Seems like a direct correlation woth the 2008 crash, which we still haven't really recovered from.
Almost like if people don't have a secure basic needs, they are resistant and less confident to create families.
I think it correlates to the lack of boner comedies at the movie theater. How are teens gonna know they can fuck each other if Jason Biggs isn't there to tell them?
How are teens going to know they can
fuck each otherput the hot foreign exchange student changing in your bedroom on webcam to broadcast to your friends, but accidentally email it to the whole school so everyone can see it, only wow, what? She finds your porn mags and starts masturbating to them? Wow Jim you better get over there and chuckle wink wink offer her a hand!!!! And then you do and it... sorta works? She asks you to strip for her. You try throwing your clothes over the webcam to prevent anyone from seeing this but it slips off. Then she asks you to come close. Oh boy this is it!!!! Jk you cum in your pants the moment she touches you.You face no consequences for your serious violation of her privacy, but she gets sent home over it. But somehow in the next movie she's still into you actually? So you spend all summer waiting on her, and start "practicing" for her with the band geek you boned after prom that one time. Except over the course of the summer you realize that your real feelings are for said bandgeek, so you end up rejecting the forgein exchange student for the band geek. The exchange student, disappointed to lose out on her dream of fucking a nerd, ends up taking the virginity of the turbo-nerd who's obsessed with the Terminator movies.
A decade later and some change, you're at your highschool reunion. You and your band geek wife have had some drama over you having an incredibly weird and creepy situation with the barely legal girl you used to babysit who is obsessed with you. But you just made up and are getting it on in the band room! But for some completely inexplicable reason, here's the exchange student! And her date is a guy who looks weirdly like you. You have an awkward exchange. There is literally no logical reason why she would just walk into the band room and catch you it makes no sense its the most contrived excuse for a forced cameo ever. Also she's still not mad at you for violating her privacy!
If Jason Biggs can't tell them.
Sorry the American Pie movies, including the shitty spinoffs, are weirdly a lowkey special interest for me I needed to info dump.
Those movies are bizarre.
an incredibly weird and creepy situation with the barely legal girl you used to babysit
I have a powerful need to infodump further about this bit. Its one of the most bizzare and creepy storylines I've ever seen in a piece of media and it needs to be explained to the fullest.
A major subplot of American Reunion (maybe not even a subplot, it drives a lot of the main story) is this weird situation between Jim and the girl he used to babysit, Kara.
So near the start of the movie when Jim has just come to his childhood home for his highschool Reunion. When he gets there, we are treated to a slow motion, male gazey shot of a young, attractive girl slow jogging to her boyfriend's car. Its actually appropriate use of male gaze because guess what, Jim is
ing the fuck out of her. She notices him and runs over, and low and behold, this young girl is the same girl that Jim used to babysit when they were both younger! And she's all grown up now! (This was never mentioned in previous movies to be clear). And whoops, turns out the girl Jim was ing is actually still 17, because she tells him she's having her 18th birthday tomorrow and he should come! She's very excited to see him btw and gives him a hug and shit. Jim declines to attend this party because he promised to spend time with his wife Michelle.Later as the gang are hanging out at the beach, there is an incident where Oz's model girlfriend is sunbathing topless, and a group of teen boys (including Kara's boyfriend) steal her top and run off and escape on jetskis. The gang gets revenge on the teens when Stifler shits in their cooler of beer and then ties their jetskis to the gang's car and drives off with them, wrecking the jetskis.
The gang decide to go off to an old hangout spot at a more private beach the tourists dont know about type thing. Michelle can't come because Jim and her have baby, but encourages Jim to go. When they arrive, oops, there's a party going on. And then this AWFUL exchange happens
Jim: Looks like a highschool party. Fan Favorite Steve Stifler: really excited WITH HIGHSCHOOL CHICKS
Ah yes, the desirable goal of thirty something men, highschool girls
Anyway, the gang decides to hang out for some reason. Also this party is Kara's birthday if you didn't guess. Stifler spends the whole time trying to skeeve on the children by sharing a bong with them and pretending to be into Twilight, but gets owned when his boss calls him, demands he does a project, and the girls bail on him during the call. The girls seem to think of him as a hilarious clown to use for laughs kinda.
