoverock spreads out the panorama of evolutionary biological connections with relish - and the conclusion that comes to mind when reading this: humans are also only mammals. From a scientific point of view, the principle of female choice must also apply to them. Thats how it used to be, the author explains convincingly.

[...]

Men who can no longer find women in this new world order should be cared for in other ways - Stoverock thinks about sex assistants and the role of prostitution, she describes pornography as a possible socially acceptable support for men.

"Men who never or only very rarely find sex partners must be given ethical and socially acceptable ways of meeting their sexual needs."

Thoughts, CE?
---

She's not wrong.

---

There will indeed be a mass of men unable to get a partner. What they do from there and how society deals with them afterwards, I don't know.

Government provided prostitutes got my vote.

---

i'll hold out for robot girlfriends.

---

What's unethical or socially unacceptable about workin' it solo?

Maybe I just don't get Germany.

---

monkmith posted...

i'll hold out for robot girlfriends.

By the time those are a thing your dick won't work as well

---

CyricZ posted...

What's unethical or socially unacceptable about workin' it solo?

Maybe I just don't get Germany.

Germany is a lot less prude than the US
---

Hot
---

sexbots

---

Literally already a thing

This is true for 80-90% of men. The best dudes are spoiled for choice. And it also improves for a dude with age as you get more experience/income/wisdom.

---

Sex work should definitely be legalized and regulated, sure. IDK about it satisfying the psychological needs of sexually frustrated men though. I still don't buy that lack of sex makes guys crazy.

CyricZ posted...

What's unethical or socially unacceptable about workin' it solo?

Maybe I just don't get Germany.

There's nothing wrong with that. I think the guys in question here that this is referring to are the ones who want it, but cannot acquire. Those are the ones to be worried about.

It's pretty much already like that

---

Incels say this all the time but she is actually saying it in a constructive way and offering solutions.

---

Irony posted...

By the time those are a thing your dick won't work as well

robo girlfriend would know how to work the prostate with the electric butt probe just right so it wouldn't matter!

---

What does she mean "in the future"? This has been the default state of humanity for most of history. Everybody wants to fuck upwards on the scale of desirability. If you're a 6 you don't want to be stuck settling with a 5, etc.

---

Pretty sure androids on the level of Android 18 are a very long time away from being reality tbh

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Incels say this all the time but she is actually saying it in a constructive way and offering solutions.

honestly those are stop-gap solutions at best. the real problem is that most dudes are just completely in need of serious self-improvement. i'm not sure what's happening, maybe it's the prevalence of bad parenting, but most dudes really are undateable for serious prospects.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Government provided prostitutes got my vote.

Now that is something I can get behind.
---

prostitution is not the answer wtf. keep in mind that's a serious problem of human exploitation.

the simplest answer is the one that makes the most sense - guys need to level-up. and certainly we can have social programs help out. men for example are disproportionately affected by the opioid epidemic and etc. solving those problems, bolstering safety nets so parents can do a good job...should solve the problem hopefully.

---

Notti posted...

Now that is something I can get behind.

ayyyy lmao

---

LOL at incels.

---

Our only choice is to be like the Gerudo from Zelda and selectively breed so that we have a population with 100 females to every male. I'll never know the pleasure of a harem but perhaps my descendants will.

pure_temper posted...

honestly those are stop-gap solutions at best. the real problem is that most dudes are just completely in need of serious self-improvement. i'm not sure what's happening, maybe it's the prevalence of bad parenting, but most dudes really are undateable for serious prospects.

"Self-improvement" is a pretty meaningless term though. What does that mean, go to the gym until women are more attracted to you and someone else will take your spot in the "unwanted" category? That is very superficial, and moreover it doesn't actually solve anything.

If you mean something more along the lines of everyone should have therapy, that doesn't solve the issue she's talking about where some men just won't be able to find a sexual partner.

