A lot of knock on effects of the attacks on Israel to come in the next few weeks and months.
Firstly, looks like Ukraine is shafted. GOP reps already looking to make any spending commitments prioritise Israel at the expense of Ukraine. Russia is making sure its propagandists are amplifying this - it’s the let’s cancel x and use the money to fund y tactic for the US right.
Second, probably another refugee crisis for Europe to brace for, especially if Egypt is unwelcoming to Gaza Palestinians. And it’ll be politically toxic in Europe given the terrorist origins of what’s about to happen.
Finally, the usual oil price response, just in time for Boreal winter. Depends how wide any conflict spreads.
US support for Ukraine has been waning and has become a completely partisan issue, already suffering, and now there is a massive distraction event and situation much closer to many of their hearts.
Putin will have been dreaming for a scenario like this. The worst people always find a way to prosper.
It's dead easy for the administration to link Ukraine and this attack in Israel as both being aided by Iran. Then you say funding Israel and Ukraine is part of fighting a common enemy. It also happens to be broadly true.
Wouldn’t want to be working in that Iranian factory that makes the Shahed drones at the moment. Several countries will be eyeing that place up as a target.
They can eye it up all they like but its 200km inland from the Gulf at Isfahan so there's only one country that has the capability to flatten it. I don't think JRB wants a war with Iran in an election year.
You saying Israel doesn't have the capability? I think Israeli capabilities are going to see many exceeded stretch goals in coming weeks.
Yes, I am somewhat mystified by this remark
Israel has a defence budget five times larger than Iran's, specifically it has a superior air force, with more and better aircraft (and of course in any strike it will be greatly aided, either openly or covertly, by the USA - and possibly other countries that loathe Iran like Saudi or the UAE)
I am fairly sure Israel could, in these circumstances, hit Iran where it hurts. The only doubt might be Iran having nukes and the ability to use them, but this is highly unlikely, at the moment
Your forgetting that Iranian missile/drone technology is pretty advanced . They've ballistic missiles so any Israeli strike could invite retaliation. Do the IDF really want a hot war with Iran?
That's a valid but different point
@Dura_Ace was claiming that only America could hit the Iranian drone factory, coz it's 200km inland (or whatever)
I reckon this is nonsense; The Israeli air force is highly capable, and superior to Iran's, and will have covert assistance from the USA (and others)
They could definitely take it. But then, yes, they risk retaliation from Tehran. But that has been the case for years, and as 600 Israelis have just died in a single day, Bibi might not care
If we accept that Sunak is a dud, that's four Conservative Prime Ministers in a row who have rapidly failed. (Five if you count single party majority Dave as different to Coalition Dave.) And arguably, in ways that ought to have been obvious with even moderate foresight.
At some point, you have to pause with fishing dead bodies out of the river and go upstream. What is it about today's Conservative Party that means that they keep selecting leaders who aren't up to the job? Is it their selection process, or is it that the Conservatives are trying to do something that can't really be done?
But then, it's the same with Labour. They had a run of three leaders (four if you count Harman) who proved disasters, and Blair was at best a mixed blessing.
If we accept that Sunak is a dud, that's four Conservative Prime Ministers in a row who have rapidly failed. (Five if you count single party majority Dave as different to Coalition Dave.) And arguably, in ways that ought to have been obvious with even moderate foresight.
At some point, you have to pause with fishing dead bodies out of the river and go upstream. What is it about today's Conservative Party that means that they keep selecting leaders who aren't up to the job? Is it their selection process, or is it that the Conservatives are trying to do something that can't really be done?
That's up to the electorate when they go to vote at the next election.
In the mean time are we just supposed to keep a dead body in situ?
A lot of knock on effects of the attacks on Israel to come in the next few weeks and months.
Firstly, looks like Ukraine is shafted. GOP reps already looking to make any spending commitments prioritise Israel at the expense of Ukraine. Russia is making sure its propagandists are amplifying this - it’s the let’s cancel x and use the money to fund y tactic for the US right.
Second, probably another refugee crisis for Europe to brace for, especially if Egypt is unwelcoming to Gaza Palestinians. And it’ll be politically toxic in Europe given the terrorist origins of what’s about to happen.
Finally, the usual oil price response, just in time for Boreal winter. Depends how wide any conflict spreads.
US support for Ukraine has been waning and has become a completely partisan issue, already suffering, and now there is a massive distraction event and situation much closer to many of their hearts.
Putin will have been dreaming for a scenario like this. The worst people always find a way to prosper.
It's dead easy for the administration to link Ukraine and this attack in Israel as both being aided by Iran. Then you say funding Israel and Ukraine is part of fighting a common enemy. It also happens to be broadly true.
Wouldn’t want to be working in that Iranian factory that makes the Shahed drones at the moment. Several countries will be eyeing that place up as a target.
They can eye it up all they like but its 200km inland from the Gulf at Isfahan so there's only one country that has the capability to flatten it. I don't think JRB wants a war with Iran in an election year.
You saying Israel doesn't have the capability? I think Israeli capabilities are going to see many exceeded stretch goals in coming weeks.
Yes, I am somewhat mystified by this remark
Israel has a defence budget five times larger than Iran's, specifically it has a superior air force, with more and better aircraft (and of course in any strike it will be greatly aided, either openly or covertly, by the USA - and possibly other countries that loathe Iran like Saudi or the UAE)
I am fairly sure Israel could, in these circumstances, hit Iran where it hurts. The only doubt might be Iran having nukes and the ability to use them, but this is highly unlikely, at the moment
Your forgetting that Iranian missile/drone technology is pretty advanced . They've ballistic missiles so any Israeli strike could invite retaliation. Do the IDF really want a hot war with Iran?
If there were a hot war with Iran, would the US be able to repeat the arms-length strategy they've taken over Ukraine, or would they need to get directly involved?
A lot of knock on effects of the attacks on Israel to come in the next few weeks and months.
Firstly, looks like Ukraine is shafted. GOP reps already looking to make any spending commitments prioritise Israel at the expense of Ukraine. Russia is making sure its propagandists are amplifying this - it’s the let’s cancel x and use the money to fund y tactic for the US right.
Second, probably another refugee crisis for Europe to brace for, especially if Egypt is unwelcoming to Gaza Palestinians. And it’ll be politically toxic in Europe given the terrorist origins of what’s about to happen.
Finally, the usual oil price response, just in time for Boreal winter. Depends how wide any conflict spreads.
US support for Ukraine has been waning and has become a completely partisan issue, already suffering, and now there is a massive distraction event and situation much closer to many of their hearts.
Putin will have been dreaming for a scenario like this. The worst people always find a way to prosper.
It's dead easy for the administration to link Ukraine and this attack in Israel as both being aided by Iran. Then you say funding Israel and Ukraine is part of fighting a common enemy. It also happens to be broadly true.
Wouldn’t want to be working in that Iranian factory that makes the Shahed drones at the moment. Several countries will be eyeing that place up as a target.
They can eye it up all they like but its 200km inland from the Gulf at Isfahan so there's only one country that has the capability to flatten it. I don't think JRB wants a war with Iran in an election year.
You saying Israel doesn't have the capability? I think Israeli capabilities are going to see many exceeded stretch goals in coming weeks.
They'd have to tank the strike package 1,500km across Jordan and Iraq/Saudi and back. When/if they get there the HESA facility covers 500 acres and they have suppress the inevitable massive AD.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
A lot of knock on effects of the attacks on Israel to come in the next few weeks and months.
Firstly, looks like Ukraine is shafted. GOP reps already looking to make any spending commitments prioritise Israel at the expense of Ukraine. Russia is making sure its propagandists are amplifying this - it’s the let’s cancel x and use the money to fund y tactic for the US right.
Second, probably another refugee crisis for Europe to brace for, especially if Egypt is unwelcoming to Gaza Palestinians. And it’ll be politically toxic in Europe given the terrorist origins of what’s about to happen.
Finally, the usual oil price response, just in time for Boreal winter. Depends how wide any conflict spreads.
US support for Ukraine has been waning and has become a completely partisan issue, already suffering, and now there is a massive distraction event and situation much closer to many of their hearts.
Putin will have been dreaming for a scenario like this. The worst people always find a way to prosper.
It's dead easy for the administration to link Ukraine and this attack in Israel as both being aided by Iran. Then you say funding Israel and Ukraine is part of fighting a common enemy. It also happens to be broadly true.
Wouldn’t want to be working in that Iranian factory that makes the Shahed drones at the moment. Several countries will be eyeing that place up as a target.
