(I don't condone posting on lolcow farms or crystal cafe as a guy, it seems a bit of a shitty thing to do. Even if they are often as shitty people as their male r9k equivalents).
>>41862 I never thought it would happen, but the day has come when I am no longer excited by a new rose video. It should be a relief, but instead I feel somewhat mournful.
Parodying GamersNexus just seems...unnecessary? What's the joke supposed to be? That a channel about testing computer components is quite technical and dry? Or are we supposed to laugh at the twerking santa?
>>43220 It's not funny whatsoever. One of the downsides of being an attractive woman* is that it must be quite difficult to learn what is and isn't hilarious because it's almost certainly guaranteed there will be an audience of men who will laugh at what you say and you regardless because they want to get into your knickers.
* on reflection, this probably applies to most women as someone is bound to want to fuck 'em.
I don't want to get things all maritime issues again, but I'm pretty sure nearly all the personality defects women tend to show can be attributed to this. They never have to really self-reflect or objectively assess if they're good at things, because there's always some sadact to shove his nose up her arse to try and impress her, they always just get away with shit in the way men simply don't.
In order to truly fix gender equality we men need to collectively stop being such niceguy simps, frankly. Actually hold women to the same standards. The most hilarious thing is that when you do actually do this you will often get accused of actual maritime issues. It's a vicious cycle.
On the other hand, there is some amount of divine justice because if all you are is a pretty empty shell, then middle age can be absolute hell for you because the one thing you had that used to attract men will fade. And just sitting there waiting for a lad to make an arse out of himself in order to get to fuck you is no longer going to cut it, unless you greatly lower your standards and don't mind guys who are still 15 years older than you.
The main reason why older women often hate young women tends to be somewhere along the lines of that. Because they get away with making almost no effort and still have loads of strapping guys in their prime chasing them.
As a middle aged guy myself, all I can say is, personality is increasingly everything when you cross 40. For both genders. Even if you've somehow managed to keep some of your good looks from your younglad or younglass years.
>>43238 I'm sure it was Justin Bieber who said he had to get rid of his entourage because they were constantly blowing smoke up his arse and acting like he was coming out with the funniest things ever when he wasn't; I think a number of awkward interactions with regular people helped him realise he didn't have this great sense of humour that he'd been led to believe he had.
>>43241 See, I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. The whole wishful thinking of beautiful women having a hard time when their looks fade because they have no personality or anything else to rely on has always struck me as teetering along the lines of chronic masturbator logic.
I think the problem isn't that that's original chronic masturbator logic. Which it isn't necessarily. But that chronic masturbators have taken a basic idea that isn't grossly false and run with it. chronic masturbatorism is mainly a false entitlement problem, where chronic masturbators think women are supposed to come to them and that they as chronic masturbators don't need to make a significant effort themselves, let alone pick up a few clues on how to actually approach women in a way that makes you seem attractive to them. And that despite of all that, they still deserve the most attractive women. Which is probably the most problematic idea in all of it. And then the thought that attractive women, who tend to profoundly ignore chronic masturbators for many good reasons, will be just as lonely as their own chronic masturbator existence in middle age gives them a feeling that that's what they will deserve for not responding to their advances.
>>43257 I very much believe that everyone has an innate sense of justice which dictates that if things are bad for you, one day they will be good, and if you're happy now, one day you won't be. And this is part of that. It's like the idea that the cool school bully grows up to be poor and worthless while the spergy freak grows up to be rich and successful. The idea that a socially spastic mong will still be less cool as an adult than the athletic moron who becomes a wealthy second-hand car salesman is just fundamentally too offensive to contemplate for a lot of us.
Some of the more obnoxious women's-libbers rage against the stereotype of the "dumb blonde", because why can't the most beautiful women also be the most intelligent? Because that's not fair on the rest of us; that's why. We refuse to accept it.
