Post: #51

Sex-negativism is code for anti-heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is of course the fertile means through which a target population influences a democracy with demographic means.

During the time of laissez-faire sexual mores and the abolishing of many former taboos, new taboos are being created.

Re-engineered society is becoming more and more hostile to a mature man of settled means marrying a woman under 25 who is at her fertile peak so that they can have a family above the 2.1 children per woman replacement rate.

On the other hand, homosexual death-styles and heterosexual relationships between surplus older women and younger men are on the rise. In other words, infertile relationships.

Probably the most sinister desire a man can have in this era of 'free love' is to marry a virgin woman to have a lot of children with. This is now the greatest sexual taboo in the West.


I have concluded that religion is the only force strong enough to keep women's hypergamous adventures under some sort of check and to ensure that the sacrifices required for high-investment parenting is carried through. When I am an old man, I expect most of the children to be from religious families. It is telling that only Mormon Utah is the only White place in the West that isn't dying.

Post: #52

Example of what I was talking about:

http://880yen.tumblr.com/post/1311012083...me-the-sex

"let’s rename the sex positivity movement to the “male fantasies repackaged as empowering for women” movement "

Post: #53

(10-11-2015 10:06 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Oh, HighSpeed_LowDrag, I just realised I never addressed your very good observation:

Quote:AnonymousBosch, do you see any difference between your conception of a new Fourth-Wave Feminism and old-style Second Wave Feminism? To me it seems that there's little difference between the two.

This did briefly stump me, but on further consideration:

Fourth Wave Feminism is based on the delusion that Second Wave Feminism never achieved almost every goal it fought for: The Equal Pay Act of 1973; the Civil Rights act of 1964, which covered discrimination based on Gender; Marital Rape Laws; Making Pregnancy Discrimination Illegal; Women's Reproductive Rights; Right of Entry into Male Institutions; Domestic Violence Shelters; Mandatory Rape and Domestic Violence Training For Police Officers; Equal Credit; the Women's Educational Equity Act; No-Fault Divorce; Criminalisation of Sex- Segregated Advertising; Company Daycare. All of these goals were achieved by 1980.

Aside from the ERA, and a nationalised Government Daycare System, second wave feminists won every right they fought for: equality with men, and this is why they're monumentally bitter creatures in their sixties: they realised being held to the standards of a man is much harder and, well, sucks if you're lazy.

Therefore, Fourth Wave Feminism is about Inventing Oppression where none exists, and deliberately-discriminating against men and attempting to subjugate them and / or remove them from power, as the unfortunate Mushroom-Haired woman above is doing.

I'd agree with what you've written above, with the addition that I believe that this Fourth-Wave Feminism is the first "wave" where feminism actually has real establishment power.

Each of the three previous waves had nowhere near the ideological, logistical, and material power and influence that this Fourth-Wave has over our governments, media, academia, and cultural spheres.

Of course, it maintains for ideological sake the fiction that it's still a counter-cultural movement when in fact it is very much in power, as a part of an ideology of Globalist Progressivism.

Post: #54

(10-13-2015 10:50 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  I'd agree with what you've written above, with the addition that I believe that this Fourth-Wave Feminism is the first "wave" where feminism actually has real establishment power.
Each of the three previous waves had nowhere near the ideological, logistical, and material power and influence that this Fourth-Wave has over our governments, media, academia, and cultural spheres.
Of course, it maintains for ideological sake the fiction that it's still a counter-cultural movement when in fact it is very much in power, as a part of an ideology of Globalist Progressivism.

Yep. Always generates an eye-roll when a western feminist columnist rants & raves about her perceived lack of 'privilege'.
Mean-time, if she were to spout her nonsense in Saudi Arabia. She'd have been stoned to death last week.

Post: #55

Interesting article over at Taki's by Jim Goad where he's noticing something is happening, though he's skeptical it's really anything different.

Jim Goad At Takis

Interestingly, he comes to the same conclusion I did. If the fourth wave exists, it is the Last Wave - the one that makes Feminism a dirty word and kills the movement.

As I wrote in July 2014:

Quote:That's why it's great they're freely saying this crazy stuff due to being so socially-broken that they're unaware it even is crazy. They're making feminism and social justice seem like the concerns of an obviously-insane, twitchy fringe and driving all moderate, tolerant people in the other direction because they don't want to be mistake for that.

