I feel like the author is writing from a perspective of women being an alien species with incomprehensible motives, and their view of women is limited to how they are useful to men (most of the commentary here also seems to share this myopia).<p>> I don't say slutshaming was good - I say that when it comes to intra-male relationships, the current situation might be even worse. During the times of slutshaming, there were two kinds of women: Good ones and bad ones. Post-slutshaming there is only one kind of woman, graded on a scale from one to ten in physical and social attractiveness. Competition for the tens is bitter.<p>Read this from the perspective of a woman, but especially a slut. You have invented a whole philosophy based on the idea that women have some sort of numerical rating, and that sex is some kind of competition. Presumably you're "losing" unless you're having sex with a "10".<p>Women often have impossible beauty standards marketed towards them, with the intent of making us feel bad so we spend money on self-improvement. This is the masculine equivalent. Nothing is tearing the "social fabric", you're tearing at yourself.
I'm a man, been married almost 20 years.<p>I'll never understand why some people will promote being so "free" that you don't even need to bother with marriage, kids, and whatever else seems antiquated, then those same people will whine about being celibate in between their frustrated, unrealized porn fantasies.<p>Men, if you want to have sex – and a lot of it – here's the formula: get married, hold down a steady job, and treat your wife well.
Horrible tittle but interesting article.<p>I quote:<p><i>It somehow seems less impressive that a small subset of men take most of the market, when that market mostly consists of a somewhat similar small subset of women. A minority of men and a minority of women are having fun (?) with each other while most people of both sexes are either living in traditional couples or standing beside the whole spectacle without even participating.</i><p>I’ve also questioned the metrics that say only a few men have all the women. It turns out a few men have sex with a few women, just lots of it.
My main problem with the article is that it treats the complex relationship between men and women in a univariate way - looking only at sex and analyzing it with a marketplace/economics lens.<p>It's so extraordinarily more complex than that.<p>Men are not slavish automatons who only desire sex. We're complex organisms with multiple (sometimes conflicting) desires - love, companionship, meaning, importance, sex etc... sex is on that list, but its priority is very different for different men.<p>It's not abnormal for a man to evaluate a woman who appears to only offer sex and decide "nah, not worth it - not what I'm looking for". This may have absolutely nothing to do with how many partners she's had (or has) - and may have a lot more to do with a rational risk/reward analysis based upon whether she brings more than <i>just sex</i> to the table.<p>The term "incel" is derogatory and doesn't take the above into account. There's a lot of nuance. Involuntarily celibate? What does that even mean?<p>Does it mean "I would have sex with any female, under any circumstance, regardless of her character and attractiveness, but I am unable to"?<p>Or does it mean "I evaluate the whole person, and I haven't found anyone who's both interested in me and meets my criteria, but if I could I would"?<p>And at what point does the person who feels the latter decide to become voluntarily celebate because the whole thing is just too much of a hassle, too painful, and there's no upside? A phenomena that's rising, by all accounts, in both men and women.<p>I thought the article was interesting, but I'm personally more interested in discussions with a broader scope and more nuance.
The author seems to think the history of sex started with the novels from the Victorian era.<p>Men and women have been rejecting each other for sexual and other liaisons at least as long as there is been recorded history.
This is a particularly relevant topic as we race towards the singularity and all of the various Sci-fi tropes are soon becoming real. Convincing android sex workers are an inevitability at this point.<p>EDIT:<p>Top comment as of my writing:<p><i>I mean, the obvious solution is superhuman sexbots, right? People aren’t breeding anyways, they don’t really seem to like each other much for relationships qua relationships given “divorces and mutually unhappy marriage” rates, at least when given options and interesting Western lives.</i><p>My take on the divorce rate, is that people no longer know how to talk to each other in the context of a relationship. Instead of actually substantively talking to each other, so many accept a substitute. By this, I mean shutting down one's partner or letting one's self be shut down. This is also connected to an erosion in society's teaching people about accountability.<p>My partner and I are accountable to each other, and we know how to actually talk about everything, including uncomfortable things. From what I see, we are an uncommon case.
'Sluts' are all around if you know where to search for them (and most importantly pay them accordingly) , at least 70% of hot girl Instagram whose bio doens't mention a modeling agency is advertising for escorting services, and 50% of those who mention a modeling agency they are also escorting.<p>The 'problem' is that 99% of men need to win a huge payday both to feel in the mood to get themselves a prostitute (and have sex with someone who is undoubtly smoking hot but that you have not seen in person not even once before and you won't see her not see anymore after doing the dirty) and also let's face it to afford the hourly rates.