I think this might be one of the most depressing things I have read lately

[monkeystyle]

Fuzzy, you really need to stfu.

 

[fuzzy]

Fuzzy, you really need to stfu.

no thank you

 

[Axis]

polittions

 

[fuzzy]

fixed it, thanks for pointing that out Axis.........

 

[KenFan4life]

This reminds me of a time, when I was busy jerking off into a bowl of cheetos during a wrestl..err, footba....I mean my tv shows, and my bitch be all like, "Newspapers and Education!" and ....whatever, I was like, "Yep!" and I blocked her yap up like I had condoms in my ears....

this "monkeystyle" ni'gga is just anutha' ni'gga yappin'!

 

[Luke Flywalker]

http://www.slate.com/id/2286240/pagenum/all/#p2

We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn't so bad. This isn't to say that all men direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don't. But what many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it's all thanks to supply and demand.

To better understand what's going on, it's worth a crash course in "sexual economics," an approach best articulated by social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs. As Baumeister, Vohs, and others have repeatedly shown, on average, men want sex more than women do. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it's true. In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University's campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know: Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.

And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren't asking for much in return these days—the market "price" of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be.
Advertisement

But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It's not that the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it's that there's a growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically meet—on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large numbers of twentysomethings—women outnumber men by significant margins. (In one Manhattan ZIP code, for example, women account for 63 percent of 22-year-olds.)

The idea that sex ratios alter sexual behavior is well-established. Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive culture. The same holds true on college campuses. In the course of researching our book Premarital Sex in America, my co-author and I assessed the effects of campus sex ratios on women's sexual attitudes and behavior. We found that virginity is more common on those campuses where women comprise a smaller share of the student body, suggesting that they have the upper hand. By contrast, on campuses where women outnumber men, they are more negative about campus men, hold more negative views of their relationships, go on fewer dates, are less likely to have a boyfriend, and receive less commitment in exchange for sex.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data offer other glimpses into just how low the cost of sex is for young men ages 18 through 23. Take the speed with which these men say their romantic relationships become sexual: 36 percent of young men's relationships add sex by the end of the second week of exclusivity; an additional 13 percent do so by the end of the first month. A second indicator of cheap sex is the share of young men's sexual relationships—30 percent—that don't involve romance at all: no wooing, no dates, no nothing. Finally, as my colleagues and I discovered in our interviews, striking numbers of young women are participating in unwanted sex—either particular acts they dislike or more frequent intercourse than they'd prefer or mimicking porn (being in a dating relationship is correlated to greater acceptance of and use of porn among women).

Yes, sex is clearly cheap for men. Women's "erotic capital," as Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has dubbed it, can still be traded for attention, a job, perhaps a boyfriend, and certainly all the sex she wants, but it can't assure her love and lifelong commitment. Not in this market. It's no surprise that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average of 1 percent each year this past decade.

Jill, a 20-year-old college student from Texas, is one of the many young women my colleagues and I interviewed who finds herself confronting the sexual market's realities. Startlingly attractive and an all-star in all ways, she patiently endures her boyfriend's hemming and hawing about their future. If she were operating within a collegiate sexual economy that wasn't oversupplied with women, men would compete for her and she would easily secure the long-term commitment she says she wants. Meanwhile, Julia, a 21-year-old from Arizona who's been in a sexual relationship for two years, is frustrated by her boyfriend's wish to "enjoy the moment and not worry about the future." Michelle, a 20-year-old from Colorado, said she is in the same boat: "I had an ex-boyfriend of mine who said that, um, he didn't know if he was ever going to get married because, he said, there's always going to be someone better." If this is "the end of men," someone really ought to let them know.

And yet while young men's failures in life are not penalizing them in the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to achieve in life. Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today's young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year's book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, "Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy." They're right. But then try getting men to do anything.

Just got linked to this after showing someone the article MS posted...

 

[monkeystyle]

So, I was discussing this with a few friends and did a bit more reading on this and we have come to the following conclusions:

It has much to do with skilled trades and skilled manufacturing jobs being swept away from Western societies to countries where labour is cheaper. People (all people) now have a much more limited choice of career and it is seen as essential now to get a university education to have a chance at earning enough money to live as your parents did. A university education costs a lot of money, making people reliant on assistance from their parents into their 20s.

Moreover, people are simply living longer now. Life expectancy is up into the 70s and pushing into the 80s, so life is stretched out accordingly. This is no different really to the invention of "adolescence" or the teenage years as a distinct life period which occurred in the early to mid-20th century. Consider when people were typically married off by 16 and were effectively adults.

