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.
Fundamentally, it is because people *don't* go out and connect any more. I bumped into a fairly interesting 24 year old at an after works drinks the other week and I said, come out with us, we're going clubbing. Most in their early 30s. Me a bit older, but still. And the guy completely sketches out and says, yeah, most of my friends have adhd / autism and can't deal with this, and walks straight out.
I think we imagine the days of the sweaty small town nightclub with the sticky dancefloor, for the reality of a lot (if not all) the young'uns, its pretty different now. Learning to mediate our conversations through a screen - ironically, what we're doing now - makes it harder for people to connect in real life. And online, the top 5% dominate, as the stats I've linked to show.
The stats don't show that. The stats show the polar opposite, it shows a higher percentage are sexually active today than a generation ago.
If you only "swipe right" on one person, then yes that's not likely to be successful.
If you "swipe right" on everyone, then you only need one to swipe right on you and you've got a connection.
A higher percentage are sexually active today (as in sex recently) than in the past. Even if there's a higher percentage of virgins as increasing numbers just stay at home and watch porn online rather than speaking to people.
This implies that young men *prefer* to sit around watching porn vs having sex. I put it to you that porn is an inferior/substitute good, and something (whatever that is - economy, smartphones, apps, whatever) happened a little over a decade ago that meant a lot of men were no longer able to get the real thing - hence virginity rates rising from 8% in 2008 to 27% in 2018. But porn is a substitute/inferior good, not a preference.
And the reason I suggest this to you is, because of the rise of creeps like Andrew Tate. If young men were happy jackin' it every night, they wouldn't be into Tate-ism. The questions are, what happened post 2008 that caused this change in sexual behaviour, and is Tate the worst we're going to get out of it (we've already had incel nut jobs shooting up places). So if it's a problem that 27% of young men aren't having sex, vs 8% in the 2000s, what's the cause and what's the solution? Because there is clearly a problem.
Some young men do prefer today to sit at home and watch porn. Getting out of the house is too much like hard work.
Same reason there's been a collapse of antisocial behaviour from teens on street corners compared to a generation ago. They're on their phones instead.
There is no truth behind what Tate is saying. He's just the latest in a long line of charlatans.
Well, the truth behind what Tate is saying is that if you have a flash car, roided up muscles, and a nice watch, you can attract a certain type of girl. That has also been true since time immemorial. He's just selling the lie to these kids that can be *you* as well.
Honestly I don't disagree that the spike from 2008 may be caused by phones. Correlation isn't causation, but it's a viable possibility. A substitute good.
The other answer is the explosion (no pun intended) of free online video porn around that time. I put it to you that porn is still an inferior/substitute good, but the cost of said inferior good became far less, while the quality became far higher. From a few blurry jpgs or a top shelf mag in the early 2000s, it went to being free, ubiquitous and of a much higher quality. It's like saying a pork chop is a substitute for steak, once upon a time they were similar in cost, similarly hard to acquire... the pork chop was cheaper but still at a cost. Then all of a sudden the pork chop (the porn) becomes nearly free and limitless, everywhere, as with the phones point, in your pocket. So that is a distinct possibility.
But guys still *want* the superior good, they want the steak, even if they're gorging themselves on the "free" pork chops. Hence the rise of Andrew Tate and co.
There is no hence, there is no causation here.
Andrew Tate is just the latest of a long line of charlatans that have always existed.
He's not been "caused" or "fueled" by anything. There have always been characters like him and nothing has changed to fuel him other than the internet gives him a lot of morons to feed off.
So you don't find male virginity being stable at 8ish% from 1989 to 2008, then suddenly spiking to 27% odd at all?
So I put it to you again, that a steady 8%ish from the 80s to the late 2000s then a sudden spike in 2008 and a continuing trend upwards is neither a good thing, nor normal, and explanations should be sought.
If they'll want a girlfriend then they need to think with their brain rather than their dicks.
What do girls want? It ain't a seething misogynist disappearing down an alt-right online rabbit hole.
Wash and dress presentably. Shave and brush teeth, girls think these things important even if they cannot see why. Learn to talk about things that girls like, and be a good listener. Learn to dance. Treat women with courtesy and kindness. Don't ghost them and be surprised that they aren't interested when you text them weeks later. Don't stalk them or threaten them, don't distribute dick picks to girls you barely know.
It isn't rocket science. Just be the sort of person girls want to spend time with.
Madness. You're havering, man. What you need is some decent supplements from an alt-right twitter account, a sedentary lifestyle and at least 1000+ points on World of Warcraft.
Nice to see 'havering' used properly on PB, for a change. Have an Empire, sorry German, sorry Belgian biscuit.
Havering is next door to Redbridge and Barking!
I don’t see a PB connection with Redbridge, but there is plenty of Havering and Barking.
The German State elections in Hesse and Bavaria are very good for AfD and CDU, ok for the CSU, who seem to have lost ground, poor for the Greens and SPD and disastrous for the FDP, who have lost all their seats in Bavaria and are hanging on by a thread in Hesse.
In Bavaria, the CSU/FW coalition has been comfortably re-elected though AfD finished second and will form the main opposition group. In Hesse, the governing CDU/Green coalition has dropped from 69 to 62 but still has a majority. The AfD with a projected 23 seats will also be the main opposition in Hesse.
Not good then for the SPD/Green/FDP Government but the problem for the Union is they are nowhere near a majority themselves and as long as they refuse to deal with the AfD, they are forced back to one of the current governing parties to form a coalition. On current poll numbers, a Union/AfD Government might be very close to a majority in the Bundestag.
Elsewhere, we have the Luxembourg general election and the CSV Party have won 21 seats, the Democratic Party 14 and the LSAP (Social Democrats) 10. As we all know, there are 60 seats in the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies - the Greens have lost ground and are down to 5 and the ADR (Alternate Democratic Reform) also 5. That means the governing coalition (DP/LSAP/Greens) has lost its majority and now has just 29 seats.
The CSV (the party of one Jean-Claude Juncker, remember him?) has been out of office since 2013 but I suspect it may return to power but it will need to do some coalition building.
Before you ask, the other five seats are split between the Pirate Party (3) and The Left (2).
I did mention this morning that I thought one of the outcomes of the Israel situation was it would help the Alt-right parties in Europe. Not sure if the results in Bavaria and Hesse are better or worse than expected for them but will be interesting to see if the current situation had any impact.
Create a UN protectorate. Administered for a generation by an experienced former colonial power with no skin in the game.
Who'd want to take on responsibility for that mess?
I am prepared to serve as Viceroy of Palestine.
It was nice knowing you.
I'll be a success.
I'm the Muslim who works for a Jewish* bank.
I am the embodiment of bringing people together.
I'll do it pro bono publico, all I ask for is a peerage, a GCMG, and the rank of an Ambassador for perpetuity, so people have to address me as Your Excellency.
*Not quite, but we rule the world apparently, it was in the Protocols of The Elders of Zion.
Certainly, your excellency! Do you need a new pair of shoes?
I have changed my mind on this World Cup. Ireland were too good last night. They are an incredible mincing machine with superb confidence. Better than the Boks (my prior favourites)
Prediction? Ireland will beat NZ and then Wales and get to the final
England will beat Fiji but then lose to France, and France will go to the final
A France v Ireland final. Epic. At Paris. France to edge it due to home advantage
She works in Tate Liverpool, which like last year are hosting a number of fringe events for the Labour party this week.
Found out that last year, one of her colleagues (20s, not interested in politics) was on as 'greeter' for the 'Sir Keir Starmer talk'. She sees a group approaching and heads over:
"Are you here for the Keir Starmer talk?" my wife's colleague asks the lead punter. "I am Keir Starmer," comes the reply. "Well, in which case you definitely are here for the Keir Starmer talk aren't you?" she replies.
Made me laugh anyway.............
I remember walking in to the foyer of the Department of Communities and Local Government back in the early 10's.
There was a flustered guy who had forgot his security pass and the receptionist was on the phone trying to find someone in the building who could vouch for him so he could be issued with a temporary pass to get in the building.
