Peter Pan Syndrome and Sexual Economics

[Malthus]

Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.

I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.

[garbon]

In a classless society, there is no stigma for a rich upper class guy to marry a poor lower class (but pretty) girl so money matters even more

So you're positing a society that doesn't exist then?

[Phillip V]

Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.

I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.

You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.

Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.

[Malthus]

Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.

I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.

You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.

Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.

Put it this way. Guy A and guy B are both average looking. Guy A lives in mom's basement and plays video games all day. Guy B went to university and ended up in a high-paying profession. Which is going to have the better success with attracting women?   

For that matter, living in mom's basement and playing video games is not a lifestyle that results in a lot of health self-respect - and having self-respect is as big, or bigger, a motivator as getting laid (not to mention that the two are related: self-respect=confidence=more attractive to women). That's on top of simply being able to afford one's own place, a car, toys, vacations, etc. - also a big motivator, right?

[Malthus]

Another major error in the article is that it discounts the effect of prostitution. It has never been the case that men in the 'good old days' "had to work hard and get engaged" to have sex. Rather, men had to get married to have social respect. They could get laid by paying for it - and by and large, they did.

Figures I have seen claim that in the 1950s, the rate of men who had used the services of a prostitute were as high as 60-75%. Today, the figure is much lower - 15-20%. 

[Phillip V]

Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.

I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.

You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.

Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.

Put it this way. Guy A and guy B are both average looking. Guy A lives in mom's basement and plays video games all day. Guy B went to university and ended up in a high-paying profession. Which is going to have the better success with attracting women?   

For that matter, living in mom's basement and playing video games is not a lifestyle that results in a lot of health self-respect - and having self-respect is as big, or bigger, a motivator as getting laid (not to mention that the two are related: self-respect=confidence=more attractive to women). That's on top of simply being able to afford one's own place, a car, toys, vacations, etc. - also a big motivator, right?

That assumes there is some big shortage of sex/women. If there is now plenty more sex to go around, then the basement guy is now getting laid regardless of housing/job while the well-paid is getting laid, too.

The self-respect thing is the other supposed change/trend: that men are not shit upon or don't care if they are not working anymore.

[Eddie Teach]

That assumes there is some big shortage of sex/women. If there is now plenty more sex to go around, then the basement guy is now getting laid regardless of housing/job while the well-paid is getting laid, too.

The self-respect thing is the other supposed change/trend: that men are not shit upon or don't care if they are not working anymore.

Most basement dwellers still have standards, thus there is an artificial shortage.

[Malthus]

That assumes there is some big shortage of sex/women. If there is now plenty more sex to go around, then the basement guy is now getting laid regardless of housing/job while the well-paid is getting laid, too.

The self-respect thing is the other supposed change/trend: that men are not shit upon or don't care if they are not working anymore.

No, the original theory is based on the conception that there used to be some big shortage of sex/women (because women conciously or not restricted access to sex). This theory discounts the fact that while "respectable" women did not have (much) sex before marriage, men could have as much as they want - and did - through prostitution. The old "double standard" in action.   

It has never been the case that men could not get laid if they were useless layabouts. They could not get social respectability, they could not get married to women of social status (unless they were lucky, charming, or good-looking). but they could get laid. That's still true today. Only difference is, they are much less likely to overtly pay for it.

I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.

The difference is not (and never has been) that the layabout could not get laid while the guy with the well paying job could. The difference is that the guy in the high-paying job can attract a women who is either of the same social class, or who is more attractive than he would get in his social class. It's the quality, not the availability.   

[The Brain]

I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.

Calls for a Languish poll?

[Martinus]

Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.

I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.

You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.

Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.

Put it this way. Guy A and guy B are both average looking. Guy A lives in mom's basement and plays video games all day. Guy B went to university and ended up in a high-paying profession. Which is going to have the better success with attracting women?   

For that matter, living in mom's basement and playing video games is not a lifestyle that results in a lot of health self-respect - and having self-respect is as big, or bigger, a motivator as getting laid (not to mention that the two are related: self-respect=confidence=more attractive to women). That's on top of simply being able to afford one's own place, a car, toys, vacations, etc. - also a big motivator, right?

That's a false alternative though. Replace guy A with a hipster who spends all his day in a corner coffee shop or playing frisbee with other "adults" and your hypothesis may fail, simply because guy A has more opportunities to meet and attract women than guy B who is spending all his waking time at work.

[Josquius]

That's a false alternative though. Replace guy A with a hipster who spends all his day in a corner coffee shop or playing frisbee with other "adults" and your hypothesis may fail, simply because guy A has more opportunities to meet and attract women than guy B who is spending all his waking time at work.

Maybe the thing is that women are deep down evolutionarily looking for a provider- and survival is fucking easy in this day and age, any retard can do it. For the evolutionary mental trigger a minimum wage layabout is just as good as a rich investment banker.

[Martinus]

Or perhaps women are more than biological machines and think with their brains and figure out they will be better of (especially if they themselves are successful professionals) with a hotter younger guy even if he is not bring tons of money home, than with a richer alpha who spends all his days and evenings at work and usually has some serious psychological issues.

Most of my female friends seem to be following that pattern.

[garbon]

Or perhaps women are more than biological machines

That was unexpected from you.

[CountDeMoney]

Maybe the thing is that women are deep down evolutionarily looking for a provider- and survival is fucking easy in this day and age, any retard can do it. For the evolutionary mental trigger a minimum wage layabout is just as good as a rich investment banker.

That would only partially explain the "I'm leaving you for an unemployed drummer because he's an artist" schtick at age 22 for the "I'm leaving you for a senior vice president at T Rowe Price" at age 32 evolutionary process. 

[dps]

I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.

Calls for a Languish poll?

I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.

Calls for a Languish poll?

Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?