It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
They didn't fall around Woking!
The SE is over saturated with demand. It would take something seismic to really knock house prices here.
Something seismic, like huge numbers of white-collar employees no longer commuting daily to central London?
Except realistically a majority will still be required to commute to central London some of the time and therefore will still need to live within commuting range.
Yes, that’s the big unknown. Will companies allow enough time away from the office that a daily commute isn’t required.
If I had to work two days a week in London, for example, I could live two hours away by train (that’s as far as Manchester, Leeds or Bath), buy one return train ticket and spend one night a week in a cheap London hotel.
Expect plenty of office space to be repurposed as cheap no-frills hotels in the City of London, that’s a great business model for someone.
If I need to be in the office three days a week, that’s the worst of all worlds as I’m still buying a full season ticket so need to live much closer to London.
If it’s one week a month, I can live pretty much anywhere.
There will be some interesting actions about what "rights" you have to live distant from work.
When it snowed here a couple of years ago the schools closed because it was the *teachers* who could not get in, as too many were living eg over the border in slightly hilly bit of Derbyshire.
Of course also the interesting case of BA staff living in the Caribbean and commuting in to Heathrow on jockey-seats on flights.
In many schools the recommendation given to new teachers is "don't live in the catchment area". The reason is to avoid bumping into pupils or parents outside of work. I live within walking distance of school and while I haven't had many problems there is at least one pub I no longer go to after having heard "hello Sir!" a few too many times as I made my way to the bar...
Hi, read that essay you sent me. A cut above most critiques of woke, I must say. Although it does rather bundle up lots of things under the umbrella.
Strikes me that Joe Biden might be a good President for the US to have right now in terms of the detox the author cries out for - focusing the Dems more on the knitting.
An interesting read anyway. And long like you said. Took ages because I'm a slow reader. Upshot being no posts from me on here this morning. So that's a win/win all round.
Good of you to make the effort. I agree that there was a lot bundled up in there, and the argument is perhaps overdetermined. But the points about language policing and empathy are, I think, well made. Biden, of course, whatever his administration's precise policies, is not one to police language, and scores high on the empathy scale.
Arguments about how to chop up England are micro level debates - we need strategic level planning first. What kind of UK is sustainable in the 21st Century? With Scotland, Norniron, Wales and now chunks of England increasingly restless, its obvious that we need to rethink the monolith that is this "united" kingdom.
LibDem policy is federalism. A position I have believed in for decades. Devolve to the nations as much power as possible, leaving state-wide competence only in things like national defence and federal infrastructure.
You solve the issue of "England will be too big and dominate the others" by devolving most powers away from the federal level. What England chooses to do with its own affairs won't affect the other nations that much if enough power is devolved to them.
Frankly I would much much rather have no union than a divided england. That is the problem you have with the region plans and I doubt I am the only one that thinks that way.
Do you think Germany is "divided"? Or the USA? Or Austria?
Do you think government from Westminster is making a good job of transport policy in Greater Manchester or the West Midlands? Do you think it is running a forward-thinking development and training policy in the North-East? Do you think it's making a good job of housing anywhere?
I have no doubt you're not the only one who thinks that way. But you are wrong.
I don't think England will ever vote to chop up England except for local government matters; and would never accept the sorts of powers Holyrood has being transferred to Regional Government in Bristol, Manchester or wherever.
England would be more likely to vote for the restoration of Middlesex and Westmorland, giving powers back to shire reeves and the reversal of scutage than for balkanisation.
Scotland is a splendid example of a region producing more politics than can be consumed locally, and NI would be a better place if it had none at all and restored the kingship of Ulaidh.
Perhaps abandon moronic policies like the stamp duty cut
The main problem in the south-east is population growth. If you can reduce that, you might have more affordable housing.
The UK birth rate is under replacement rate. What is driving population growth? Immigration which grew particularly fast in the New Labour years when they allowed in immigration from Eastern Europe without transition controls. That was a key factor in the house price rise, especially in London and the South East where prices are highest.
So new housing as well as the points system for immigrants whether inside or outside the EU should help
Perhaps abandon moronic policies like the stamp duty cut
The main problem in the south-east is population growth. If you can reduce that, you might have more affordable housing.
The UK birth rate is under replacement rate. What is driving population growth? Immigration which grew particularly fast in the New Labour years when they allowed in immigration from Eastern Europe without transition controls. That was a key factor in the house price rise, especially in London and the South East where prices are highest.
So new housing as well as the points system for immigrants whether inside or outside the EU should help
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Cameron did manage to achieve some things though -> .7%, gay marriage, rise in minimum wage... Theresa May's govt was a couple of years wasted?
The idea that Cameron was a terrible PM astounds me. People forget the situation he took over from in 2010. He managed to create an incentive for people to work from the years of ludicrous state handouts from New Labour which gave a perverse incentive to not work and he kept a lid on unemployment when all the "experts" thought it would run out of control.
Compare him to Callaghan in 76-79.
He was an excellent PM, one of the best since the war. But he gets blamed, irrationally, by both sides of the toxic Brexit wars. The Remainers blame him, in a spectacular logical somersault, for the fact that the electorate didn't listen to him and voted against what he was arguing for (with remarkably little support from opposition parties). Meanwhile the Leavers blame him for being sensible about Brexit. It's a funny old world, as the great lady said, and being blamed for being right is one of the most common manifestations of that.