>>43257 I am not so sure. I started reading into this nonsense when Andrew Tate got jailed for sex trafficking. Sadly my youtube recommendations is now so bad that I log out and use it in Incognito mode, but anyway...
Their whole thing seems to be self-improvement mixed in with some massively bad misogyny that would make the Taliban blush. Working hard, money, materialistic things, gym, etc. So I don't think it is entitlement. It is more around having a skewed view of the world and thinking every woman is some stripper in Miami. It is all a bit mental.
I am not even sure how something like this gets so widely accepted. Apparently some school teachers are worried about the sex trafficking chap's influence.
The biggest bully and most insufferable cunt from our school went on to become the co-owner of a restaurant chain with more than a dozen locations. He was an arsehole then, and going by what some classmates have told me, he's an arsehole now. No divine justice there, as it enabled him to become worth probably into the millions by now.
We used to make fun of him because he only passed his A levels by the skin of his teeth and was more known for his outrageous partying, and then he spent several years just working in restaurants without any formal qualifications. But all the while, he was probably really working his way up in the industry unbeknownst to us.
Andrew Tate is a different kettle of fish. He's a toxic con artist who doesn't really discriminate between conning women into forced sex work and duping subscribers to his "Hustler University" out of boatloads of monthly fees on the promise that they can become like him. It's all the same to him. But yeah, you can't honestly say that he doesn't have a massive attitude problem towards women. Also, no matter how cocky he thinks he can be and get away wit it, fact is, without probably even realising it, through his videos he has freely and directly admitted to half a dozen different crimes concerning forced labour, sexual abuse and human trafficking. All of which will be admissible court evidence against him.
>>43262 I agree about Andrew Tate. I am more concerned about what I saw when researching this. There is a whole thing they call Manosphere, and they share the same views as Andrew Tate. I think it is really destructive and not taken more seriously, considering young boys are being exposed to these odd views.
Some of the self-help stuff is arguably good, but why it needs to be married up with misogyny and sexism, I don't understand.
>There is a whole thing they call Manosphere, and they share the same views as Andrew Tate.
They think they have the same views as him, but it's not like here's suddenly somebody who knows the daily struggle of the chronic masturbator and has taken on the noble task of leading them out of the darkness and into the light. Tate may be dumb as the day is long on a different level, but he knows how to exploit those in the manosphere who live in bitterness and think he's somebody who speaks their language.
Worth keeping in mind though that the Manosphere isn't a monolithic block where everybody has the same nutter views. There are many different currents, and the majority of them are populated by clueless shitcunts, yes, but that isn't to say that there aren't some men's rights issues that are valid. For example many things related to family courts, child custody and divorce settlements. Where men really can end up getting the short end of the stick.
>Some of the self-help stuff is arguably good, but why it needs to be married up with misogyny and sexism, I don't understand.
One of my favourite self-help or self-enhancement resources used to be askmen.com, before they relaunched a few years ago and lost their focus a bit and mutated into yet another clickbait farm. They had loads of helpful advice on how to be a cultured lad that women would actually find attractive, and in a respectful way. Meaning, it kept giving you quite useful pointers as to what women really look for in a lad they fancy dating, and how you could shape up and improve your standing with them. They actually had a handful of woman authors who would often speak freely from the female perspective. It was in a way the exact opposite of what people like Tate have been doing.
I swear these chronic self lovers live rent free in some of you lot's heads. And I think you have an understanding of who and what they are based entirely on Vice articles or the suchlike. It's wild to me that people still think it's just a personality defect of a small group of sadacts, and not the sharp end of a trend that's beginning to manifest broadly across an entire generation.
Regarding the original comment about chronics that started this tangent, a stuck clock can be right twice a day and all that. There's no doubt it can be cathartic seeing someone who has always coasted easily through life suddenly realise how everyone else has it.
>>43266 >I think you have an understanding of who and what they are based entirely on Vice articles or the suchlike.
Where do you think you are right now mate?
