Will the haremization of sexual dynamics basically see a reinvigoration of strict gender roles and the complete death...

What is it about twerking that's so vulgar and repulsive? And I say this as a person who watches a lot of disgusting bdsm and foot fetish porn.

its just so animalistic, and not even in a sexy way. I dont know because Im an ass guy and I find it gross to.

I'm on my phone and posting from the front page. Don't give enough of a duck right now user, but this thread is a repeat so it will probably get posted again user. That or this will 404 with 20 or so replies. Either one is fine.

>MRA
>popular
Literally nobody loves you. Nobody.

>sick and tired of women acting like total sluts.
Sluts love having sex with me. I love having sex with them. Why would anyone want them to stop?

>nobody talks about us unless it's mockery, but we're secretly popular!
This sounds very plausible.

>all I give a shit about is fucking whores

>you
>belonging here

You have to go back.

No, I also give a shit about history. Veeky Forums is not the board to complain about not being able to get laid.

What is the historical context "behind" this?

>hurr the hungry man is complaining about food prices being too high his complaint is invalid because he's hungry let's throw him under a bus

normalfag genocide when?

>implying starving to death is the same thing as not getting laid

The LARPing is strong in this one.

>Why would anyone want them to stop?
Because the top ~20% of men (the alpha males) are having sex with the majority of women. Most guys (the beta males) are not having a lot of casual sex, and that's why it pisses them off when women act like sluts. When women who are now in their 20s eventually get tired of having casual sex, and want to find some guy to marry, the beta males who she ignored when she was sleeping around in her 20s aren't going to marry her.

This is a serious issue because marriage is one of the bedrock institutions of civilizations. On average, married men are happier and work a lot harder than bachelors. Not only that, but women who get married have a husband to help take care of her kids. This is why throughout history, most civilized nations strictly enforced monogamy and prohibited sex outside of marriage. And we're already seeing the effects of this now. This is one reason why more and more men are dropping out of the workforce.

It is relevant to history because most civilized nations and societies throughout history practiced monogamy and banned polygamy. There are also a lot of examples of empires and nations falling when strict monogamy stopped being enforced, e.g. the Roman Empire.

its vulgar as fug s0n, beside, imagine bdsm and stuff being a public thing, on TV and popular music etc.
>this is okay
>this is also okay then

>This is why throughout history, most civilized nations strictly enforced monogamy and prohibited sex outside of marriage
No they didn't.
>This is one reason why more and more men are dropping out of the workforce.
Prove it.

I think it's more just an opportunity for you to bitch about your sexual frustration/inadequacy.

Friendly reminder communists want to destroy the nuclear family and have children raised in communal nurseries Engels wrote about this shit in the 19th century.

This is literally all their fault.

>he thinks these people aren't having kids

You're one deluded fucking anglo.

It evokes a tribalistic past we almost instinctively wish to distance ourselves from. Too many bad memories the modern world has helped expunge.

Friendly reminder the nuclear family is a capitalist fabrication and not the natural state of families at all.
If you're not living with/nearby your grandparants/greatgrandparents and your aunts and uncles YOU are the problem and you are NOT traditionalist any more than the standard capitalist is traditionalist.

>user posts thoughtful reply explains why monogamy has been historically important
>gets a reply with some revolting insta roastie along with "lol u mad bro XDDD"

Please go away.

>when people can afford to they move a moderate distance away from their mother and aunts so they don't boss them around when they start a family of their own

wtf I hate capitalism now

>user posts baseless assertions
>This is a thoughtful reply.

What world do you live in?

Everyone take a note the OP has nothing to do with MRA or traditionalism but is simply asking how the women's lib effected feminism.

He and you is mad though and need to gb2 r9k

Of course it is, robots base their entire worldview around their inability to get laid and come here to try and sell with bullshit history so they can convince themselves they're intellectuals for believing it.

If you consider yourself traditionalist, WHY would you WANT to move a distance away from your parents and grandparents?
WHY would you be upset about them giving you unsolicited valuable advice brought about from the wisdom of age? This is literally how it worked for humanity pre-industrial era.
And you claim to be a traditionalist? What tradition, if not one that humanity has shared since their creation?
>I'm my own independent man!
Good goy, spend $$$ on all those extra houses and extra cars you'll need because the family fractures every single generation.
You fell for the propaganda.