Last wave feminism, right there. Keep at it, girls.

Post: #56

(10-13-2015 11:59 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Interesting article over at Taki's by Jim Goad where he's noticing something is happening, though he's skeptical it's really anything different.

Jim Goad At Takis

Interestingly, he comes to the same conclusion I did. If the fourth wave exists, it is the Last Wave - the one that makes Feminism a dirty word and kills the movement.

As I wrote in July 2014:

Quote:That's why it's great they're freely saying this crazy stuff due to being so socially-broken that they're unaware it even is crazy. They're making feminism and social justice seem like the concerns of an obviously-insane, twitchy fringe and driving all moderate, tolerant people in the other direction because they don't want to be mistake for that.

Last wave feminism, right there. Keep at it, girls.

Money line from the above:

Quote:But its tolerance of other “struggles” will prove to be its undoing. White women of the West who are “reclaiming” their bodies—i.e., not having kids—will be slaughtered demographically by the infusion of old-world patriarchal cultures that place a heavy emphasis on breeding.

Scandinavia is a sterling example of modern feminism taken to its logical extension: The men are cuckolded into shamed silence, which allows Muslim men to come in and rape the women.

In the end, feminism’s greatest achievement will be the restoration of the patriarchy.

Checkmate, feminism.

Post: #57

(10-14-2015 12:54 AM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  Money line from the above:

Quote:But its tolerance of other “struggles” will prove to be its undoing. White women of the West who are “reclaiming” their bodies—i.e., not having kids—will be slaughtered demographically by the infusion of old-world patriarchal cultures that place a heavy emphasis on breeding.

Scandinavia is a sterling example of modern feminism taken to its logical extension: The men are cuckolded into shamed silence, which allows Muslim men to come in and rape the women.

In the end, feminism’s greatest achievement will be the restoration of the patriarchy.

Checkmate, feminism.

Ha!. I'd psychoanalyze this hipster / emo git.
Yet, I'm too busy laughing.

Post: #58

(09-19-2015 08:52 PM)Roosh Wrote:  The over-reaching progressive agenda by those who control it is depopulation through the destruction of the family unit. I talked about it at my lectures this summer and will be writing about it extensively on my blog in the next few months, but short version is that cultural (feminism, egalitarianism, mass immigration) and biological (abortion, birth control) mechanisms are currently being used to limit reproduction in target groups to achieve stability and order for the elite. The program has been in effect for whites for a generation and is now getting started in super fertile Africa to control their population using experimental new methods like vaccines and birth control chips (look at what Bill Gates is up to lately).

Sex positive culture from feminism lowered reproduction greatly from the traditional family unit, but if people are still having sex, reproduction is still taking place, which is an unacceptable outcome. The next stage was to either make people fear having sex or ashamed of it. This is already occurring in the West because of rape hysteria and women being programmed to see all men as misogynists and abusers, so what naturally must stem from that is sex negative propaganda that you've observed. In must end up being sex puritanism but without the reproduction. As a bonus, this eradicates even casual bonds between the opposite sexes, so people will now be dependent on virtual relationships that are controlled by large systems that monitor your communications and emotional needs.

Have you noticed how MGTOW groups always get a pass while us, MRA's, and PUA's are constantly attacked? Now ask yourself what MGTOW's promote and if it conflicts with a zero reproduction model. It's for this reason that I believe MGTOW will become be boosted by the establishment and serve as a vehicle to fight with us. We must be on the lookup for anti-sex subversives.

Last comment I wanted to make is that sex negativism will probably coincide with a doubling down of the environmentalism narrative that states Earth is overpopulated and "there are already enough humans out there." There will be active shaming efforts on people who express desires to have children. If your observation is correct, which I believe it is since it fits the model, this will put the nail in the coffin in the fertility of the West. The European migrant crisis, to flood sterile lands with fecund third world people at this specific junction in the gender wars and weakening of the narrative, is not an accident. Like I said in my video the other day, things are about to get very weird.

I don't understand the last part. The immigrants are traditional and aggressive to the host cultures pose a danger to feminists and women's rights in general.

Post: #59

(10-14-2015 05:15 PM)duedue Wrote:  I don't understand the last part. The immigrants are traditional and aggressive to the host cultures pose a danger to feminists and women's rights in general.

In reference to legal immigration, but the points are just as relevant to these "refugees": https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-51025...pid1130600

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #60

(10-14-2015 12:54 AM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  ...