If she's right, then the only real solution right now would be legalizing prostitution. In the distant future, having human-like robots to fulfill sexual needs could be almost identical to having a romantic relationship with a real human. Also a robot like that would be able to be extremely patient and essentially provide therapy as well.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

"Self-improvement" is a pretty meaningless term though. What does that mean, go to the gym until women are more attracted to you and someone else will take your spot in the "unwanted" category? That is very superficial, and moreover it doesn't actually solve anything.

If you mean something more along the lines of everyone should have therapy, that doesn't solve the issue she's talking about where some men just won't be able to find a sexual partner.

If she's right, then the only real solution right now would be legalizing prostitution. In the distant future, having human-like robots to fulfill sexual needs could be almost identical to having a romantic relationship with a real human. Also a robot like that would be able to be extremely patient and essentially provide therapy as well.

yeah, physical shape, income, life experiences, all make you more attractive to someone.

i've talked w/ dudes in the past and the only ones who might've been marriageable or dateable for real were all the older dudes who had attained these things and were interesting to talk with.

the average dude in his 20s is still figuring shit out and we need to accelerate that by increasing access to education, eliminating the opioid epidemic, etc. or else we'll end up with an army of incels lmao.

---

Idk, there is as many single women as single men tbh.

And the truth is they even whine and moan about having no one to top it all off.

It seems to me this is more or less the evolution of society away from marriage pressure.
It is ok to not marry and pursue yourself for the first time since like ever in human society,

It used to be the norm to settle and have a family as not doing so meant you were a bad person.

WingsOfGood posted...

Idk, there is as many single women as single men tbh.

And the truth is they even whine and moan about having no one to top it all off.

because the quality of the average man has declined a lot

---

The future is now

---

pure_temper posted...

because the quality of the average man has declined a lot

Is that why single motherhood is at record highs? Because of poor quality man?

---

pure_temper posted...

because the quality of the average man has declined a lot

This is false. The quality of men and women have generally gone up. Most are more educated than their parents.

And even if it was true, then the quality of women have declined all the same.
Like, what exactly are you even saying?

Prismsblade posted...

Is that why single motherhood is at record highs? Because of poor quality man?

This is due to two factors:

1. Women who have not found a man still have access to sex, unlike many men. But sex always carries a risk of pregnancy.
2. Culture has shifted to not look down upon you for not staying for the kids. Now you are expected to take care of yourself so when they realize it no longer works out there is less pressure to keep the marriage together.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Incels say this all the time but she is actually saying it in a constructive way and offering solutions.

Lmao what solutions? Paying absurd amounts of money for sex with women that are only in it for the money? That's not a solution

Prismsblade posted...

Is that why single motherhood is at record highs? Because of poor quality man?

it's not entirely their fault - opioid epidemic, the state targeting minority men especially hard with non-violent drug charges that send them to prison, etc.

this created broken homes and yeah, it is definitely a big contributor imo.

WingsOfGood posted...

This is false. The quality of men and women have generally gone up. Most are more educated than their parents.

And even if it was true, then the quality of women have declined all the same.
Like, what exactly are you even saying?

i mean maybe my standards are just way too high but i've only known like 10 dudes who i'd consider marriageable in the last 10 years lol. so far, more women in their 20s were smarter/more educated.

there's data to support this too, not just my own experience. i recall Tinder publishing insights into this, and we also know that men are lagging behind women in college education and even earning potential in their 20s.

---

I feel like an incel has managed to find a way to possess people and possessed this radfem biologist into making this statement.

tote_all posted...

I'm guessing he's talking about NEETs being more prominent. I'm not sure if they actually make a higher % of the population now than they did 10 years ago.

They do make up more of the population now. Look up the college graduation rates to see the trend for dudes. Gotta solve it before it gets worse.

---

DarthAragorn posted...

Lmao what solutions? Paying absurd amounts of money for sex with women that are only in it for the money? That's not a solution

It fulfills sexual needs.

