I think it’s online-ness that is killing us. I do actually have a close friend; she’s not my girlfriend but I simp over her and she enjoys the attention and it’s a mutually beneficial friendship. She has dozens of other friends who are the same, but I think I am more liked than most of them. And I still very much count myself among the ranks of the lonely. Anyway, the other orbiters and I are mostly decent people, with the exception of some of the elderly alcoholics who really are just pathetic, and there isn’t anyone who doesn’t deserve to be popular in my opinion. But we just don’t meet other people. It’s hard to do. Even my friend complains that she has almost no female friends, just tragic male followers, and she’d love more female friends but most women seemingly just don’t go out now. Everyone is lonely and something has happened to make our lives feel like we’re never going to meet anyone. And in my opinion, the thing that happened was that online dating was invented and social media filled up with thinkpieces warning women that they will be raped if they go out alone. So what woman would ever leave the house now?

Young men, especially lonely ones, are a prime target for radicalisation.

Whether that's a lonely eskimo lad who finally finds kinship within a group led by an ISIS recruiter; or an autistic white lad getting deeply into /r9k/ trout farming or /pol/ dolphin rape.

If you reduce lonely men, you reduce possible targets for radicalisation. And also help the country's mental health too.

Groups are an okay idea in theory, but they are not accessible for a lot of people. There are those groups for blokey blokes with anxiety, which would be no good for me or many others. A lot of groups involve meeting in a pub or cafe, so noisy and scary.

But if you're a guy into Warhammer or board games, you likely won't fit in in those settings. You could go to a local gaming store, but they are incredibly cliquey and surprisingly intimidating, and some places won't have any nearby.

So they could go on Discord and find a community they belong in. But then they're at risk of being influenced by an echo chamber and becoming a radical leftist non-binary xie/xir, or becoming a monomaniacal antiwoke chud (sorry, otherland) who hates women, LGBT and blacks and who spends their days reviewbombing games that have body type A/B.

Maybe some people are beyond help. Is it better to be radicalised and feel part of a community, even if it's chronic masturbator supremacism; or to be a "safe" member of society at the expense of having to do horrible social shit like go to a pub with a bunch of tradesmen and deanos to fill a void and keep the internet cancer away?

When I was friendless I was heading down the chronic masturbator route anyway, luckily people came into my life. But if I think to back then, is it really so bad being groomed into hating women and evangelist christian korean youtubers if I've at least got someone to chat to?

I remember being at university during the late noughties and it wasn't uncommon to see groups of students who'd be sat together but were barely interacting because they were glued to their phones. I've always chalked this up to them being stuck with people on their course waiting for their next lecture, but instead of trying to develop those friendships they were busy messaging other people. It's only gotten worse since then.

Modern society is very atomised. You're able to connect with people from around the world at almost any time, but this is almost exclusively digital. You can't really escape from it. There are so many low quality ways for me to kill an evening, which ultimately aren't very fulfilling.

I imagine people younger than me are going to be even more fucked up by this because at least when I was a child I'd be hanging out with my friends most of the week, but nowadays kids barely play out. Social skills must be getting worse because there's fewer opportunities for them to develop organically.

I think there's an awful lot to this and it's definitely true we don't take it seriously enough. Part of that is down to what they call toxic masculinity and what have you, but I think it's also true, much as we (ie the mainstream discourse) don't want to admit it, the /r9k/ lot have a bit of a point.

Society in general is more atomised than ever. Consumerism and all the rest of it is largely responsible for breaking down traditional community bonds, everyone is instead competing to have the fanciest car on the driveway and post the best holiday snaps on Instagram. But we have to be frank and acknowledge this shift of social priorities has hit men harder.

There's the shift in the economy to blame for leaving a lot of younger lads by the wayside who would otherwise be getting on fine, but there's also the rising tide of what we consider acceptable and respectable. 30 years ago nobody would have been ashamed that they drove a van or work in a factory or whatever, and women wouldn't have been quite so militant in freezing those lads out of the "viable mate" pool, but nowadays it's seen as a failure to be working and honest working class job earning a modest income.

People want more and more and are raising their standards all the time, and wether we admit it or not, women play a big role in that. Men are lonely not only because it's harder to build and maintain social bonds nowadays, but in no small part because women seem to have collectively decided an ordinary bloke with an ordinary job just isn't good enough for them.

Is what it is though. As the saying goes, don't hate the player, hate the game.

>>467579
>Men are lonely not only because it's harder to build and maintain social bonds nowadays, but in no small part because women seem to have collectively decided an ordinary bloke with an ordinary job just isn't good enough for them.

Trust .gs to have a pop about women in a thread that's meant to be about friendship.

Ironically, I think we tend to view even loneliness through an individual lense, as though it's a completely separate mental health problem for each and every person. The better question to ask is why have we completely dismantled those institutions in which people could socialise?

As a younglad, I realised that it was literally impossible for me to go anywhere without spending a lot of money. Every environment nearby seemed designed to squeeze the maximum amount of money from my pocket. Cafes, pubs, restaurants, gyms, virtually everywhere is designed for maximum throughput of customers paying the maximum of what theyre willing to in order to be there - not for providing a comfortable place to socialise.

We continually fall back on the stereotype that people usually make friends in education and work, but that evidently leaves everyone with a very flimsy social circle. The places in which people express themselves through their interests (hobby spaces), beliefs(religious spaces), or civic duties (community spaces) have basically been torn down.

The fact that this affects men disproportionately should be for fairly obvious reasons: men tend to define themselves more through work and hobbies than through family life. But I think gendering it is also missing the big underlying issue, which is that an economy driven by maximising profit is inherently hostile to anything that doesn't make lots of money for small groups of people, especially these vital "third places": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place

>>467580

>about women in a thread that's meant to be about friendship


Because it's hard to talk about friendships while completely and purposely skirting around women? It's all part of it, like it or not.