>socialists will go on and on about compassionate they are saying you should get healthcare and adequate housing then mock you for being a loser because you can't get a gf in this hyper chad society in the same breadth

>nipple piercings
Way to ruin those otherwise great things.

>Friendly reminder communists want to destroy the nuclear family

That'd be more like the devil's alliance between the forces of the market and the liberal intelligentsia. Both in seeming opposition, but all in all, they tend to reinforce one another.

They were on the forefront of sexual liberation, only to see it turned into one of the cruelest marketplaces.

They want to liberate everyone from the drudgery of work, but still insist turning women into wage slaves was emancipation.

They hate the exploiting capitalist class, yet willingly provide the moral support for their import of third world cheap labour in order to force wages down. In so doing they also help atomizing communities, which should be obvious, but they'll rationalize their fuck ups by saying "well this can become a positive force if we reform."

They're the most useful idiots out there.

>No they didn't.
Give me an example

>Prove it.
I don't think there are any scientific studies which have investigated it, but it's really just common sense. Guys who aren't married don't have kids to take care of, and because of that they don't feel that compelled to get a job. Not only that, but marriage keeps birth rates at healthy levels. Birth rates in a lot of Western countries are starting to fall below replacement levels (telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/falling-birth-rates-could-spell-end-of-the-west---lord-sacks/). If couples were encouraged to marry, and if women stopped being so hypergamous, birth rates would return to normal levels.

Not only that, but look at the whole hikikomori thing in Japan. There are a lot of guys in Japan, called hikikomoris, who are unemployed and basically sit in their rooms all day. Perhaps if they got girlfriends, they could muster up the motivation to get a job. But unfortunately, a lot of surveys have shown that the dating scene is incredibly hard for men these days.

Well no one ever presents any good counter-arguments. Whenever guys come on here and talk about how bad hypergamy is, they're just mocked. People just accuse them of not being able to get laid instead of seriously arguing with them.

>he thinks hypergamy is baseless

lol just lol

>ledditor telling people to go to other boards

If you fail in the sexual marketplace, not even the most rabid communist will pitty you.

They'll gladly give your poor ass basic income, but will never ever consider the option of sexual redistribution.

Hell, they'll even consider a transaction between a prostitute and a client as somehow oppressive. In no way do they favour the total legalization of that... Especially not in the long term.

They have unleashed the forces of nature civilization helped subsume and aren't willing to ever put that particular ghost in the bottle.

Well history is a long time so anything is possible user. But i suspect that robot wives are more likely to happen than a serious invigoration of strict gender roles.

The political and social liberation of women in society has happened and to reverse that is untenable to most people.

I could rattle off a few answers that would only lend themselves to browbeaten stereotypes, but hey stereotypes exist for a reason

>wahhhh why were women oppressed in every civilised culture in history those evil cis men were just being needlessly mean for no reason

Really makes you think

>Whenever guys come on here and talk about how bad hypergamy is, they're just mocked.

You're mocked because it is not a real thing. Your understanding of society is so contrary to the understanding that people who actually have to interact with it regularly have that there really isn't anything to do but mock you.

Not him but

>Give me an example

Ever hear of China (pick your dynasty), Ottoman Turkey, Rome, or Greece? You ever read the Bible and how quite a few of the Israelite patriarchs, spiritual leaders, kings, and just other random guys like Elkanah were polygamists?

I love watching all these idiot alt-right people get terrified of the women they feel entitled to having sexual ownership over will all join Chad’s harem if they are given the right to act even an iota more free than in Saudi Arabia. The fact is retards, that no woman wants to be wife no.8 in some obese 60 year old’s fuck harem. It is in fact easier for a guy like yourself in the western world to reproduce now than at any point in history. Ye Olde days you all pine for were in fact full of monopolized sexual access where the only way vast amounts of men could get laid was through prostitution or rape.

ITT: my personal experience of abundance/lack of sex is proof enough to counter/support hypergamy

This is every online discussion ever and why public debate was a mistake.

>no woman wants to be wife no.8 in some obese 60 year old’s fuck harem

I'm still not seeing any actual evidence. Here's something I found within 10 seconds of Google.

theguardian.com/observer/sex/story/0,12550,818356,00.html

Which seems to argue quite firmly against this hypergamy shit.

Chronic Bachelorism was actually a problem of the past, not today. Huge amounts of men couldn't get a lifelong mate because of how poor and unequal society was. A woman is actually much more likely to give you the time of day now than in your mythical past. Stop getting your opinions on how the world works from Sinhalese Wood-Carving Forums.