Anyway Kara gets massively drunk at her birthday. And oh no! Her boyfriend was supposed to drive her home but something happened with his jetskis :( . So she asks Jim to bring her home. And Jim reluctantly agrees not wanting her to drive herself home. On the ride home Kara acts... well like a drunk teen. She goes "wooooooo" while hanging out of the top window thing whatever those are called. Then she claims she's hot and takes her top out and we get the requisite female topless nudity of an American Pie film. And while the actress is of course a few years older, its noteworthy that the character literally JUST turned 18 that day.
Anyway... turns out that Kara...
ALWAYS HAD A CRUSH ON JIM. And wow! Wow! She wants him to "be her first". We are not playing on any weird fantasies of the people who are old enough to have been teens when the American Pie movies came out at all here folks! Reminder that she's topless for all of this. Jim is of course awkward everyman about it and tries to turn her down nicely. But then, distracted by Kara's nudity and seduction attempts, Jim crashes the car and Kara hits her head and gets knocked out in his lap. John Cho's character from the first movie, famous for popularizing the term "MILF", drives by and stops asking if Jim needs help. He notices that someone is in his lap, and assumes its Michelle. And thinks Jim is getting road head from Michelle. Nice! John Cho is organizing the reunion by the way. He gets a much larger part in this movie (though still a fairly small one overall) because Cho is a star now.Anyway Jim is now desperate to figure out how to get this drunk, topless, knocked out girl home without getting in trouble with Michelle or Kara's parents. So he calls up the buddies. But oops! The main buddies bring Stifler. Jim is angry but Stifler points out that "while you guys were jerking off I was running this play every night baby!". They come up with a plan. Jim and Finch will sneak Kara through the back door while Stifler and Oz pretend they need to use the parent's phone. Lmao whoops, seems they made an error because its 2012 now and everyone has cell phones now so the parents are confused why they would need to use their phone. But as luck would have it, Oz's run on what is basically Dancing with the Stars with a different name has made him famous and Kara's mom is actually obsessed with him! So they invite Oz (and Stifler) in.
While Oz and Kara's parents have an awkward exchange, Jim and Finch try to get Kara through the back door. Michelle ALMOST SEES THEM THROUGH THE WINDOW because Jim's kid sees him and says "daddy!". But they manage to dodge her. The blanket covering Kara comes off while they are trying to get through some bushes. The drunk Kara tells Finch that he likes his scarf, and Finch, who has mostly avoided being a creep so far in this film, says "I like your breasts". Cool.
Anyway, Jim manages to get her upstairs but... some shit happens because she is drunk and Stifler is an asshole. Stifler sees her going upstairs naked and wants in on this, so he says he needs to go to the bathroom. Chaos ensues that causes noise, and Jim goes to hide in Kara's pile of plushies, while Stifler hides above Kara's bed on one of those canopy things. Kara's dad is attracted by the noise upstairs. Oz and Kara's mom are alone now, and Kara's mom puts on the song Oz danced to and basically tries to seduce him (note: earlier Stifler tried to encourage Oz to bang Kara's mom "for Jim's sake".) Kara's dad finds Kara tucked into bed, but notices that she's drunk. He warns her that boys will try to get her drunk to take advantage of her. Then one of Kara's plushies makes a noise. Oh no! Kara asks her dad to bring her the plushie that made the noise and he does, Jim is almost caught but isn't. Kara's dad leaves, goes down and discovers the situation with Oz and Kara's mom and is annoyed but nothing comes of it. Stifler falls into Kara's bed and is creepy about it, and Kara is genuinely upset and asks for Jim's help. Jim pulls Stifler out and they escape.