None of that, though, should have the slightest bearing on the question of how good a PM he was. That is a completely different question.
Though set against that, great (even substantial) Prime Ministers leave a legacy; they change the national path in a way that they want and lasts after them. And Dave's legacy is pretty thin.
He wanted the Tories to stop banging on about Europe. That didn't happen, and the TCA review cycle means that it won't happen any time soon. He wanted to settle the Scottish Question. Erm... no. It's never going to be the right time to increase Foreign Aid again. And so on. Gay marriage is important, but minor.
Crudely, Cameroonism was socially liberal, economically dry. I liked that, and I suspect you did as well. But five years later, the guiding light of the Conservative party has pretty much flipped on both of those.
2010-16 was a period of good government. But it can't be called great, because it didn't sustain itself. And whilst most of the culpability for that goes towards the shysters who said it would be more fun to have some fun, the Cameron government and Cameron himself have to take some of the blame.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
Anything at all which constituted female interest would have been welcome, quite frankly.
Looking back on photos of myself as an 18 year old, I'm astonished how good-looking I was in my youth. *sigh*. My looks weren't the problem I half-supposed them to be at the time. The problem was that I had no idea how to go about encouraging women to take an interest in me, no idea how to recognise when they were taking an interest, and no idea how to act upon it even if I did recognise the situation.
I wasn't entirely unsuccessful. But such success as I did have with women happened almost entirely incidentally to my own efforts.
And the third poll on the trot since Saturday's suggestion that the vaccine bounce was over, sees another lead increase for Boris.....
Actually it shows that both Con & Lab have lost ground to the Libdems, but Lab slightly more so.
It shows that the lead has grown - as I said.
For a time it had looked as if Lab was on 36 rather than 35/36 when you take margin for error into account over the last few weeks. It's now back to: Tories 42, Lab 35/36, as it has consistently been without exception for a few weeks.
Enough for Labour to hold Hartlepool but they need to pray there won't be an unexpected general election.
On topic, the top 3 are about right as best PMs since 1945, though I would put Brown and Eden and Callaghan ahead of May and Cameron as worst PMs.
May tried to play a difficult hand as best she could and get a Brexit deal that respected the result while the same for the whole UK and Cameron did control the deficit and win the 2014 Scottish independence referendum for the Union even if he lost the EU referendum. Neither are last on did a good job at least
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Cameron did manage to achieve some things though -> .7%, gay marriage, rise in minimum wage... Theresa May's govt was a couple of years wasted?
The idea that Cameron was a terrible PM astounds me. People forget the situation he took over from in 2010. He managed to create an incentive for people to work from the years of ludicrous state handouts from New Labour which gave a perverse incentive to not work and he kept a lid on unemployment when all the "experts" thought it would run out of control.
Compare him to Callaghan in 76-79.
He was an excellent PM, one of the best since the war. But he gets blamed, irrationally, by both sides of the toxic Brexit wars. The Remainers blame him, in a spectacular logical somersault, for the fact that the electorate didn't listen to him and voted against what he was arguing for (with remarkably little support from opposition parties). Meanwhile the Leavers blame him for being sensible about Brexit. It's a funny old world, as the great lady said, and being blamed for being right is one of the most common manifestations of that.
None of that, though, should have the slightest bearing on the question of how good a PM he was. That is a completely different question.
Though set against that, great (even substantial) Prime Ministers leave a legacy; they change the national path in a way that they want and lasts after them. And Dave's legacy is pretty thin.
He wanted the Tories to stop banging on about Europe. That didn't happen, and the TCA review cycle means that it won't happen any time soon. He wanted to settle the Scottish Question. Erm... no. It's never going to be the right time to increase Foreign Aid again. And so on. Gay marriage is important, but minor.
Crudely, Cameroonism was socially liberal, economically dry. I liked that, and I suspect you did as well. But five years later, the guiding light of the Conservative party has pretty much flipped on both of those.
2010-16 was a period of good government. But it can't be called great, because it didn't sustain itself. And whilst most of the culpability for that goes towards the shysters who said it would be more fun to have some fun, the Cameron government and Cameron himself have to take some of the blame.
2010-15 was a period of good government. It all went pearshaped when Osbourne screwed up the election by winning outright so they couldn't remove the red meat (the EU referendum) that was put in to keep some people on board
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
Anything at all which constituted female interest would have been welcome, quite frankly.
Looking back on photos of myself as an 18 year old, I'm astonished how good-looking I was in my youth. *sigh*. My looks weren't the problem I half-supposed them to be at the time. The problem was that I had no idea how to go about encouraging women to take an interest in me, no idea how to recognise when they were taking an interest, and no idea how to act upon it even if I did recognise the situation.
I wasn't entirely unsuccessful. But such success as I did have with women happened almost entirely incidentally to my own efforts.
I had an attempted seduction by the 3x wife of a couple with whom I was lodging, whilst hubby was working away during the week.
I was 18/19, and did not know how to handle it. Awful experience.
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Cameron did manage to achieve some things though -> .7%, gay marriage, rise in minimum wage... Theresa May's govt was a couple of years wasted?
The idea that Cameron was a terrible PM astounds me. People forget the situation he took over from in 2010. He managed to create an incentive for people to work from the years of ludicrous state handouts from New Labour which gave a perverse incentive to not work and he kept a lid on unemployment when all the "experts" thought it would run out of control.