>>43266 >There's no doubt it can be cathartic seeing someone who has always coasted easily through life suddenly realise how everyone else has it.
In most cases this is just wishful thinking and projecting out your insecurities. The fact is that beautiful people have it easier in life and there is no divine justice in the universe to ensure life is fair.
At work there's an admin woman in her fifties who turned almost every man's head in the office when she started, so she must have been an absolute stunner in her prime. She takes care of herself so she still looks good now, she's fun to talk to and she's married to someone fairly high up in finance so she lives in a massive house, regularly goes abroad and she owns a car that's fancier than most of management have only been able to afford on finance. Looks can fade but you still get pretty privileges, there's no point being bitter and fantasising about it all falling apart.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word chronic masturbator because it's set you lot off again. We're having the same discussions as when the alt-right started or when Jordan Peterson came to prominence. All I'll say on Andrew Tate is that someone pointed out to me that he looks like the fish from Spongebob and I haven't been able to unsee it; perhaps part of his appeal is that he looks like such a goober.
I can't be arsed finding the figures but there's hard data showing Gen Z has far less sex than any generation before, and they're more chronically depressed than any generation before. Two things which you don't have to make a great leap to connect, and that it's hard to imagine isn't related with the rise in prominence of chronics and fem-chronics.
Young people are, in general, becoming increasingly neurotic about sex and relationships, and that's not just a typical "old man yelling at clouds" thing. My armchar psycho-social analysis is that they're wedged between two sides of an always online culture that at once attempts to push the boundaries of sexuality, and normalise every niche sexual identity, orientation and fetish, but then simultaneously tells them you're a mega-rapist if you look at someone you fancy for more than a few seconds in public, and you'll get kicked out of college if you have a drunken shag. I've read stories of how sexual assault allegations, or things like being caught swapping nudes, are now used as a more potent weapon for social media bullying than the stone-age bullies of my youth could ever imagine wielding, and so young people are afraid to get involved with any of it. Back in our day you could, in the very worst case bullying scenario, transfer a kid to a school where nobody knows them. Nowadays that won't work- everyone will already know the mutated Chinese whispers story about the lad who forced a year 7 to suck him off or the slag who sent a picture of a beer bottle up her fanny to every lad in 6th form.
Chronics are just the ones showing the most drastic symptoms, but it's affecting all of them to some extent. Many adults our age are just unwilling to grapple with it, because they don't understand it, like when their own parents didn't understand them dressing up as an emo punk and cutting their wrists or whatever 20 years ago; and indeed because we have ideological investment in some of the things that are causing unintended consequences.
Gen Z are definitely doing a lot less shagging, but I think that increasingly strict sexual mores are only part of the problem. They're drinking a lot less and misbehaving a lot less, largely because of the social media panopticon and the increased competitiveness of society.
It's really hard for teenagers to get their leg over if they aren't getting shitfaced at house parties; today's teenagers don't want to get shitfaced at house parties, because they're terrified of doing something that will be recorded, uploaded and will haunt them forever. Young people increasingly believe (and not without good reason) that if they ever do anything wrong, they won't get a second chance. If you get less than perfect grades, you won't get into a good university and won't have a chance at a good job. If you say something bad on social media (or something that becomes "bad" ten years down the line when standards change), employers will find it and you'll be unemployable. If you get caught pissing in an alley, that'll be on your DBS forever.
Their sexual neuroticism is mostly symptomatic of a broader paranoia. Big Brother is always watching, Big Brother can change the rules at any moment and Big Brother never forgives. "Cancel culture" may or may not exist, but it feels very real to young people and it has a pathological chilling effect on their behaviour.
>Their sexual neuroticism is mostly symptomatic of a broader paranoia. Big Brother is always watching, Big Brother can change the rules at any moment and Big Brother never forgives. "Cancel culture" may or may not exist, but it feels very real to young people and it has a pathological chilling effect on their behaviour.