You'd think that'd be the end, but no. No its not. Later Stifler throws a party. Oh no! Everyone is adults now and the party is really boring. Michelle has brought S&M outfits for her and Jim to wear and "hook up at a Stiffler party" like old times. They got upstairs and take a room (because houses in these movies always have empty bedrooms for people to fuck in). Michelle goes off to change into her dom gear. Jim is already in his sub gear. But, oh no! While Jim is waiting with the lights off Kara sneaks in????? She explains that "your creepy friend" (Stifler) invited her and all the other teen girls to this party. Because of course he did. She tries to seduce him AGAIN and Jim resists. For some reason Kara's boyfriend arrives and freaks out, said he "needed to see it for himself". Everyone goes outside and there's a confrontation between the main American Pie guys and the teen boys that turns into a fight. Michelle appears in her dominatrix gear and whips one of the teen boys. After the teen boys decide to retreat Kara's boyfriend reveals the key information of what happened. And Michelle is upset :( Jim tries to explain but its a comedy so people cant communicate well. Michelle leaves to go stay with her family.
Anyway, the shit at the reunion happens that I mentioned in the previous post. So everything is ok now. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see them not drop this storyline and actually wrap it up. During the post-climax cooldown stuff, Jim sees Kara and approaches her. Kara apologizes to Jim and says he was right and she should "save it for someone special" and also said she broke up with her boyfriend. Thats... pretty much how the whole thing is settled.
The whole thing is fucking WILD, creepy, ![awooga](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/12dc28f7-b63c-4d62-a1ff-6e3cd6e73c28.png "awooga"
and messed the fuck up. I had to talk about it.as someone who is vaguely aware of having seen one or two of those films but remembers almost nothing about them, i appreciate the blow-by-blow (no pun intended)
I think people make successful Youtube channels just doing recaps, so perhaps there's a career in it for you recycling c o n t e n t
🎶 At least I am an American/ so I can eat American pie
And I won’t forget the comedies/ that make me want to die
I don't wanna sound puritan but I do have to wonder how much readily available porn is influencing younger people. They've had porn in their face, two clicks away, every day of their life.
Back in my day you had to find a discarded playboy in the woods or try to unscramble Cinemax
Maybe all the porn is just more efficient than finding a partner, maybe people have different perceptions of what sex is like. No idea, but there has to be something about instantaneous porn access that's frying our little lizard brains, right?
It's fried so many brains. The stuff that they promote on the front page of the biggest tube sites is just gross, from what I can remember before I stopped using them. Get a VPN and just look at the front page of Pornhub or any other big site. So much incest and random violent behaviour in modern mainstream porn.
god, it's so racist too, isn't it? I personally can't stomach even a few seconds of normal pornography, I can't imagine watching some kind of race fetish incest hypnosis or whatever other slurry of weird pathologies
Holy shit that stuff is INSANE! If you hop around to other countries with a VPN, you'll see a lot more "normal" stuff, but the US based sites are just a nauseating deluge of icestual rape fantasies. I have a hunch that a lot of it is driven by the sexual pathologies of evangelicals who were on that purity culture boom in the late 90's/early 2000's. No evidence, just a hunch; I really feel like that shit broke people brains.
Yeah because of mainstream porn I think a lot of people consider choking the passive partner without consent to be "normal"
I do think porn is having some unhealthy side effects. I don't think one should get too alarmed about porn luring people into doing depraved and unwholesome forms of sex. People are creative, they have been doing kinky stuff for as long as there has been people. Instead of demonising smut featuring anything outside of the missionary position we ought to focus our attention on consent and mutual respect.
What I do think are problems with porn is how it sets unrealistic expectations for what sex is going to be like. Both in regards to looks and with regards to the act itself. If people think they're going to have huge ballooning tits and/or cocks in order to be attractive, that they have to be able to fuck like jackhammers right from the beginning or that nothing ever goes wrong, doesn't feel as good as expected then they're going to be disappointed with having completely normal sex.