Compare him to Callaghan in 76-79.
He was an excellent PM, one of the best since the war. But he gets blamed, irrationally, by both sides of the toxic Brexit wars. The Remainers blame him, in a spectacular logical somersault, for the fact that the electorate didn't listen to him and voted against what he was arguing for (with remarkably little support from opposition parties). Meanwhile the Leavers blame him for being sensible about Brexit. It's a funny old world, as the great lady said, and being blamed for being right is one of the most common manifestations of that.
None of that, though, should have the slightest bearing on the question of how good a PM he was. That is a completely different question.
Though set against that, great (even substantial) Prime Ministers leave a legacy; they change the national path in a way that they want and lasts after them. And Dave's legacy is pretty thin.
He wanted the Tories to stop banging on about Europe. That didn't happen, and the TCA review cycle means that it won't happen any time soon. He wanted to settle the Scottish Question. Erm... no. It's never going to be the right time to increase Foreign Aid again. And so on. Gay marriage is important, but minor.
Crudely, Cameroonism was socially liberal, economically dry. I liked that, and I suspect you did as well. But five years later, the guiding light of the Conservative party has pretty much flipped on both of those.
2010-16 was a period of good government. But it can't be called great, because it didn't sustain itself. And whilst most of the culpability for that goes towards the shysters who said it would be more fun to have some fun, the Cameron government and Cameron himself have to take some of the blame.
2010-5 was a period of Coalition government, with, at least in some parts of the body politic, a strong LD influence. I've posted before that IMHO Clegg made some horrendous errors; should have insisted on a Great Office, for example the Home Office, and should have sought PR for Local Government rather than for GE's, at least as an interim step.
Perhaps abandon moronic policies like the stamp duty cut
The main problem in the south-east is population growth. If you can reduce that, you might have more affordable housing.
The UK birth rate is under replacement rate. What is driving population growth? Immigration which grew particularly fast in the New Labour years when they allowed in immigration from Eastern Europe without transition controls. That was a key factor in the house price rise, especially in London and the South East where prices are highest.
So new housing as well as the points system for immigrants whether inside or outside the EU should help
It isn't helping so far.
We have only had a points based immigration system for all immigrants to the UK for just over 2 months
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
Anything at all which constituted female interest would have been welcome, quite frankly.
Looking back on photos of myself as an 18 year old, I'm astonished how good-looking I was in my youth. *sigh*. My looks weren't the problem I half-supposed them to be at the time. The problem was that I had no idea how to go about encouraging women to take an interest in me, no idea how to recognise when they were taking an interest, and no idea how to act upon it even if I did recognise the situation.
I wasn't entirely unsuccessful. But such success as I did have with women happened almost entirely incidentally to my own efforts.
I don't know how you would now go about ascertaining interest. Being forward seemingly now classed as harassment.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
I remember one of my team admitting to me he got engaged so his girlfriend would agree to sex.
I would refer to Silvio Berlusconi as an indicator of Johnson's likely long term favourability ratings. The two men are charlatans of similar ilk. Johnson's prognosis is good. Berlusconi's favourability has fluctuated over the decades, but has endured thanks to a skill, which Johnson shares, of telling key parts of his electorate exactly what they want to hear. He has a knack of simultaneously making things worse for them, while pretending to protect them from the damage he himself imposes on them.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Cameron did manage to achieve some things though -> .7%, gay marriage, rise in minimum wage... Theresa May's govt was a couple of years wasted?
The idea that Cameron was a terrible PM astounds me. People forget the situation he took over from in 2010. He managed to create an incentive for people to work from the years of ludicrous state handouts from New Labour which gave a perverse incentive to not work and he kept a lid on unemployment when all the "experts" thought it would run out of control.
Compare him to Callaghan in 76-79.
He was an excellent PM, one of the best since the war. But he gets blamed, irrationally, by both sides of the toxic Brexit wars. The Remainers blame him, in a spectacular logical somersault, for the fact that the electorate didn't listen to him and voted against what he was arguing for (with remarkably little support from opposition parties). Meanwhile the Leavers blame him for being sensible about Brexit. It's a funny old world, as the great lady said, and being blamed for being right is one of the most common manifestations of that.
None of that, though, should have the slightest bearing on the question of how good a PM he was. That is a completely different question.
Though set against that, great (even substantial) Prime Ministers leave a legacy; they change the national path in a way that they want and lasts after them. And Dave's legacy is pretty thin.
He wanted the Tories to stop banging on about Europe. That didn't happen, and the TCA review cycle means that it won't happen any time soon. He wanted to settle the Scottish Question. Erm... no. It's never going to be the right time to increase Foreign Aid again. And so on. Gay marriage is important, but minor.
Crudely, Cameroonism was socially liberal, economically dry. I liked that, and I suspect you did as well. But five years later, the guiding light of the Conservative party has pretty much flipped on both of those.
2010-16 was a period of good government. But it can't be called great, because it didn't sustain itself. And whilst most of the culpability for that goes towards the shysters who said it would be more fun to have some fun, the Cameron government and Cameron himself have to take some of the blame.