Quote:Scandinavia is a sterling example of modern feminism taken to its logical extension: The men are cuckolded into shamed silence, which allows Muslim men to come in and rape the women.

In the end, feminism’s greatest achievement will be the restoration of the patriarchy.

...

The conclusion I come to is that, on a collective level (as opposed to an individual level), women don't mind being raped. As long as the rapist population is composed of "real men," the evolutionary instincts of women prefer it to intercourse with weak men who would allow "their" women to become the concubines of stronger outsiders, and therefore represent evolutionary dead-ends.

In the end, the innate evolutionary imperative of females is to produce offspring who will survive and propagate. This goal is ironclad and trumps every other consideration.

Post: #61

(10-15-2015 08:10 AM)Col. Tigh Wrote:  The conclusion I come to is that, on a collective level (as opposed to an individual level), women don't mind being raped. As long as the rapist population is composed of "real men," the evolutionary instincts of women prefer it to intercourse with weak men who would allow "their" women to become the concubines of stronger outsiders, and therefore represent evolutionary dead-ends.

In the end, the innate evolutionary imperative of females is to produce offspring who will survive and propagate. This goal is ironclad and trumps every other consideration.

Or as Rollo has insinuated. There's also an element of 'Stockholm syndrome' to it.

Post: #62

(10-15-2015 08:10 AM)Col. Tigh Wrote:  The conclusion I come to is that, on a collective level (as opposed to an individual level), women don't mind being raped. As long as the rapist population is composed of "real men," the evolutionary instincts of women prefer it to intercourse with weak men who would allow "their" women to become the concubines of stronger outsiders, and therefore represent evolutionary dead-ends.

In the end, the innate evolutionary imperative of females is to produce offspring who will survive and propagate. This goal is ironclad and trumps every other consideration.

I don't believe this. I'll ignore Evo Psych entirely. This is simply feminist dysfunction in action - they are deeply-dysfunctional, broken women.

One common outcome of dysfunctional behaviour is acting in a manner which the mind believes will avoid a deep fear coming to pass, but since the action is dysfunctional, it encourages the feared result instead.

For example: A Sloot with a fear of abandonment by men - possibly due to the absence of a strong male figure in her childhood - will sexually-act out, believing it offers her power and control over men, thus guaranteeing commitment. However, such behaviour repulses men who want to commit, so there's an ongoing cycle of abandonment by alpha figures in her life. Consciously, she'll be upset and confused by this, but on a deep, subconscious level, she'll believe it's what she deserves - I'm incapable of a man's love! - so will continue the dysfunctional behaviour to match her self image.

As such, a dysfunctional state lead by Feminists screaming about how all men are oppressive monsters and only view them as objects to be raped, through subconscious behaviour, will encourage the state to become genuinely-oppressive for women with an actual rape culture.

This is why I keep saying the outright tyrannical subjugation of men fourth wave feminists are fighting for will only result in the end of Feminism.

So, please don't start thinking women want to actually be raped.

Yes, Rape is a very common female sexual fantasy because they understand that it is fantasy. Descriptions of these fantasies generally focus on an alpha man - often faceless but with a mental overlay of desirable masculinity, (strong, size, controlling) - forcing her submission, (though you'll get outliers who fantasies about dominant animals or aliens 'taking' them), and although they'd be described as 'rape', there's often very little violence in them: it's about submission to power. (This is why I think feminists push the 'rape is about power' angle - they think men think like women).

However, the underlying thread I've observed between these fantasies is that they're solipsistic, which is why the perpetrator is often faceless and vaguely-defined: the fantasy isn't about being violently-taken. At the core, the fantasy is about being beautiful / attractive / sexually-desirable enough that the man is overwhelmed and discards all emotional control and thoughts of punishment to claim her.

My theory about Women that I've mentioned before is they long to negate their self and exist in a pure sensory state - they want to become unrestrained emotion, (which is why I see Social Justice as a boyfriend / sexual substitute for a lot of women).

In her rape fantasies, both actors are driven by raw desire and overwhelmed by emotion: in female rape fantasies, the male self-negates as the female herself longs to.

This is the key difference between the fantasy and the actuality of rape. No sane woman wants to actually be raped, where she can't control the fantasy.