She works in Tate Liverpool, which like last year are hosting a number of fringe events for the Labour party this week.
Found out that last year, one of her colleagues (20s, not interested in politics) was on as 'greeter' for the 'Sir Keir Starmer talk'. She sees a group approaching and heads over:
"Are you here for the Keir Starmer talk?" my wife's colleague asks the lead punter. "I am Keir Starmer," comes the reply. "Well, in which case you definitely are here for the Keir Starmer talk aren't you?" she replies.
Made me laugh anyway.............
I remember walking in to the foyer of the Department of Communities and Local Government back in the early 10's.
There was a flustered guy who had forgot his security pass and the receptionist was on the phone trying to find someone in the building who could vouch for him so he could be issued with a temporary pass to get in the building.
It was Eric Pickles ....
Presumably she needed to check with the maintenance teams that the floors could handle his weight?
One other oddity. If this is Iran sabotaging the various Israeli-Arab agreements, where is Hezbollah? Sure, they've fired a handful of rockets as a belated token measure but there has been no invasion of north Israel and no sign of any coordination with Hamas in the south.
Don't want to escalate things too much so it gets away from everyone? Hanging Hamas out to dry? Holding back their energies to take advantage of the rising sentiment at home?
One other oddity. If this is Iran sabotaging the various Israeli-Arab agreements, where is Hezbollah? Sure, they've fired a handful of rockets as a belated token measure but there has been no invasion of north Israel and no sign of any coordination with Hamas in the south.
Don't want to escalate things too much so it gets away from everyone? Hanging Hamas out to dry? Holding back their energies to take advantage of the rising sentiment at home?
Or do not have the equipment / resources given other commitments?
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.
Fundamentally, it is because people *don't* go out and connect any more. I bumped into a fairly interesting 24 year old at an after works drinks the other week and I said, come out with us, we're going clubbing. Most in their early 30s. Me a bit older, but still. And the guy completely sketches out and says, yeah, most of my friends have adhd / autism and can't deal with this, and walks straight out.
I think we imagine the days of the sweaty small town nightclub with the sticky dancefloor, for the reality of a lot (if not all) the young'uns, its pretty different now. Learning to mediate our conversations through a screen - ironically, what we're doing now - makes it harder for people to connect in real life. And online, the top 5% dominate, as the stats I've linked to show.
The stats don't show that. The stats show the polar opposite, it shows a higher percentage are sexually active today than a generation ago.
If you only "swipe right" on one person, then yes that's not likely to be successful.
If you "swipe right" on everyone, then you only need one to swipe right on you and you've got a connection.
A higher percentage are sexually active today (as in sex recently) than in the past. Even if there's a higher percentage of virgins as increasing numbers just stay at home and watch porn online rather than speaking to people.
This implies that young men *prefer* to sit around watching porn vs having sex. I put it to you that porn is an inferior/substitute good, and something (whatever that is - economy, smartphones, apps, whatever) happened a little over a decade ago that meant a lot of men were no longer able to get the real thing - hence virginity rates rising from 8% in 2008 to 27% in 2018. But porn is a substitute/inferior good, not a preference.
And the reason I suggest this to you is, because of the rise of creeps like Andrew Tate. If young men were happy jackin' it every night, they wouldn't be into Tate-ism. The questions are, what happened post 2008 that caused this change in sexual behaviour, and is Tate the worst we're going to get out of it (we've already had incel nut jobs shooting up places). So if it's a problem that 27% of young men aren't having sex, vs 8% in the 2000s, what's the cause and what's the solution? Because there is clearly a problem.
Some young men do prefer today to sit at home and watch porn. Getting out of the house is too much like hard work.
Same reason there's been a collapse of antisocial behaviour from teens on street corners compared to a generation ago. They're on their phones instead.
There is no truth behind what Tate is saying. He's just the latest in a long line of charlatans.
Well, the truth behind what Tate is saying is that if you have a flash car, roided up muscles, and a nice watch, you can attract a certain type of girl. That has also been true since time immemorial. He's just selling the lie to these kids that can be *you* as well.
Honestly I don't disagree that the spike from 2008 may be caused by phones. Correlation isn't causation, but it's a viable possibility. A substitute good.
The other answer is the explosion (no pun intended) of free online video porn around that time. I put it to you that porn is still an inferior/substitute good, but the cost of said inferior good became far less, while the quality became far higher. From a few blurry jpgs or a top shelf mag in the early 2000s, it went to being free, ubiquitous and of a much higher quality. It's like saying a pork chop is a substitute for steak, once upon a time they were similar in cost, similarly hard to acquire... the pork chop was cheaper but still at a cost. Then all of a sudden the pork chop (the porn) becomes nearly free and limitless, everywhere, as with the phones point, in your pocket. So that is a distinct possibility.
But guys still *want* the superior good, they want the steak, even if they're gorging themselves on the "free" pork chops. Hence the rise of Andrew Tate and co.
There is no hence, there is no causation here.
Andrew Tate is just the latest of a long line of charlatans that have always existed.
He's not been "caused" or "fueled" by anything. There have always been characters like him and nothing has changed to fuel him other than the internet gives him a lot of morons to feed off.
So you don't find male virginity being stable at 8ish% from 1989 to 2008, then suddenly spiking to 27% odd at all?
So I put it to you again, that a steady 8%ish from the 80s to the late 2000s then a sudden spike in 2008 and a continuing trend upwards is neither a good thing, nor normal, and explanations should be sought.
If they'll want a girlfriend then they need to think with their brain rather than their dicks.
What do girls want? It ain't a seething misogynist disappearing down an alt-right online rabbit hole.
Wash and dress presentably. Shave and brush teeth, girls think these things important even if they cannot see why. Learn to talk about things that girls like, and be a good listener. Learn to dance. Treat women with courtesy and kindness. Don't ghost them and be surprised that they aren't interested when you text them weeks later. Don't stalk them or threaten them, don't distribute dick picks to girls you barely know.
It isn't rocket science. Just be the sort of person girls want to spend time with.
"Learn to dance"
Yes, that's it. Guys, all you have to do is learn the foxtrot with a dash of salsa, and all your issues are solved
It sometimes worries me that you have actual charge of human patients
Nope, it really works. Girls are much more keen to dance than blokes. If you are one of the first males up on the dancefloor and are not embarrassing you shift the odds radically in your favour.
And it is fun. This is why Strictly is so popular.
I'm always up there first.
Big box, little box, cardboard box.
I've always loved dancing, I've never really understood why so many blokes especially aren't into it. I was out clubbing in Peckham last night, got home at 5am. Some top tunes and friendly folk on the dance floor. It was a very pleasant evening.
Douglas Feaver, Bishop of Peterborough, became very absent minded later in his episcopate. On one occasion he was on a train and put his hand in his pocket only to find, to his horror, that he had lost his ticket.
The guard, who knew him well, reassured him that it could be sorted out, and he would issue a ticket for him if he just told him the destination.
'That's all very well,' said Feaver, 'but without my ticket how am I supposed to know where I'm going?'
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
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.
Fundamentally, it is because people *don't* go out and connect any more. I bumped into a fairly interesting 24 year old at an after works drinks the other week and I said, come out with us, we're going clubbing. Most in their early 30s. Me a bit older, but still. And the guy completely sketches out and says, yeah, most of my friends have adhd / autism and can't deal with this, and walks straight out.
I think we imagine the days of the sweaty small town nightclub with the sticky dancefloor, for the reality of a lot (if not all) the young'uns, its pretty different now. Learning to mediate our conversations through a screen - ironically, what we're doing now - makes it harder for people to connect in real life. And online, the top 5% dominate, as the stats I've linked to show.
The stats don't show that. The stats show the polar opposite, it shows a higher percentage are sexually active today than a generation ago.
If you only "swipe right" on one person, then yes that's not likely to be successful.
If you "swipe right" on everyone, then you only need one to swipe right on you and you've got a connection.
A higher percentage are sexually active today (as in sex recently) than in the past. Even if there's a higher percentage of virgins as increasing numbers just stay at home and watch porn online rather than speaking to people.