2010-15 was a period of good government. It all went pearshaped when Osbourne screwed up the election by winning outright so they couldn't remove the red meat (the EU referendum) that was put in to keep some people on board
That's a fair point. Blitzing the Lib Dems in 2015 was tactically smart (and I admit it, kinda fun) but strategically dumb.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
Anything at all which constituted female interest would have been welcome, quite frankly.
Looking back on photos of myself as an 18 year old, I'm astonished how good-looking I was in my youth. *sigh*. My looks weren't the problem I half-supposed them to be at the time. The problem was that I had no idea how to go about encouraging women to take an interest in me, no idea how to recognise when they were taking an interest, and no idea how to act upon it even if I did recognise the situation.
I wasn't entirely unsuccessful. But such success as I did have with women happened almost entirely incidentally to my own efforts.
I don't know how you would now go about ascertaining interest. Being forward seemingly now classed as harassment.
It seems to me that it is easier to teach boys a long list of things you don't do, and much harder to teach them what you do do, so to speak, given that, thankfully, sex is pretty much ineradicable from the human condition. A guide to modern etiquette anyone?
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
In my case it was 6 months after 10 years in a single-sex boy's independent day school.
These days young men that the police auto-conclusion will be "man guilty, woman victim" in the case of any complaints or queries. No wonder they hang back.
Then when they get to university they get beaten over the head with a Consent Course in many places.
And if something happens and the police find nothing, they will be demonised up and down the student media anyway.
And the third poll on the trot since Saturday's suggestion that the vaccine bounce was over, sees another lead increase for Boris.....
Actually it shows that both Con & Lab have lost ground to the Libdems, but Lab slightly more so.
It shows that the lead has grown - as I said.
For a time it had looked as if Lab was on 36 rather than 35/36 when you take margin for error into account over the last few weeks. It's now back to: Tories 42, Lab 35/36, as it has consistently been without exception for a few weeks.
Enough for Labour to hold Hartlepool but they need to pray there won't be an unexpected general election.
I have expected a narrow hold for Labour [on a low turnout] in Hartlepool from the moment it was announced.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
IIRC from similar discussions back around 1960, twas ever thus. If girls did 'it' with more than one, then...... lot's more.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
Anything at all which constituted female interest would have been welcome, quite frankly.
Looking back on photos of myself as an 18 year old, I'm astonished how good-looking I was in my youth. *sigh*. My looks weren't the problem I half-supposed them to be at the time. The problem was that I had no idea how to go about encouraging women to take an interest in me, no idea how to recognise when they were taking an interest, and no idea how to act upon it even if I did recognise the situation.
I wasn't entirely unsuccessful. But such success as I did have with women happened almost entirely incidentally to my own efforts.
I don't know how you would now go about ascertaining interest. Being forward seemingly now classed as harassment.
You can be forward if you are clear what your intentions are and if you get knocked back, you move on. That is not harassment.
Good morning everybody. Another sunny day in prospect.
O/t again, but maybe inspired by today's news and recollections how many males here can recall occasions from their schooldays where they did things which might be considered, in a different time, as 'abuse'?
Bullying was rife in my school in the 60's
As it was in mine, a highly self-regarding predominantly middle class Hampshire grammar school.
And in my London grammar in the 70's.
2 of my sons suffered some pretty bad bullying at times
On the positive side, youngest has Aspergers and he never really suffered at school from bullying from the other children.
Is it possible kids are more accepting of differences these days or perhaps he was just lucky.
His treatment by the teaching establishment on the other hand ......
In my Staffordshire Grammar school of the 70s (all boys), bullying was rife as well. I don't remember any sexual assault, though I do remember the homophobic attitude which permeated the games sessions. I don't remember any aggression or homophobic attitudes from the teachers mind. In fact the older you got the more working the attitudes and relationships became.
In the mid 80s, several years after I left my school, three former teachers were convicted of sexual abuse and imprisoned - after having been quietly asked to leave the school and going on to commit further abuse at the next one.
The argument that it's OK because it's no different than it was in my day cuts no ice with me.
Aged 14 I transferred to a rural Grammar School, bullying was rife, although I managed to sidestep that myself, although it was a key reason I hated the place. I suspect there was a homo-erotic element to some of the bullying, but by and large it was based on the victim's social standing or size.
I don't recall bullying at my suburban comp, although I suspect it happened, although doubt it was endemic. Although we did have a teacher who spent 15 months in Winston Green for his relationship with a 15 year old girl.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
Quite what is expected when men over the last few years have been lectured about not doing anything "offensive" to women. This will have so terrified them of putting a step wrong that many must feel that they cannot even flirt. Given most young men are nervous about approaching women in the first place it is no wonder that many of them may think "why bother?". A very sad state of affairs caused by a complete lack of balance. The end destination of causing no offence is to say nothing at all.
A very small sub-question from this developments of this week. We now know that more or less all schools are nests and hotbeds of racism and sexual oppression and this has been going on in plain sight for decades.
We also know that for The Guardian someone must to blame but it can't be its loyal readership, a huge proportion of which are teachers, because its loyal readership are assigned the role of victim.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
Per capita, that's above our peak on hospital and ventilators. Lets see if they get anywhere near our deaths - we do seem to have been extremely efficient in converting hospitalisation in to deaths unfortunately.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
It's easier than ever – we have Tinder now.
where 20% of men compete for 80% of the women...
Sensationalising.