>communal nurseries
You mean kindergardens and schools?
Its been happening for a long time now. The state has been taking more and more responsibility when it comes to raising kids.
However befoer the tstae did communities did it, i.e. raised kids as a commune.

>Huge amounts of men couldn't get a lifelong mate because of how poor and unequal society was.

Don't forget enormous rates of maternal mortality, leading to men outnumbering women by a significant margin being the norm, not the exception.

Basic Sexual Redistribution is not an issue that is even remotely on the radar of communist ideology. They would laugh if they could but your literally building your own mental prison.

lel'd pretty hard

based opinion

Dont forget that in the past you could always hide yourself in the monastery and have a nice quiet life and no one would socially look down on you for doing so.

Exactly, there was such a problem with unmarried men we had to have whole castes to put them in like the church or conquistadors.

>Thinking the equivalent of prostitutes is somehow the same as marriage.

>What is it about twerking that's so vulgar and repulsive? And I say this as a person who watches a lot of disgusting bdsm and foot fetish porn.
The same thing that made Elvis Presley's gyrating hips vulgar and repulsive to 1950's era comformist-culture Americans, or Marilyn Manson and Eminem so vulgar and repulsive to 1990's era liberal yuppies.

As people age they lose their appetite for novelty. The dance moves that younger generations are doing are not familiar to you and you no longer possess the patience to appreciate them for what they are, because it doesn't take very long for a person to stare at it before they start to see the vacuity of it all, but every new generation finds ways of shocking all the angry old squares.

It's how maturity works. We give up childish things.

also
youtube.com/watch?v=C6vinrXWxls
if nothing in this video is doing anything for you, maybe you should think about taking a break from the porn box, grandpa

>Elvis kinda shifting his hips suggestively is in the same ball park as twerking

How hard do you have to lie to yourself to believe this shit?

by your standards.

By the standards of 1950's Americans it was totally shocking. Nobody had seen anything like it, the angry old squares were shitting on themselves with anger convinced that communists were taking over the country.

>Will the haremization of sexual dynamics
is a myth. It's more like a bell curve: both guys and girls average between 5 and 10 partners over the course of their lifetime. A fraction of them will only have one or two partners, a small minority are extremely promiscuous, and another small minority are celibate.

> see a reinvigoration of strict gender roles and the complete death of feminism?
no. Freedom is popular

> Isn't third wave feminism basically all about how being a whore and porn star and wearing makeup and high heels is empowering?
If you actually talked to feminists and got to know them you'd know that feminists are split on the issue. Some think that glamorizing female sexuality only encouraged objectification, others think that it's a double standard to glamorize male sexuality while repressing female sexuality. There's no consensus, and they don't wield nearly the authority that you seem to think that they do.

>Give me an example
No. you've made an assertion, now prove it. Rome had "laws" that were openly ignored, and literally fucked a birth control plant out of existence while whining baout everyone-male and female-banning their slave,s with prostitution being utterly legal. In fact, that's been legal in almost every single fucking society.

>I don't think there are any scientific studies which have investigated it,
Because it's a load of shit, and you're wrong.

>but it's really just common sense.
No.

>guys who aren't married don't have kids to take care of, and because of that they don't feel that compelled to get a job.
Oh, really? In the real world, single men are at a MASSIVE economic advantage.

>MUH HYPERGAMY CAUSES ECONOMIC ISSUES
Yes, i'm sure it's not the fact that the economy has very few entry-level full time jobs, the lack of upward mobility for entry level employees, or the high cost and time investment of getting a degree, which you NEED to get a decent job. Nor is the education system-which really, really favors little girld over little boys-at fault.

It's women not banging ugly, socially inept neckbeards.

Because it is vulgar.

If you've ever learned formal (or formalized) dance, there is a certain amount of art to it. A good dance is a metaphor, and a type of ritual which brings communities of people together while allowing for the release/focus of sexual energy.

Twerking isn't any different than when a dog in heat "presents" to an alpha male.

I think that the culture of capitalism, with it's "sex sells" attitude also has a lot to do with it. People used to dance with their communities, now dancing is a form of (intellectual, ie, music) product advertisement. A "rap artist" is going to sell more music, with lower invested income, with a video of some whore shaking her ass and pussy at the camera than a video of waltzing or the salsa (which manages to be sexy without being vulgar, for all those mouthbreathers who just think this is about people not getting laid).