But we really shouldn't let this thread veer off into yet another pointless chronic masturbator debate. I largely agree with what's been said so far. The atomisation of society, the economy and the job market, which makes anything from getting qualifications to getting a job and a career that pays enough to live on an incredible ballache.

But also, and unfortunately this brings us back to men and women and all that yet again, we live in a world where men's emotional and social problems are largely ignored in favour of oppression olympics. Women and other non-men complain all day long that they're disadvantaged, marginalised or this, that and the other. And they've got loads of advocacy groups, policymakers and other people that make and codify the rules of our modern society listening to them. And the best consideration that these groups will give to men's emotional problems, if they acknowledge the existence of those problems at all, is the dogmatic advice that they must somehow overcome "toxic masculinity" even as men. That that's what's making them unhappy. Not subscribing to modern gender theory. Which is so fucking wide off the mark that it just hurts thinking about. Nobody really sits down and listens to these lonely and very much marginalised men to figure out what their specific problems are, and how they think they could be helped.

Having dabbled in that kind of lifestyle myself, what I can say is, give these men more opportunity. Don't make it so hard for them to make something of themselves. Take them seriously. Include them. Let them be your friends. And you'll end up with far fewer lonely men.

>>467579

>in no small part because women seem to have collectively decided an ordinary bloke with an ordinary job just isn't good enough for them

By the same token, a lot of those lads have completely unrealistic expectations. I'm quite content with my grubby northern blue-collar life, largely because nobody has ever told me that I deserve better. I do a normal job and earn a normal wage and live in a normal house and do normal hobbies and sleep with normal women. That's enough for me.

>>467583
>But we really shouldn't let this thread veer off into yet another pointless chronic masturbator debate.
I think this'll be the thread where we finally crack it though. Just as soon as we know what "it" is...

I've already written one of the posts in this thread, but I'm back. I wrote a massively long Facebook post to my real friends (yeah, you heard me) less than a week ago, on the 19th on November, about exactly this. The 19th of November is International Men's Day, you see. And I even tried to do some proper research for it.

There's an actual name for what we're talking about, and it's called "male malaise". However, I looked online for "male malaise" and didn't find a single good link, because while none of us are the first to notice this, the sort of people who write online articles about this tend to be women, or turbo-nepotist men who haven't noticed these problems for themselves. Every article I saw about male malaise felt ignorant, and like it was completely missing the point. And I read three or four articles before giving up, so I'm basically the motherfucking Library of Alexandria for this shit now.

Here's the first search result I just got for "male malaise": https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychoanalysis-30/201106/the-masculinity-crisis-male-malaise-and-the-challenge-of-becoming-a

And I discovered the term in this article on the BBC website a few weeks ago, and I still think it's the best one I've actually seen so far: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp81ynn7r4mo

Another point that I investigated for my big Facebook post (which got SEVEN likes; that's more people than I thought actually still used Facebook) was to do with finances. I looked up some numbers, because men are still expected to be the rich provider a lot of the time.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2024
>The gender pay gap has been declining slowly over time; over the last decade it has fallen by approximately a quarter among full-time employees, and in April 2024, it stood at 7.0%, down from 7.5% in 2023.
So men make 7% more than women on average. The numbers are debatable because more women work part-time than men, so men actually do even better than that when you look at everyone, but it's only fair to focus on full-time employment, so those are the numbers I used. So why do men feel like failures, who cannot provide for the women in their lives?
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/wages-return-pre-financial-crisis-level-2026-resolution-foundation-budhet-2024/
>Wages are not expected to return to 2008 levels until 2026, with the average salary currently around £14,000 below what it would have been had the pre-financial crisis growth rate had(sic) continued, a think-tank has claimed.
So we're being told we can't be angry because we make 7% more than women, but we make £14,000 less than we should. Assuming an average national income of around £35,000, that is 40% less than we should be getting. I think we'd all be a lot happier with a 40% raise this Christmas. But we keep being told we should be grateful for our rapidly diminishing 7% lead over our sisters and wives and colleagues in the HR department. It's perfectly rational to be angry in this situation.

And I think I've said it before here, but I made a point to also include it in my Facebook post so I can have my name attached to it when it comes true, but: when fourth-wave fishing gets invented, I predict it will look almost indistinguishable from the good parts of men's rights activism. I don't know what the wordfilters will do to that sentence, but when fourth-wave f*min*sm gets invented, I predict it will look almost indistinguishable from the good parts of m*n's r*ghts act*v*sm.

>>467587
>I don't know what the wordfilters will do to that sentence, but when fourth-wave f*min*sm gets invented, I predict it will look almost indistinguishable from the good parts of m*n's r*ghts act*v*sm.
Not exactly the most out-of-pocket prediction (not least of all because it's already in full swing) but still not something to be taken lightly. May I present to you MGTOW: Korean Edition.

After the "meme magic" of the 2016 US presidential election and the normalising of Internet "culture" across the Anglosphere, I didn't think anything could make me question the verisimilitude of reality but here we go. Given that Worst Korea is now plugged firmly into the Western cultural consciousness, it has the potential to become yet another tinderbox (pun not intended) in the seemingly neverending gender wars. What a time to be alive.

I don't want to sound like one of those blokes but how men are viewed and valued in the social consensus of women and how that consensus is broadcast are massive factors in the development of the modern male psyche.

The truth is you can't separate it from women because women are a huge part of the problem. Not women individually or specifically, but the dynamic between men and women. This subject will always circle back around to that, because that's fundamentally at least half of the root cause. You can shut your hands over your ears and go lalalala if you don't want it to be true, but it is.