Tinder has been a thing ever since I was 20-ish, so nearly 10 years. My main group of friends and I are not exactly stunningly handsome, nor were we cool as we were primarily engineers, and yet we've all seen success via Tinder and Bumble and other apps. You can meet thousands of women from your living room!
The same rules apply to real life as they do on these apps, you just have more choice and therefore experience rejection more quickly.
The best thing about dating apps is that there is no "beating around the bush". Once you match with someone (who is a real person) you already know they like you, even a little bit, and there's no danger of mistaking it for a friendship.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
It's easier than ever – we have Tinder now.
where 20% of men compete for 80% of the women...
Or conversely, where 80% of men compete for the unfussy 20% of women.... Has there ever been a better time in history to be a munter?
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
It's easier than ever – we have Tinder now.
where 20% of men compete for 80% of the women...
Sensationalising.
Tinder has been a thing ever since I was 20-ish, so nearly 10 years. My main group of friends and I are not exactly stunningly handsome, nor were we cool as we were primarily engineers, and yet we've all seen success via Tinder and Bumble and other apps. You can meet thousands of women from your living room!
The same rules apply to real life as they do on these apps, you just have more choice and therefore experience rejection more quickly.
I find the idea of meeting people online depressing, but if that's what people want to do, so be it.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
It's easier than ever – we have Tinder now.
where 20% of men compete for 80% of the women...
Sensationalising.
Tinder has been a thing ever since I was 20-ish, so nearly 10 years. My main group of friends and I are not exactly stunningly handsome, nor were we cool as we were primarily engineers, and yet we've all seen success via Tinder and Bumble and other apps. You can meet thousands of women from your living room!
The same rules apply to real life as they do on these apps, you just have more choice and therefore experience rejection more quickly.
I find the idea of meeting people online depressing, but if that's what people want to do, so be it.
You do generally meet them in real life at some point before you commit to marriage or anything like that...
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
It's easier than ever – we have Tinder now.
Yes, but you have incredible shrinking penises and virtually no sperm
The best thing about dating apps is that there is no "beating around the bush". Once you match with someone (who is a real person) you already know they like you, even a little bit, and there's no danger of mistaking it for a friendship.
This is true. Indeed on some apps you say what you want sexually, agree to it, and you get straight down to business half an hour after meeting
Sounds like a problem for French bureaucracy if they can't process 3,000 driving licence applications in a whole year.
Well the whole of December and August the office will be shut, then I presume they don't work Fridays as can't exceed the 30hrs / week....then the 3hr lunches....
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
mhh - I hear the opposite from my sons.
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
If girls want sex then I'm sure it isn't hard to find someone willing. For men that isn't the case, unless you are one of the few supremely handsome types, and even then I suspect it is still harder than the average female.
It's easier than ever – we have Tinder now.
where 20% of men compete for 80% of the women...
Or conversely, where 80% of men compete for the unfussy 20% of women.... Has there ever been a better time in history to be a munter?
'Japan is dangerous, not a safe place at all' for Tokyo Olympics to go ahead, says medical expert
"It is best to not hold the Olympics given the considerable risks," Dr Norio Sugaya, an infectious diseases expert at Keiyu Hospital in Yokohama, has told The Associated Press.
"The risks are high in Japan. Japan is dangerous, not a safe place at all."
He said vaccinating 50-70% of the general public should be "a prerequisite" to safely hold the Games, a highly unlikely scenario given the slow vaccine rollout in Japan.
Fewer than 1% of the population has been vaccinated so far, and all are medical professionals. Most of the general public is not expected to be vaccinated by the time the Olympics open on 23 July.
"Tens of thousands of foreigners are going to be entering the country, including mass media, in a short period of time," Mr Sugaya said, adding: "The challenges are going to be enormous."
Holding the Olympics with spectators is batshit crazy. If - and its a big if - they vaccinate all athletes, trainers, teams etc then perhaps a smaller-scale TV only event could happen.
But this is the IOC. They want their money.
Sadly it’s difficult to see any positive outcomes from here, they’re simply out of time and are unwilling to postpone the Games again.
There is also the not insignificant matter of the qualifying tournaments in the participant nations, the athletes unable to train for months and the sheer number of people who would congregate in Tokyo.
The sensible thing would have been to have delayed the Tokyo games to 2022 last year and moved the 2024 games to 2025 so they weren't too close together in time.
Well done China. You leaked a hideous plague from your stupid lab, you tried to cover it up, then you let it rip around the world, and now you're selling a vaccine that doesn't work to poor countries
The best thing about dating apps is that there is no "beating around the bush". Once you match with someone (who is a real person) you already know they like you, even a little bit, and there's no danger of mistaking it for a friendship.
This is true. Indeed on some apps you say what you want sexually, agree to it, and you get straight down to business half an hour after meeting
I don't know why, but this is the image that came to mind on reading that...
Well done China. You leaked a hideous plague from your stupid lab, you tried to cover it up, then you let it rip around the world, and now you're selling a vaccine that doesn't work to poor countries
The best thing about dating apps is that there is no "beating around the bush". Once you match with someone (who is a real person) you already know they like you, even a little bit, and there's no danger of mistaking it for a friendship.
Really? I made several friends on OkCupid (as well as my wife). Enough to have a table of their own at the wedding.