It may not fulfill relationship needs, but someone who needs to go to a prostitute to have sex probably will have trouble with those anyway. This is something that only human-like robots can solve.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

This is due to two factors:

1. Women who have not found a man still have access to sex, unlike many men. But sex always carries a risk of pregnancy.
2. Culture has shifted to not look down upon you for not staying for the kids. Now you are expected to take care of yourself so when they realize it no longer works out there is less pressure to keep the marriage together.

Also, online dating shows a woman so many more options.
So if she is in a relationship she is not happy with and thinks she wants to leave but is scared to, she can make an account and see just how many dudes might get with her which can encourage her to not be scared to leave.
Back in the day this was not possible.

That article pretty much sums up female psychology. There's no reason to be angry or upset about it, because it's how the brain is programmed. If you get turned down by a girl, just brush it off and move along. 90% of the time it's nothing personal against you...she just didn't feel it or you didn't let her feelings for you build strongly enough.

Ever watch how dogs build up to it? Male dog usually acts not interested at all and it's the female that comes to him once she's ready and she'll drive him nuts until he jumps on her. She picked him.

Granted, our psychology and process is definitely NOT the same as a dog; but there are some similarities you can observe. Doing so will teach you to only show so much interest in a female; but let her come to you. When just meeting and getting to know a girl, definitely don't ask her out. You might get lucky but the odds are in favor of her saying no. Get to know her and let the feelings build. Once you have a friendship and she shows sign(s) that she may want you for more than a friend you could try doing something nice for her; but DON'T stick around like you're waiting for a reward. Just do it and leave; tell her you were glad you were around to help but you gotta go. Psychologically this (can) multiply her attraction for you several times.

Picture the knight in shining armor cliche; Where the guy rides in, saves the girl, and leaves almost as quick as she can say thank you. She goes nuts thinking about him afterwards. That's one way you can approach getting a girl attracted to you if a situation allows.

Before anyone asks why cold approaches can work; it works because situations can be unique and there's always exceptions to the rules and we're all different. If a girl is right in the peak of that time of the month where she wants sex really bad and a decent looking guy comes along, she may be willing to go straight to the sex. Our desire for sex is a constant 8/10 or 9/10....when a girl is at her peak, her drive goes up to 11/10. That's where you can get lucky. ;)

WingsOfGood posted...

Also, online dating shows a woman so many more options.

right but they also select a very specific % of the options. dude's need to level up in every way if they want romantic interest, it's the only way.

---

Radfem is usually used to describe movements that think everything is a social construct and will often posit that women and men have identical sex drives, etc. She is making arguments that often get derided as "biotruths" in those circles. As a biologist I agree with what she is saying but it runs opposite to what I was taught in Women's Studies courses. I don't think the labeling here is correct.

---

Well, that was some weird shit

---

tote_all posted...

I'm guessing he's talking about NEETs being more prominent. I'm not sure if they actually make a higher % of the population now than they did 10 years ago.

NEET's are not a gender thing. You have female NEET's. Since men have traditionally been considered the breadwinner they do tend to go off the radar more than the men though.

pure_temper posted...

i mean maybe my standards are just way too high but i've only known like 10 dudes who i'd consider marriageable in the last 10 years lol. so far, more women in their 20s were smarter/more educated.

What made them not marriageable? They had bad jobs? Were immature? Bad personality? Didn't care for their partner?

ssjevot posted...

Radfem is usually used to describe movements that think everything is a social construct and will often posit that women and men have identical sex drives, etc. She is making arguments that often get derided as "biotruths" in those circles. As a biologist I agree with what she is saying but it runs opposite to what I was taught in Women's Studies courses. I don't think the labeling here is correct.

i would not expect those courses to have dabbled much in mating strategies though. that's really the purview of a harder science, isn't it?

---

WingsOfGood posted...

What made them not marriageable? They had bad jobs? Were immature? Bad personality? Didn't care for their partner?

all of the above. but most importantly, they were okay with stagnation and didn't actually care about improving any of that or being serious about that stuff.

---

pure_temper posted...

improves for a dude with age as you get more experience/income/wisdom.

in the span from age 20-30. there's a big difference for the better in bolded words.
---