This negation belief is the core of my seduction and sexual techniques. As an example, here's writer Anais Nin, one of the first Western female writers of Erotica describing her erotic life in the 1930's:

Quote:“To hell, to hell with balance! I break glasses; I want to burn, even if I break myself. I want to live only for ecstasy. I’m neurotic, perverted, destructive, fiery, dangerous – lama, inflammable, unrestrained.”

Quote:“I am caught. And he? What does he feel? I am invaded, I lose everything, my mind vacillates, I am only aware of sensation.”

To me, this desire for self-negation at the risk of self-destruction is the dark core of unrestrained femininity. An uncontrolled woman will throw away everything - husband, family, reputation, career, freedom, even her life - to chase her erotic desires.

This isn't a criticism: this is just who they are. Understand that. Turn her on with sensation, let her experience your time together through her sensory framework, dominate her during sex so she can give up all control and become the sensation she's experiencing, and your lovers will exist in a state of erotic obsession with you.

Back when women were feminine women, their erotic desires tended to show up in sensory metaphors. Look at the metaphor Suzanne Vega used to described the ache of sexual longing in 1996:

Quote:It won't do
To dream of caramel
To think of cinnamon
And long for you.

Taste.

Kate Bush in 1989:

Quote:Stepping out of the page into the sensual world
To where the water and the earth caress
And the down of a peach says, "Mmh, yes"

Sight, sound, touch.

The video for this song - self-directed by Kate - taps into exactly what I mean. She's describing her blossoming sexuality - "mmmm... yes!" - but it's portrayed exactly as I'd expect a healthily-feminine woman to do so:





EXCITEMENT PHASE

0:00 Water (touch, aural)
0:19 Wind (touch, aural)
0:31 Light and shadow (visual)
0:42 Floating pollen on the breeze (visual, scent)

PLATEAU PHASE

0:51 Losing oneself in the emotional expression of dance (emotional)
1:15 Intensity of colour (visual)
1:15 Sunset (visual, touch)

ORGASMIC PHASE

1:52 Fire (visual, touch, aural, scent)
1:52 Even more expressive dance (emotional)

RESOLUTION PHASE

2:00 Starlight (visual)
2:22 Moonlight (visual, mild colour, intensity receding)

but...

REAROUSAL

2:51 - Light and shadow (visual)
3:02 - Lightning flash (visual, aural)
3:03 - Rain and snow (visual, aural, touch)
3:26 - Warm light returns
3:37 - Note the arching of her neck

Post: #63

Here's an anecdote relating to this sex negative narrative in Australia.

I'm a regular in many dance scenes in my city. Outside of the Latin scenes (largely thanks to the music being foreign) there has been a very noticeable decrease in DJs and live bands playing sexy or romantic songs, most of those being what attract people to dancing in the first place. They are replaced by generic, safe or goofy ones instead. At first I was simply noticing that they hardly play any crooners (for example) these days, then I started to see the pattern. What confirmed my suspicions was that on recent open DJ nights, some of us were specifically told that they were not comfortable for us to play certain songs, because they would get complaints. Those are nothing crazy but romantic jazz standards or sexy soul / blues tracks.

At the same time, the dance scenes have become infested with SJWs, mostly Millennials, who are now the main paying customers that the organisers have to cater to.

My guess is that ugly SJWs do not like anything flirty, sexy or romantic. They are uncomfortable with beauty and especially healthy heterosexual romance, since they cannot participate, and therefore seek to destroy it everywhere they see.

Post: #64

Granted there is a dedicated Playboy thread.
Yet this is about the overall narrative, not just the business practices of a magazine :

Keeping your clothes ON is the new sexy

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezv...4961293657

' Skin is in, and as a result we have all become desensitised. Is it any wonder then that putting on clothes is now considered more
sexy than taking them off?

In an era of wall to wall naked, Playboy’s decision to have its models keep their clothes on (the powers-that-be promise it will
still feature “women in provocative poses” with minimal clothing) might just make it the most provocative publication on the
shelves once more.

Having never read Playboy, I was surprised to learn so many prolific authors have been featured in it — Murakami, Atwood and
Nabokov to name but a few. The mag also has in-depth interviews with artists and directors, and will introduce a female “sex
positive” columnist.

Perhaps the next time I’m in the newsagency, I’ll pick up a Playboy. '


Also, no surprise. The writer of this tripe is far from being the sexiest or most glamourous gal around.