This implies that young men *prefer* to sit around watching porn vs having sex. I put it to you that porn is an inferior/substitute good, and something (whatever that is - economy, smartphones, apps, whatever) happened a little over a decade ago that meant a lot of men were no longer able to get the real thing - hence virginity rates rising from 8% in 2008 to 27% in 2018. But porn is a substitute/inferior good, not a preference.
And the reason I suggest this to you is, because of the rise of creeps like Andrew Tate. If young men were happy jackin' it every night, they wouldn't be into Tate-ism. The questions are, what happened post 2008 that caused this change in sexual behaviour, and is Tate the worst we're going to get out of it (we've already had incel nut jobs shooting up places). So if it's a problem that 27% of young men aren't having sex, vs 8% in the 2000s, what's the cause and what's the solution? Because there is clearly a problem.
Some young men do prefer today to sit at home and watch porn. Getting out of the house is too much like hard work.
Same reason there's been a collapse of antisocial behaviour from teens on street corners compared to a generation ago. They're on their phones instead.
There is no truth behind what Tate is saying. He's just the latest in a long line of charlatans.
Well, the truth behind what Tate is saying is that if you have a flash car, roided up muscles, and a nice watch, you can attract a certain type of girl. That has also been true since time immemorial. He's just selling the lie to these kids that can be *you* as well.
Honestly I don't disagree that the spike from 2008 may be caused by phones. Correlation isn't causation, but it's a viable possibility. A substitute good.
The other answer is the explosion (no pun intended) of free online video porn around that time. I put it to you that porn is still an inferior/substitute good, but the cost of said inferior good became far less, while the quality became far higher. From a few blurry jpgs or a top shelf mag in the early 2000s, it went to being free, ubiquitous and of a much higher quality. It's like saying a pork chop is a substitute for steak, once upon a time they were similar in cost, similarly hard to acquire... the pork chop was cheaper but still at a cost. Then all of a sudden the pork chop (the porn) becomes nearly free and limitless, everywhere, as with the phones point, in your pocket. So that is a distinct possibility.
But guys still *want* the superior good, they want the steak, even if they're gorging themselves on the "free" pork chops. Hence the rise of Andrew Tate and co.
There is no hence, there is no causation here.
Andrew Tate is just the latest of a long line of charlatans that have always existed.
He's not been "caused" or "fueled" by anything. There have always been characters like him and nothing has changed to fuel him other than the internet gives him a lot of morons to feed off.
So you don't find male virginity being stable at 8ish% from 1989 to 2008, then suddenly spiking to 27% odd at all?
So I put it to you again, that a steady 8%ish from the 80s to the late 2000s then a sudden spike in 2008 and a continuing trend upwards is neither a good thing, nor normal, and explanations should be sought.
If they'll want a girlfriend then they need to think with their brain rather than their dicks.
What do girls want? It ain't a seething misogynist disappearing down an alt-right online rabbit hole.
Wash and dress presentably. Shave and brush teeth, girls think these things important even if they cannot see why. Learn to talk about things that girls like, and be a good listener. Learn to dance. Treat women with courtesy and kindness. Don't ghost them and be surprised that they aren't interested when you text them weeks later. Don't stalk them or threaten them, don't distribute dick picks to girls you barely know.
It isn't rocket science. Just be the sort of person girls want to spend time with.
"Learn to dance"
Yes, that's it. Guys, all you have to do is learn the foxtrot with a dash of salsa, and all your issues are solved
It sometimes worries me that you have actual charge of human patients
I just counted, there are 12 things in Foxy's list of suggestions, one of which was learn to dance.
I reckon if you do half a dozen of the other things you'll be fine without the dancing. Hope that helps you.
Nah, @Leon doesn't need any advice in how to pick up women, just advice on how to sustain a long term relationship.
One other oddity. If this is Iran sabotaging the various Israeli-Arab agreements, where is Hezbollah? Sure, they've fired a handful of rockets as a belated token measure but there has been no invasion of north Israel and no sign of any coordination with Hamas in the south.
Possibly because Hezbollah are Shia and so deemed more valuable than the Sunni Hamas.
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
I have changed my mind on this World Cup. Ireland were too good last night. They are an incredible mincing machine with superb confidence. Better than the Boks (my prior favourites)
Prediction? Ireland will beat NZ and then Wales and get to the final
England will beat Fiji but then lose to France, and France will go to the final
A France v Ireland final. Epic. At Paris. France to edge it due to home advantage
I am struggling to see anyone beat Ireland, even France in Paris.
I have changed my mind on this World Cup. Ireland were too good last night. They are an incredible mincing machine with superb confidence. Better than the Boks (my prior favourites)
Prediction? Ireland will beat NZ and then Wales and get to the final
England will beat Fiji but then lose to France, and France will go to the final
A France v Ireland final. Epic. At Paris. France to edge it due to home advantage
I am struggling to see anyone beat Ireland, even France in Paris.
Ireland are the best coached rugger side I have ever seen. It is hard to pick out individually genius players, because they act as one. Like they are, combined, a ruthless predator. They are a lesson to any other rugby team, or maybe any other team, full stop
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
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
They have managed to kill/capture lots of foreigners, and the primary atrocity appears to be a music festival.
Not brilliant PR. Yet people still defend what Russia has done in Ukraine, so all it does is strip some of the pretence away.
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
When people are treated like animals, it's no great surprise that they behave like animals.
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
When people are treated like animals, it's no great surprise that they behave like animals.
Are you Maggie Chapman?
If Humza Yousaf was looking for an excuse to get out of the coalition with the Greens, he's just been handed one on a plate. A shame - my local Green councillors are excellent on cycle lanes etc.
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
They have managed to kill/capture lots of foreigners, and the primary atrocity appears to be a music festival.
Not brilliant PR. Yet people still defend what Russia has done in Ukraine, so all it does is strip some of the pretence away.
Hamas have turned "the noble Palestinian cause" into the total horrific depravity of ISIS in two days. It is a disaster for the Palestinians themselves. It's like they looked at the lesson of ISIS and thought "Yay, let's use GoPro like them and rape women and behead people online to win recruits" without thinking that: exactly these same videos made the entire world loathe ISIS who were consequently extinguished
She works in Tate Liverpool, which like last year are hosting a number of fringe events for the Labour party this week.
Found out that last year, one of her colleagues (20s, not interested in politics) was on as 'greeter' for the 'Sir Keir Starmer talk'. She sees a group approaching and heads over:
"Are you here for the Keir Starmer talk?" my wife's colleague asks the lead punter. "I am Keir Starmer," comes the reply. "Well, in which case you definitely are here for the Keir Starmer talk aren't you?" she replies.
Made me laugh anyway.............
I suppose we should be thankful she didn't get called a 'f****g moron' for her pains!
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
On Linkedin there is a lot of pro palestine stuff, quite respectable people saying things like "well what do you expect when you force people to live in an open air prison, and also force them out of their homes".
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
They have managed to kill/capture lots of foreigners, and the primary atrocity appears to be a music festival.
Not brilliant PR. Yet people still defend what Russia has done in Ukraine, so all it does is strip some of the pretence away.
Hamas have turned "the noble Palestinian cause" into the total horrific depravity of ISIS in two days. It is a disaster for the Palestinians themselves. It's like they looked at the lesson of ISIS and thought "Yay, let's use GoPro like them and rape women and behead people online to win recruits" without thinking that: exactly these same videos made the entire world loathe ISIS who were consequently extinguished
There are 4 videos doing the rounds - 3 of young women being abducted and everything that follows, and one of a very elderly woman being taken.
These are not the cohort to film and put up on YouTube. Even the most ardent Corbynista types are going to struggle to defend that.
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
When people are treated like animals, it's no great surprise that they behave like animals.
I'm sorry, but even animals do not rape, mutilate, and murder their victims, breaking all their limbs, them strip them naked, and parade them around town on a pick up while spitting at their lifeless corpses and chanting, "Allahu Ahkbar", like their desecration of the female body is some kind of Islamic triumph
It is utterly, utterly obscene. I hope the Israelis send them all to Hell
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
On Linkedin there is a lot of pro palestine stuff, quite respectable people saying things like "well what do you expect when you force people to live in an open air prison, and also force them out of their homes".