Another danger is how porn under capitalism is commodifying sex. It's all about OnlyFans models hustling for subscribers and consumers being little pricks who feel entitled to getting off because they paid good money. Neither is fostering healthy relationships.
I think the influence of dating/social media apps on porn UX is something that needs to be talked about more in general. There is something about being able to just swipe through videos for the exact dopamine hit you're looking for that is just super sinister... Your sexual preferences should not be guided by an algorithm. That's some Clockwork Orange shit.
yeah, but this is a survey of men who have lived their entire life with a porn machine in their pocket. The kids who never knew the pre-internet days are adults now.
i literally dont even know how to date and im approaching 24. i dont know where i would go to find someone to date. the only people i ever see are coworkers. im not going to a bar because i dont want covid. ive tried dating apps or whatever but they suck for women because there are so many awful guys they have to sort through to try to find anyone worth talking to and they suck for men because i have to put on some kind of act to stand out from all those awful guys. the kinds of people i want to date are largely not on dating apps. and they're also not at bars anyway. i live in a small city without shit going on in the way of hobby activities.
it just feels dead. all i can do is work and sleep and play video games. no end in sight.
Not only does this number fail to filter for that, it is entirely disingenuous in that they're reporting all men without female sexual partners since turning 18 who are 18-29, a huge range of time. Here's some data analysis done by an evopsych weirdo but the data and citations are good and he finds that basically 18-20 year old heterosexual men have not had sex since their 18th birthday, and everyone older than that is more likely to have done so. If you had sex at age 17, but are now 18, this considers you a virgin.
Also, this survey is awful in terms of spread, as it has only 10-20 people surveyed in each age between 18 and 20, which accounts for the wild variability in that age group. Those numbers are then offset by how many people of the roughly 100+ per age they get to answer who are 21+. This whole chart is useless data because that's such a broad cohort for whom a lot of things in life change very rapidly, and it's also P-hacking random noise into the data by dredging by age, extrapolating it out to the census population and then averaging out the whole cohort with the population correction, rather than just doing it based on how many people in that overall cohort were surveyed.
Included is a chart which breaks down the source data of who hasn't had sex since their 18th birthday by age range. Still doesn't show virginity, and still likely doesn't accurately represent 18-20 due to a small sample size in that group:
Show
spread them sheets badly
or perhaps, some truly heinous dressing sandwich condiment
I understand how the survey has serious flaws but I think there is a kernel of truth in there. People are getting more lonely and having more trouble forming meaningful relationships to other people, sexual or otherwise.
The chud explanation would be to blame woke feminism and me too (Hurr Durr! You're not allowed to do anything today without a written consent form!) whereas the liberal explanation will be to close their eyes and pretend everything is fine with all the opportunities the market provides for socialising.
I think the cause for loneliness today is directly related to capitalism and the commodification of human emotions. There are very few communal spaces left where you can socialise on an equal footing with peers and even if there was, work is hogging too much time and energy and the market is constantly grabbing your attention with some shiny gadget that there's very little room left for being genuinely social.
Sex is better under socialism. An oft-cited fact is that east German women had more orgasms than their west German counterparts, indicating that socialism is more conductive to forming healthy sexual relationships than capitalism. In the GDR you didn't have a huge advertising industry to tell people that they were ugly and that they needed some commodity to be attractive to sexual partners, they didn't have conservative brainworms trying to make people feel guilty for having sex and they didn't have unemployment and poverty to make people too desperate to have sex or class divisions to make people feel too fancy to have sex with someone of a lesser standing than themselves. What did east Germans have instead? They had gender equality with financial independence for women and that economic equality fostered more equal and thereby more rewarding relationships between men and women. East Germany also had high levels of material security, leaving people free to pursue social relations as they didn't have to worry about having their basic needs met. And finally east Germany had a sense of community, people had something in common and felt involved in eachother's well-being instead of being atomised consumers.