Post: #65

I've already noticed something else was going on.

I was talking in the IQ thread about being more interested in identifying patterns through subtle, seemingly-unconnected observations.

So, a couple of months ago, I'm waiting in the checkout line of the supermarket and notice the covers of Men's Health and Men's Fitness: Joe Manganiello one, The Rock on the other. The blurbs are about "Abs" and "Arms". I think "That's odd. Two guys known for their physiques on the cover of fitness magazines, and they're both wearing shirts."

Since I'd long mentally-written off them as Plausible-Deniability gay porn for closeted men, I thought "That'll piss off their readership."

When the whole 'Zoo' hysteria started, I wondered if Woolies would quietly stop selling it, rather than give in to the Feminist hysteria that got it removed from Coles.

So, I paid more active attention a couple of weeks back, and noticed they were now selling it in a plastic bag that obscured the cover, like beautiful girls in bikinis were equivalent to the Hardcore Pornography found in the explicit men's magazines that legally-require plastic bagging.

I shook my head, then thought, "That's odd." Men's Health and Men's Fitness were right next to them. I wondered about the double standard, but then noticed one had a rugby star, in an on-field pose, completely-clothed. The other, Mark Wahlberg, again in a T-shirt shirt.

The poses struck me as weird. They were factual, not presenting men and fitness as aspirational and, especially, sexually-attractive to women. They were just... well... a movie star and a rugby player.

Huh. Odd. Who is this magazine for? Men who don't want to be fit to attract girls? Why are they downplaying male strength?

I figure, I'll look next month and see if I'm imagining anything.

I was just up at the shop, these are the covers:



I had to look him up. This is a guy from Australian Teenage School Girl Soap Opera, 'Home and Away'. I doubt he'd be on any straight guy's radar, unless you're banging a girl obsessed with the show. (And if you are, what the hell is wrong with you?)



The shirt is raised to show his abs, but it's unthreatening and doesn't really suggest power. Very weak facial expression. I've known bogans with that kind of greyhound midsection, and I wouldn't go to them for health advice. Notice the complete lack of sex coming out of the picture. It's polite.

Meanwhile, Men's Fitness think you aspire to be this....





I suspect both magazines are staffed by guys who don't want to be 'too big' because they believe 'girls don't like that' and that girls respect men who aren't too dominant and defer to them, and would rather that their guys be the 'little spoon'. Doughy, weak chinned leftist types.

Post: #66

(10-15-2015 10:08 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I suspect both magazines are staffed by guys who don't want to be 'too big' because they believe 'girls don't like that' and that girls respect men who aren't too dominant and defer to them, and would rather that their guys be the 'little spoon'. Doughy, weak chinned leftist types.

Bingo. It took me years of confusion to figure out most of this nonsense but once you do… It's blatant. It's also extremely powerful once you can sift through the lies.

Post: #67

I admire you guys that are still documenting this stuff that you're observing. It serves a purpose and will stand as part of the historical record. The dystopia is not something to warn about, it is here.

What I don't understand is - what carrot is society offering young people now? There isn't the aspiration towards romance, to marry and make a family with an attractive young person of the opposite sex. In the past girls would dream of romance and young men would work their asses off to make themselves a good catch. Not anymore.

Then, post-sexual revolution particularly, there was the idea for horny young men of being a player, a lad or a sophisticated playboy. All of these things are frowned upon now.

So - why work hard to build a family? Why have a heart that wants to feel love and passion? Why aspire to be a smooth ladykiller? What is left? Surely shuffling body language, video games, and the self-deprecation of the millennial workplace and social media lead only to despair. But I don't see despair - just blankness and mildness.

I think the only reason that people can tolerate this landscape is that they don't know anything different, and that their endocrinology is damaged. They simply don't have a healthy hormonal profile. So they live the grey, mind-fogged life of the elderly and the sick.

Post: #68

What is the average age in Australia these days? Anyone know?

I ask because I'm developing the theory that the graying of the (white) population is partially creating an anti-sex narrative. We're becoming a society of little old church ladies.

Back in the '60s, the main reason the values of youth took hold was because there were so many of them. The Baby Boomers values became the de facto values of everyone. If they said free love was OK, well, people went along with it because "everyone else is doing it" was almost literally the reality.