They can eye it up all they like but its 200km inland from the Gulf at Isfahan so there's only one country that has the capability to flatten it. I don't think JRB wants a war with Iran in an election year.
You saying Israel doesn't have the capability? I think Israeli capabilities are going to see many exceeded stretch goals in coming weeks.
Yes, I am somewhat mystified by this remark
Israel has a defence budget five times larger than Iran's, specifically it has a superior air force, with more and better aircraft (and of course in any strike it will be greatly aided, either openly or covertly, by the USA - and possibly other countries that loathe Iran like Saudi or the UAE)
I am fairly sure Israel could, in these circumstances, hit Iran where it hurts. The only doubt might be Iran having nukes and the ability to use them, but this is highly unlikely, at the moment
Your forgetting that Iranian missile/drone technology is pretty advanced . They've ballistic missiles so any Israeli strike could invite retaliation. Do the IDF really want a hot war with Iran?
That's a valid but different point
@Dura_Ace was claiming that only America could hit the Iranian drone factory, coz it's 200km inland (or whatever)
I reckon this is nonsense; The Israeli air force is highly capable, and superior to Iran's, and will have covert assistance from the USA (and others)
They could definitely take it. But then, yes, they risk retaliation from Tehran. But that has been the case for years, and as 600 Israelis have just died in a single day, Bibi might not care
Back in 1981 they took out Saddams nuclear reactor at not dissimilar distance.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more a direct attack on Iran seems like a strong possibility
Take out some of Iran's weapons industry and you gravely weaken Hamas, you weaken the arms flow to Putin, you help Ukraine, and you fuck over Iran
That's a rare multiple win with one strike
It’s a long way to fly, over Jordanian and Saudi airspace. And those drones don’t seem to be directly menacing Israel, so why would they?
Because, as I say, it would be a good outcome for many reasons, desired by several countries. Put it this way, if the Israeli air force volunteers for the job, I don't think the Pentagon will say OMG No!
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
If we accept that Sunak is a dud, that's four Conservative Prime Ministers in a row who have rapidly failed. (Five if you count single party majority Dave as different to Coalition Dave.) And arguably, in ways that ought to have been obvious with even moderate foresight.
At some point, you have to pause with fishing dead bodies out of the river and go upstream. What is it about today's Conservative Party that means that they keep selecting leaders who aren't up to the job? Is it their selection process, or is it that the Conservatives are trying to do something that can't really be done?
But then, it's the same with Labour. They had a run of three leaders (four if you count Harman) who proved disasters, and Blair was at best a mixed blessing.
We get the politicians we deserve.
Boy, we must have done some bad shit.
Mostly, we collectively opted out of the political process, except for voting in elections.
In doing so, we left it to the Activists. They've always been there, they've always been strange, but in the past they have been diluted by inactive, social members. And beyond a certain point, the loss of more normal party members becomes a doom loop.
(Joining the threads together, the Young Conservatives was said to be the middle-class Tinder of its day. Hard to see that being the case now.)
This is a video with a voiceover generated by elevenlabs.io . It is based on the voice of the actor Michael Ironside. it sounds exactly like him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0kbNDaenjk
None of these voices are real. As I have pointed out over the past weeks, we are already in a world where recorded verbal evidence is not sufficient.
Montgomery seems to have flashes of an American accent. Did he actually sound like that - some artefact of his Irish heritage perhaps - or was the AI just a bit crap?
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
Fallacy there. Dating apps weren't so peevalent in 2003, at a time when people were still aware of AIDS. And liking a male on a dating app doesn't ensure that the female will get a look in. As the difference in the figures shows else it'd be more like elephant seal or honeybee drone ratios of male to female.
I'm sitting outside, in shorts and a shirt, eating lunch, a third of the way through October, for the second year in a row. Madness.
You're right. Lunch at 4.15 ??
Lunch should be taken at 1pm, and tea at 3:40pm.
That only applies if there are ladies present. In their absence a good lunch can last well into the next day.
Indeed.
*burps*
My Lord, the port is with you.
I once co-hosted a party which somehow lasted three days. People woke up on the first morning-after-the-spectacular-night-before, variously scattered around our building in Red Lion Square, and in the gardens of the Square itself. We found people sleeping in the stairwell, in cupboards, etc. Then they immediately started partying again, and so it went on, marvellously
Ah, sweet dreams of youth...
I once went to a party on the Friday (at someone’s house, who I’ve never seen before or since), necked a load of pills, smoked a load of dope and drank a load of booze and had a cracking night. Woke up on the sofa the next morning after three hours kip, cup of tea and a bacon sarnie, started on the booze nice and early and dropped some more pills at 10 in the morning. I remember precisely nothing until 24 hours later when I woke up on the living room floor, naked, under a rug with an equally naked buxom half-Italian girl. Biggest aureolas I’ve ever seen. Never seen her before or since either. I would love to know what the hell happened in that missing 24 hours.
That’ll be about 20 years ago now. The thought of doing all that now fills me with absolute horror. Glad I did it then though 🤣
A lot of knock on effects of the attacks on Israel to come in the next few weeks and months.
Firstly, looks like Ukraine is shafted. GOP reps already looking to make any spending commitments prioritise Israel at the expense of Ukraine. Russia is making sure its propagandists are amplifying this - it’s the let’s cancel x and use the money to fund y tactic for the US right.
Second, probably another refugee crisis for Europe to brace for, especially if Egypt is unwelcoming to Gaza Palestinians. And it’ll be politically toxic in Europe given the terrorist origins of what’s about to happen.
Finally, the usual oil price response, just in time for Boreal winter. Depends how wide any conflict spreads.
US support for Ukraine has been waning and has become a completely partisan issue, already suffering, and now there is a massive distraction event and situation much closer to many of their hearts.
Putin will have been dreaming for a scenario like this. The worst people always find a way to prosper.
It's dead easy for the administration to link Ukraine and this attack in Israel as both being aided by Iran. Then you say funding Israel and Ukraine is part of fighting a common enemy. It also happens to be broadly true.
Wouldn’t want to be working in that Iranian factory that makes the Shahed drones at the moment. Several countries will be eyeing that place up as a target.
They can eye it up all they like but its 200km inland from the Gulf at Isfahan so there's only one country that has the capability to flatten it. I don't think JRB wants a war with Iran in an election year.
You saying Israel doesn't have the capability? I think Israeli capabilities are going to see many exceeded stretch goals in coming weeks.
They'd have to tank the strike package 1,500km across Jordan and Iraq/Saudi and back. When/if they get there the HESA facility covers 500 acres and they have suppress the inevitable massive AD.
They could probably strike it ?
But the question would be whether they could do sufficient damage to justify the cost, and likely consequences.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
Not a huge kernel, though.
Comparing 2000-2 and 2016-8,
The absolute increase in sexual inactivity was most pronounced among men aged 18 to 24 years (18.9% vs 30.9%; aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39). In this age group, the proportions of those reporting weekly or more sexual activity (51.8% vs 37.4%; aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99) and those reporting 1 sexual partner (44.2% vs 30.0%; aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) decreased.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more a direct attack on Iran seems like a strong possibility
Take out some of Iran's weapons industry and you gravely weaken Hamas, you weaken the arms flow to Putin, you help Ukraine, and you fuck over Iran
That's a rare multiple win with one strike
It’s a long way to fly, over Jordanian and Saudi airspace. And those drones don’t seem to be directly menacing Israel, so why would they?
Because, as I say, it would be a good outcome for many reasons, desired by several countries. Put it this way, if the Israeli air force volunteers for the job, I don't think the Pentagon will say OMG No!
There's a bit of a Strangers on a Train opportunity here.
America and Ukraine either can't or won't strike Iran. Israel can, but might not want to.
America should with plausible deniability encourage Israel to strike the Shahed manufacturing, and then America should offer extra support to Israel for entirely unconnected reasons.