Well done China. You leaked a hideous plague from your stupid lab, you tried to cover it up, then you let it rip around the world, and now you're selling a vaccine that doesn't work to poor countries
Nice
Imagine AZN or Pfizer bosses getting the sack now, no I couldn't either, but....
Looking at Chile's excellent vaccination drive, alongside its surging cases and new lockdowns, are we safe in assuming that Sinovac is shite?
I think it just shows that vaccination alone won't stop exponential growth if you're in the middle of a covid wave; you also need a lockdown. Sinovac did clinical trials in Chile so they should know that it works.
Or it shows that Sinovac - with its ~50% efficacy - does not offer enough protection against new variants, sufficient to suppress transmission, whereas Pfizer (~90%, used in Israel), does?
The best thing about dating apps is that there is no "beating around the bush". Once you match with someone (who is a real person) you already know they like you, even a little bit, and there's no danger of mistaking it for a friendship.
Really? I made several friends on OkCupid (as well as my wife). Enough to have a table of their own at the wedding.
Of course you can make friends. But you go into the interaction both knowing that you both have the intention of being more than friends.
Looking at Chile's excellent vaccination drive, alongside its surging cases and new lockdowns, are we safe in assuming that Sinovac is shite?
I think it just shows that vaccination alone won't stop exponential growth if you're in the middle of a covid wave; you also need a lockdown. Sinovac did clinical trials in Chile so they should know that it works.
Or it shows that Sinovac - with its ~50% efficacy - does not offer enough protection against new variants, sufficient to suppress transmission, whereas Pfizer (~90%, used in Israel), does?
All can be true to some extent
Aren't the results for Sinovac varied? I think the study in Brazil had a low efficacy rate, but the one in Turkey was much higher.
Well done China. You leaked a hideous plague from your stupid lab, you tried to cover it up, then you let it rip around the world, and now you're selling a vaccine that doesn't work to poor countries
Nice
Imagine AZN or Pfizer bosses getting the sack now, no I couldn't either, but....
I know we all don't believe the stuff about the plague came from the lab but, playing Devil's Advocate, you have to say, looking at the end results, that the pandemic has advanced China's agenda and aims massively
Looking at Chile's excellent vaccination drive, alongside its surging cases and new lockdowns, are we safe in assuming that Sinovac is shite?
I think it just shows that vaccination alone won't stop exponential growth if you're in the middle of a covid wave; you also need a lockdown. Sinovac did clinical trials in Chile so they should know that it works.
Or it shows that Sinovac - with its ~50% efficacy - does not offer enough protection against new variants, sufficient to suppress transmission, whereas Pfizer (~90%, used in Israel), does?
All can be true to some extent
Aren't the results for Sinovac varied? I think the study in Brazil had a low efficacy rate, but the one in Turkey was much higher.
Possibly because of the variants?
Chile is troubled by the British and Brazilian variants, AIUI
In the trials in Brazil Sinovac scored 50.4%, in Indonesia 65%, in Turkey 91% (but it seems a tiny study?)
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Anyone remember pursuing sex at 18 to find a serious girlfriend to marry and have kids with? Was I unusually shallow as an 18 year old?
I remember being painfully immature and naive.
This story absolutely chimes with what young female friends tell me. Young men are asexual. Neuter. Very polite but sometimes lacking virility. This means: frustrated young women
Isn't there a question of selection bias in that analysis ?
This German AZ news is a nightmare, for Germans. They are so risk averse, on the precautionary principle they will now ban the vax for younger women
What about young women who've had one dose, and are waiting for the second? Many will refuse it, even though the risks of serious side-effects are 1 in 90,000, whereas the risks of, say, the contraceptive pill are 1 in 1,000
Good morning everybody. Another sunny day in prospect.
O/t again, but maybe inspired by today's news and recollections how many males here can recall occasions from their schooldays where they did things which might be considered, in a different time, as 'abuse'?
Bullying was rife in my school in the 60's
As it was in mine, a highly self-regarding predominantly middle class Hampshire grammar school.
And in my London grammar in the 70's.
2 of my sons suffered some pretty bad bullying at times
On the positive side, youngest has Aspergers and he never really suffered at school from bullying from the other children.
Is it possible kids are more accepting of differences these days or perhaps he was just lucky.
His treatment by the teaching establishment on the other hand ......
In my Staffordshire Grammar school of the 70s (all boys), bullying was rife as well. I don't remember any sexual assault, though I do remember the homophobic attitude which permeated the games sessions. I don't remember any aggression or homophobic attitudes from the teachers mind. In fact the older you got the more working the attitudes and relationships became.
In the mid 80s, several years after I left my school, three former teachers were convicted of sexual abuse and imprisoned - after having been quietly asked to leave the school and going on to commit further abuse at the next one.
The argument that it's OK because it's no different than it was in my day cuts no ice with me.
Aged 14 I transferred to a rural Grammar School, bullying was rife, although I managed to sidestep that myself, although it was a key reason I hated the place. I suspect there was a homo-erotic element to some of the bullying, but by and large it was based on the victim's social standing or size.
I don't recall bullying at my suburban comp, although I suspect it happened, although doubt it was endemic. Although we did have a teacher who spent 15 months in Winston Green for his relationship with a 15 year old girl.
Looking at Chile's excellent vaccination drive, alongside its surging cases and new lockdowns, are we safe in assuming that Sinovac is shite?