You must be on a very different universe of LinkedIn from me. My feed’s just people saying bland corporate stuff about nothing much.
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
On Linkedin there is a lot of pro palestine stuff, quite respectable people saying things like "well what do you expect when you force people to live in an open air prison, and also force them out of their homes".
You must be on a very different universe of LinkedIn from me. My feed’s just people saying bland corporate stuff about nothing much.
LinkedIn must have changed a bit since I last laughed at it and refused to use it*
We'll have to work hard to beat Fiji but I think we will win
Then France? Will home pressure get to them? Or SA? Not easy but a smallish chance of the final. A rather larger chance than many including me were saying a few weeks ago 👍
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
They have managed to kill/capture lots of foreigners, and the primary atrocity appears to be a music festival.
Not brilliant PR. Yet people still defend what Russia has done in Ukraine, so all it does is strip some of the pretence away.
Hamas have turned "the noble Palestinian cause" into the total horrific depravity of ISIS in two days. It is a disaster for the Palestinians themselves. It's like they looked at the lesson of ISIS and thought "Yay, let's use GoPro like them and rape women and behead people online to win recruits" without thinking that: exactly these same videos made the entire world loathe ISIS who were consequently extinguished
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
It's like they are on a mission to destroy the Palestinian cause, under the gaze of the world. Madness
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
On Linkedin there is a lot of pro palestine stuff, quite respectable people saying things like "well what do you expect when you force people to live in an open air prison, and also force them out of their homes".
Does all social media, inevitably, end up either activist-left or alt-right?
We'll have to work hard to beat Fiji but I think we will win
Then France? Will home pressure get to them? Or SA? Not easy but a smallish chance of the final. A rather larger chance than many including me were saying a few weeks ago 👍
*Cough*
I did recommend a VALUE punt on England when they were 18/1
They are now 12/1 - which is probably right. To beat France THEN (likely) Ireland is surely beyond us. Those teams are out of our league at the moment, we would need an awful lot of luck
"invite support for a proscribed organisation (the support invited need not be material support, such as the provision of money or other property, and can also include moral support or approval) (section 12(1))"
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.
That's not going to happen. Israel will no longer accept Gaza in any form (I suspect), because Israel will want defensible borders, and that enclave along the coast does not provide that
The Gazans will have to move, and someone will have to be persuaded to take them. Egpyt and Sinai is the obvious place. We agree this will involve enormous amounts of bribery from the rest of the world, to Egypt and to the Gazans, to make them so rich they don't care. Israel would also have to cough up
Chances of this happening? Less than 5%. But it is the only feasible road out of this hideous, bloody cycle of revenge
There are two million people in Gaza. That's equivalent to 30% of the Jewish population of Israel.
If it was 100-200,000 people then maybe you could do it. But two million. Even if you found someone who'd take them (which you won't), that's not physically possible.
I mean you could go in there with tanks and attempt to drive everyone out towards Egypt. But I can't see how that wouldn't lead to 100k dead, especially when you remember that you've just put two million into the Sinai desert where there is no water or food.
Also, it wouldn't do much for Israel's relationship with Egypt.
I did say it was highly unlikely to happen. And the only way you can humanely do it (if that even makes sense) is by getting the Gazans to volunteer to do it, and by persuading Egypt to peacefully take them
It's not impossible but - you and I agree- it will need insanely large amounts of money. However the chance of lasting peace in the MENA is so hugely valuable it would be worth the cost
I agree this can't be done by force, not only would that be brutally cruel it woudn't work, it would just engender even more hatred for Israel and another 100 years of murder, war, revenge
Your idea is nice but I fear it is dreamland. Israel will not tolerate Gaza to exist in its present state, as a coastal enclave, arrowed at the heart of the country, not after October 7, 2023
The following statements are all true:
- Israel cannot allow Gaza to exist in its current state.
- Israel has no way to destroy Gaza. It's simply too big, and it's also stuck in the middle of the Sinai, Israel and the Mediterranean.
- (Or, at least, any destruction of Gaza would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and would poison again the relationship between Israel and its neighbours. It wouldn't do much for Israel's already frayed relations with much of the West either.)
- Hamas are scum, who have no interest in the wellbeing of the Palestinian people. And will do anything to precipitate a holy war.
What will therefore happen?
Israel will follow the path of least resistance. It will make life even shittier in Gaza. It will kill Hamas leaders with drone strikes. It will tighten the noose still further. And in doing so, it will buy itself a little peace, but will also make sure that the next generation of Gazans have even less to lose by throwing their lot in with Hamas.
i reckon Israel will go further than that, this time, because this nastiness - as described in your last paragraph - is what it has always done. Tighten the noose, kill a few thousand, make life worse, and... the result is 700 dead Israelis in one day
That cannot be allowed to happen again - let alone regularly - or the Israeli state will be mortally endangered
So what will Israel do?
I wonder if they might go for permanent occupation again, and a return to the settler policy. Strangle the life out of Gaza not just with bombs and power-cuts, but by an attempt to occupy the land with actual Jews - hardnuts with guns. As in the West Bank
Difficult and risky. But Israel has to do something
What else? Maybe they will level all buildings anywhere near the border, ceeating a cordon sanitaire?
Perhaps they will take thousands of Gazans hostage. Perhaps they really will try and drive all Gazans into Egypt
I see nothing ahead but misery for the Gazans and bloody war for the Israelis. It is bleak. I do not see the status quo ante
Remember that Hamas have taken a lot of hostages. This means that Israel will send ground forces in to make an attempt to recover those hostages. It seems safe to assume that Hamas will have prepared for that. There will be a massive amount of bloody fighting all over Gaza.
Most of the civilians will be pretty desperate to leave PDQ I would have thought. Will the Egyptians be able to keep the border closed?
If Putin wants to give the west a collective nervous breakdown, he will come out in support of Israel.
He can’t though, can he? Because Iran.
Zelensky might be about to get some Israeli toys.
But it worries me that one can link the Ukraine war, Israel/Hammas, things possibly kicking off in Kosovo, Syria, and some conflicts in the wherethefuckistans.
It is no coincidence this is happening now. The thing Hamas fears above all else is that Israel's relationship with the Muslim and Arab world is normalized.
And by baiting Israel into a response in Gaza, they ensure that the public in the Muslim world will be incensed, and the possibility of improved relations between Israel, Saudi and the like becomes much diminished.
I was chatting with some friends on mine, and one - who recently split from his wife - has a new girlfriend. "Phew," he said, "I thought I was going to go my entire 40s without having sex."
Another confided that he hasn't sex with his wife (or anyone else) in eight years.
That's what I call a very conscientious parenthetical.
Dude, wait til you reach your 50s. I have friends who have gone without sex for DECADES. Indeed one - tho he is exceptional - who has gone without sex THIS MILLENNIUM
Women can be divided into two types. Those who go off sex as soon as they have had their last child, and those who go off sex when they hit menopause
Google the "atrophied vagina" if you want to see a vision of a cosy "incel" Ugg Boot stamping on a desperate male face, forever
Leon, Leon, Leon: there are women - and believe me I know - who enjoy a wonderful and varied sex live long past the menopause / last child etc. In fact, they find it more fun than ever because they know what they want, aren't afraid to ask and don't have to faff around with contraception. Plus they have all the time in the world. Some have husbands and lovers.
Two types, my arse. Honestly, you don't half talk tripe sometimes.
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.
That's not going to happen. Israel will no longer accept Gaza in any form (I suspect), because Israel will want defensible borders, and that enclave along the coast does not provide that
The Gazans will have to move, and someone will have to be persuaded to take them. Egpyt and Sinai is the obvious place. We agree this will involve enormous amounts of bribery from the rest of the world, to Egypt and to the Gazans, to make them so rich they don't care. Israel would also have to cough up
Chances of this happening? Less than 5%. But it is the only feasible road out of this hideous, bloody cycle of revenge
There are two million people in Gaza. That's equivalent to 30% of the Jewish population of Israel.