Interesting. I have discovered a sub-species of MAGA Trumpites that are ANTI Israel, or at least anti America spending any money to help Israel. Here is one. 400,000 followers
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Interesting. I have discovered a sub-species of MAGA Trumpites that are ANTI Israel, or at least anti America spending any money to help Israel. Here is one. 400,000 followers
Aaaaaaaand.... now the inevitable beheading videos, live, on air
I shall not link
I wonder if @FrancisUrquhart is right and some ISIS members have drifted back to Hamas, or whether Hamas see ISIS as an inspiration
This whole appalling episode feels like a catastrophe for the Palestinian cause, even in the midst of a military "victory"
Its as smart a strategic move as Operation Barbarossa, or the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Not if it is ISIS. Kill a lot of Israelis and have Israel kill even more Palestinians, which will radicalise your followers, and also wipe out Hamas leaving ISIS running the show.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more a direct attack on Iran seems like a strong possibility
Take out some of Iran's weapons industry and you gravely weaken Hamas, you weaken the arms flow to Putin, you help Ukraine, and you fuck over Iran
That's a rare multiple win with one strike
It’s a long way to fly, over Jordanian and Saudi airspace. And those drones don’t seem to be directly menacing Israel, so why would they?
Because, as I say, it would be a good outcome for many reasons, desired by several countries. Put it this way, if the Israeli air force volunteers for the job, I don't think the Pentagon will say OMG No!
There's a bit of a Strangers on a Train opportunity here.
America and Ukraine either can't or won't strike Iran. Israel can, but might not want to.
America should with plausible deniability encourage Israel to strike the Shahed manufacturing, and then America should offer extra support to Israel for entirely unconnected reasons.
The mysterious sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines is, for some unconnected reason, coming in to mind
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
And if the raid were (as is quite possible) a failure ?
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
Not a huge kernel, though.
Comparing 2000-2 and 2016-8,
The absolute increase in sexual inactivity was most pronounced among men aged 18 to 24 years (18.9% vs 30.9%; aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39). In this age group, the proportions of those reporting weekly or more sexual activity (51.8% vs 37.4%; aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99) and those reporting 1 sexual partner (44.2% vs 30.0%; aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) decreased.
63% of men 18-29 are single in 2022, compared to 51% in 2019.
How the figures compare for women:
32% were single in 2019, vs 34% in 2022, so virtually static. And also, the huge gap between male and female there, in both years sampled.
As the FT says, "disconcertingly, there is a kernel of truth in the incel worldview".
I don't like it, and I often want to slap the hell out of some of my younger friends who are incel wallowers. But the data on this doesn't lie, more and more young men are becoming sexless, while women are having the same amount of sex, but with fewer partners. This is hard data, not conjecture. The numbers are there, in absolute, unambiguous black and white.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
I'm sitting outside, in shorts and a shirt, eating lunch, a third of the way through October, for the second year in a row. Madness.
You're right. Lunch at 4.15 ??
Lunch should be taken at 1pm, and tea at 3:40pm.
That only applies if there are ladies present. In their absence a good lunch can last well into the next day.
Indeed.
*burps*
My Lord, the port is with you.
I once co-hosted a party which somehow lasted three days. People woke up on the first morning-after-the-spectacular-night-before, variously scattered around our building in Red Lion Square, and in the gardens of the Square itself. We found people sleeping in the stairwell, in cupboards, etc. Then they immediately started partying again, and so it went on, marvellously
Ah, sweet dreams of youth...
I once went to a party on the Friday (at someone’s house, who I’ve never seen before or since), necked a load of pills, smoked a load of dope and drank a load of booze and had a cracking night. Woke up on the sofa the next morning after three hours kip, cup of tea and a bacon sarnie, started on the booze nice and early and dropped some more pills at 10 in the morning. I remember precisely nothing until 24 hours later when I woke up on the living room floor, naked, under a rug with an equally naked buxom half-Italian girl. Biggest aureolas I’ve ever seen. Never seen her before or since either. I would love to know what the hell happened in that missing 24 hours.
That’ll be about 20 years ago now. The thought of doing all that now fills me with absolute horror. Glad I did it then though 🤣
Let me tell you something. I’ve seen it all before. I’ve inhaled hashish, I had an Afro haircut. I went to all-weekend binges to Prestatyn to see wings
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
And if the raid were (as is quite possible) a failure ?
Didn't the Brits hit Berlin early in WW2 for exactly this reason? It was a grave risk, but the emotional power of the raid, thereby slaking the desire for revenge, and unnerving the Nazis, was deemed by us a prize worthy of the gamble
Interesting. I have discovered a sub-species of MAGA Trumpites that are ANTI Israel, or at least anti America spending any money to help Israel. Here is one. 400,000 followers
Of course, Russia isn't Israel's ally and that is MAGA Trumpism.
Traditional GOP are pro-Israel, anti-Russia. MAGA GOP are inverted.
It's a complex ecosystem, richly composted by TwitterX
At the same time, my diggings have discovered that online Indians are now radically pro-Israel, because Hindu nationalists now officially hate Muslims - or so it seems
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
And if the raid were (as is quite possible) a failure ?
Didn't the Brits hit Berlin early in WW2 for exactly this reason? It was a grave risk, but the emotional power of the raid, thereby slaking the desire for revenge, and unnerving the Nazis, was deemed by us a prize worthy of the gamble
And the Doolittle raid for the same reasons.
Re your point about anti Israel MAGA factions I remember the Louis Theroux doc where he spent time with these wing nuts and the amount of anti-semitism was surprising and shocking.
Another depressing day of atrocities in the Middle East with untold consequences
Sunak and Starmer stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel while Palestinian supporters parade in London and Manchester
An Egyptian guard opens fire on a tourist bus of Israelis killing some and their Egyptian guide
An innocent German woman is kidnapped with unspeakable consequences for her
British citizens are trapped in the conflict as well as other nationalities
The conflict threatens to spread to other countries and all the time Ukraine is at war with Russia
The bond market crisis threatens the world's economies and we have Biden or Trump as the choice for the US next year .
We can argue over Sunak and Starmer, but can anyone name any politician anywhere they would put their trust in to handle the fallout from these concurrent crisis
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
I don't believe so, at all.
The figures I've seen not coming from nutters almost all tend to show little change in figures.
When it comes to "in a relationship" (which is not the same as having sex), then women have consistently been in relationships at a higher rate than men at younger age-groups, not just now but in the past too.
Because its not unusual for men to have a relationship with a younger woman, but the reverse is less common. And that's not a modern development.
If we accept that Sunak is a dud, that's four Conservative Prime Ministers in a row who have rapidly failed. (Five if you count single party majority Dave as different to Coalition Dave.) ...
If you count Cameron, you may as well say eight Conservative Party Leaders in a row.
Another depressing day of atrocities in the Middle East with untold consequences
Sunak and Starmer stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel while Palestinian supporters parade in London and Manchester
An Egyptian guard opens fire on a tourist bus of Israelis killing some and their Egyptian guide
An innocent German woman is kidnapped with unspeakable consequences for her
British citizens are trapped in the conflict as well as other nationalities
The conflict threatens to spread to other countries and all the time Ukraine is at war with Russia
The bond market crisis threatens the world's economies and we have Biden or Trump as the choice for the US next year .
We can argue over Sunak and Starmer, but can anyone name any politician anywhere they would put their trust in to handle the fallout from these concurrent crisis
Not confirmed, Biden may still stand down and Trump could be in jail this time next year if convicted in any one of his criminal casesand a new GOP candidate selected
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
I hope the Wokeists who cheered on the decline of free speech and free thought as an obstacle to the proper embrace of Wokery are now enjoying the spectacle of many young people (particularly young men) enthusiastically grabbing onto this ideology instead.
It's the Paul Schofield speech for the mind: you must teach young people critical thinking, not to stop thinking.
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
And if the raid were (as is quite possible) a failure ?
Didn't the Brits hit Berlin early in WW2 for exactly this reason? It was a grave risk, but the emotional power of the raid, thereby slaking the desire for revenge, and unnerving the Nazis, was deemed by us a prize worthy of the gamble
And the Doolittle raid for the same reasons.
Re your point about anti Israel MAGA factions I remember the Louis Theroux doc where he spent time with these wing nuts and the amount of anti-semitism was surprising and shocking.
Dig deep enough into the views of the conspiratorially minded and you will ALWAYS find anti-Semitism in the end. It's like digging into the grey sands around Baku. At some point you are bound to strike oil
I know someone whose flat earth beliefs ultimately and complexly relate to his anti-Semitism. ie "They" - the Jews - "WANT you to believe the earth is round". I have never found out why the Jews want people to believe this
Another depressing day of atrocities in the Middle East with untold consequences
Sunak and Starmer stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel while Palestinian supporters parade in London and Manchester
An Egyptian guard opens fire on a tourist bus of Israelis killing some and their Egyptian guide
An innocent German woman is kidnapped with unspeakable consequences for her
British citizens are trapped in the conflict as well as other nationalities
The conflict threatens to spread to other countries and all the time Ukraine is at war with Russia
The bond market crisis threatens the world's economies and we have Biden or Trump as the choice for the US next year .