It is also much more difficult now to have a career in traditional industries or skills because multinational companies can undercut a small business by using cheap foreign labour or by virtue of simply having the financial power to monopolise markets. The other option is to become a desk or service industry drone.

In other words we believe that the shifting job market, combined with the high prices of education and the extension of our life spans is again shifting the perception of how we look at age. Perhaps in another 50-100 years people won't be leaving home at 18-19 like we do now, maybe it will be 28-29. The biggest issue that I see with this is that while men are capable of extending their "adolesence" until their late 20's and still have children etcetera, it cannot apply to women. Women's reproductive cycles are relatively short and finite. Men can have children at any age, and while yes, women can have children later as well there are also greater chances for certain birth defects as women pass a certain age.

 

[Colin Gimp]

Just stfu and work with ambition. Stop being lazy. women work harder then most males its pathetic. Learn a skill or a trade your a man your smarter faster stronger kay

 

[monkeystyle]

This ground breaking insight brought to you by Colin White ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Italian Outsider]

So, I was discussing this with a few friends and did a bit more reading on this and we have come to the following conclusions:

It has much to do with skilled trades and skilled manufacturing jobs being swept away from Western societies to countries where labour is cheaper. People (all people) now have a much more limited choice of career and it is seen as essential now to get a university education to have a chance at earning enough money to live as your parents did. A university education costs a lot of money, making people reliant on assistance from their parents into their 20s.

True, and there is more. After all the time you have wasted studying, you'll have to do internship and other stuff, which means waste another couple of years and money.

Moreover, people are simply living longer now. Life expectancy is up into the 70s and pushing into the 80s, so life is stretched out accordingly. This is no different really to the invention of "adolescence" or the teenage years as a distinct life period which occurred in the early to mid-20th century. Consider when people were typically married off by 16 and were effectively adults.

Also true.

In other words we believe that the shifting job market, combined with the high prices of education and the extension of our life spans is again shifting the perception of how we look at age. Perhaps in another 50-100 years people won't be leaving home at 18-19 like we do now, maybe it will be 28-29. The biggest issue that I see with this is that while men are capable of extending their "adolesence" until their late 20's and still have children etcetera, it cannot apply to women. Women's reproductive cycles are relatively short and finite. Men can have children at any age, and while yes, women can have children later as well there are also greater chances for certain birth defects as women pass a certain age.

I disagree here. Modern women become whores in their 14s and keep living like that until they're 35-40. Then they try to have kids because they're running out of time.

 

[Luke Flywalker]

So, I was discussing this with a few friends and did a bit more reading on this and we have come to the following conclusions:

It has much to do with skilled trades and skilled manufacturing jobs being swept away from Western societies to countries where labour is cheaper. People (all people) now have a much more limited choice of career and it is seen as essential now to get a university education to have a chance at earning enough money to live as your parents did. A university education costs a lot of money, making people reliant on assistance from their parents into their 20s.

Moreover, people are simply living longer now. Life expectancy is up into the 70s and pushing into the 80s, so life is stretched out accordingly. This is no different really to the invention of "adolescence" or the teenage years as a distinct life period which occurred in the early to mid-20th century. Consider when people were typically married off by 16 and were effectively adults.

It is also much more difficult now to have a career in traditional industries or skills because multinational companies can undercut a small business by using cheap foreign labour or by virtue of simply having the financial power to monopolise markets. The other option is to become a desk or service industry drone.

In other words we believe that the shifting job market, combined with the high prices of education and the extension of our life spans is again shifting the perception of how we look at age. Perhaps in another 50-100 years people won't be leaving home at 18-19 like we do now, maybe it will be 28-29. The biggest issue that I see with this is that while men are capable of extending their "adolesence" until their late 20's and still have children etcetera, it cannot apply to women. Women's reproductive cycles are relatively short and finite. Men can have children at any age, and while yes, women can have children later as well there are also greater chances for certain birth defects as women pass a certain age.

I agree with this entire post, but I think it's key to note that men never made for the best office workers. Part of the reason our species have survived this long was due to man being able to do jobs that women couldn't; and men have effectively been replaced by machines. This trend REALLY started during the industrial revolution, men were forced to become observers of equipment, and oversee the observers. Then women fought for their right to work jobs outside of tailoring and found themselves working the observational jobs and office jobs, doing things relatively playing up to their strengths.