Stop drinking the neoliberal cool aid you fucking degenerate.
>every culchur is the same
>civilization is in constant decline, grandpa, get used to it
>don't be scared of the new
>YOU JUST DONT GET MY GENURACHUN
>angry old squares heu heu heu
It's like you people are incapable of having opinions or making value judgements beyond whatever bland historical reductionism gets shit down your throat.

>is a myth. It's more like a bell curve: both guys and girls average between 5 and 10 partners over the course of their lifetime
user, are you saying my sex life is above average?

Friendly reminder 60% of all men who ever lived never reproduced.

Friendly reminder this was only mitigated by virginal brides and marriage redistributing sex in a more amicable way.

Friendly reminder anyone against arranged marriages is just a numale useful idiot or a Chad getting more than his fair share.

>user, are you saying my sex life is above average?
nigger, have you seen the number of kissless NEETs running around on Veeky Forums? in this very thread?

I generally assume that they qualify as outliers and are discarded when "average" is determined, much like they're discarded by society as a whole.

I've been reading Nicholas Taleb's "The Black Swan" and he made an interesting point about how strictly enforced monogamy prevents rebellion by stopping a minority of sexless men (biologically a dead end) from rebelling in order to secure themselves a place on the top, as well as reproductive potential.

Its an interesting point to think about. Although western civilization seems pretty sturdy, I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a lot of "beta uprisings" coming out of China in the future.

>posts a statistic that's mathematically impossible
>accuses other people of believing in myths

You're really firing my neurons, Einstein.

>Stop drinking the neoliberal cool aid you fucking degenerate.
The only one drinking the neoliberal kool aid are reactionary dipshits
>a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
from a google search on the term
>Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector. It takes from the basic principles of neoclassical economics, suggesting that governments must limit subsidies, make reforms to tax law in order to expand the tax base, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, and open markets up to trade. It also seeks to abolish fixed exchange rates, back deregulation, permit private property, and privatize businesses run by the state.
investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
>Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
You're literally pulling shit out of your ass you stupid inbred reactionary ape
>m-muh culture!

The only idiots who want arranged marriages are people who think they know what they want but when actually confronted with expressing it they end up unsure and insecure about it.

Reminder that /r9k/ is objectively wrong about basic facts.

back to revleft, maybe Stacy will let you lick the cum out of her cunt after the gang bang is over at whatever anarchist commune you live in

cuck

>mathematically impossible

How so...?

No, they're just a small portion of the population disproportionately represented on Veeky Forums.

>>posts a statistic that's mathematically impossible
>>accuses other people of believing in myths
>You're really firing my neurons, Einstein.
popcenter.uchicago.edu/data/nhsls.shtml

You win

>Once again, when face with an argument for which he has no rational answer, the reactionary ape cucks at his opponent as a way of nonverbally refusing to accept his answer

>i use the word reactionary therefore I win

back to the anarchist commune you cuck, Veeky Forums is a French Catholic board

“A girl of fifteen can never be fit for delivery. A child born of such a girl is deficient in vitality. Our children are so sickly that bringing them up becomes a veritable job indeed, with the result that many children die within a year of their birth. Along with child-marriage, we should hold ill-matched unions responsible for the deaths of a great many infants. It is not at all surprising that the children of men who marry when they are no longer fit for marriage do not survive.”

>Missing the paragraph I wrote about the effects of capitalism on popular culture
>Literally needs to google neoliberalism to understand what it means
>Doesn't understand the effects of commerce on culture
>Needs to sperge out over one word, which was properly used but not properly understood, in order to give the facade of "winning" the "argument"

Keep on reading wikipedia though, maybe you'll eventually learn a thing or two from it.

you do realize that when you say cuck it just confirms that you lost an argument and have no real response, right?

cuck

Social media makes this seem like a bigger problem than it is

Look at the numerical distributions, we're exposed to believe that woman on average have had something like3 or 4 partners, while men on average have 6 or 7. Now pause for a moment. If men and women are having sex with each other, which they generally do, why wouldn't their averages match?

Clearly, unless there's a hugely unreported invisible underbelly of men having homosexual relationships with other men, or there's enough turbo sluts having sex with hundreds of guys in order to throw the numbers off by that much, something's wrong with this study.

Of course, it's all data collected by self reporting, as dimly pointed out, so (believe it or not) the most likely answer is that people lie about this sort of stuff.