We can argue over Sunak and Starmer, but can anyone name any politician anywhere they would put their trust in to handle the fallout from these concurrent crisis
Not confirmed, Biden may still stand down and Trump could be in jail this time next year if convicted in any one of his criminal casesand a new GOP candidate selected
Indeed but my point is where are the worlds leaders capable of inspiration
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
Iran has been a problem for decades. It tries to develop nukes (which I bet it'd be tempted to use on Israel), foments conflict and terrorism and generates huge numbers of refugees that keep fleeing for the West.
And yet, their people sort of still keep supporting / voting for it.
Madness. But clearly trolling/defying and a theocracy the West is very popular amongst the base.
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
And if the raid were (as is quite possible) a failure ?
Didn't the Brits hit Berlin early in WW2 for exactly this reason? It was a grave risk, but the emotional power of the raid, thereby slaking the desire for revenge, and unnerving the Nazis, was deemed by us a prize worthy of the gamble
And the Doolittle raid for the same reasons.
Re your point about anti Israel MAGA factions I remember the Louis Theroux doc where he spent time with these wing nuts and the amount of anti-semitism was surprising and shocking.
Dig deep enough into the views of the conspiratorially minded and you will ALWAYS find anti-Semitism in the end. It's like digging into the grey sands around Baku. At some point you are bound to strike oil
I know someone whose flat earth beliefs ultimately and complexly relate to his anti-Semitism. ie "They" - the Jews - "WANT you to believe the earth is round". I have never found out why the Jews want people to believe this
Oh, they have seminars at the World Economic Forum about how best to persuade Normies* that the world is round. And, the speakers always have names like Meyer, Joshua or Isaac - wink, wink.
* That what they call the dumb schmucks who aren't in on the whole WEF thing
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with
If we accept that Sunak is a dud, that's four Conservative Prime Ministers in a row who have rapidly failed. (Five if you count single party majority Dave as different to Coalition Dave.) And arguably, in ways that ought to have been obvious with even moderate foresight.
At some point, you have to pause with fishing dead bodies out of the river and go upstream. What is it about today's Conservative Party that means that they keep selecting leaders who aren't up to the job? Is it their selection process, or is it that the Conservatives are trying to do something that can't really be done?
But then, it's the same with Labour. They had a run of three leaders (four if you count Harman) who proved disasters, and Blair was at best a mixed blessing.
We get the politicians we deserve.
Boy, we must have done some bad shit.
Mostly, we collectively opted out of the political process, except for voting in elections.
In doing so, we left it to the Activists. They've always been there, they've always been strange, but in the past they have been diluted by inactive, social members. And beyond a certain point, the loss of more normal party members becomes a doom loop.
(Joining the threads together, the Young Conservatives was said to be the middle-class Tinder of its day. Hard to see that being the case now.)
Similar to the church, declining church attendance and religious belief means hardline evangelicals make up a greater percentage of Christians in the UK. As much fewer people join political parties too, hardcore nationalist rightwingers and Thatcherites in the Conservatives and hardcore Corbynite socialists in Labour made up more of the parties memberships and normally elect one of their own unless they have been out of power and lost long enough to pick a Cameron or Starmer
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
I don't believe so, at all.
The figures I've seen not coming from nutters almost all tend to show little change in figures.
When it comes to "in a relationship" (which is not the same as having sex), then women have consistently been in relationships at a higher rate than men at younger age-groups, not just now but in the past too.
Because its not unusual for men to have a relationship with a younger woman, but the reverse is less common. And that's not a modern development.
The age thing is indeed a possible explanation for the discrepancy. As a 40 year old, I have recently dated a 24 year old and an 28 year old. Everyone shrugs. So what? Reverse that, and imagine I was a 40 year old woman...
Yes, older men have always done well with younger women, tbh, I've done better in my 30s than I did in my 20s. What that doesn't change, is that there is a growing pool of angry, sexless young men aged 18-25ish who are easily radicalised and want to beat something up. Heck, the best of them get grifted by giving Andrew Tate 2000 bucks for a "course" to pick up girls. The worst of them go on disgusting, mad killing sprees.
The problem is, the situation isn't static. It's quite clear from the stats that the number of sexless young men is increasing, statistically, significantly, year on year. And I put it to you that is a problem, because the world does not need a lot of angry young men with a lot to prove.
Interesting. I have discovered a sub-species of MAGA Trumpites that are ANTI Israel, or at least anti America spending any money to help Israel. Here is one. 400,000 followers
Of course, Russia isn't Israel's ally and that is MAGA Trumpism.
Traditional GOP are pro-Israel, anti-Russia. MAGA GOP are inverted.
It's a complex ecosystem, richly composted by TwitterX
At the same time, my diggings have discovered that online Indians are now radically pro-Israel, because Hindu nationalists now officially hate Muslims - or so it seems
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with
You ever heard of divorce and polyamory, Hyufd?
Yes but divorce just puts someone else on the marriage market eg a divorced ugly poor woman is highly unlikely to be a marriage partner of a handsome rich man, leaving her as an option for a single ugly poor incel to marry.
You also still can't marry more than 1 person, despite polyamory
Another depressing day of atrocities in the Middle East with untold consequences
Sunak and Starmer stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel while Palestinian supporters parade in London and Manchester
An Egyptian guard opens fire on a tourist bus of Israelis killing some and their Egyptian guide
An innocent German woman is kidnapped with unspeakable consequences for her
British citizens are trapped in the conflict as well as other nationalities
The conflict threatens to spread to other countries and all the time Ukraine is at war with Russia
The bond market crisis threatens the world's economies and we have Biden or Trump as the choice for the US next year .
We can argue over Sunak and Starmer, but can anyone name any politician anywhere they would put their trust in to handle the fallout from these concurrent crisis
Not confirmed, Biden may still stand down and Trump could be in jail this time next year if convicted in any one of his criminal casesand a new GOP candidate selected
Indeed but my point is where are the worlds leaders capable of inspiration
Hitler could be inspirational sometimes for his supporters, inspirational leaders are not all Mandela, Obama or JFK
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
And if the raid were (as is quite possible) a failure ?
Didn't the Brits hit Berlin early in WW2 for exactly this reason? It was a grave risk, but the emotional power of the raid, thereby slaking the desire for revenge, and unnerving the Nazis, was deemed by us a prize worthy of the gamble
And the Doolittle raid for the same reasons.
Re your point about anti Israel MAGA factions I remember the Louis Theroux doc where he spent time with these wing nuts and the amount of anti-semitism was surprising and shocking.
Dig deep enough into the views of the conspiratorially minded and you will ALWAYS find anti-Semitism in the end. It's like digging into the grey sands around Baku. At some point you are bound to strike oil
I know someone whose flat earth beliefs ultimately and complexly relate to his anti-Semitism. ie "They" - the Jews - "WANT you to believe the earth is round". I have never found out why the Jews want people to believe this
Oh, they have seminars at the World Economic Forum about how best to persuade Normies* that the world is round. And, the speakers always have names like Meyer, Joshua or Isaac - wink, wink.
* That what they call the dumb schmucks who aren't in on the whole WEF thing
I just tested my theory by doing an oil-check on David Icke. Until now I had no idea if he is anti-Semitic or not (his madness is so intense it is tedious, I never pay attention to him). Anyway I put in the disptick and yep, there is it, he's an anti-Semite, amongst much else
Another depressing day of atrocities in the Middle East with untold consequences
Sunak and Starmer stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel while Palestinian supporters parade in London and Manchester
An Egyptian guard opens fire on a tourist bus of Israelis killing some and their Egyptian guide
An innocent German woman is kidnapped with unspeakable consequences for her
British citizens are trapped in the conflict as well as other nationalities
The conflict threatens to spread to other countries and all the time Ukraine is at war with Russia
The bond market crisis threatens the world's economies and we have Biden or Trump as the choice for the US next year .
We can argue over Sunak and Starmer, but can anyone name any politician anywhere they would put their trust in to handle the fallout from these concurrent crisis
Not confirmed, Biden may still stand down and Trump could be in jail this time next year if convicted in any one of his criminal casesand a new GOP candidate selected
Indeed but my point is where are the worlds leaders capable of inspiration
Hitler could be inspirational sometimes for his supporters, inspirational leaders are not all Mandela, Obama or JFK
Interesting. I have discovered a sub-species of MAGA Trumpites that are ANTI Israel, or at least anti America spending any money to help Israel. Here is one. 400,000 followers
Of course, Russia isn't Israel's ally and that is MAGA Trumpism.