If it was 100-200,000 people then maybe you could do it. But two million. Even if you found someone who'd take them (which you won't), that's not physically possible.
I mean you could go in there with tanks and attempt to drive everyone out towards Egypt. But I can't see how that wouldn't lead to 100k dead, especially when you remember that you've just put two million into the Sinai desert where there is no water or food.
Also, it wouldn't do much for Israel's relationship with Egypt.
I did say it was highly unlikely to happen. And the only way you can humanely do it (if that even makes sense) is by getting the Gazans to volunteer to do it, and by persuading Egypt to peacefully take them
It's not impossible but - you and I agree- it will need insanely large amounts of money. However the chance of lasting peace in the MENA is so hugely valuable it would be worth the cost
I agree this can't be done by force, not only would that be brutally cruel it woudn't work, it would just engender even more hatred for Israel and another 100 years of murder, war, revenge
Your idea is nice but I fear it is dreamland. Israel will not tolerate Gaza to exist in its present state, as a coastal enclave, arrowed at the heart of the country, not after October 7, 2023
The following statements are all true:
- Israel cannot allow Gaza to exist in its current state.
- Israel has no way to destroy Gaza. It's simply too big, and it's also stuck in the middle of the Sinai, Israel and the Mediterranean.
- (Or, at least, any destruction of Gaza would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and would poison again the relationship between Israel and its neighbours. It wouldn't do much for Israel's already frayed relations with much of the West either.)
- Hamas are scum, who have no interest in the wellbeing of the Palestinian people. And will do anything to precipitate a holy war.
What will therefore happen?
Israel will follow the path of least resistance. It will make life even shittier in Gaza. It will kill Hamas leaders with drone strikes. It will tighten the noose still further. And in doing so, it will buy itself a little peace, but will also make sure that the next generation of Gazans have even less to lose by throwing their lot in with Hamas.
i reckon Israel will go further than that, this time, because this nastiness - as described in your last paragraph - is what it has always done. Tighten the noose, kill a few thousand, make life worse, and... the result is 700 dead Israelis in one day
That cannot be allowed to happen again - let alone regularly - or the Israeli state will be mortally endangered
So what will Israel do?
I wonder if they might go for permanent occupation again, and a return to the settler policy. Strangle the life out of Gaza not just with bombs and power-cuts, but by an attempt to occupy the land with actual Jews - hardnuts with guns. As in the West Bank
Difficult and risky. But Israel has to do something
What else? Maybe they will level all buildings anywhere near the border, ceeating a cordon sanitaire?
Perhaps they will take thousands of Gazans hostage. Perhaps they really will try and drive all Gazans into Egypt
I see nothing ahead but misery for the Gazans and bloody war for the Israelis. It is bleak. I do not see the status quo ante
Remember that Hamas have taken a lot of hostages. This means that Israel will send ground forces in to make an attempt to recover those hostages. It seems safe to assume that Hamas will have prepared for that. There will be a massive amount of bloody fighting all over Gaza.
Most of the civilians will be pretty desperate to leave PDQ I would have thought. Will the Egyptians be able to keep the border closed?
The security of Israel will take precedence over the hostages. So, if Israel has to choose, it will go with the former. Moreover, from a cold-hearted view, Hamas killing women and children hostages will only give Israel a lot more leeway internationally to deal with Hamas and Gaza. If Hamas goes and kills foreign citizens, especially US ones, so much the better for Israel when it comes to a cold-hearted calculation.
I suspect the strategy will be, long-term, just constant throttling pressure on Gaza to make their life increasingly unbearable. Gaza depends on Israel for much of their supplies. That is pretty much gone now. Moreover, as the Ukraine conflict, you can do a hell of a lot with drones. Imagine the constant overflying of Israeli drones in an area as tightly packed as Gaza, constantly picking off targets and just buzzing the inhabitants, and done in the name of surveillance to make sure these events do not happen again.
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.
That's not going to happen. Israel will no longer accept Gaza in any form (I suspect), because Israel will want defensible borders, and that enclave along the coast does not provide that
The Gazans will have to move, and someone will have to be persuaded to take them. Egpyt and Sinai is the obvious place. We agree this will involve enormous amounts of bribery from the rest of the world, to Egypt and to the Gazans, to make them so rich they don't care. Israel would also have to cough up
Chances of this happening? Less than 5%. But it is the only feasible road out of this hideous, bloody cycle of revenge
There are two million people in Gaza. That's equivalent to 30% of the Jewish population of Israel.
If it was 100-200,000 people then maybe you could do it. But two million. Even if you found someone who'd take them (which you won't), that's not physically possible.
I mean you could go in there with tanks and attempt to drive everyone out towards Egypt. But I can't see how that wouldn't lead to 100k dead, especially when you remember that you've just put two million into the Sinai desert where there is no water or food.
Also, it wouldn't do much for Israel's relationship with Egypt.
I did say it was highly unlikely to happen. And the only way you can humanely do it (if that even makes sense) is by getting the Gazans to volunteer to do it, and by persuading Egypt to peacefully take them
It's not impossible but - you and I agree- it will need insanely large amounts of money. However the chance of lasting peace in the MENA is so hugely valuable it would be worth the cost
I agree this can't be done by force, not only would that be brutally cruel it woudn't work, it would just engender even more hatred for Israel and another 100 years of murder, war, revenge
Your idea is nice but I fear it is dreamland. Israel will not tolerate Gaza to exist in its present state, as a coastal enclave, arrowed at the heart of the country, not after October 7, 2023
The following statements are all true:
- Israel cannot allow Gaza to exist in its current state.
- Israel has no way to destroy Gaza. It's simply too big, and it's also stuck in the middle of the Sinai, Israel and the Mediterranean.
- (Or, at least, any destruction of Gaza would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and would poison again the relationship between Israel and its neighbours. It wouldn't do much for Israel's already frayed relations with much of the West either.)
- Hamas are scum, who have no interest in the wellbeing of the Palestinian people. And will do anything to precipitate a holy war.
What will therefore happen?
Israel will follow the path of least resistance. It will make life even shittier in Gaza. It will kill Hamas leaders with drone strikes. It will tighten the noose still further. And in doing so, it will buy itself a little peace, but will also make sure that the next generation of Gazans have even less to lose by throwing their lot in with Hamas.
i reckon Israel will go further than that, this time, because this nastiness - as described in your last paragraph - is what it has always done. Tighten the noose, kill a few thousand, make life worse, and... the result is 700 dead Israelis in one day
That cannot be allowed to happen again - let alone regularly - or the Israeli state will be mortally endangered
So what will Israel do?
I wonder if they might go for permanent occupation again, and a return to the settler policy. Strangle the life out of Gaza not just with bombs and power-cuts, but by an attempt to occupy the land with actual Jews - hardnuts with guns. As in the West Bank
Difficult and risky. But Israel has to do something
What else? Maybe they will level all buildings anywhere near the border, ceeating a cordon sanitaire?
Perhaps they will take thousands of Gazans hostage. Perhaps they really will try and drive all Gazans into Egypt
I see nothing ahead but misery for the Gazans and bloody war for the Israelis. It is bleak. I do not see the status quo ante
Remember that Hamas have taken a lot of hostages. This means that Israel will send ground forces in to make an attempt to recover those hostages. It seems safe to assume that Hamas will have prepared for that. There will be a massive amount of bloody fighting all over Gaza.
Most of the civilians will be pretty desperate to leave PDQ I would have thought. Will the Egyptians be able to keep the border closed?
The chances of getting back most or even some of those hostages now in Gaza is low. They number in the many 10s, they will be dispersed (or should be). I posted yesterday that Israel has a dilemma as it does put a high value on its people but it will likely have to assume all will be lost and start from there. Anything beyond that is a bonus.
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.
Fundamentally, it is because people *don't* go out and connect any more. I bumped into a fairly interesting 24 year old at an after works drinks the other week and I said, come out with us, we're going clubbing. Most in their early 30s. Me a bit older, but still. And the guy completely sketches out and says, yeah, most of my friends have adhd / autism and can't deal with this, and walks straight out.