My guess would be that women don't count things like blow jobs, one night stands, etc. as "sex", while men do.

That being said, all of this varies socially, economically, and geographically. I'd be willing to bet the average woman living in a city has had around 20 sexual partners in her life, while the ones living in small towns have 2 or 3 before getting married.

If you're trying to understand the world around you, well uchicago isn't sampling the world around you, they're taking thousands of people from whatever communities they use for these studies, and assuming that applies everywhere, across geographical distances as well as generational gaps. It doesn't.

Depressing as it is, I'm pretty sure /r9k/ has a better understanding of modern sexual practices than most of these studies. I really doubt the average woman in 2017 will only have 3 sexual partners in her entire life

>Will the haremization of sexual dynamics basically see a reinvigoration of strict gender roles and the complete death of feminism?
Yes, but not because of the reasons you think, but because Islam will take over the West.

The Muslims are breeding at fast rates, they are driven, they have a cause to lay down their lives, while Western nations are not having children at all, have record suicide rates, and lack of social cohesion caused by agnosticism and widespread apathy.

Apathetic society meets unstoppable force.
I predict the great revival of religion in a generation.

>feminism in the west
>harems
>conservative gender roles in the east
>harems (western Chad memes aside, concubines are a legitimate occurence in China)

>"I repeat the word cuck, therefore, I win"
Notice how the ape continues to bleat incessantly in a desperate bid to draw attention away from his inability to form a rational response to the answer. Take note, fellow Veeky Forumstorians, they seem tough but when you poke holes in their arguments they are easily spooked and will resort to memeing and ridicule in substitute of an actual argument.

It's harems all the way down.

When will the eternal women be dealt with?

>are sick and tired of women acting like total sluts
Lol no, girls acting slutty = easier to get laid

>Still clinging to his spooks
You sound like a total prude and a square who is hating on people having a better time than he is.

Nobody died and appointed you morality police so nobody actually cares about your hamfisted posturing about what constitutes "wholesome" entertainment and what doesn't.

Art is either free or it isn't. When it isn't it becomes cliched and stale

For who?

That's not what the data shows.
Sexual patterns are returning to what they were in the 1800s, only this time the great attraction is genetic rather than wealth.

>Notice how the ape continues to bleat incessantly in a desperate bid to draw attention away from his inability to form a rational response to the answer. Take note, fellow Veeky Forumstorians, they seem tough but when you poke holes in their arguments they are easily spooked and will resort to memeing and ridicule in substitute of an actual argument.

Islam won't "take over the West" unless it physically replaces the population. Far more likely you see sharia law implemented in certain Muslim areas and occurrences like the Muslim mayor of London more frequently.

Right-wing Westerners drawn to religions which espouse natural gender roles hate Islam.

Because it is vulgar.

If you've ever learned formal (or formalized) dance, there is a certain amount of art to it. A good dance is a metaphor, and a type of ritual which brings communities of people together while allowing for the release/focus of sexual energy.

Twerking isn't any different than when a dog in heat "presents" to an alpha male.

I think that the culture of capitalism, with it's "sex sells" attitude also has a lot to do with it. People used to dance with their communities, now dancing is a form of (intellectual, ie, music) product advertisement. A "rap artist" is going to sell more music, with lower invested income, with a video of some whore shaking her ass and pussy at the camera than a video of waltzing or the salsa (which manages to be sexy without being vulgar, for all those mouthbreathers who just think this is about people not getting laid).

Monks and priests still exist, and if you think society looks down on you for becoming one the issue is your faith and self-esteem.

>No. you've made an assertion, now prove it.
So you're saying you can't come up with an example?

>Oh, really? In the real world, single men are at a MASSIVE economic advantage.
They are, in the sense that they have a lot of money. But bachelors tend to hoard money and not have kids, both of which are bad for the economy.

>Yes, i'm sure it's not the fact that the economy has very few entry-level full time jobs, the lack of upward mobility for entry level employees, or the high cost and time investment of getting a degree, which you NEED to get a decent job. Nor is the education system-which really, really favors little girld over little boys-at fault.

All of those things are also factor, but hypergamy is obviously contributing to the problem.

I'm not going to pay taxes nor get a job to perpetuate this sick degenerate no matter what, and if my draft card comes when the Chinese begin to invade I'm gonna burn it.

Deal with it roastie