Traditional GOP are pro-Israel, anti-Russia. MAGA GOP are inverted.
It's a complex ecosystem, richly composted by TwitterX
At the same time, my diggings have discovered that online Indians are now radically pro-Israel, because Hindu nationalists now officially hate Muslims - or so it seems
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with
You ever heard of divorce and polyamory, Hyufd?
Yes but divorce just puts someone else on the marriage market eg a divorced ugly poor woman is highly unlikely to be a marriage partner of a handsome rich man, leaving her as an option for a single ugly poor incel to marry.
You also still can't marry more than 1 person, despite polyamory
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
I don't believe so, at all.
The figures I've seen not coming from nutters almost all tend to show little change in figures.
When it comes to "in a relationship" (which is not the same as having sex), then women have consistently been in relationships at a higher rate than men at younger age-groups, not just now but in the past too.
Because its not unusual for men to have a relationship with a younger woman, but the reverse is less common. And that's not a modern development.
The age thing is indeed a possible explanation for the discrepancy. As a 40 year old, I have recently dated a 24 year old and an 28 year old. Everyone shrugs. So what? Reverse that, and imagine I was a 40 year old woman...
Yes, older men have always done well with younger women, tbh, I've done better in my 30s than I did in my 20s. What that doesn't change, is that there is a growing pool of angry, sexless young men aged 18-25ish who are easily radicalised and want to beat something up. Heck, the best of them get grifted by giving Andrew Tate 2000 bucks for a "course" to pick up girls. The worst of them go on disgusting, mad killing sprees.
The problem is, the situation isn't static. It's quite clear from the stats that the number of sexless young men is increasing, statistically, significantly, year on year. And I put it to you that is a problem, because the world does not need a lot of angry young men with a lot to prove.
I don't see any evidence whatsoever for a growing pool of angry, sexless young men.
And if there are and they want to beat something, that's what their right hand is for.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
I'm not trying to justify any of this, or make incel points on a political forum. What I'm saying is, grifters like Andrew Tate exist and thrive in the modern world for a reason, because they promise something that is increasingly out of reach. Young guys will do almost anything for the faintest chance of a girl, I know this, having been a young guy myself. So they fall into the thrall of the "take roids, make money, buy a bugatti" BS.
I'm trying to explain why a grifter like Tate can achieve world stardom, not trying to justify it.
Interesting. I have discovered a sub-species of MAGA Trumpites that are ANTI Israel, or at least anti America spending any money to help Israel. Here is one. 400,000 followers
Of course, Russia isn't Israel's ally and that is MAGA Trumpism.
Traditional GOP are pro-Israel, anti-Russia. MAGA GOP are inverted.
It's a complex ecosystem, richly composted by TwitterX
At the same time, my diggings have discovered that online Indians are now radically pro-Israel, because Hindu nationalists now officially hate Muslims - or so it seems
Interesting. I have discovered a sub-species of MAGA Trumpites that are ANTI Israel, or at least anti America spending any money to help Israel. Here is one. 400,000 followers
Of course, Russia isn't Israel's ally and that is MAGA Trumpism.
Traditional GOP are pro-Israel, anti-Russia. MAGA GOP are inverted.
It's a complex ecosystem, richly composted by TwitterX
At the same time, my diggings have discovered that online Indians are now radically pro-Israel, because Hindu nationalists now officially hate Muslims - or so it seems
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
The top 5% of women do not necessarily marry the top 5% of men. My wife, for example, married me.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with
You ever heard of divorce and polyamory, Hyufd?
Yes but divorce just puts someone else on the marriage market eg a divorced ugly poor woman is highly unlikely to be a marriage partner of a handsome rich man, leaving her as an option for a single ugly poor incel to marry.
You also still can't marry more than 1 person, despite polyamory
It happened a lot in the Bible.
Certainly not in the New Testament, as Jesus said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
The top 5% of women do not necessarily marry the top 5% of men. My wife, for example, married me.
95% of married men should say they've married within the top 5% of women.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
The top 5% of women do not necessarily marry the top 5% of men. My wife, for example, married me.
You are reasonably high earning, even if no Brad Pitt. So I imagine not too far from the top 5% career wise
My new Lab membership card has a union jack on it. Grrr.
And that is why Sir Kir Royale Starmer will almost certainly be getting MY vote! it is good to be on the same patriotic pro-Brexit, anti-mass-immigration, non-tax-raising, pro-capitalist side
Another depressing day of atrocities in the Middle East with untold consequences
Sunak and Starmer stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel while Palestinian supporters parade in London and Manchester
An Egyptian guard opens fire on a tourist bus of Israelis killing some and their Egyptian guide
An innocent German woman is kidnapped with unspeakable consequences for her
British citizens are trapped in the conflict as well as other nationalities
The conflict threatens to spread to other countries and all the time Ukraine is at war with Russia
The bond market crisis threatens the world's economies and we have Biden or Trump as the choice for the US next year .
We can argue over Sunak and Starmer, but can anyone name any politician anywhere they would put their trust in to handle the fallout from these concurrent crisis
Not confirmed, Biden may still stand down and Trump could be in jail this time next year if convicted in any one of his criminal casesand a new GOP candidate selected
Indeed but my point is where are the worlds leaders capable of inspiration
Hitler could be inspirational sometimes for his supporters, inspirational leaders are not all Mandela, Obama or JFK
Alastair Cooke in his letters from America described being at an event where Hitler was speaking (using the "one minute to midnight" trope) and several ladies swooning
Interesting. I have discovered a sub-species of MAGA Trumpites that are ANTI Israel, or at least anti America spending any money to help Israel. Here is one. 400,000 followers
That's very unsurprising. Many of his biggest fans are very anti America hence all the pro Putin ones, far beyond being hesitant about Ukraine spending but full on Kremlin talking points.
What's mure concerning is the rest of the GOP know that but don't care.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
The top 5% of women do not necessarily marry the top 5% of men. My wife, for example, married me.
95% of married men should say they've married within the top 5% of women.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
I'm not trying to justify any of this, or make incel points on a political forum. What I'm saying is, grifters like Andrew Tate exist and thrive in the modern world for a reason, because they promise something that is increasingly out of reach. Young guys will do almost anything for the faintest chance of a girl, I know this, having been a young guy myself. So they fall into the thrall of the "take roids, make money, buy a bugatti" BS.
I'm trying to explain why a grifter like Tate can achieve world stardom, not trying to justify it.
That is 45% of women single between 25 and 44. By 44 I expect it will be much less than 45% of women still single
My new Lab membership card has a union jack on it. Grrr.
And that is why Sir Kir Royale Starmer will almost certainly be getting MY vote! it is good to be on the same patriotic pro-Brexit, anti-mass-immigration, non-tax-raising, pro-capitalist side
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with
You ever heard of divorce and polyamory, Hyufd?
Yes but divorce just puts someone else on the marriage market eg a divorced ugly poor woman is highly unlikely to be a marriage partner of a handsome rich man, leaving her as an option for a single ugly poor incel to marry.
You also still can't marry more than 1 person, despite polyamory
It happened a lot in the Bible.
As the Wife of Bath said:
Lo, heere the wise kyng, daun Salomon; Lo, (consider) here the wise king, dan Salomon; 36 I trowe he hadde wyves mo than oon. I believe he had wives more than one. 37 As wolde God it leveful were unto me As would God it were lawful unto me 38 To be refresshed half so ofte as he! To be refreshed half so often as he! 39 Which yifte of God hadde he for alle his wyvys! What a gift of God he had because of all his wives!
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
The top 5% of women do not necessarily marry the top 5% of men. My wife, for example, married me.
You are reasonably high earning, even if no Brad Pitt. So I imagine not too far from the top 5% career wise
Another depressing day of atrocities in the Middle East with untold consequences
Sunak and Starmer stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel while Palestinian supporters parade in London and Manchester
An Egyptian guard opens fire on a tourist bus of Israelis killing some and their Egyptian guide
An innocent German woman is kidnapped with unspeakable consequences for her
British citizens are trapped in the conflict as well as other nationalities
The conflict threatens to spread to other countries and all the time Ukraine is at war with Russia
The bond market crisis threatens the world's economies and we have Biden or Trump as the choice for the US next year .