I think it just shows that vaccination alone won't stop exponential growth if you're in the middle of a covid wave; you also need a lockdown. Sinovac did clinical trials in Chile so they should know that it works.
Or it shows that Sinovac - with its ~50% efficacy - does not offer enough protection against new variants, sufficient to suppress transmission, whereas Pfizer (~90%, used in Israel), does?
All can be true to some extent
Aren't the results for Sinovac varied? I think the study in Brazil had a low efficacy rate, but the one in Turkey was much higher.
Possibly because of the variants?
Chile is troubled by the British and Brazilian variants, AIUI
In the trials in Brazil Sinovac scored 50.4%, in Indonesia 65%, in Turkey 91% (but it seems a tiny study?)
There is also a probelamtic lack of transparent data
Essentially, you don't want Sinovac if you can get anything else
With Brazil, it could be, although it does remind me of the reporting in the AZN study. In Chile they are using both Pfizer (10m doses according to Reuters) and Sinovac.
Well done China. You leaked a hideous plague from your stupid lab, you tried to cover it up, then you let it rip around the world, and now you're selling a vaccine that doesn't work to poor countries
Nice
Imagine AZN or Pfizer bosses getting the sack now, no I couldn't either, but....
I know we all don't believe the stuff about the plague came from the lab but, playing Devil's Advocate, you have to say, looking at the end results, that the pandemic has advanced China's agenda and aims massively
Of course it came from the lab. A level 4 institute of virology, unique in the world, studying novel bat coronaviruses, and then a novel bat coronavirus, unique in the world, emerges two miles away? Pure coincidence?
The best thing about dating apps is that there is no "beating around the bush". Once you match with someone (who is a real person) you already know they like you, even a little bit, and there's no danger of mistaking it for a friendship.
Unless you're using Grindr beating around the bush is precisely what people will be signing up for
Looking at Chile's excellent vaccination drive, alongside its surging cases and new lockdowns, are we safe in assuming that Sinovac is shite?
I think it just shows that vaccination alone won't stop exponential growth if you're in the middle of a covid wave; you also need a lockdown. Sinovac did clinical trials in Chile so they should know that it works.
Or it shows that Sinovac - with its ~50% efficacy - does not offer enough protection against new variants, sufficient to suppress transmission, whereas Pfizer (~90%, used in Israel), does?
All can be true to some extent
Aren't the results for Sinovac varied? I think the study in Brazil had a low efficacy rate, but the one in Turkey was much higher.
Possibly because of the variants?
Chile is troubled by the British and Brazilian variants, AIUI
In the trials in Brazil Sinovac scored 50.4%, in Indonesia 65%, in Turkey 91% (but it seems a tiny study?)
There is also a probelamtic lack of transparent data
Essentially, you don't want Sinovac if you can get anything else
With Brazil, it could be, although it does remind me of the reporting in the AZN study. In Chile they are using both Pfizer (10m doses according to Reuters) and Sinovac.
Chile is overwhelmingly using Sinovac; just a bit of Pfizer
Gordon Brittas to reception, Gordon Brittas to reception....we have a problem.
The more he turns up the volume the more people decide - nah not for me.
Over-interpreting, I think.
I didn't vote for Starmer as leader. Not inspired by him. Nevertheless I'm not worried about disappointing polls. It's too early. He got the job a year ago just after a Tory landslide and since then there's been nothing but Covid. The public have no appetite for partisan politics in this climate. They want to hear about travel, vaccines, the roadmap out of lockdown, not about how Labour's vision for the country post-pandemic differs from the Tories.
The GE is not for 3 years and we'll be back to politics as usual well before then. The economy looks bad. The public finances are screwed. Starmer is establishing himself as a viable potential PM and has purged the hard left. There'll be some solid, popular policies on the way in due course. The Tories are not exactly fizzing with energy and ideas. Labour are right in the ballgame.
Way I see it, the only surefire way for the Tories to win a majority again is if they can hang on to what won it for them last time - their ownership of the WWC Leave political identity. They might be able to - certainly not ruling it out - but it'll be harder to whip up and surf the necessary nationalistic fervour without Brexit. It can't be delivered again - it now has to be experienced and that will be nothing like as thrilling.
My bets: Cons largest party at 1.8. Starmer next PM at 5.
Comments
I agree that there was a lot bundled up in there, and the argument is perhaps overdetermined. But the points about language policing and empathy are, I think, well made.
Biden, of course, whatever his administration's precise policies, is not one to police language, and scores high on the empathy scale.
(Right, work to do. Laters).
England would be more likely to vote for the restoration of Middlesex and Westmorland, giving powers back to shire reeves and the reversal of scutage than for balkanisation.
Scotland is a splendid example of a region producing more politics than can be consumed locally, and NI would be a better place if it had none at all and restored the kingship of Ulaidh.
So new housing as well as the points system for immigrants whether inside or outside the EU should help
He wanted the Tories to stop banging on about Europe. That didn't happen, and the TCA review cycle means that it won't happen any time soon. He wanted to settle the Scottish Question. Erm... no. It's never going to be the right time to increase Foreign Aid again. And so on. Gay marriage is important, but minor.
Crudely, Cameroonism was socially liberal, economically dry. I liked that, and I suspect you did as well. But five years later, the guiding light of the Conservative party has pretty much flipped on both of those.