But now that the bulk of the population (I'm guessing) is upwards of age 50, their values are still being absorbed by everyone else. Unfortunately, those values are old people values and they're being especially absorbed by young girls, the most conformist, rule-obeying creatures ever to walk the Earth.

Remember: These young girls aren't coming up with an anti-sex narrative themselves. In and out of Australia, it's coming from the professors, teachers, and the self-appointed "health educators" who push "yes means yes" on kids. The New York Times recently profiled one here -- read it and puke.

(Digression: You'll notice the Baby Boomers themselves never needed "health educators" to teach them how to fuck when they were students. The "trust no one over 30 crowd" would have run these tools of the establishment right out of town.)

Anyway, to summarize, I think younger women are simply absorbing the values of a society that's older. When the people setting the tone for the culture are 60-years-old, not 19, the idea of teenage sex suddenly seems SCARY! and DANGEROUS! As opposed to the most natural thing in the world, which it is.

With the way these "yes means yes" Junior Anti-Sex League types go on about the dangers of sex, you wonder how any generation before them ever managed to get together and pop out kids without committing 26 felonies and "infractions" in the process.

Post: #69

RawGod-

That's an excellent point, and it's one that not many people pick up on. Society has nothing to offer young men anymore, except maybe a false rape conviction. And what even fewer people seem to realize is how devastating this is going to be for society.

So much of our economy and way of life is dependent on guys in their 20s working like hell so they can move up in life and establish a family. I'm talking about the guys that regularly pull 60 hour weeks so they can get on the executive fast-track and become the leaders of corporations and governments in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Nobody works that hard because they enjoy mind-numbing work. They work so they can get a good home, a good wife, and a good family.

But if a family isn't in the cards, why bother? So instead men stay home and play video games, or if they want to be more active, lift weights and pick up girls. If you're the kind of intelligent, hard-working guy with a solid mind and a good work ethic who in previous decades would be considered a "catch", you can probably get yourself into a good lifestyle without having to strain yourself. So instead of getting married and having kids, that's what you do. And not only is this a loss to the guy, it's a huge loss to society.

Look at guys like Roosh. If Roosh was born in the 30s, he'd probably be a researcher at Proctor & Gamble, pulling down enough money for an upper-middle class lifestyle. He'd have 5 or 6 kids, a nice car, and a good-looking wife. He'd use the same organizational skills he used to build this community to help the local rotary club. When he retired they'd put a plaque with his name on it outside the local library. And what's he been doing for the last decade? Having sex with women in foreign countries.

The same goes for anybody else on this forum. If you look over in that IQ test thread, you'll see plenty of people with IQs three, four, or five standard deviations above the norm. In a normal world, they'd be the leaders of their communities. How many of them do you think are forming families, having kids, and contributing to the societies around them? I'd bet it's not many.

This isn't to blame anybody here. (Especially because I'm no different.) People respond to incentives, and the incentives for a young man are tilted heavily away from contributing to society.

But what the hell is the world going to look when we get to the point where, for the past 20 years, most of the talented men have been doing nothing but video games, weightlifting, and banging girls?

Post: #70

(10-15-2015 11:22 PM)RawGod Wrote:  I admire you guys that are still documenting this stuff that you're observing. It serves a purpose and will stand as part of the historical record. The dystopia is not something to warn about, it is here.

What I don't understand is - what carrot is society offering young people now? There isn't the aspiration towards romance, to marry and make a family with an attractive young person of the opposite sex. In the past girls would dream of romance and young men would work their asses off to make themselves a good catch. Not anymore.

Then, post-sexual revolution particularly, there was the idea for horny young men of being a player, a lad or a sophisticated playboy. All of these things are frowned upon now.

So - why work hard to build a family? Why have a heart that wants to feel love and passion? Why aspire to be a smooth ladykiller? What is left? Surely shuffling body language, video games, and the self-deprecation of the millennial workplace and social media lead only to despair. But I don't see despair - just blankness and mildness.

I think the only reason that people can tolerate this landscape is that they don't know anything different, and that their endocrinology is damaged. They simply don't have a healthy hormonal profile. So they live the grey, mind-fogged life of the elderly and the sick.

Most normal young men (or at least most of my friends), are working to be players, or at least work to get a lot of pussy.

Post: #71

(10-15-2015 11:50 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  RawGod-

But what the hell is the world going to look when we get to the point where, for the past 20 years, most of the talented men have been doing nothing but video games, weightlifting, and banging girls?