Most men don't need loads of mates. Men like having a regular group they can meet up with and have a bit of a chat without any real pressure or expectation. Work is usually good enough to fill that for a lot of men. Men don't want to be disturbed by texts or phone calls on an evening, they like a designated slice of their day for just showing up, being a bit social, then fucking off. That's why most men get on best when they have a routine, regular activity, like a weekly five a side or a band rehearsal or something. Men are usually happy without a "network", just having one or two close friends is enough; but what they really want most of the time, is a trustworthy partner who they know will be there for them. And for many reasons already touched on here, but very real reasons, that is becoming harder for them to find.

This is a very good video on the matter, and it has lovely lovely Ash Sarkar, who I want to sit on my face. But just listen to all the shit she comes out with in this video. You have to give the guy credit for remaining so composed in his responses, because she comes off as very dense and dismissive at points.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKADQ5ladFU

This is the problem in a nutshell- People out there are well aware of the issues and are talking about it, and not just on shitholes like 4chan where the terminal cases are sent to rot. Sensible, respectable people with science degrees who have done numbers and graphs. But no matter how many numbers and graphs they show people, the same trite handwaving excuses come out. Because it's men, which means we treat it differently than we do with women. We're not going to give men the same help and support and leg up as we did with women, because they are men, if we did that they wouldn't really be men any more. For all the talk of toxic masculinity, the biggest propagators of it are women.

The dating situation shows us this because at the end of the day, we still choose partners for completely irrational, lizard brain, animal instinct reasons. And women, despite their relatively equal position in modern society today, still consistently want a man who is one step above them. It's like with unemployment, or climate change, the numbers just don't work out, but we are determined to just ignore it in favour of ideological rhetoric.

The irony of it all is, to me, that it really puts the lie to the decades of supposed fishing. We have never had any genuine fishing, what we have is a society where we still treat women with kid gloves because we still see them in exactly the same way as we did 100 years ago; we only put on a facade of treating them as equals to men. We let them play at being capable adults like we would let a kid pretend they are driving the car, but the message if you read between the lines is that they are not, it's still men's job to carry on being men the same way as before.

So coming to the end of this long ramble (promise), I agree that the problem is still Sea Shepherd Conservation Society; the problem is that fishing isn't and never was the correct tool to address Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

>>467589

Welp I can't get the video to embed, go on Youtube and search for "The Truth About chronic masturbators | Ash Sarkar meets William Costello".

>>467584
>a lot of those lads have completely unrealistic expectations
Do you know what, fisherpersonlad, I don't think they do.

Many times I've seen women online talk about lads being hampered by their desire for instagram models and how these lads are turning down normal women because they watched porn and blah blah, but I never meet these men. I think it's pure projection, women are the picky gender, and women are the only ones in a position to be picky. Almost all men are just taking what they can get.

This is why you lads don't have friends.

>>467595

I think it is a problem for a small minority of the most hardcore online chronics, to be fair. They are obsessed with the score out of 10 rating thing, they will go on about how it's not worth improving themselves because even then they'll still "only get a 5/10" or whatever. But otherwise you are right and I don't know what world otherlad is living in, the vast majority of real life men have standards that amount to "as long as she isn't a munter" and it's a stark contrast to how high most women's expectations seem to be.

>>467595
It’s a common lie that I constantly see being peddled to lonely failures. Even people who should know better seem to believe that there are ugly women going door-to-door begging strangers to be their boyfriends, and all these autistic shut-ins need to do is just say yes to them. They don’t need to go out and meet any women, they don’t need to be someone worth talking to, they just need to lower their standards enough to allow their dick to get sucked by a woman who’s a size 12 assuming she can even fit through the door at that size. I cannot understand why anyone thinks the world works this way. I can tell that even some of the people in this thread almost never go outside; surely everyone knows that if there isn’t a woman in their house right now, there never will be unless they actually meet one. It drives me mental, just like all the other actively malicious advice for people in these situations does.

>>467596
We’ve been over this. I have one friend. By male standards for someone my age, I am extremely popular.

I think [most of] you all make reasonable points but we're all blinded by what used to be social media bubbles but are now supercharged by algorithms. chronic masturbatorlad, fisherpersonlad and every other variation on these spectra can all accurately describe the world as presented to them but still find themselves unable to agree. We'd need quite extensive, carefully thought out and analysed studies to fully diagnose what's wrong, rather than relying on what we see, hear or feel.

Most of these posts have bugger all to do with being lonely. They're primarily about being unable to get your end away, which while displaying a high level of comorbidity with loneliness, is not strictly the same thing. >>467582 has some valid points, as does >>467599 , but most of you are missing the point that being lonely isn't the same thing as being a raging nutter who wants to kill women and eat Greek statues.

>>467597 >>467598

I think we're veering towards a false dichotomy here.

A lot of lads have mental health issues or social skills deficits that make it hard for them to start and maintain relationships. I am sympathetic to that, but I'm also frustrated by the number of conversations I've had - including on here - with lads who aren't willing to take even the smallest steps to address those issues.

If your life is in complete disarray, I do think it's unreasonable to expect that someone will want to be in a relationship with you. I think it's reasonable to park the issue of relationships and look at what's stopping you from getting a job or moving out of your mum's house or starting a hobby that gives you some social contact. I appreciate that it can feel completely overwhelming to be in that situation, I appreciate that there isn't as much help available as there should be, but no-one can take those first steps for you.

What I define as "unreasonable expectations" is wrapped up in a kind of fatalism that completely rejects the possibility of mundane self-improvement and personal growth, substituting instead a narrow and Darwinian fixation on money, looks and status.

Women probably are in a position to be picky, but IME they aren't actually terribly picky, it's just that a lot of men make incredibly little effort and expect much more out of a relationship than they're able or willing to put in. I recall having a conversation on here where I said something along the lines of "women spend an incredible amount of time and effort on their appearance, so the least you can do is spend £20 on a haircut from a trendy barber". I was gratified when one lad said that it was a bit of a lightbulb moment. There's a broader principle there - most of the things that make you an eligible partner aren't rocket science.