In short: Capitalism is cockblocking you whereas socialism will get you laid.
GDR also sacrificed it to keep an overly zealous MfS running. The people said ACAB and the government made them choose between defund the police and socialism. People chose defund the police.
Jordan Peterson kermit voice: “We need to do something about our young men!” Except it’s destroying the capitalism that is destroying them (rather than enslaving women to act as their surrogate mothers whom they are permitted to fuck).
Maybe men are just more honest, instead of 80s guy "I had sex hundreds of times by 14"
"bro i've fucked way more than you"
"no way dude I've fucked way more than you."
"On the count of three we both say how many times we've had sex"
"1, 2, 3"
"infinity"
"infinity squared."
It could be changing perceptions of masculine sexuality. Like if you were a man 25 years ago, you've never admit to virginity. It was a social death sentence, even if you were a kid. You'd be 15 years old and claim you've slept with Heather Locklear.
Now maybe younger people care less about exaggerated claims of sexual conquest. Maybe it's easier to check if someone's lying too, because of how much of people's lives are on social media.
It used to be easier to just lie about anything. Now if you claim to have slept with someone as a boast, maybe your peers will ask for pictures or video evidence. Or maybe the perception has changed so having a bunch of partners now seems predatory or sad rather than impressive.
I understand there's more alienation and loneliness too, but the masculine expectation to lie about sexual partners can't be understated.
Kind of ironic though, as 25 years ago was the height of the evangelical, abstinence only, promise ring virginity fetishization and demonization of sexual content in the media. Now, the abstinence movement is largely dead, the evangelicals are a shadow of their former self, and sex is everywhere. Yet we got what the evangelicals were looking for, just not in the way they wanted it. Sort of a monkey’s paw curls situation for them.
maybe your peers will ask for pictures or video evidence
which is just so creepy
i'm just speculating because I don't actually know. I don't know how young men these days would react to an exaggerated sexual boast.
Where does it say 'females'? All I see is female, like the adjective, which isn't at all weird imo.
Young male virginity on the rise.
Share of men under 30 who report zero female sex partners since they turned 18.
The tiny print directly above the graph.
Just odd that in the same sentence its not "Share of males under 30 who report zero female sex partners" or "Share of men under 30 who report zero women sex partners since they turned 18."
I'm sure grammatically its correct, just feels odd these days.
Men is a noun, female is an adjective. They used male for the adjective in the title. It's consistent and grammatically correct at the very least.
Female as an adjective is way less weird than female as a noun. To me it just feels like the adjective form of woman, since there isn't really an obvious alternative (I mean there is womanly but that means something different and it would be 100x weirder to say 'zero womanly sex partners'). I guess if you wanted you could talk about 'woman sex partners' rather than 'female sex partners', but that still sounds kinda weird to my ears, just as 'man sex partners' would.
I think your example sounds weird to your ears because the way you phrased it is mixing singular and plural. That should sound weird to your ears. But the way @D61@hexbear.net phrased it above, "Share of men under 30 who report zero women sex partners" doesn't make this error and sounds perfectly fine.
it would be 100x weirder to say 'zero womanly sex partners'
That would be weird, just as it would be weird to say "manly people under 30 report..." but neither is necessary when you can just use 'men' and 'women.' In any case, it is definitely weird to use 'men' and 'female' in the same sentence, not for any grammatical reason but because of the dehumanizing nature of it.
Does 'zero men sexual partners' sound normal to you?
Even if it does for you though, that doesn't change that the phrasing used is not remarkable and quite standard.