All in all, we've really developed into this style by undermining the survivalist needs of men having those positions in the first place.

Sure there's plenty a man can do in today's age, but there's such a limited market for him to be able to do that, so few options with so many people competing for those same jobs so they don't fall into that trend, you can't satisfy everybody. Looking at it like that, it's still very much survival of the fittest, or first, or however you call it... sperm-and-egg theory.

I disagree here. Modern women become whores in their 14s and keep living like that until they're 35-40. Then they try to have kids because they're running out of time.

Read the other article I just posted... women are so disgusted by men nowadays (their naturally put-off because men have essentially become weak) that they find their need for sex pretty much recreational since very few men live up to the standards that they require to have a relationship or family. It leaves women basically just living a professional career with booty calls until she finally decides she needs to have her seed to carry on her legacy.

In today's world, the alpha-female is far more prevalent than the alpha-male. Women are equipped to live the lifestyle that today requires, because it's what they've been living for the existence of our species pretty much... just nowadays, that position is the high-paying job... so they're far better off than men ever were to be honest.

 

[Italian Outsider]

Read the other article I just posted...

I will, give me some time.

women are so disgusted by men nowadays (their naturally put-off because men have essentially become weak) that they find their need for sex pretty much recreational since very few men live up to the standards that they require to have a relationship or family. It leaves women basically just living a professional career with booty calls until she finally decides she needs to have her seed to carry on her legacy.

I strongly disagree here, you are inverting the cause and the effect.
Women's goal isn't the career because they are disgusted by men, and therefore have only recreational sex.
Bullshit seriously. Have we forgotten the last 50 years of die-hard feminism?
Women have been pushed into careers at all costs, with ''pink'' quotas, and other legislation favouring or often forcing employers to employ women. Off-course, if a woman is busy pursuing other goals she doesn't have time for family, and that's why recreational sex is the preferred option.

In today's world, the alpha-female is far more prevalent than the alpha-male.

More like, in today's world, laws that discriminate against males and in favour of females are still around and fully working, successful women take advantage of that.

 

[Luke Flywalker]

I strongly disagree here, you are inverting the cause and the effect.
Women's goal isn't the career because they are disgusted by men, and therefore have only recreational sex.
Bullshit seriously. Have we forgotten the last 50 years of die-hard feminism?
Women have been pushed into careers at all costs, with ''pink'' quotas, and other legislation favouring or often forcing employers to employ women. Off-course, if a woman is busy pursuing other goals she doesn't have time for family, and that's why recreational sex is the preferred option.

We essentially said the same thing, I think you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say a woman's goal is the career because they're disgusted by men... I actually went on to say women go on living a professional life with sex on the side but no relationships because they don't find the time for it. I said because of the careers, a woman is more likely to not have relationships while they're focusing on their careers, and this sets them up for settling later in life when they're in a groove with their profession.

Also, because of women being in these positions in careers, it leaves more stay-at-home-dads rather than the opposite, and the women are the primary earners while the father raises the child. Or neither parent is ever really home with their children and that creates a complex, but that's an entirely different discussion.

 

[Mike Chaos]

I disagree here. Modern women become whores in their 14s and keep living like that until they're 35-40. Then they try to have kids because they're running out of time.

This! When I was in high school which was not too long ago we didn't have half the amount of whores that there are now. And it is also promoted on television. We have these horrible tv shows like "Pregnant at 16" and shows like "Skins". Now though there are so many teenage girls taking nude photos of themselves with cell phones and sending them to their boyfriends (if you can even classify them as that). Which of course their boyfriend sends the pictures to their friends and then it ends up going onto imagefap or /b/.

Sorry to go off topic but things have changed so much in the last few years and not for the better. So many more people in middle school are doing harder drugs than weed it is just crazy.

 

[Beer]

In a nutshell the article described modern men and women. Once turned 18 or 21, women go on and try and make a career for themselves - a duty they feel they need to complete just because they're women and they're free - and men go on to live freely, have fun and do what they wanted to do as boys but couldn't, whatever that may be.

I don't see what the issue is. Who cares if men settle down later on in life or at least later than historically? Men want to be able to enjoy college life once they become adults and women don't want to be tied down with a husband or family so they can concentrate on making a decent living. Once Men realize there real responsibilities and women decided that they want a family then that is the time to begin to live like a family. If that happens when they're 25, 30 or 35 it doesn't matter - as long as it does happen which I think we can be completely sure it will; after all the main goal of anyone's life is to fall in love and have children and for the most part that always happens and probably always will.