Most of the "picky" women I talk to just want someone who has their life together to the point that they can actually contribute to a relationship; the blokes they're rejecting on dating sites are predominantly stunted man-children who are in all honesty looking for a surrogate mother rather than an equal partner.

Maybe there's an element of truth in the argument that young men have been left behind by a feminised society that doesn't really give a shit about their needs. By the same token, there's probably an element of truth in the argument that young men who grew up without a proper father figure have been infantilised.

>>467601
>I am sympathetic to that, but I'm also frustrated by the number of conversations I've had - including on here - with lads who aren't willing to take even the smallest steps to address those issues.
This is the key thing that I found it helps/helped to understand - on a personal level it doesn't matter if it's all fishing's fault or not. It doesn't matter if you have to put in an unfair amount of work to get what you want. You just have to do it, or make peace with the consequences. Winning internet points for being the most difficult person to argue against on a men's rights or chronic masturbator-aligned forum won't make you happy.


For what it's worth, if you're looking for partners, prioritise good communicators. Yes there are plenty of bullshitters and manipulators pretending to use or exploiting good communication, but there are those who aren't like that and they'll be equipped to listen and talk through these things with you. Learn to communicate. Being able to say "I realise this may not be the case, or seem like it to you, but X makes me think or feel Y because of my experience with Z, does that make sense?" instead of "This is bad and sexist to men" makes it a hell of a lot easier for others to empathise with you.

>>467601
>Most of the "picky" women I talk to just want someone who has their life together to the point that they can actually contribute to a relationship; the blokes they're rejecting on dating sites are predominantly stunted man-children who are in all honesty looking for a surrogate mother rather than an equal partner.

I've noticed this a lot when it comes to different perceptions about what 'confidence' actually means. Many men are under the misapprehension that when women want a confident man they mean a super attractive and popular 'alpha male', which they also conveniently use as an excuse not to try and better themselves because they'll never fit that mould, whereas when women say they want a confident man what they actually mean is someone who is comfortable within their own skin, is sure of themselves and actually has their shit together.

You see it a lot with men who've been recently divorced or widowed after a long-term relationship. They rush into dating someone new because they need mothering as they have absolutely no idea how to keep their life in order.

Sage because this is still more about dating than friendship.

>>467601
>What I define as "unreasonable expectations" is wrapped up in a kind of fatalism that completely rejects the possibility of mundane self-improvement and personal growth, substituting instead a narrow and Darwinian fixation on money, looks and status.
Getting a nice haircut is improving your looks. Having a job is improving your status and money. What does any of that have to do with unreasonable expectations?

>the blokes they're rejecting on dating sites are predominantly stunted man-children who are in all honesty looking for a surrogate mother rather than an equal partner.
It always has to be men's faults with you lot. Is it possible women have inflated standards due to social media and the abundance of attention they get on dating apps? Is it possible women want to date good looking masculine men? No, men are to blame for being manchildren who want a second mother, and somehow women can magically sense it, they can smell through the screen that this man does not want an equal partner. The truth is, plenty of men whose lives really are in disarray have no trouble at all getting their end away.

https://new.rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk.com/r/Tinder/comments/1gw4dt3/after_spending_5069_on_tinder_platinum_probably/
Here's one for you. Nice car, presumably plenty of money, photo with friends, photo of himself cooking. If having his life in order is what women want, why isn't he swimming in matches?

Perhaps it’s worth asking: why would a man, with plenty of male friends but no female attention, still be lonely? Why doesn’t anybody, male or female, want to spend time with men? Surely that’s a little bit weird, isn’t it?

>>467605
>why would a man, with plenty of male friends but no female attention, still be lonely?
Why would a person with loving parents also want friends? It's a different type of relationship, a different type of loneliness.

>Why doesn’t anybody, male or female, want to spend time with men? Surely that’s a little bit weird, isn’t it?
Edging closer to 'no blacks, no Irish' territory there m8.

>>467601

Not being funny lad but you are just doing the exact same thing. What those lads are saying is that a lad has to put in a disproportionate amount of effort to even vaguely impress an average girl, and what you're saying is it's lads fault for not putting in enough effort so no wonder girls aren't impressed.

Do you see the conflict of these viewpoints? They both have some validity but on the balance of it, I think when you speak in these terms all you are doing is continuing the cycle. There's a clear imbalance there- Lads have to put in far, far more work into the process of courtship than lasses do, and it's getting to the point that many of them are just saying fuck that noise.

There's merit to the argument that sure, it's unfair, but that's how it is so you can either get on with it or you can be lonely. That's fair enough. In the short term, a lot of lads do need basically "suck it up and deal with it", as it were. But you can't use that to justify ignoring a problem, or the problem gets worse.

The trouble is that's the same kind of logical thought process as when you say "well the unemployed should just try harder to get a job", etc. It's not a compassionate attitude and on a larger scale, nor is it even pragmatic; it is ideological. This laissez faire individualism IS the very root and core of the problem. That is why we have an alienated, atomised society. Everything has shifted into this individualist everyone for themselves paradigm.

It all circles around, you see?

>>467599

You should really watch the Ash Sarkar with William Costello interview posted earlier on, he has lots of in depth analysis of just the sort you are asking for here. People have done the studies. There is evidence. There is just a social bias against actually looking at it.

>>467609
>The trouble is that's the same kind of logical thought process as when you say "well the unemployed should just try harder to get a job", etc. It's not a compassionate attitude and on a larger scale, nor is it even pragmatic; it is ideological.
If this were a conversation with homeless people then we'd be discussing what services are available and how to get housed - railing for or against the state of the culture that causes homelessness in the first place won't help anyone involved. Maybe that's part of the problem with discussing this, it's endemic and personal, which makes conversations about it work at cross-purposes. It's not the lad's fault that he has to put in more effort, but in this culture, at this time, he's going to have to.

Maybe we should have a meet up? That'll knock a percent or so off the loneliness stats.