"Zero men as sex partners" sounds perfectly fine, yeah. Turns out there are many ways the same information can be phrased while a) being grammatically correct and b) not resorting to language that has been rightly called out by feminist and trans activists for being subtly dehumanizing. Not a difficult thing to do, and it's disappointing to me that people here are defending the wording used in this bunk and useless incel survey as if it's not possible to do both a and b at the same time. Even telling a comrade they're "too online" for pointing it out.
that doesn't change that the phrasing used is not remarkable and quite standard.
Misogyny in a patriarchal bourgeois society is not remarkable and quite standard?
Can you not fathom the possibility that maybe just maybe words have different connotations depending on the specific usage? It's not because incels creepily use 'female' as a noun that we need to banish a totally normal adjective. It's clearly not being considered dehumanising to say 'male virginity', because you made no mention of it, even though referring to people as 'males' sure as hell is.
Misogyny in a patriarchal bourgeois society is not remarkable and quite standard?
This isn't a misogyny thing it's a normal phrasing thing. It's not like the adjective 'female' is somehow being used completely differently from 'male'. In fact, they literally use 'male' in the title of the graph. If it had been about women having sex with men it would have said 'women who report zero male sex partners', not 'women who report zero sex partners who are men' because the latter is wordier and just not the usual way people form their sentences.
As a sidenote the survey doesn't seem to be an incel survery, incels just really like it because they think it proves their point. The survey isn't about 'male virginity', that's just what's been cherrypicked out of it by incels.
Can you not fathom the possibility that maybe just maybe words have different connotations depending on the specific usage?
Not only can I "fathom" it, it's what I was trying to explain to you in my last comment. Ironically, something I'm still trying to get through.
It's not because incels creepily use 'female' as a noun that we need to banish a totally normal adjective.
We don't need to banish the word at all, regardless of how it's used as an article. We do need to recognize how it's used, in what context it's used, and be critical of the assumption that that usage is just 'how it has to be' for it to be grammatical and not sound "weird."
It's clearly not being considered dehumanising to say 'male virginity', because you made no mention of it, even though referring to people as 'males' sure as hell is.
What a strange thing to say when you were just trying to talk about the important of context. Referring to some people as males is not dehumanizing. Referring to some people as females is not dehumanizing, not inherently.
This isn't a misogyny thing it's a normal phrasing thing.
That is what we need to be critical of. Referring to men as men but women as females in the same sentence says something about the assumptions of the author, whether they intended it or not and whether they recognize it or not. I highly doubt they intended anything negative by it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed subtly misogynistic phrasing.
It's not like the adjective 'female' is somehow being used completely differently from 'male'. In fact, they literally use 'male' in the title of the graph.
It's not the words "male" or "female" or even what kind of article they are that is at issue! I almost wrote out in my last comment that I wouldn't have had an objection if the wording had been "Share of male respondents under 30 who report zero female sex partners since they turned 18," but I didn't think it was necessary to get the point across. Once more, it is talking about men as men but women as females that makes it misogynist (minor, subtle, cultural-backround-noise misogyny sure, but still worth pointing out, which D61 was right to do).If it had been about women having sex with men it would have said 'women who report zero male sex partners', not 'women who report zero sex partners who are men' because the latter is wordier and just not the usual way people form their sentences.
It also wouldn't have been a problem because we don't live in a society that values the humanity of women above men. There's that pesky context again.
As a sidenote the survey doesn't seem to be an incel survery, incels just really like it because they think it proves their point. The survey isn't about 'male virginity', that's just what's been cherrypicked out of it by incels.
I agree. I was mostly referring to what EmmaGoldman was talking about further down the thread, detailing for us how it is bunk science that is manipulating statistics to come to a preconceived conclusion. I have no idea if the author is an incel, but given the abuse of the data as well as the little language cues, I would be amazed if they didn't have some very strong opinions about feminism.
