SERIOUSPOST: Here's my radical centrist interpretation of that sex study that incεls and feminists are fighting over

18  2019-04-08 by The_Real_LeBron

TLDR: It's easier for an ordinary woman to have a ton of casual sex, but it's easier for an ordinary man to find a committed relationship. The declining frequency of committed relationships, and the increasing importance of dating apps, is why men aren't getting laid as often as women.

Effortposting starts here

Part I: Hookup culture

Men generally have greater demand for casual sex than women do. Since it's a seller's--ie, a woman's--market, women can choose who they'll hook up with. And since women generally don't want casual sex as much as guys do, they won't just hook up with anybody; they'll hook up with the most qualified candidates. That includes the "Chads," but it also includes successful men, charismatic men, intelligent men, and guys with great senses of humor. And women aren't doing anything wrong by being choosy. Would you settle for scraps when you could do better? Would you post on SRD when /r/Drama is available?

The trouble today is that Tinder and Bumble really only capture appearances and (to a lesser extent) social status. For charisma or humor to get you laid, you need to go out and approach women in real life. And charisma and humor are like muscles: if you don't keep them toned, they're going to go away.

Conversely, men are generally less choosy about their casual sex partners, because there's no long-term obligation involved. Unless you shit where you eat too often, hooking up with a mediocre-looking chick doesn't make you less likely to score with a babe later on; it might actually make you more likely to have future successes, because of the importance I mentioned of exercising your social "muscles." Conversely, if you're going to commit to a woman, go out with her, introduce her to your friends, and turn other women down for her, you're going to want her to be as pretty as you can manage.

Part II: On monogamy

Now let's talk about committed relationships. As I've just shown, men are choosier (at least physically) than women are for whom they will commit to. Women, on the other hand, want you to at least be physically presentable, and they don't want you to be an obese, smelly ogre, but once you reach an acceptable minimum threshold for physical shit, your success, your drive, and your personality become much more important. A mediocre-looking man who is groomed, doesn't have a gut, has good manners, is a good conversationalist, and has his shit together can absolutely strike up a rapport with an attractive woman, ask her out, and turn that into a successful relationship. But he's probably going to need to ask her out after meeting her IRL, because as we've just discussed, Tinder is shit for most men.

However, here we have the converse of the problem that hookup culture has: a lot of twentysomething guys don't want to be monogamous. They want to play the field, and they tell themselves that if they commit to a girl they'll miss out on their youth. That's all well and good, except a lot of guys just aren't good at playing the field. It's unfortunate, because there are men who lack what it takes to be a player, but could find and keep an attractive woman.

Some might say that I'm telling normies to settle for "betabux." To that I say: shut the fuck up and be thankful for what you can get, you goddamn NPCel. The vagina is literally designed to pass out a fucking baby, do you seriously think any amount of dick is going to affect how it feels?

Part III: My advice

Fuckbuddy-style relationships lie in between casual sex and exclusive relationships, and they might be the radical centrist solution to our current sexual crisis. Unlike hookups, Chads are limited in how many true friends with benefits they can have: firstly, your friends are going to expect you to invest time in them; and secondly it's very difficult for even an absolute stud to regularly sleep with multiple girls in the same social circle. Women are also more open to being friends with benefits with a conventionally unattractive man than they are to just casually fucking him. This may seem counterintuitive, but remember that as a woman becomes more emotionally involved with a man, his personality and his social status begin to outshine his appearance.

So, what should you do? My answer is simple: if you see a pretty woman in your social circle, strike up a conversation with her. Since you're on /r/Drama, I assume your social skills are already where they need to be, and that you know how to subtly flirt without coming across as a degenerate or a male feminist. If a taken woman gets flirty vibes from you, she's likely to mention her boyfriend/fiancee/daddy within a minute of the conversation. If she's single and you make a good first impression, she'll be flattered by your interest and start seeing you as a potential partner (a single straight woman, especially after 21, is not going to turn down a chance to meet The One). Chat with her the next time you meet her, and again after that. At the end of your third conversation with her, tell her she seems cool and you'd love to get a drink with her sometime. Once she says yes, it's your game to lose.

But before you get too excited, remember this: To impress a woman in person, you must somehow be impressive. The bad news for Chapos, /r/braincεls users, and MDEgenerates is that you have to compensate for your weak appearance with upward mobility. You can get laid as a physically unimpressive normie, or you can get laid as a handsome NEET, but you cannot get laid as an unimpressive-looking NEET.

You're welcome. Don't thank me, thank bipolar II, my hypomanic phase, and the long layover I'm currently dealing with.

23 comments

Hahaha, you were so butthurt you reported all my posts to the moderators too.

You win this one, I'm not allowed to make fun of you anymore. Enjoy living your internet life every day, goodbye.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, removeddit.com, archive.is

  2. /r/Drama - archive.org, megalodon.jp, archive.is*

  3. /r/brainc - archive.org, megalodon.jp, archive.is*

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

It's over

Okay, now this is epic

Don't encroach on pizzashills territory

This would be something pizzashill would respond to and debunk

/u/IDFshill fight me

Imagine thinking waman are worth chasing after

Imagine not knowing all women are queens

Imagine imagining some women could be non-thots

Cope

Post bu$$y

( )*( )

why would you post this and why do you think i'll bother reading it? try putting all of this effort into getting a job

Rood

What study that the two groups of unmentionables are fighting over?

You use this sub to post the fighting, not you conclusion.

My conclusion is good and deserves to be shared.

Where's the damn study?

You post is handwaving.

Just google “23% of men not having sex,” it got a ton of press coverage.

Non Google Amp link 1: here


I am a bot. Please send me a message if I am acting up. Click here to read more about why this bot exists.

Good bot

Thank you, bG9sIG5pY2UgdHJ5Cg, for voting on AntiGoogleAmpBot.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.


Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!

c0pe