2010-16 was a period of good government. But it can't be called great, because it didn't sustain itself. And whilst most of the culpability for that goes towards the shysters who said it would be more fun to have some fun, the Cameron government and Cameron himself have to take some of the blame.
Looking back on photos of myself as an 18 year old, I'm astonished how good-looking I was in my youth. *sigh*. My looks weren't the problem I half-supposed them to be at the time. The problem was that I had no idea how to go about encouraging women to take an interest in me, no idea how to recognise when they were taking an interest, and no idea how to act upon it even if I did recognise the situation.
I wasn't entirely unsuccessful. But such success as I did have with women happened almost entirely incidentally to my own efforts.
Tories 42, Lab 35/36, as it has consistently been without exception for a few weeks.
Enough for Labour to hold Hartlepool but they need to pray there won't be an unexpected general election.
May tried to play a difficult hand as best she could and get a Brexit deal that respected the result while the same for the whole UK and Cameron did control the deficit and win the 2014 Scottish independence referendum for the Union even if he lost the EU referendum. Neither are last on did a good job at least
I was 18/19, and did not know how to handle it. Awful experience.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1376843242126327809?s=19
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1376843246966599684?s=19
Strangely that relationship did not last.
5% of 2019 Tory voters voting REFUK more than the 4% of 2019 Tory voters now voting Labour
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/s5hl2jyeyb/TheTimes_VI_Track_210326_W.pdf
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1376844838520434689?s=20
I particularly remember the story he told me of one drunken night where his circle of friends male and female discussed the number of partners they had had
Interestingly it was a couple of the girls with the highest numbers - and those numbers were pretty high
These days young men that the police auto-conclusion will be "man guilty, woman victim" in the case of any complaints or queries. No wonder they hang back.
Then when they get to university they get beaten over the head with a Consent Course in many places.
And if something happens and the police find nothing, they will be demonised up and down the student media anyway.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1376852069525643271
I don't recall bullying at my suburban comp, although I suspect it happened, although doubt it was endemic. Although we did have a teacher who spent 15 months in Winston Green for his relationship with a 15 year old girl.
I was directed to it by the Guardian, and it's fascinating.
We also know that for The Guardian someone must to blame but it can't be its loyal readership, a huge proportion of which are teachers, because its loyal readership are assigned the role of victim.
So what do they do? Any guesses.
Tinder has been a thing ever since I was 20-ish, so nearly 10 years. My main group of friends and I are not exactly stunningly handsome, nor were we cool as we were primarily engineers, and yet we've all seen success via Tinder and Bumble and other apps. You can meet thousands of women from your living room!
The same rules apply to real life as they do on these apps, you just have more choice and therefore experience rejection more quickly.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1376131552002908161?s=20
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1374374878145486852?s=20
eg The Philippines.. which is just going into a second wave. And it has a load of useless jabs
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/29/21/philippines-receives-purchased-1-million-sinovac-covid-19-shots
Nice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koAmdMi7-78
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1376861593854734339?s=20
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/china-vaccine-maker-sinopharm-says-chairman-and-a-director-resigned.html
And of course they have a fantastic ethnical record,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-vaccine-china-bribery-sinovac/2020/12/04/7c09ae68-28c6-11eb-9c21-3cc501d0981f_story.html
All can be true to some extent
https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/status/1376829884589338624
I might have been naïve though and perhaps the administrator was hoping for a little "appreciation" from me (which he did not get).
I could tell you stories of what goes on in France .......
Chile is troubled by the British and Brazilian variants, AIUI
In the trials in Brazil Sinovac scored 50.4%, in Indonesia 65%, in Turkey 91% (but it seems a tiny study?)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccine-sinovac-idUSKBN2A60AY
There is also a probelamtic lack of transparent data
Essentially, you don't want Sinovac if you can get anything else
What about young women who've had one dose, and are waiting for the second? Many will refuse it, even though the risks of serious side-effects are 1 in 90,000, whereas the risks of, say, the contraceptive pill are 1 in 1,000
Riiiiiiight
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
Move along, nothing to see.
https://twitter.com/bw_butler/status/1376481986215284737?s=20
Chile is a real-world test of Sinovac, vastly bigger than any study. At the moment it does not look great. Let's hope my pessimism is unjustified
I didn't vote for Starmer as leader. Not inspired by him. Nevertheless I'm not worried about disappointing polls. It's too early. He got the job a year ago just after a Tory landslide and since then there's been nothing but Covid. The public have no appetite for partisan politics in this climate. They want to hear about travel, vaccines, the roadmap out of lockdown, not about how Labour's vision for the country post-pandemic differs from the Tories.
The GE is not for 3 years and we'll be back to politics as usual well before then. The economy looks bad. The public finances are screwed. Starmer is establishing himself as a viable potential PM and has purged the hard left. There'll be some solid, popular policies on the way in due course. The Tories are not exactly fizzing with energy and ideas. Labour are right in the ballgame.
Way I see it, the only surefire way for the Tories to win a majority again is if they can hang on to what won it for them last time - their ownership of the WWC Leave political identity. They might be able to - certainly not ruling it out - but it'll be harder to whip up and surf the necessary nationalistic fervour without Brexit. It can't be delivered again - it now has to be experienced and that will be nothing like as thrilling.
My bets: Cons largest party at 1.8. Starmer next PM at 5.