Thank you, yes, that's basically exactly what I was trying to get at, just without invoking "cancel culture" explicitly, because you know what people get like when that sort of subject comes up.
I've always been wary of social media for exactly these reasons, I was already a gimp who everyone made fun of in school (social media was only just starting to emerge in my mid-late teens, thankfully), so from my perspective only a complete moron would want their real name and face up all over the internet for even more people to make fun of. But over the years it has become normal, and worst of all for the youth today, they can't even really opt out. In theory their parents can just keep them off the internet and that way they can't get bullied through it, but it comes at the cost of making them a complete social pariah anyway.
I had the chance to reinvent myself and turn things around when I left school and all the knobheads there behind. But today's kids know, or at least feel like, they won't have that luxury.
You're summing up why I as a middle aged lad never really got into social media, although I was still a hard partying young adult when it first arose. And why I am deeply skeptical of it to this day.
I'm on facebook, but I keep it to a minimum. I don't share any pictures, I just use it to keep in touch with some people. I log on briefly maybe three times a week. And whatever I do online, I try not to leave my real name or post anything on Internet forums that allows anybody to deduce my real identity. If you search me on google or any other search engines, you will find absolutely nothing. And whatever was on there still from earlier days, I've had removed by painstakingly contacting web site owners and webmasters to have all mention of me under my real name deleted.
What I find most worrying is that employers today routinely look up social media profiles of job candidates, and that some people research their dates online before they've even gone and met them the first time. I would imagine that it really does mean that you're constantly worried that one misstep from ten years ago is either going to cost you your employment or it'll lead to somebody ditching you. And I guess it's not often that your boss will actively look for that one thing you said in a drunk tweet in 2015 and tell you they can't have somebody like you working for them, but there have been enough cases where somebody somewhere unearthed something because they had fuck all else to do with their life, and they will then doxx you, and the ensuing angry mob will not rest until you're fired.
I don't date much these days, sadly, but I am still a fan of the idea that if you want to know something about me, all you have to do is come to me and ask me to my face. That's how it was handled before social media when I was a younglad, and in effect for tens of thousands of years since people first invented the concept of a date. And if the fact that there's nothing out there about me puts you off, then maybe our date is a bad idea to begin with. Not everybody who values their privacy is a serial killer, you know.
Beyond the chilling effect of social media you could always look at its addicting effect. Sex is effort, being around people is effort, even watching a film is effort. Tweeting doesn't take any effort, and Twitter's got (or had anyway) a big team of people out there trying to find the best way to make sure Twitter was always grabbing your attention because they want those engagement numbers to look good. There's a carrot as well as a stick to these things.
I wouldn't just blame Twitter mind you. It's more like the entire digital environment where you can always dig up whatever you want without much effort, reinforced by teams of people who want to keep your attention up. With your phone, which is a necessity of daily life anyway, you can effortlessly sit inside passing the time watching some bloke talk about old cassette players or heat pumps or some other niche topic that catches your interest without ever really becoming one of your hobbies. Or you could always watch any of the overabundance of porn that's out there. You're far less likely to be stuck in a situation where there's nothing but shite on the telly, everything's closed, you're skint, and you've got no porn, leaving you in a situation where the best ratio of effort to enjoyment is met by getting drunk and trying to pull.
I remember being out in pubs and clubs at the weekend a few years ago, not really desperately looking to meet somebody, but being in a mood where I wouldn't have minded something like it actually happen that evening. And whenever there was nobody to chat up or if for some other reason I didn't manage to talk to anybody interesting or get a phone number, by about 2:00 or 2:30 am I would sometimes think, sod it, I'll just go home and have another wank to Internet porn.
I guess that's not massively unhealthy, at least not as unhealthy as somebody never bothering to go out to try to meet people in the first place, but nights like that still often felt like they were not up to their potential.
>>43270 >>43271 >>43272 >>43273 I was born in 2005 and I can confirm that it is indeed over for my generation
read through about half of this thread with my cock in my hand btw