We can argue over Sunak and Starmer, but can anyone name any politician anywhere they would put their trust in to handle the fallout from these concurrent crisis
Not confirmed, Biden may still stand down and Trump could be in jail this time next year if convicted in any one of his criminal casesand a new GOP candidate selected
Not Biden v Not Trump is a much underrated possibility imo. I have my betting skewed to make £££ if it happens.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
I don't believe so, at all.
The figures I've seen not coming from nutters almost all tend to show little change in figures.
When it comes to "in a relationship" (which is not the same as having sex), then women have consistently been in relationships at a higher rate than men at younger age-groups, not just now but in the past too.
Because its not unusual for men to have a relationship with a younger woman, but the reverse is less common. And that's not a modern development.
The age thing is indeed a possible explanation for the discrepancy. As a 40 year old, I have recently dated a 24 year old and an 28 year old. Everyone shrugs. So what? Reverse that, and imagine I was a 40 year old woman...
Yes, older men have always done well with younger women, tbh, I've done better in my 30s than I did in my 20s. What that doesn't change, is that there is a growing pool of angry, sexless young men aged 18-25ish who are easily radicalised and want to beat something up. Heck, the best of them get grifted by giving Andrew Tate 2000 bucks for a "course" to pick up girls. The worst of them go on disgusting, mad killing sprees.
The problem is, the situation isn't static. It's quite clear from the stats that the number of sexless young men is increasing, statistically, significantly, year on year. And I put it to you that is a problem, because the world does not need a lot of angry young men with a lot to prove.
I don't see any evidence whatsoever for a growing pool of angry, sexless young men.
And if there are and they want to beat something, that's what their right hand is for.
I 100% agree with you, there's no excuse for Tate or his followers. My intent is to explain, rather than to excuse.
Houellebecq basically nailed it in the mid 90s:
“It's a fact that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperisation . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.”
The 21st century has seen the hyper-commodification and globalisation of the sexual marketplace - twenty years ago, you could date people you met through your social network, now, you download an app and can select anyone within a certain radius. And if you're a hot girl on instagram, well, 20 years ago, your hotness would have got you the hottest young guy in town on a friday night. Now, you post a few selfies and you're invited out to Mr Millionaire's yacht as an "influencer" etc.
Globalisation, when applied to the sexual marketplace, leads to an extraordinary gini coefficient that would prompt serious debate if it were applied to incomes.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
I'm not trying to justify any of this, or make incel points on a political forum. What I'm saying is, grifters like Andrew Tate exist and thrive in the modern world for a reason, because they promise something that is increasingly out of reach. Young guys will do almost anything for the faintest chance of a girl, I know this, having been a young guy myself. So they fall into the thrall of the "take roids, make money, buy a bugatti" BS.
I'm trying to explain why a grifter like Tate can achieve world stardom, not trying to justify it.
I think that's important because too often the reaction is to just dismiss it, loftily pointing out going down that route is wrong and dumb.
It's true that what he's selling is nonsense, but just saying that misses the problem of why so many people don't think it's nonsense.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
The top 5% of women do not necessarily marry the top 5% of men. My wife, for example, married me.
You are reasonably high earning, even if no Brad Pitt. So I imagine not too far from the top 5% career wise
I have been off line for a bit. I suppose we have covered the fact that the Hamas attacks must be the greatest Israeli intelligence failure for decades. How is it possible they didn't know, prepare, plan and avert?
Aaaaaaaand.... now the inevitable beheading videos, live, on air
I shall not link
I wonder if @FrancisUrquhart is right and some ISIS members have drifted back to Hamas, or whether Hamas see ISIS as an inspiration
This whole appalling episode feels like a catastrophe for the Palestinian cause, even in the midst of a military "victory"
Of course: as I wrote yesterday, there is no possible way this can result in anything other than life in Gaza becoming even shittier.
Which means that ordinary Gazans won't see any prospect of their life improving. Which means they see even less to lose by joining Hamas.
Yesterday I said there was no solution. And, I think there is a solution.
It would be incredibly expensive. It would require the cooperation of the Israeli government (which I suspect would be unforthcoming). But it is possible.
Remember: the goal here is a prosperous Gaza.
If Hamas is running Gaza, that won't happen. And if Israel is blockading Gaza, that won't happen.
Someone else needs to go in and run Gaza. It needs to be occupied, and not by the Israelis. Just as the West administered both Japan and Germany in the aftermath of the Second World War, we need something similar in Gaza.
It needs to be a multinational force, and the Islamic world needs to step up and provide a chunk of the troops, while Europe and the US provide the remainder.
Government needs to be in the hands of a benevolent dictator, whose job it is to make Gaza a wealthy place. It needs to be zero tax, low rent: build your Mediterrenean T-shirt factory there. It needs to have decent schools and a proper University.
This will need to be the highest security place on earth. There will need to be tens and tens of thousands of troops on the ground. Hamas will need to be completely evicted from the Gazan political sphere. (Former members will need to either completely renounce violence, or be shipped off to wherever.)
The goal here is nation building. It's a massive subsidy from the rest of the world to make Gaza a place where people dream of making millions, not of killing Israelis.
To make this work, Israel will need to be willing to do things it currently does not. It will need to let Gaza have an airport and a port. It will have to trust the security guarantees from the rest of the world.
And the rest of the world, will need to be willing to write an absolutely enormous cheque.
Aaaaaaaand.... now the inevitable beheading videos, live, on air
I shall not link
I wonder if @FrancisUrquhart is right and some ISIS members have drifted back to Hamas, or whether Hamas see ISIS as an inspiration
This whole appalling episode feels like a catastrophe for the Palestinian cause, even in the midst of a military "victory"
Of course: as I wrote yesterday, there is no possible way this can result in anything other than life in Gaza becoming even shittier.
Which means that ordinary Gazans won't see any prospect of their life improving. Which means they see even less to lose by joining Hamas.
Yesterday I said there was no solution. And, I think there is a solution.
It would be incredibly expensive. It would require the cooperation of the Israeli government (which I suspect would be unforthcoming). But it is possible.
Remember: the goal here is a prosperous Gaza.
If Hamas is running Gaza, that won't happen. And if Israel is blockading Gaza, that won't happen.
Someone else needs to go in and run Gaza. It needs to be occupied, and not by the Israelis. Just as the West administered both Japan and Germany in the aftermath of the Second World War, we need something similar in Gaza.
It needs to be a multinational force, and the Islamic world needs to step up and provide a chunk of the troops, while Europe and the US provide the remainder.
Government needs to be in the hands of a benevolent dictator, whose job it is to make Gaza a wealthy place. It needs to be zero tax, low rent: build your Mediterrenean T-shirt factory there. It needs to have decent schools and a proper University.
This will need to be the highest security place on earth. There will need to be tens and tens of thousands of troops on the ground. Hamas will need to be completely evicted from the Gazan political sphere. (Former members will need to either completely renounce violence, or be shipped off to wherever.)
The goal here is nation building. It's a massive subsidy from the rest of the world to make Gaza a place where people dream of making millions, not of killing Israelis.
To make this work, Israel will need to be willing to do things it currently does not. It will need to let Gaza have an airport and a port. It will have to trust the security guarantees from the rest of the world.
And the rest of the world, will need to be willing to write an absolutely enormous cheque.
LEaving aside the benefits to Gaza and Israel, it would be worth it just to piss off the Iranians though.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
Yes but the top 5% of men can ultimately only marry 5% of women (presumably also likely to be the top 5%).
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
I'm not trying to justify any of this, or make incel points on a political forum. What I'm saying is, grifters like Andrew Tate exist and thrive in the modern world for a reason, because they promise something that is increasingly out of reach. Young guys will do almost anything for the faintest chance of a girl, I know this, having been a young guy myself. So they fall into the thrall of the "take roids, make money, buy a bugatti" BS.
I'm trying to explain why a grifter like Tate can achieve world stardom, not trying to justify it.
I think that's important because too often the reaction is to just dismiss it, loftily pointing out going down that route is wrong and dumb.
It's true that what he's selling is nonsense, but just saying that misses the problem of why so many people don't think it's nonsense.
Yep. He's talking absolute nonsense and a snake oil salesman, but it's interesting to figure out why he has such a following. Why did Tate become a celeb? Look at what he's preaching, and to who. Seems like there's a hell of a lot of them out there. When sources like the FT say "there's a kernel of truth in this incel thing" for the young'uns, I sit up and listen.
Just glad I'm an old(ish) bugger, tbh. I would not want to be a 20 year old kid today.