I was thinking earlier, after witnessing a couple of particularly retarded threads on 4chan and rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk, that both damaged my already low faith in humanity by the sheer confident idiocy and malice on display.

I think genuinely, the internet has pushed people away from each other, because it has exposed everyone to this kind of low level of constant, simmering conflict. Like it or not, the online world is basically the default for most people today, even for people who are not extremely online, it's still there. The people who are the least online are also the people likely to be using the most toxic mainstream platforms, ie Facebook and Twitter. And that has sort of spilled over into people's real life attitude to each other.

It used to be that you'd go on an internet forum and you'd mostly find nice people. There would be a dickhead here and there but mods (being the low level fascists that they are) would crack down on it quickly. Then you'd go to the more anarchic, irreverent places and everyone would be a lot more aggressive, but you sort of understood that it was all sort of just a pisstake. You never took any of it personally.

But nowadays, no matter where you go, wether you want to have a genuine discussion or not, no matter your intentions, people just always respond with that snarky, dismissive, hostile attitude by default. It's like a defensiveness to trolling by just assuming everything is trolling, and responding in kind, and it's just exhausting. People are closed off to each other because our default mode of interaction requires you to be on guard. It requires you to keep yourself closed off in case somebody is a complete dickhead to you, and it would upset you if you weren't already consciously anticipating it.

Know what I mean? People are just fucking cunts nowadays, in short. It never used to be like this. People don't have as many friends because who'd want to be friends with the sort of dickheads you find out there these days.

>>467620
No thanks. >>467621 is right; I hate you all. I think it's the oversaturation of conversation that you can find online. If you see twats arguing, there is no incentive whatsoever not to just scroll past and find people you like more. And because nobody's perfect, I will scroll forever, endlessly and friendlessly.

Would anyone here describe themselves as happy with their lives? Perhaps if we found one of them, we could ask them what their secret is.

On closer inspection, there is no male loneliness epidemic after all.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/2021-part-2/loneliness-and-wellbeing

>In 2021, 27% of adults reported that they never felt lonely. However, 22% of adults felt lonely at least some of the time, including 6% who reported that they often or always felt lonely (chronic loneliness).

>Women (24%) were more likely than men (20%) to feel lonely at least some of the time.

So men are actually less lonely than women. If there is a loneliness epidemic, then so be it, but there isn't a male loneliness epidemic specifically. Whatever the problems are, they are not unique to men. That's certainly not what I expected to read. There could of course be reporting errors, because men might be less likely to admit to feeling lonely, but I think most of us (including me) have been working on the assumption that women are much less lonely on the whole, because they get to be friends with an almost endless procession of single members of the opposite sex. But I was wrong to assume that. The link I provided has charts and everything if you want to download them.

>>467623

I'm not so sure how useful that specific data is, really, there's a million and one ways you could interpret and analyse those results. Self reporting is notoriously ambiguous, although at least coming from the NHS you'd imagine the sample sizes are large enough to be meaningful.

To some extent we have to reckon with the fact loneliness means different things to different people, and it will likely express differently across the genders. I think it has always been true to an extent that women form more numerous but more shallow friendships, and move onto new friendships/social groups more easily; meanwhile men form longer lasting deeper bonds, but they are more vulnerable to becoming completely isolated and cut off from everyone if those few bonds break down.

In that sense I'd hypothesise the number of lonely blokes might be lower, but they are more acutely lonely. Similar to how more women attempt suicide, but more men actually do off themselves.

>>467624
>Self reporting is notoriously ambiguous
That's rather difficult to work around when you're trying to find out if people are lonely or not. I suppose you could ask questions relating to loneliness and isolation, but you'd always have a level of ambiguity when taking conclusions away from that data. Whatever, you know this, I'm being patronising.

>>467623
They're going to hang me for saying this. They're going to light me on fire and damn my memory, but there's a whale poacheric assumption that all women are social butterfies. That they're all out and about having a laugh, buying skirts, doing kissing practice, and absolutely loving all of it, meanwhile you're sat in your undies getting called a "gaylord" by a 14 year old over voice chat. And that's just while you're at work. In reality there are plenty of women who feel like massive losers, it just appears to present differently. Would I be going too far to say that's because of supior emotional intelligence? Possibly, that's why I'm only implying it's the case, like a coward.

I do think women often have more of an "openness" (no laughing) than men. However, as with a lot of gender differences I don't think they're particularly stark and are often over emphasised for so many reasons that I refuse to list any of them. What another post mentioned about a lack of "third spaces" is a far bigger issue, as is the cost of engaging with any that are still around. I also think, and maybe this is true for all ages, but nevertheless, that millenials are full of shame. For some reason we watched the Great Recession play out, essentially proving money is fake*, and then decided to become incredibly hung up on wealth and success in a way that I think drives lots of people a bit mental. This is especially bad at a time when the traditional trappings of wealth and success are a massive pain in the arse to acquire. Even farting out a child is harder than ever, and if you do you've moved three-hundred-miles away from your family to find work and childcare costs are actually a cannon aimed directly at your savings account, if you even have one of those.

Sorry, this post is a rambly mess, but I was feeling very jazz this morning.

*The asterix was actually not needed, as what I said was entirely true.

>>467627

It's something like the perception of class in America. America views itself as classless, and instead of class it sees race, with white being synonymous with middle class. So it seems like something of a paradox when there are very obviously working class, lumpen and homeless whites, filling up the projects, trailer parks and street camps. The American psyche reflexively corrects for this by just ignoring them, basically- They don't exist, they're not Americans. They're the defects, the ones that got knocked off the production line and shoved in the skip.