That is what we need to be critical of. Referring to men as men but women as females in the same sentence
It did not refer to women as 'females', it used 'female' as an adjective to refer to things related to women. Again, the reverse would have done if talking about the sexual partners of women. 'Men' and 'female' are used because they are being used in different contexts in the sentence. If the sentence had been something like 'men who report zero sex with females' that would have been entirely different. So yes, despite your insistence that you aren't, you do seem to be taking issue with the word itself, rather than its usage.
It also wouldn't have been a problem because we don't live in a society that values the humanity of women above men. There's that pesky context again.
If this use of 'female' were somehow uniquely dehumanising don't you think it would be done less for men? But it doesn't seem to be so, or at least not substantially. Indeed, a different article also in the WaPo about an earlier version of the survey speaks of 'men reporting male sexual partners', almost a copy paste of the phrasing, but with the 'male' replacing 'female' to suit the context. If living in a society that values men more were making these not equivalent, we would expect the version talking about 'women with male sex partners' to sound a little unusual, even if not strictly incorrect, because of the 'subtle dehumanisation' of men, something which isn't as common in society. The fact that it seems like a pretty neutral statement indicates to me that that is not the case.
And there's a reason why people like Tate do that. It stands out all the more here because of the disparity between using the humanizing term for men but the
term in place of women.yeah it's a clinical way of talking that makes them seem detached. Using clinical language in a scientific study on the other hand is a different matter entirely
Maybe they just don't want you to get confused and think they're not counting pedophiles.
Started shooting straight up 2008-2009. Thanks Obama. Slope gets more extreme when Trump gets into office. Hmm
I'm curious to hear what happened between 2006 and 2008 that caused so many folks to get laid.
You had to be young and single then to really get "it". You have to remember those people were all at a really impressionable age when Windows 95 came out. They saw the world change right before their eyes. It freed one to seek more experience.
Incels cherry-picking data to make it looks like there are more incels than there really are
This doesn't even tell you shit about incels, maybe we had an uptick of waiting until marriage folks or volcels or something
30 year old virgin. Can confirm. I live in a small city and it's impossible to meet new people.
Talking to strangers is almost a taboo here in Norway, and most people have completely unrealistic standards for their partners.
It seems my generation has had their expectations of a relationship warped by movies, social media and porn. Listen to any person talk about their preferences in a partner, and it will sound like they are describing a commodity to impress their friends with,instead of a partner to share their life with.
There are no places to meet anyone, no places where you can interact with strangers, and no chance to ever find a partner unless you have a ton of money, movie-like looks and ambitions.
As a neurodivergent working class dude, I'm fucked. And I'm not blaming women or anything. I blame capitalism for destroying our social lives.
I was 28 when I finally lost mine. As far as it being a big deal... it isn't. The intimacy and companionship is the real reward. I think I have seen 4chan posts before when one loses their virginity and they are kind of devastated realizing it wasn't the life changing event they had been long told it was. They didn't feel their "status" change. They didn't feel themselves ascending or becoming ethereal. They just had some fun for a few minutes (if that).
Ironically the thing that stuck out the most to me when it first happened is that it is kind of awkward.
It is kind of horrifying what the dating scene probably looks like now. It feels like every person I would try to date is going to be a hyper-individualistic and judgemental person that is lashing out at everything social media told them to hate. I feel like inevitably I would end up in their crosshairs. Perhaps I am wrong about the average person, but based on my co-workers that it what it feels like.
This is the part where I hope young people say we are gonna form local connections where we hang out a provide for each other & the local community and make it an essential group of leftist that help each other out and hang out every week end, with the hope it snow balls into something great right? Riiight we aren't just gonna sit at home on discord and hope sending leftist memes to friends without doing the work of hanging out consistently with people and being integral to a community. Right? We aren't gonna do that right? We are going to form local social clubs like we use to do right because most people will change their minds to stay in the social club on politics because It directly benefits them.
We definitely won't read this post and continue to doom scroll insert bad website and be isolated atomized alienated workers who could be hanging out. Notice below the word branch and think about what that means
Show
Volcel Vanguard In Control