My flint agent has teenage sons who love Andrew Tate (to her despair). He’s been pro Islamist for while, or so she tells me. They are proper god fearing family men and so on
Unfortunately he has become emblematic of the pushback against so-called "toxic" masculinity. He's effectively the Che Guevara Poster for disaffected teens to early twenties completely ignored by their female counterparts, due to the globalization of dating practices, documented numerous times (did you know, for example, men outumber women on tinder by 10 to 1? That's not swipe, that's outnumber. Before the swiping).
Men got pushed just so far, got told they were such pieces of shit, that they started rallying around genuinely toxic figures like Tate. I have no time for Tate or his compadres, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tate is the reaction to men being told they're toxic just for being men.
Yes indeed
The lad mags of the 90s were a reaction to the feminism of the 80s, which said: Looking at naked women is evil, liking football is boorish, everything male is dull or sexist, and on and on (and on)
So the lad mags came out and said: Er, actually, we like looking at bare breasts (we're made that way), football is fun, drinking beer with your mates is a laugh, going to dangerous places and shooting things is a blast
Then the lad mags really DID get boorish (at the beginning they were genuinely witty and fresh) and so the pendulum swang again
And now here we are once more. A decade of everyone telling men they are shit and useless and maleness is poison, and we have the inevitable reaction: Andrew Tate
The problem this time is that the pendulum swings are much more vicious and extreme; Loaded magazine was positively benign compared to Tate
Or alternatively: Tate offers an 'easy' answer to the concerns of idiots. Being nice to women and others is actually quite hard, especially if you are a shit. Working hard at school and getting a better job is hard.
Easier just to take what you want.
Charlatans have sold easy answers since time immemorial. Tate is just continuing in the same manner (or, lack of manners...)
Tate is actually a response to what we know is going on with dating at the moment, which we can verify through dating app data, i.e. about 1 in 10 men get picked to be in a relationship. Most teens to early twenties are "incels" now.
His advice, fundamentally, boils down, to being "you need to be a top 1% male and even if you don't make it, if you follow my advice, you'll be top 10%". Go gym, take roids, make money, spend money, look flash. This, apparently (and I do remember from my own younger days) attracts girls.
It's pretty weak sauce stuff, but if I was a 23 year old who'd never had a cloth tit, I'd probably be listening to him too.
It's not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Those figures are skewed by Tinder clientele looking for short term flings.
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
Small sample size.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
But it’s still not true that only 1 in 10 get a partner. Where did you get that from?
Fair point, that is a half remembered Tweet I saw a while back I didn't save, so can't back that one up. But i have backed up everything else I've said with data from the FT / Pew Research Center.
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
I don't believe so, at all.
The figures I've seen not coming from nutters almost all tend to show little change in figures.
When it comes to "in a relationship" (which is not the same as having sex), then women have consistently been in relationships at a higher rate than men at younger age-groups, not just now but in the past too.
Because its not unusual for men to have a relationship with a younger woman, but the reverse is less common. And that's not a modern development.
The age thing is indeed a possible explanation for the discrepancy. As a 40 year old, I have recently dated a 24 year old and an 28 year old. Everyone shrugs. So what? Reverse that, and imagine I was a 40 year old woman...
Yes, older men have always done well with younger women, tbh, I've done better in my 30s than I did in my 20s. What that doesn't change, is that there is a growing pool of angry, sexless young men aged 18-25ish who are easily radicalised and want to beat something up. Heck, the best of them get grifted by giving Andrew Tate 2000 bucks for a "course" to pick up girls. The worst of them go on disgusting, mad killing sprees.
The problem is, the situation isn't static. It's quite clear from the stats that the number of sexless young men is increasing, statistically, significantly, year on year. And I put it to you that is a problem, because the world does not need a lot of angry young men with a lot to prove.
I don't see any evidence whatsoever for a growing pool of angry, sexless young men.
And if there are and they want to beat something, that's what their right hand is for.
I 100% agree with you, there's no excuse for Tate or his followers. My intent is to explain, rather than to excuse.
Houellebecq basically nailed it in the mid 90s:
“It's a fact that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperisation . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.”
The 21st century has seen the hyper-commodification and globalisation of the sexual marketplace - twenty years ago, you could date people you met through your social network, now, you download an app and can select anyone within a certain radius. And if you're a hot girl on instagram, well, 20 years ago, your hotness would have got you the hottest young guy in town on a friday night. Now, you post a few selfies and you're invited out to Mr Millionaire's yacht as an "influencer" etc.
Globalisation, when applied to the sexual marketplace, leads to an extraordinary gini coefficient that would prompt serious debate if it were applied to incomes.
Sorry but that's a load of nonsense.
Hotness always meant some found it easier to hook up than others, but for people who want to there's still ways to do so.
From days clubbing, people who were desperate to hook up but weren't "alphas" would do so later in the evening, as alcohol makes everyone progressively hotter anyway, and time means that those who already hooked up that night stop trying to too.
So you don't hook up with the first person you see? So you don't end up in a yacht? So frigging what?
I'm off the dating market and have been for about a decade and a half nearly, but I know plenty of men who still are and don't struggle to find partners to hook up with. Main thing with them is that they're prepared to sleep with anyone, not view "top" people only as worth sleeping with.
Comments
@Dura_Ace was claiming that only America could hit the Iranian drone factory, coz it's 200km inland (or whatever)
I reckon this is nonsense; The Israeli air force is highly capable, and superior to Iran's, and will have covert assistance from the USA (and others)
They could definitely take it. But then, yes, they risk retaliation from Tehran. But that has been the case for years, and as 600 Israelis have just died in a single day, Bibi might not care
We get the politicians we deserve.
Boy, we must have done some bad shit.
Take out some of Iran's weapons industry and you gravely weaken Hamas, you weaken the arms flow to Putin, you help Ukraine, and you fuck over Iran
That's a rare multiple win with one strike
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K-dwDQW6ee0
Up there in the echelons with this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0QMV622vY8w
Both my boys have lovely girlfriends, and both met them through dating apps, and neither would be mistaken for film stars or gym hounds. They both are just nice caring people who treat women with respect and kindness. It really isn't a complicated formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera#:~:text=On 7 June 1981, a,Osirak reactor deep inside Iraq.
Even the FT says inceldom is a thing for the young'uns now.
https://www.ft.com/content/4ab260b5-ce0b-4636-a819-4b10190290cb
"One study found that a man in the top percentile of attractiveness receives 190 times more likes on dating apps than a man in the bottom 50 per cent.
The result: a male elite is enjoying a sexual boomtime, even as incels proliferate. The top 5 per cent of men increased their number of sexual partners by 38 per cent in the decade to 2013, found the US National Survey of Family Growth. In short, disconcertingly, there’s a kernel of truth in the incel worldview."
Do Israel have warships that can fire missiles? If so they could fire from the Arabian Sea without crossing anyone other than Iran's airspace.
In doing so, we left it to the Activists. They've always been there, they've always been strange, but in the past they have been diluted by inactive, social members. And beyond a certain point, the loss of more normal party members becomes a doom loop.
(Joining the threads together, the Young Conservatives was said to be the middle-class Tinder of its day. Hard to see that being the case now.)
Emotion is boiling over in Israel. You can sense it on social media. 600 dead in a day = 4200 dead in a day in the UK or 21,000 dead in the USA (cf 2900 died in 9/11 and America was traumatised for years)
So the people won't be content with grinding Gaza into dust, they will want action against Iran. Never underestimate the power of raw emotion, especially a thirst for vengeance
That’ll be about 20 years ago now. The thought of doing all that now fills me with absolute horror. Glad I did it then though 🤣
But the question would be whether they could do sufficient damage to justify the cost, and likely consequences.
Comparing 2000-2 and 2016-8,
The absolute increase in sexual inactivity was most pronounced among men aged 18 to 24 years (18.9% vs 30.9%; aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39). In this age group, the proportions of those reporting weekly or more sexual activity (51.8% vs 37.4%; aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99) and those reporting 1 sexual partner (44.2% vs 30.0%; aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) decreased.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066
America and Ukraine either can't or won't strike Iran. Israel can, but might not want to.
America should with plausible deniability encourage Israel to strike the Shahed manufacturing, and then America should offer extra support to Israel for entirely unconnected reasons.
https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle
If you want some UK figures, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291001
Traditional GOP are pro-Israel, anti-Russia.
MAGA GOP are inverted.
https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/6-out-of-10-young-men-are-single-disturbing-reasons-why/
63% of men 18-29 are single in 2022, compared to 51% in 2019.