Similarly with girls who are losers. They are invisible, we don't acknowledge their existence at all. Indeed I might go so far as tosay a girl can't even truly be a loser the same way as a man- I know a lass who's living at home in her late 30s, the only time she moved out was for uni. I'm pretty sure she only lost her virginity in her late 20s, (something I'm only aware of because in another timeline it might have been me what took it), she works in childcare and earns a pretty poor wage for how hard she works, by the sounds. We've almost dated a few times but I think she's just a bit too closed off emotionally for it to work, hence why she is persistently single. It would be harsh to call her the female equivalent of a chronic, but I mean... The glove does fit, technically.

But the thing is, that's just basically fine for a woman, nobody bats an eyelid. If it were a bloke he'd be seen as a complete sad case, but for a woman the expectation isn't there for them to be a "success" in the first place. In fact I have even listened to her complain about one of the neighbour's sons who still lives with mum and dad, completely straight faced. She's 36 and lives at home, but she still sees it as an issue for a bloke. Maybe that's whale poachery at work, I don't know, I can't even keep up with the rationale of it all after a certain point. How many times does it have to turn over and in on itself before we just shrug and say does it matter why it happens, and just acknowledge and try to address the fact it does happen?

Anyway I've gone off rambling again too.

>>467628
>In fact I have even listened to her complain about one of the neighbour's sons who still lives with mum and dad, completely straight faced.

I'd say that many people lack any real self-awareness. I'm capable of introspection, but I don't do enough to act on it.

>>467621
>I think genuinely, the internet has pushed people away from each other, because it has exposed everyone to this kind of low level of constant, simmering conflict. Like it or not, the online world is basically the default for most people today, even for people who are not extremely online, it's still there. The people who are the least online are also the people likely to be using the most toxic mainstream platforms, ie Facebook and Twitter. And that has sort of spilled over into people's real life attitude to each other.

You've brilliantly articulated something that I've tried to put my finger on many times, there. I wasn't sure whether it was just me getting older and falling into typical "kids nowadays"-type grumbling, but that can't be it, because I notice it in older people, too. Generally I've found that the most social people out there are the ones that limit how much time they spend on the internet. We all seem vaguely aware of this tendency, as well, with how we term some "chronically online".

I'm the one that posted about "third places" in >>467582, and I think that's a major contributing factor to the internet becoming the "primary" tone for public discourse. Without those options available, we default to the most convenient. I've always been cautious about the false, 'hyperreal' sense of a social life that the internet provides. I remember that I never signed up for a MySpace in my teens, finding the entire concept (for lack of a better word) creepy.

A lot of it comes from a failure to understand what functions social media actually performs. We use flimsy metaphors to try and describe those functions. Why do we say Facebook 'friends', knowing full well that some of those people are barely more than a name in a phonebook? Why do we consider Twitter/X a 'public square', something like a political forum, when most of the posts look more like toilet graffiti? Why do we call them 'dating' apps, if so few of the interactions actually result in dates? I think we've collectively swallowed all the marketing, or at least its language, and have started to believe that this specific kind of social interactivity is some kind of inevitable, neutral technology - to the extent that many have turned it into a religion, like 'singularity'.

Not to dilute the point with rambling, but a particularly egregious example of this is when a lazy journalist or sociologist will take to Twitter/X as an easy source of data and claim it's indicative of a social trend. That sort of thinking, where online interaction is somehow the 1:1 equivalent of other forms of interaction, represents a total methodological failure in my view.

I reckon most blokes just need a hobby. Maybe a bit more scratch too but I won't hold my breath on that one. We're all getting older now so we know how it works; people around me garden, pick up some animal niche to obsess about, volunteer or do some sort of group exercise. They meet and chat with people with a common goal and get fulfilment from that. Or they have kids.

So my solution is to stick 'em all in camps. Yeah you 'erd. Everyone over the age of 21 gets a free stay at a holiday camp over the summer with a bit of choice on what kind of camp you go to. If they don't want to go then fair enough but we'll make them pay for it anyway with eye-watering taxes.

>>467579
>everyone is instead competing to have the fanciest car on the driveway and post the best holiday snaps on Instagram

You've just outed yourself as an old man. Kids these days are aware their constantly being observed so they strive to always appear relaxed and at ease, if you're hearing this for the first time you'll think I'm mad but look at youth fashion these days.

>>467584
Do you ever feel like Captain Picard in that episode where he never got stabbed?

Do men need male only spaces? Is it beneficial for men to have social groups and activities in which they can socialise solely with other men? When you see the gamers and the toy soldier hobbyists getting salty that they let women in the secret treehouse club too nowadays, is that just just narrow minded bigotry, or is there underneath that, perhaps, a valid objection that it takes away, or undermines part of the function of a male peer bonding space?

>>467669

>Do you ever feel like Captain Picard in that episode where he never got stabbed?

A bit, but also the exact opposite.

When I bump into people who knew me from school, they tend to view me with some amount of pity. I was reasonably bright and could have done well for myself if things had been different. When I bump into people who knew me in my twenties, it's like they've seen a ghost. I was such a headcase that everyone expected me to die in a grimly inevitable tragedy. I had several very near misses. They're genuinely shocked to see me alive and in good health, because for a long time that seemed like an impossibility.

I can't say that I never envy people, but I also feel absurdly lucky to be alive. Sometimes my life feels tedious, occasionally it feel unbearably difficult, but always with the knowledge that I really shouldn't be here. Often I feel as if this is all just a dream and in reality I died in 2006.

I read a book once by a bloke who had been on death row but was released after new evidence came to light. I don't remember all of the details, but the duality of his situation really struck a chord - on the one hand he had suffered an unimaginable ordeal, on the other he had been gifted a second chance at life. He had the same sense of unreality, as if he was going to wake up and find himself back in a cell.

It's a dreadful cliche, but I think it really is the small things that matter. Warm socks off the radiator, a big mug of tea, fried eggs on toast, finding a tenner in a jacket pocket, exchanging a smile with a stranger. Everything else is just a story we tell ourselves to make sense of life and death.

