Then they dismissively describe legitimate reasons why women might be apprehensive.
Father,
The reasons are legitimate, so fair enough. However, I have two questions
1) Why are women nicer in other countries?
2) According to a study, there was a significant decline in sexual activity after 2016. Young, single men are having less sex compared to young, single men of other generations. Why do you think that is? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34836481/
Please answer my two questions, I am open to your ideas and I'll change my mind if you give me a good answer.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
He does say he has Autism. He downplays it and says he doesn't know much about it. He also often refers to neurodivergent people as if they were the other and not him. For a person of his age to say "autism" is odd as It is a severely outdated term, but there's no reason to get into that unless you happen to be familiar with the DSM V. You don't seem to be familiar with it or people on the spectrum at all. I was a psych nurse, spent my 20's working in group homes and I grew up with two brothers on the spectrum. Both brothers were as different as night and day. One could only communicate by repeating things he'd already heard. The other was a physics major.
Even so, brushing his mustache isn't necessarily a result of him being on the spectrum. People on the spectrum exhibit uncontrolled OCD like behavior, so I won't discount it. It still isn't as strong an argument as you think it is.
Your other point doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. It's a link to a journal article that only lets me see the abstract. Hell, even the abstract could be considered contrary to your position. It would take a full set of data to analyze and compare against other studies to really parse out a decent appraisal of the facts. For example, to write a paper in the first year of college I'd need at least three recent journal articles saying the same thing to get a passing grade.
For example, to write a paper in the first year of college I'd need at least three recent journal articles saying the same thing to get a passing grade.
Incidentally, in the Discussion portion of the full paper, they list multiple examples of other studies whose results contradict their own findings.
One of the things they (very) briefly touch on, that I think might have legs, is isolation-linked behavior patterns. The data was primarily gathered prior to COVID, so I imagine that there's likely to be a small subset of the population that may have had those types of behavior patterns reinforced. I wonder to what extent such patterns are intergenerational, and likely to be passed on to kids (in other words, will we see the preponderance increase in another generation).
As an aside, I don't know why but this table cracked me up.
Your other point doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. It's a link to a journal article that only lets me see the abstract. Hell, even the abstract could be considered contrary to your position. It would take a full set of data to analyze and compare against other studies to really parse out a decent appraisal of the facts. For example, to write a paper in the first year of college I'd need at least three recent journal articles saying the same thing to get a passing grade.
The author of the paper is very skeptical of the sex recession. However, he was forced to conclude that young, single men (those born between 2000 and 2004) today are having less sex.
There is a lot of research about the sex recession.
Incidentally, in the Discussion portion of the full paper, they list multiple examples of other studies whose results contradict their own findings.
I don't agree with his methods and he clearly has some kind of bias, but even him was forced to admit that young men born between 2000 and 2004 are having less sex.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
I don't agree with his methods and he clearly has some kind of bias, but even him was forced to admit that young men born between 2000 and 2004 are having less sex.
(bold is mine)
I'm curious, which portions of his methodology do you think are flawed?
For example, to write a paper in the first year of college I'd need at least three recent journal articles saying the same thing to get a passing grade.
Incidentally, in the Discussion portion of the full paper, they list multiple examples of other studies whose results contradict their own findings.
One of the things they (very) briefly touch on, that I think might have legs, is isolation-linked behavior patterns. The data was primarily gathered prior to COVID, so I imagine that there's likely to be a small subset of the population that may have had those types of behavior patterns reinforced. I wonder to what extent such patterns are intergenerational, and likely to be passed on to kids (in other words, will we see the preponderance increase in another generation).
As an aside, I don't know why but this table cracked me up.
That table cracked me up too! Then again, I'm a nerd that loves to read journal articles. One of the best things I got from nursing school is the ability to understand the articles better.
I don't agree with his methods and he clearly has some kind of bias, but even him was forced to admit that young men born between 2000 and 2004 are having less sex.
(bold is mine)
I'm curious, which portions of his methodology do you think are flawed?
1. A lot of 25-year-olds today are single, unemployed, and living with their parents, which was probably not the case 20 and 30 years ago.
2. Premarital sex is more acceptable today.
3. Most guys used to get married before the age of 25, but only the oddballs didn't.
We should expect that modern 25-year-old singles are having more sex, not less.
He posts these topics because these are the exact topics that the manosphere-incel-misogynistic-anti-feminist groups online follow. he perfectly mirrors the 'concerns' and even the research topics brought up by these groups. he insists he is not caught up in this way of thinking, but the perfect match between his topics and the manosphere-incel-misogynistic-anti-feminist topics is too obvious.
Additionally, he is incapable of posting about women in any other way than that they are objects or things. Every post he makes about men not getting enough sex has the underlying current that it is not men's fault that they are not getting sex, but rather that women owe men that sex. His way of posting is frequently offensive and inappropriate due to his bigotry and stereotyping, but, thanks to you, Shades, he has the right to openly express his stereotyping and bigotry right here on your forum. Yea for Shades' version of free speech.