I think we imagine the days of the sweaty small town nightclub with the sticky dancefloor, for the reality of a lot (if not all) the young'uns, its pretty different now. Learning to mediate our conversations through a screen - ironically, what we're doing now - makes it harder for people to connect in real life. And online, the top 5% dominate, as the stats I've linked to show.
The stats don't show that. The stats show the polar opposite, it shows a higher percentage are sexually active today than a generation ago.
If you only "swipe right" on one person, then yes that's not likely to be successful.
If you "swipe right" on everyone, then you only need one to swipe right on you and you've got a connection.
A higher percentage are sexually active today (as in sex recently) than in the past. Even if there's a higher percentage of virgins as increasing numbers just stay at home and watch porn online rather than speaking to people.
This implies that young men *prefer* to sit around watching porn vs having sex. I put it to you that porn is an inferior/substitute good, and something (whatever that is - economy, smartphones, apps, whatever) happened a little over a decade ago that meant a lot of men were no longer able to get the real thing - hence virginity rates rising from 8% in 2008 to 27% in 2018. But porn is a substitute/inferior good, not a preference.
And the reason I suggest this to you is, because of the rise of creeps like Andrew Tate. If young men were happy jackin' it every night, they wouldn't be into Tate-ism. The questions are, what happened post 2008 that caused this change in sexual behaviour, and is Tate the worst we're going to get out of it (we've already had incel nut jobs shooting up places). So if it's a problem that 27% of young men aren't having sex, vs 8% in the 2000s, what's the cause and what's the solution? Because there is clearly a problem.
Some young men do prefer today to sit at home and watch porn. Getting out of the house is too much like hard work.
Same reason there's been a collapse of antisocial behaviour from teens on street corners compared to a generation ago. They're on their phones instead.
There is no truth behind what Tate is saying. He's just the latest in a long line of charlatans.
Well, the truth behind what Tate is saying is that if you have a flash car, roided up muscles, and a nice watch, you can attract a certain type of girl. That has also been true since time immemorial. He's just selling the lie to these kids that can be *you* as well.
Honestly I don't disagree that the spike from 2008 may be caused by phones. Correlation isn't causation, but it's a viable possibility. A substitute good.
The other answer is the explosion (no pun intended) of free online video porn around that time. I put it to you that porn is still an inferior/substitute good, but the cost of said inferior good became far less, while the quality became far higher. From a few blurry jpgs or a top shelf mag in the early 2000s, it went to being free, ubiquitous and of a much higher quality. It's like saying a pork chop is a substitute for steak, once upon a time they were similar in cost, similarly hard to acquire... the pork chop was cheaper but still at a cost. Then all of a sudden the pork chop (the porn) becomes nearly free and limitless, everywhere, as with the phones point, in your pocket. So that is a distinct possibility.
But guys still *want* the superior good, they want the steak, even if they're gorging themselves on the "free" pork chops. Hence the rise of Andrew Tate and co.
There is no hence, there is no causation here.
Andrew Tate is just the latest of a long line of charlatans that have always existed.
He's not been "caused" or "fueled" by anything. There have always been characters like him and nothing has changed to fuel him other than the internet gives him a lot of morons to feed off.
So you don't find male virginity being stable at 8ish% from 1989 to 2008, then suddenly spiking to 27% odd at all?
So I put it to you again, that a steady 8%ish from the 80s to the late 2000s then a sudden spike in 2008 and a continuing trend upwards is neither a good thing, nor normal, and explanations should be sought.
If they'll want a girlfriend then they need to think with their brain rather than their dicks.
What do girls want? It ain't a seething misogynist disappearing down an alt-right online rabbit hole.
Wash and dress presentably. Shave and brush teeth, girls think these things important even if they cannot see why. Learn to talk about things that girls like, and be a good listener. Learn to dance. Treat women with courtesy and kindness. Don't ghost them and be surprised that they aren't interested when you text them weeks later. Don't stalk them or threaten them, don't distribute dick picks to girls you barely know.
It isn't rocket science. Just be the sort of person girls want to spend time with.
I have a friend from secondary school. He does triathlons. Works for an NGO. Has interesting stories about his time in Nepal and he's quite funny. He's better than me at talking to strangers.
I'm married for the second time and he's always struggled to get any interest from women. The reason? He's barely five foot and suffers from terrible acne.
There have always been some men who struggle with dating not because they have bad hygiene, or don't know how to talk to women, but for physical reasons it's hard to do much about. The effect of online dating seems to be to move these problems up the attractiveness range. Instead of it being a problem for the most unfortunate few percent of men, it now seems to be a problem for a larger percentage.
Worth bearing in mind that this is also a problem for women. Most of them don't want the hot guy they've started dating to ditch them for the next woman, but if they're all choosing the same guys from online dating then that's what is happening to them.
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.
Fundamentally, it is because people *don't* go out and connect any more. I bumped into a fairly interesting 24 year old at an after works drinks the other week and I said, come out with us, we're going clubbing. Most in their early 30s. Me a bit older, but still. And the guy completely sketches out and says, yeah, most of my friends have adhd / autism and can't deal with this, and walks straight out.
I think we imagine the days of the sweaty small town nightclub with the sticky dancefloor, for the reality of a lot (if not all) the young'uns, its pretty different now. Learning to mediate our conversations through a screen - ironically, what we're doing now - makes it harder for people to connect in real life. And online, the top 5% dominate, as the stats I've linked to show.
The stats don't show that. The stats show the polar opposite, it shows a higher percentage are sexually active today than a generation ago.
If you only "swipe right" on one person, then yes that's not likely to be successful.
If you "swipe right" on everyone, then you only need one to swipe right on you and you've got a connection.
A higher percentage are sexually active today (as in sex recently) than in the past. Even if there's a higher percentage of virgins as increasing numbers just stay at home and watch porn online rather than speaking to people.
This implies that young men *prefer* to sit around watching porn vs having sex. I put it to you that porn is an inferior/substitute good, and something (whatever that is - economy, smartphones, apps, whatever) happened a little over a decade ago that meant a lot of men were no longer able to get the real thing - hence virginity rates rising from 8% in 2008 to 27% in 2018. But porn is a substitute/inferior good, not a preference.
And the reason I suggest this to you is, because of the rise of creeps like Andrew Tate. If young men were happy jackin' it every night, they wouldn't be into Tate-ism. The questions are, what happened post 2008 that caused this change in sexual behaviour, and is Tate the worst we're going to get out of it (we've already had incel nut jobs shooting up places). So if it's a problem that 27% of young men aren't having sex, vs 8% in the 2000s, what's the cause and what's the solution? Because there is clearly a problem.
Some young men do prefer today to sit at home and watch porn. Getting out of the house is too much like hard work.
Same reason there's been a collapse of antisocial behaviour from teens on street corners compared to a generation ago. They're on their phones instead.
There is no truth behind what Tate is saying. He's just the latest in a long line of charlatans.
Well, the truth behind what Tate is saying is that if you have a flash car, roided up muscles, and a nice watch, you can attract a certain type of girl. That has also been true since time immemorial. He's just selling the lie to these kids that can be *you* as well.
Honestly I don't disagree that the spike from 2008 may be caused by phones. Correlation isn't causation, but it's a viable possibility. A substitute good.
The other answer is the explosion (no pun intended) of free online video porn around that time. I put it to you that porn is still an inferior/substitute good, but the cost of said inferior good became far less, while the quality became far higher. From a few blurry jpgs or a top shelf mag in the early 2000s, it went to being free, ubiquitous and of a much higher quality. It's like saying a pork chop is a substitute for steak, once upon a time they were similar in cost, similarly hard to acquire... the pork chop was cheaper but still at a cost. Then all of a sudden the pork chop (the porn) becomes nearly free and limitless, everywhere, as with the phones point, in your pocket. So that is a distinct possibility.
But guys still *want* the superior good, they want the steak, even if they're gorging themselves on the "free" pork chops. Hence the rise of Andrew Tate and co.