How the figures compare for women:
32% were single in 2019, vs 34% in 2022, so virtually static. And also, the huge gap between male and female there, in both years sampled.
As the FT says, "disconcertingly, there is a kernel of truth in the incel worldview".
I don't like it, and I often want to slap the hell out of some of my younger friends who are incel wallowers. But the data on this doesn't lie, more and more young men are becoming sexless, while women are having the same amount of sex, but with fewer partners. This is hard data, not conjecture. The numbers are there, in absolute, unambiguous black and white.
At the same time, my diggings have discovered that online Indians are now radically pro-Israel, because Hindu nationalists now officially hate Muslims - or so it seems
The fact that young men are having less and less sex year on year, while young women are having more or less the same, highly suggests the truth of the FT's assertion that the "top 5% of men" increased their number of sexual partners by 38% in the last few years, while "there is a kernel of truth" in the incel worldview. Not my words, the Financial Times.
Edit, I should add: And this is why kids turn to grifters like Andrew Tate.
However I am still certain that Israel will do *something* against Iran
Perhaps targeted assassination of Iranian leaders, which are more easily deniable
Re your point about anti Israel MAGA factions I remember the Louis Theroux doc where he spent time with these wing nuts and the amount of anti-semitism was surprising and shocking.
Another depressing day of atrocities in the Middle East with untold consequences
Sunak and Starmer stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel while Palestinian supporters parade in London and Manchester
An Egyptian guard opens fire on a tourist bus of Israelis killing some and their Egyptian guide
An innocent German woman is kidnapped with unspeakable consequences for her
British citizens are trapped in the conflict as well as other nationalities
The conflict threatens to spread to other countries and all the time Ukraine is at war with Russia
The bond market crisis threatens the world's economies and we have Biden or Trump as the choice for the US next year .
We can argue over Sunak and Starmer, but can anyone name any politician anywhere they would put their trust in to handle the fallout from these concurrent crisis
The figures I've seen not coming from nutters almost all tend to show little change in figures.
When it comes to "in a relationship" (which is not the same as having sex), then women have consistently been in relationships at a higher rate than men at younger age-groups, not just now but in the past too.
Because its not unusual for men to have a relationship with a younger woman, but the reverse is less common. And that's not a modern development.
It's the Paul Schofield speech for the mind: you must teach young people critical thinking, not to stop thinking.
I know someone whose flat earth beliefs ultimately and complexly relate to his anti-Semitism. ie "They" - the Jews - "WANT you to believe the earth is round". I have never found out why the Jews want people to believe this
Leaving 95% of women outside that group for incels to marry. Even if in their 20s and early 30s it will be mainly the top 5% by looks and wealth getting most of the women to sleep with.
Unless the Ukrainians keep hitting his armament factories with their own drones.
And yet, their people sort of still keep supporting / voting for it.
Madness. But clearly trolling/defying and a theocracy the West is very popular amongst the base.
* That what they call the dumb schmucks who aren't in on the whole WEF thing
Yes, older men have always done well with younger women, tbh, I've done better in my 30s than I did in my 20s. What that doesn't change, is that there is a growing pool of angry, sexless young men aged 18-25ish who are easily radicalised and want to beat something up. Heck, the best of them get grifted by giving Andrew Tate 2000 bucks for a "course" to pick up girls. The worst of them go on disgusting, mad killing sprees.
The problem is, the situation isn't static. It's quite clear from the stats that the number of sexless young men is increasing, statistically, significantly, year on year. And I put it to you that is a problem, because the world does not need a lot of angry young men with a lot to prove.
You also still can't marry more than 1 person, despite polyamory
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/icke-antisemitic-conspiracies-viewed-over-30-million-times-new-research-shows-1.499368
Anti-Semitism is so common I sometimes wonder if it is evolutionary, or genetic, some basic glitch in the human psyche
eg There is a streak of anti-Semitism in Japanese society, despite the fact Jews have never really lived in Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Japan
And if there are and they want to beat something, that's what their right hand is for.
There's no excuse for any of this Tate nonsense.
Did you think you were a member of the Australian Lab Party?
In terms of marriage, unfortunately again we're talking about America, but the stats can't be that far off for the UK - 25% of people don't marry by 40. https://time.com/6291040/unmarried-40-single-economy-pew/
I'm not trying to justify any of this, or make incel points on a political forum. What I'm saying is, grifters like Andrew Tate exist and thrive in the modern world for a reason, because they promise something that is increasingly out of reach. Young guys will do almost anything for the faintest chance of a girl, I know this, having been a young guy myself. So they fall into the thrall of the "take roids, make money, buy a bugatti" BS.
I'm trying to explain why a grifter like Tate can achieve world stardom, not trying to justify it.
https://twitter.com/CyberForceX/status/1710943141145055470
Mind you, last week they were attacking Canada.
Seriously.. how anyone can look at that and feel supportive of Palestine or Hamas I do not know.
What's mure concerning is the rest of the GOP know that but don't care.
(I, of course, actually did.)
Be wary of what you watch though, it is now illegal in the UK to even view material potentially propogating or helpful to terrorists
Lo, heere the wise kyng, daun Salomon; Lo, (consider) here the wise king, dan Salomon;
36 I trowe he hadde wyves mo than oon. I believe he had wives more than one.
37 As wolde God it leveful were unto me As would God it were lawful unto me
38 To be refresshed half so ofte as he! To be refreshed half so often as he!
39 Which yifte of God hadde he for alle his wyvys! What a gift of God he had because of all his wives!
I 100% agree with you, there's no excuse for Tate or his followers. My intent is to explain, rather than to excuse.
Houellebecq basically nailed it in the mid 90s:
“It's a fact that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperisation . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.”
The 21st century has seen the hyper-commodification and globalisation of the sexual marketplace - twenty years ago, you could date people you met through your social network, now, you download an app and can select anyone within a certain radius. And if you're a hot girl on instagram, well, 20 years ago, your hotness would have got you the hottest young guy in town on a friday night. Now, you post a few selfies and you're invited out to Mr Millionaire's yacht as an "influencer" etc.
Globalisation, when applied to the sexual marketplace, leads to an extraordinary gini coefficient that would prompt serious debate if it were applied to incomes.
It's true that what he's selling is nonsense, but just saying that misses the problem of why so many people don't think it's nonsense.
Pitt's an ugly fucker. You're way better looking.
Which means that ordinary Gazans won't see any prospect of their life improving. Which means they see even less to lose by joining Hamas.
Yesterday I said there was no solution. And, I think there is a solution.
It would be incredibly expensive. It would require the cooperation of the Israeli government (which I suspect would be unforthcoming). But it is possible.
Remember: the goal here is a prosperous Gaza.
If Hamas is running Gaza, that won't happen. And if Israel is blockading Gaza, that won't happen.
Someone else needs to go in and run Gaza. It needs to be occupied, and not by the Israelis. Just as the West administered both Japan and Germany in the aftermath of the Second World War, we need something similar in Gaza.
It needs to be a multinational force, and the Islamic world needs to step up and provide a chunk of the troops, while Europe and the US provide the remainder.
Government needs to be in the hands of a benevolent dictator, whose job it is to make Gaza a wealthy place. It needs to be zero tax, low rent: build your Mediterrenean T-shirt factory there. It needs to have decent schools and a proper University.
This will need to be the highest security place on earth. There will need to be tens and tens of thousands of troops on the ground. Hamas will need to be completely evicted from the Gazan political sphere. (Former members will need to either completely renounce violence, or be shipped off to wherever.)
The goal here is nation building. It's a massive subsidy from the rest of the world to make Gaza a place where people dream of making millions, not of killing Israelis.
To make this work, Israel will need to be willing to do things it currently does not. It will need to let Gaza have an airport and a port. It will have to trust the security guarantees from the rest of the world.
And the rest of the world, will need to be willing to write an absolutely enormous cheque.
Just glad I'm an old(ish) bugger, tbh. I would not want to be a 20 year old kid today.
Hotness always meant some found it easier to hook up than others, but for people who want to there's still ways to do so.
From days clubbing, people who were desperate to hook up but weren't "alphas" would do so later in the evening, as alcohol makes everyone progressively hotter anyway, and time means that those who already hooked up that night stop trying to too.
So you don't hook up with the first person you see? So you don't end up in a yacht? So frigging what?
I'm off the dating market and have been for about a decade and a half nearly, but I know plenty of men who still are and don't struggle to find partners to hook up with. Main thing with them is that they're prepared to sleep with anyone, not view "top" people only as worth sleeping with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67043606