I fear that we are about to find out.

From a lot of the indications that I have seen, another 'recession' is starting; but I think about a year or so into it (late 2016/early 2017) there may be another financial meltdown, since no one really did anything about the last one, except print a lot of money through QE programs.

Post: #72

(10-15-2015 10:08 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I've already noticed something else was going on.

I thought that was a fair observation, so I decided to check it out a bit. Here is their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/MensHealthAU Every cover is in their profile pictures.

My conclusion from looking through it is that it's just a coincidence, there doesn't seem to be any real increase of 'shirted' covers compared to past years (unless you are comparing it to greater than 5 years ago, in which case I can't comment).

And about your comment on a soap star being on the cover; I think that just boils down to the magazine looking for any source of 'star' material they can get. I guess they were a little short this month. But I do agree that isn't the direction they should be going for for a men's magazine.

Post: #73

(10-18-2015 09:02 AM)glugger Wrote:  My conclusion from looking through it is that it's just a coincidence, there doesn't seem to be any real increase of 'shirted' covers compared to past years (unless you are comparing it to greater than 5 years ago, in which case I can't comment).

Is it possible there's online and in-store versions of the covers?

Here's what I see when I search for Men's Health Australia covers 2015, blocking out doubles and wrong results.



Still some shirtless, showing off the physique, but a fair number are clothed. I find this really weird for a fitness magazine.

However, same search for Men's Fitness:





Even more interesting are the pictures inside the magazines based on the cover stars. The famous men are more likely to be dressed than not.









I'd suggest these magazines are now really being marketed towards sexually-awkward millennial females, not men who are seeking aspirational fitness. These girls want to swoon over celebrity men, but don't want to feel sexually-threatened by him. So, cover him up. Get a soap star in there.

I'd tie this into both the Anti-Sex Feminist Brigade targeting supermarkets, and the fact that any Writer for these magazines is likely to be a male feminist. It's possible it's also about desexualisation in the aid of allow viral sharing of content, as Playboy is doing. It's fascinating. I'll keep observing.

Post: #74

Who cares about Mens fitness. The entire mag is full of 45% ads, 10% abs, 15% diets, 20% famous person and 5% worthwhile content.

And another thing, this anti-sex thing is doing wonders for future generations. When abortion and the pill came along all of those people that would have grown up and probably made something with their lives did not exist. Today it is just like that but worse.

More abortions, more women on birth control and the only people breeding enough are the idiots.

Post: #75

(10-15-2015 11:49 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  What is the average age in Australia these days? Anyone know?

I ask because I'm developing the theory that the graying of the (white) population is partially creating an anti-sex narrative. We're becoming a society of little old church ladies.

Back in the '60s, the main reason the values of youth took hold was because there were so many of them. The Baby Boomers values became the de facto values of everyone. If they said free love was OK, well, people went along with it because "everyone else is doing it" was almost literally the reality.

But now that the bulk of the population (I'm guessing) is upwards of age 50, their values are still being absorbed by everyone else. Unfortunately, those values are old people values and they're being especially absorbed by young girls, the most conformist, rule-obeying creatures ever to walk the Earth.

Remember: These young girls aren't coming up with an anti-sex narrative themselves. In and out of Australia, it's coming from the professors, teachers, and the self-appointed "health educators" who push "yes means yes" on kids. The New York Times recently profiled one here -- read it and puke.

(Digression: You'll notice the Baby Boomers themselves never needed "health educators" to teach them how to fuck when they were students. The "trust no one over 30 crowd" would have run these tools of the establishment right out of town.)

Anyway, to summarize, I think younger women are simply absorbing the values of a society that's older. When the people setting the tone for the culture are 60-years-old, not 19, the idea of teenage sex suddenly seems SCARY! and DANGEROUS! As opposed to the most natural thing in the world, which it is.

With the way these "yes means yes" Junior Anti-Sex League types go on about the dangers of sex, you wonder how any generation before them ever managed to get together and pop out kids without committing 26 felonies and "infractions" in the process.

Spot on, we're a rapidly ageing country:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/...enDocument

and it will only get worse in the coming decades.

They also touched a little on sex ratio there, but here it is in more details:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3235.0

Look at the median age. The so-called "favourable" sex ratio for men is with post-Wall women.

I suppose if they publish the ratio for men to young slender women, Aussie blokes will rage-quit the country.