There is no hence, there is no causation here.
Andrew Tate is just the latest of a long line of charlatans that have always existed.
He's not been "caused" or "fueled" by anything. There have always been characters like him and nothing has changed to fuel him other than the internet gives him a lot of morons to feed off.
So you don't find male virginity being stable at 8ish% from 1989 to 2008, then suddenly spiking to 27% odd at all?
So I put it to you again, that a steady 8%ish from the 80s to the late 2000s then a sudden spike in 2008 and a continuing trend upwards is neither a good thing, nor normal, and explanations should be sought.
If they'll want a girlfriend then they need to think with their brain rather than their dicks.
What do girls want? It ain't a seething misogynist disappearing down an alt-right online rabbit hole.
Wash and dress presentably. Shave and brush teeth, girls think these things important even if they cannot see why. Learn to talk about things that girls like, and be a good listener. Learn to dance. Treat women with courtesy and kindness. Don't ghost them and be surprised that they aren't interested when you text them weeks later. Don't stalk them or threaten them, don't distribute dick picks to girls you barely know.
It isn't rocket science. Just be the sort of person girls want to spend time with.
I don't think any of those things would make much of a difference.
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.
Fundamentally, it is because people *don't* go out and connect any more. I bumped into a fairly interesting 24 year old at an after works drinks the other week and I said, come out with us, we're going clubbing. Most in their early 30s. Me a bit older, but still. And the guy completely sketches out and says, yeah, most of my friends have adhd / autism and can't deal with this, and walks straight out.
I think we imagine the days of the sweaty small town nightclub with the sticky dancefloor, for the reality of a lot (if not all) the young'uns, its pretty different now. Learning to mediate our conversations through a screen - ironically, what we're doing now - makes it harder for people to connect in real life. And online, the top 5% dominate, as the stats I've linked to show.
The stats don't show that. The stats show the polar opposite, it shows a higher percentage are sexually active today than a generation ago.
If you only "swipe right" on one person, then yes that's not likely to be successful.
If you "swipe right" on everyone, then you only need one to swipe right on you and you've got a connection.
A higher percentage are sexually active today (as in sex recently) than in the past. Even if there's a higher percentage of virgins as increasing numbers just stay at home and watch porn online rather than speaking to people.
This implies that young men *prefer* to sit around watching porn vs having sex. I put it to you that porn is an inferior/substitute good, and something (whatever that is - economy, smartphones, apps, whatever) happened a little over a decade ago that meant a lot of men were no longer able to get the real thing - hence virginity rates rising from 8% in 2008 to 27% in 2018. But porn is a substitute/inferior good, not a preference.
And the reason I suggest this to you is, because of the rise of creeps like Andrew Tate. If young men were happy jackin' it every night, they wouldn't be into Tate-ism. The questions are, what happened post 2008 that caused this change in sexual behaviour, and is Tate the worst we're going to get out of it (we've already had incel nut jobs shooting up places). So if it's a problem that 27% of young men aren't having sex, vs 8% in the 2000s, what's the cause and what's the solution? Because there is clearly a problem.
Some young men do prefer today to sit at home and watch porn. Getting out of the house is too much like hard work.
Same reason there's been a collapse of antisocial behaviour from teens on street corners compared to a generation ago. They're on their phones instead.
There is no truth behind what Tate is saying. He's just the latest in a long line of charlatans.
Well, the truth behind what Tate is saying is that if you have a flash car, roided up muscles, and a nice watch, you can attract a certain type of girl. That has also been true since time immemorial. He's just selling the lie to these kids that can be *you* as well.
Honestly I don't disagree that the spike from 2008 may be caused by phones. Correlation isn't causation, but it's a viable possibility. A substitute good.
The other answer is the explosion (no pun intended) of free online video porn around that time. I put it to you that porn is still an inferior/substitute good, but the cost of said inferior good became far less, while the quality became far higher. From a few blurry jpgs or a top shelf mag in the early 2000s, it went to being free, ubiquitous and of a much higher quality. It's like saying a pork chop is a substitute for steak, once upon a time they were similar in cost, similarly hard to acquire... the pork chop was cheaper but still at a cost. Then all of a sudden the pork chop (the porn) becomes nearly free and limitless, everywhere, as with the phones point, in your pocket. So that is a distinct possibility.
But guys still *want* the superior good, they want the steak, even if they're gorging themselves on the "free" pork chops. Hence the rise of Andrew Tate and co.
There is no hence, there is no causation here.
Andrew Tate is just the latest of a long line of charlatans that have always existed.
He's not been "caused" or "fueled" by anything. There have always been characters like him and nothing has changed to fuel him other than the internet gives him a lot of morons to feed off.
So you don't find male virginity being stable at 8ish% from 1989 to 2008, then suddenly spiking to 27% odd at all?
So I put it to you again, that a steady 8%ish from the 80s to the late 2000s then a sudden spike in 2008 and a continuing trend upwards is neither a good thing, nor normal, and explanations should be sought.
If they'll want a girlfriend then they need to think with their brain rather than their dicks.
What do girls want? It ain't a seething misogynist disappearing down an alt-right online rabbit hole.
Wash and dress presentably. Shave and brush teeth, girls think these things important even if they cannot see why. Learn to talk about things that girls like, and be a good listener. Learn to dance. Treat women with courtesy and kindness. Don't ghost them and be surprised that they aren't interested when you text them weeks later. Don't stalk them or threaten them, don't distribute dick picks to girls you barely know.
It isn't rocket science. Just be the sort of person girls want to spend time with.
I don't think any of those things would make much of a difference.
I suppose not, if the plan is to procure a mail order bride.
Create a UN protectorate. Administered for a generation by an experienced former colonial power with no skin in the game.
Who'd want to take on responsibility for that mess?
I am prepared to serve as Viceroy of Palestine.
It was nice knowing you.
I'll be a success.
I'm the Muslim who works for a Jewish* bank.
I am the embodiment of bringing people together.
I'll do it pro bono publico, all I ask for is a peerage, a GCMG, and the rank of an Ambassador for perpetuity, so people have to address me as Your Excellency.
*Not quite, but we rule the world apparently, it was in the Protocols of The Elders of Zion.
It appears TSE is massively overestimating his abilities, a toxic trait that comes that seems to infect privately educated guys.
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.
Fundamentally, it is because people *don't* go out and connect any more. I bumped into a fairly interesting 24 year old at an after works drinks the other week and I said, come out with us, we're going clubbing. Most in their early 30s. Me a bit older, but still. And the guy completely sketches out and says, yeah, most of my friends have adhd / autism and can't deal with this, and walks straight out.
I think we imagine the days of the sweaty small town nightclub with the sticky dancefloor, for the reality of a lot (if not all) the young'uns, its pretty different now. Learning to mediate our conversations through a screen - ironically, what we're doing now - makes it harder for people to connect in real life. And online, the top 5% dominate, as the stats I've linked to show.
The stats don't show that. The stats show the polar opposite, it shows a higher percentage are sexually active today than a generation ago.
If you only "swipe right" on one person, then yes that's not likely to be successful.
If you "swipe right" on everyone, then you only need one to swipe right on you and you've got a connection.
A higher percentage are sexually active today (as in sex recently) than in the past. Even if there's a higher percentage of virgins as increasing numbers just stay at home and watch porn online rather than speaking to people.
This implies that young men *prefer* to sit around watching porn vs having sex. I put it to you that porn is an inferior/substitute good, and something (whatever that is - economy, smartphones, apps, whatever) happened a little over a decade ago that meant a lot of men were no longer able to get the real thing - hence virginity rates rising from 8% in 2008 to 27% in 2018. But porn is a substitute/inferior good, not a preference.
And the reason I suggest this to you is, because of the rise of creeps like Andrew Tate. If young men were happy jackin' it every night, they wouldn't be into Tate-ism. The questions are, what happened post 2008 that caused this change in sexual behaviour, and is Tate the worst we're going to get out of it (we've already had incel nut jobs shooting up places). So if it's a problem that 27% of young men aren't having sex, vs 8% in the 2000s, what's the cause and what's the solution? Because there is clearly a problem.