I've cried exactly once in the last fifteen years. I was eating my lunch, sitting in the town square where I used to hang out as a kid. A busker started singing this, and I broke down:

>>467673

>It's a dreadful cliche, but I think it really is the small things that matter. Warm socks off the radiator, a big mug of tea, fried eggs on toast, finding a tenner in a jacket pocket, exchanging a smile with a stranger. Everything else is just a story we tell ourselves to make sense of life and death.

You are absolutely right, but this is a secret some people will just never crack. Largely, that is because they have been propagandised so much by consumerism, that what you're saying here might as well be some Buddhist monk telling them to give up all worldly possessions and lock themselves in a cupboard until they die. But it is fundamentally absolutely bang on.

From an early age I knew I didn't want to compete in the rat race. It seemed to me that if that's all life is about, chasing a pay rise so you can upgrade from a 2-bed terrace to a 3-bed semi and get a Audi R8 instead of a Ford Focus, then that's just not worth the hassle. Of course I had a minimum standard of what I wanted to get out of life, the things I wanted to have and the kind of lifestyle I hoped to be able to enjoy, and I worked hard to achieve those things; but what I didn't do is measure myself against others by the metric of these material possessions.

In my line of work I often visit some very posh places where wealthy people live in massive houses with cars on the driveway worth more than my mortgage, but I feel no inferiority to them. I have what they sometimes clearly lack, and that is contentment. Being mindful, humble, and contented is the greatest wealth anyone can possess.

Of course some might call that "cope" but that's kind of part of the point, isn't it. They'll never learn.

>>467588
I don't like how Korean gender issues are represented in the media and invariably distorted by a western lens. People miss that the whole country is mental in every way you can imagine.

>>467673
Being bananas in your 20s seems like a cop out in this context. You' know you can apply yourself and have a more exciting life - that's not rejecting envy, it's wasting your potential and doing the equivalent of driving very slowly into a brick wall.

>Do you ever feel like Captain Picard in that episode where he never got stabbed?

Not them, but yes. It might sound deluded, but I'm a capable individual and highly adaptable, when I apply myself and take initiative, I make things happen quickly. However I have a huge aversion to risk, and my last relationship shattered my confidence in a way that seems to be lasting, plus long covid lung scarring has tarnished my 'spark'.

Picard's path changes because he plays it safe, and doesn't gain the confidence he needs to take the risks required not just to command, but to succeed and thrive as a person.

>>467678

>Being bananas in your 20s seems like a cop out in this context. You' know you can apply yourself and have a more exciting life - that's not rejecting envy, it's wasting your potential and doing the equivalent of driving very slowly into a brick wall.

Maybe, but what's so bad about a quiet life? Why do we define "potential" purely in terms of money and status?

My job isn't particularly important, in the sense that it isn't especially well paid and no-one is very impressed by it. On the other hand, I was an essential worker during lockdown. When most people weren't allowed to leave their houses, I kept going to work because society would collapse if people like me stayed at home. We've very quickly forgotten the vital importance of people who do the mundane work of keeping everyone else alive.

Nobody would accuse a successful businessman of "failing to live up to his potential", even if his health and relationships were in tatters and everyone thought he was a complete bastard. His bank balance makes him a success, even if he has fucked up the rest of his life. Why should our potential to be healthy and happy and kind be treated as an afterthought? The things we define as "success" when we're talking to schoolkids aren't the things that people talk about on their deathbeds.

I genuinely don't know if I'm just rationalising to excuse my stifled ambitions, but if I am, is that such a bad thing?

>>467684

It's very much one of those cases where you are correct, but everyone else has lost their minds. You are in the minority to think this way, but we would undoubtedly have a far, far healthier society if everyone did.

I don't mean to bring it back around to women but it illustrates the point. We often have that discussion where people insist you will be okay with women as long as you have your "shit together", which is taken to mean, you can support yourself, you have a stable home and life and generally function as an adult. Which I do- I own my home, I have a car, my job isn't glamorous but it's a job I am genuinely happy in, I have several hobbies to keep me occupied and sane. I keep my home clean and tidy, keep on top of my hygeine and generally dress pretty well, look after my appearance... I am in general, not a manchild.

But that isn't enough. I have had several relationships throughout my life, plenty of sex, and can hardly be called an chronic masturbator; but in my last relationship, it was quite clear as it broke down, that a large part of it was simply that she just wanted "more". I hadn't done anything wrong this time, unlike my previous relationships; it was just that she wanted an upgrade. And that hurts like you have no fucking idea. I was generally never a bitter chronic type before that, but experiencing it first hand that a woman basically viewed me as an accessory to her life and not a genuine emotional partner, it killed a part of me that's probably never coming back.

And going forward that seems to be all I can see. When it comes to dating nowadays, it seems that merely having my shit together and being happy isn't adequate, the goalposts have moved. I need to have something better to offer than merely "having my shit together".

Again, not to make it about women specifically, it's just that that's how society is now. It's materialistic and superficial.

>>467684
Why do you reckon Picard was unhappy in his life in that episode? It wasn't a lust for money or even status, he wanted to command a flagship and drink nice cups of tea in a big office. He wanted the adventure and the doing, not the comfortable life without risk he'd ironically made in his life with a biological heart.

People misinterpret that scene in Waking Life with Louis Mackey where they think he's talking of a duality between fear and laziness but really he's talking about the propensity of people to fall into a trap of bumbling through life. Who gives a fuck if you stacked shelves during the pandemic - I can bang some pots and pans if you want but I don't see how that's a good life.

>>467687
>And going forward that seems to be all I can see. When it comes to dating nowadays, it seems that merely having my shit together and being happy isn't adequate, the goalposts have moved. I need to have something better to offer than merely "having my shit together".

I don't know how you've managed to fall into this reductionist thinking when literally the entire world around you is full of broken people in messy relationships. Yes, there's dating apps but if you come to the table with 'I have a job, car and I take the bins out - face it lass, I'm the best you're going to get' then you're not going to make a happy relationship are you.