Some young men do prefer today to sit at home and watch porn. Getting out of the house is too much like hard work.
Same reason there's been a collapse of antisocial behaviour from teens on street corners compared to a generation ago. They're on their phones instead.
There is no truth behind what Tate is saying. He's just the latest in a long line of charlatans.
Well, the truth behind what Tate is saying is that if you have a flash car, roided up muscles, and a nice watch, you can attract a certain type of girl. That has also been true since time immemorial. He's just selling the lie to these kids that can be *you* as well.
Honestly I don't disagree that the spike from 2008 may be caused by phones. Correlation isn't causation, but it's a viable possibility. A substitute good.
The other answer is the explosion (no pun intended) of free online video porn around that time. I put it to you that porn is still an inferior/substitute good, but the cost of said inferior good became far less, while the quality became far higher. From a few blurry jpgs or a top shelf mag in the early 2000s, it went to being free, ubiquitous and of a much higher quality. It's like saying a pork chop is a substitute for steak, once upon a time they were similar in cost, similarly hard to acquire... the pork chop was cheaper but still at a cost. Then all of a sudden the pork chop (the porn) becomes nearly free and limitless, everywhere, as with the phones point, in your pocket. So that is a distinct possibility.
But guys still *want* the superior good, they want the steak, even if they're gorging themselves on the "free" pork chops. Hence the rise of Andrew Tate and co.
There is no hence, there is no causation here.
Andrew Tate is just the latest of a long line of charlatans that have always existed.
He's not been "caused" or "fueled" by anything. There have always been characters like him and nothing has changed to fuel him other than the internet gives him a lot of morons to feed off.
So you don't find male virginity being stable at 8ish% from 1989 to 2008, then suddenly spiking to 27% odd at all?
So I put it to you again, that a steady 8%ish from the 80s to the late 2000s then a sudden spike in 2008 and a continuing trend upwards is neither a good thing, nor normal, and explanations should be sought.
If they'll want a girlfriend then they need to think with their brain rather than their dicks.
What do girls want? It ain't a seething misogynist disappearing down an alt-right online rabbit hole.
Wash and dress presentably. Shave and brush teeth, girls think these things important even if they cannot see why. Learn to talk about things that girls like, and be a good listener. Learn to dance. Treat women with courtesy and kindness. Don't ghost them and be surprised that they aren't interested when you text them weeks later. Don't stalk them or threaten them, don't distribute dick picks to girls you barely know.
It isn't rocket science. Just be the sort of person girls want to spend time with.
I think this works sometimes but more often than not you will meet the 'nice guys finish last' problem.
@kyf_100 is correct in what he has been saying today about this issue. It isn't that Andrew Tate is in any way a positive role model but he is the product of a certain cultural situation. If Tate goes down then there will just be a replacement. It is like Donald Trump, the nightmare will just go on and on....
After a near marriage, when I was young, I accidentally found the knack of “winning” at the roulette of shitty nightclubs. Mostly it consisted of not giving a damn.
I quickly realised that the ladies attracted to the “bad guys” are basically nightmares. Run away. Then, when you get there, run some more.
Take up an activity - say scuba diving - which is fun, involves meeting lots of different people and doing interesting stuff with them. As people. In scuba, for example, you need to dive with a buddy. Go on a scuba holiday - get paired up with different people on each dive etc.
My wife observed at my annual rowing club dinner that half the women present were seriously looking for a *partner*.
As you know Michael Gambon died recently. One of his better parts was as LBJ in "Path to War". I've just found the full movie on YouTube. If you want it it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcV24_TM6lU
Comments
Prediction? Ireland will beat NZ and then Wales and get to the final
England will beat Fiji but then lose to France, and France will go to the final
A France v Ireland final. Epic. At Paris. France to edge it due to home advantage
There was a flustered guy who had forgot his security pass and the receptionist was on the phone trying to find someone in the building who could vouch for him so he could be issued with a temporary pass to get in the building.
It was Eric Pickles ....
Douglas Feaver, Bishop of Peterborough, became very absent minded later in his episcopate. On one occasion he was on a train and put his hand in his pocket only to find, to his horror, that he had lost his ticket.
The guard, who knew him well, reassured him that it could be sorted out, and he would issue a ticket for him if he just told him the destination.
'That's all very well,' said Feaver, 'but without my ticket how am I supposed to know where I'm going?'
In one of several similar incidents, one of the Hamas attackers who broke into the home of a grandmother in Nir Oz, near #Gaza, killed her, filmed it with her phone and uploaded the video to her Facebook - which is how her grand-daughter found out.
Israelis have been saying for decades: "You don't understand, they hate us, they want us all dead, what can we do"
After this weekend, who is going to disagree?
But it might take him 2 episodes
Not brilliant PR. Yet people still defend what Russia has done in Ukraine, so all it does is strip some of the pretence away.
If Humza Yousaf was looking for an excuse to get out of the coalition with the Greens, he's just been handed one on a plate. A shame - my local Green councillors are excellent on cycle lanes etc.
These are not the cohort to film and put up on YouTube. Even the most ardent Corbynista types are going to struggle to defend that.
It is utterly, utterly obscene. I hope the Israelis send them all to Hell
https://twitter.com/MaggieChapman/status/1711061209737265260?t=CBKwnWcrjFP4rcv16zYa5g&s=19
*About 5 years ago
Then France? Will home pressure get to them? Or SA? Not easy but a smallish chance of the final. A rather larger chance than many including me were saying a few weeks ago 👍
Sickening.
I did recommend a VALUE punt on England when they were 18/1
They are now 12/1 - which is probably right. To beat France THEN (likely) Ireland is surely beyond us. Those teams are out of our league at the moment, we would need an awful lot of luck
1) Divert the world's attention away from Ukraine, and military aid in particular.
2) Convince the Muslim world that America and NATO are Israeli controlled.
3) The more chaos the better, to destabilise the Non-Russian world.
https://x.com/fareedzakaria/status/1711073549593493988
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version
Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations. My bold
Most of the civilians will be pretty desperate to leave PDQ I would have thought. Will the Egyptians be able to keep the border closed?
Zelensky might be about to get some Israeli toys.
But it worries me that one can link the Ukraine war, Israel/Hammas, things possibly kicking off in Kosovo, Syria, and some conflicts in the wherethefuckistans.
Sounds a bit… global.
Two types, my arse. Honestly, you don't half talk tripe sometimes.
I suspect the strategy will be, long-term, just constant throttling pressure on Gaza to make their life increasingly unbearable. Gaza depends on Israel for much of their supplies. That is pretty much gone now. Moreover, as the Ukraine conflict, you can do a hell of a lot with drones. Imagine the constant overflying of Israeli drones in an area as tightly packed as Gaza, constantly picking off targets and just buzzing the inhabitants, and done in the name of surveillance to make sure these events do not happen again.
I'm married for the second time and he's always struggled to get any interest from women. The reason? He's barely five foot and suffers from terrible acne.
There have always been some men who struggle with dating not because they have bad hygiene, or don't know how to talk to women, but for physical reasons it's hard to do much about. The effect of online dating seems to be to move these problems up the attractiveness range. Instead of it being a problem for the most unfortunate few percent of men, it now seems to be a problem for a larger percentage.
Worth bearing in mind that this is also a problem for women. Most of them don't want the hot guy they've started dating to ditch them for the next woman, but if they're all choosing the same guys from online dating then that's what is happening to them.
rm -rf *.*
That is required to achieve “peace” in the Middle East.
What’s that line about the Romans - “They make a desert and call it peace” ?
I quickly realised that the ladies attracted to the “bad guys” are basically nightmares. Run away. Then, when you get there, run some more.
Take up an activity - say scuba diving - which is fun, involves meeting lots of different people and doing interesting stuff with them. As people. In scuba, for example, you need to dive with a buddy. Go on a scuba holiday - get paired up with different people on each dive etc.
My wife observed at my annual rowing club dinner that half the women present were seriously looking for a *partner*.