If someone (Trevor) was a rich and handsome bachelor but also a knobhead then he might get a lot of one-night stands but if nobody can stand Trevor over long periods then the only people he will get into relationships with are going to be precisely the people you're so cynical about. It's why birds talk about passion, keeping that fire burning and such.

Trying to meet people outside of the internet as a younglad that doesn't live in a massive city is nigh impossible. There's nothing in my town that's geared towards people in the 18-21 range that isn't a nightclub or bar or whatever. Every gathering is either for pensioners or parents of toddlers. I reckon it wouldn't even help even if there were loads of things to do because people my age just don't really talk to people they don't know anyway.

What does a site full of Mark Corrigans know about how to solve loneliness?

>>467694

I don't think this site is really full of Corrigans, actually.

Personally I have lead a pretty rich and varied life overall, seen a lot of places and done a lot of things many "normies" don't even think of doing. I don't make a big deal of it because I find that uncouth, and actually I suspect a lot of people misjudge me, because they are used to people loudly broadcasting all their acheivements and having a 24/7 online photo album of their best moments. Me not doing that probably makes people assume I have just been a shut in all my life. But I don't see the need for all that, I did those things for myself, not other people.

I think what we do have on this site is a couple of witless know it alls who collect watches and regurgitate extremely middle of the road NPC opinions on everything, though.

>>467692

Its a pretty good post where you obligingly prove the points of both the people you are responding to, good work there.

>if you come to the table with 'I have a job, car and I take the bins out - face it lass, I'm the best you're going to get'

I'd agree with you, but when the only thing lasses are bringing to the table is "I'm under 14st and I've got a vagina I'll let you perfunctorily spaff in a few times a week - face it lad, I'm the best you're going to get" then, well, what exactly is it that makes them think they deserve more?

You really seem to be oblivious how much you are just making excuses and missing the point.

>>467687

>a large part of it was simply that she just wanted "more"

I suspect that she'd always want more, no matter what you were offering. Some people are just always chasing the end of the rainbow, always striving for something in the belief that the next thing will make them happy.

>>467692

We can't all be captain. What about the hundred-odd people on the Enterprise who aren't even on the bridge? Should they all be striving to sit in the captain's chair, despite knowing that 99% of them won't get that chance? Redshirt lives matter.

>>467694
>What does a site full of Mark Corrigans know about how to solve loneliness?

When I was a teenlad the easiest way to make friends was drinking in parks.

For young adults, I don't know. Can't you join a park run or get into dungeons and dragons or something?

>>467694
Just go and knock on doors and ask if anyone your age lives there who can come out to play.

Fucked if we know, it's been decades since we were your age, things have changed. Best I can suggest is getting into some fandoms or creative hobbies. Look for location-specific related groups on discord and see which ones have age-appropriate meet-ups.

>>467694
I believe a lot of young people do boardgames these days. It's weirdly having a renaissance and every other pub seems to be putting on events so nerdy twats can play D&D wrong. Call me old fashioned but I'd much rather do a few lines of Mcat and go bonkers even if it exposes that I was last somewhat cool in 2014.

I'll try and be helpful though: The thing about friends is that it's all about the tribes. You've got to have friends to get friends and to get friends you need to get friend (who has friends). Try talking to someone in one of your hobbies, actually ask how they're doing and offer to help them. Basically meet someone cool and then practically suck their dick until they let you into their circle.

I was shown the below 10 years ago and I ended up picking up some of the tips that I still use in office politics - ask people how they're doing sometimes when you sit next to them. It's magic.

>>467699
Read what I'm telling you. The world is full of people who don't match the measurements but they get into relationships just fine and end up staying in them even when they can sometimes feel like the grass could be greener, but they mostly stick at it because life is more than measurements.

Your ex might be a cunt but equally if she gets led off by empty promises of a better life then there's clearly a dead relationship at work anyway.

>>467700
Picard wasn't upset that he was a science man, that wasn't the point of the episode. There are lots of people happy in other places and sometimes their passion isn't even their job - but getting to and living the good life takes effort, stress and risk.

>Should they all be striving to sit in the captain's chair, despite knowing that 99% of them won't get that chance

Why does anyone do anything, lad. Do I have to keep banging on an existentialist drum here?

>>467716

>Read what I'm telling you

Not being funny but I have heard everything you are saying before, and while this might be the 40th time we've had the discussion, it exasperates me to just hear the same trite bollocks like you think anyone will suddenly have the eureka moment this time. It's not even that I disagree, it's that what your saying is such a completely surface level, non-insightful perspective it makes me kind of angry. It's not that you are wrong it's that you are not engaging with the true spirit of the discussion.

You're just saying what we all already know and have to just go along with because it's how the world works, but this conversation is about why and/or how things could and should be better and how we've ended up here. Do you understand? I'm trying not to just make a rude sarcastic remark to you because that's the only way I really know how to express the irritation it causes me, but I hope you can get more of what I am trying to communicate this way.

>>467716
Sure I'd best go talking to the little girls in the street, they're not too young! Show them what's in my sack IYKWIM (it's an apple).

>>467717
>It's not that you are wrong it's that you are not engaging with the true spirit of the discussion.

...Okay. Now, the symptoms you describe point to "bonus eruptus." It's a terrible disorder where the skeleton tries to leap out the mouth and escape the body.

>but this conversation is about why and/or how things could and should be better and how we've ended up here

No it's not. Male loneliness issues that evolved into talking to otherlad about ambition via the TNG episode Tapestry and then other-otherlad whinging that his Mrs left him because she wanted something more from the relationship. We'll keep having this tedious discussion until you stop being wrong and start following a healthy approach to life rather than what feels counter-culture to you.

>>467735

Lad I have sincerely never read anyone sound so smug while saying so little as this.