rhrhfjfjjr44

>I'll just go and have lots of children with a series of non-virgins

God bless you. Taking one for the team. Maybe you'll get lucky and some of them will even be biologically yours (not that you would care).

Yes, everyone is. The stats don't lie. A huge (and growing) proportion of men are even completely checking out because there just isn't really any point any more. Most are seeing the game for what it is and taking commitment off the table, dating only for casual sex. But men don't really want that, and neither do women. It's not good for anyone.

I'm tall, rich, fit and White. I've had my fair share of women in the sack. There's no shortage of promiscuous young women, but there are so few wives nowadays that it all feels rather pointless.

Yes, dating is fucked. Yes, I'm very frustrated by how "experienced" women are.

I wonder if there is a word for this strategy of "he said a word I didn't like therefore I will hyper-fixate on this one word, completely ignoring his entire argument while adopting an outraged and righteous tone".

I could do the same for "antiquated paternalistic views of women's sexuality". Is that your way of shaming men for preferring virgins? You're fighting a losing battle there. It's innate. You can't change it. Morally weak and sexually desperate men will pretend it doesn't affect their perception of a woman but it does. It's in our DNA. The males who genuinely didn't care were killed off by natural selection.

Look I'm >666 but that is so outrageous I feel mad on behalf of other men. "Oh you're short and fat? Just be one of the funniest men on earth with multiple massively successful world-famous podcasts and comedy tours, bro!"

Do you think Stav would be less popular with women if he was a 10/10 physically? Of course not. In fact, he wouldn't even need to be funny. He wouldn't need to be rich. He wouldn't need to be famous.

Maybe we're arguing different things here, I don't know what's going on. I mean many women will literally set a filter so that their apps don't even show them men under six-foot-whatever. These men are invisible. Yes, as the author proves, short kings can still get it. No shit. It's not a binary: 666 or permanent incel. I know you know this so I'm genuinely confused what you're trying to argue.

Man this one sentence has really rustled some jimmies. Even if they typically had one or two previous partners, that would still make them a unicorn in the dating market nowadays.

What do you gain from trying in vain to discredit my point? There are statistics available for marriage rates, age at marriage, and self-reported sexual partners before marriage. Don't argue with me, argue with the stats.

Or even use a little reasoning. Do you really think your average 19 year-old bride in 1930 raised in a conservative two-parent church-going home was as ran through as your typical young woman you'll find on the apps nowadays? What is even the point in denying this significant cultural shift?

Rich and handsome 6'4" men have no problem standing out. This is the point. Online dating does not suck for them.

Your goofy friend might get lots of updoots on reddit but if he's short and broke it would be <1% of women who don't immediately reject him. They will never even see his mac and cheese bio. Online dating would be a waste of time for him at best; at worst, kiss goodbye to this delusional confidence once the crushing reality manifests.

And you don't think the tall, rich, well-endowed man is more likely to be a little more confident than the short, poor micro-penised man?

Put "I'm fun and confident" in your dating profile and I'll put "6'4"" and we'll see how that pans out. You won't be having much fun and your confidence will be shot.

>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.

Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.

Might be you who needs to reread...

Celebrating Blockstream's subversive takeover of Bitcoin in 2017 as a win against corporatocracy is absolutely wild. Their manipulation of most Bitcoin spaces on the internet at the time via extraordinarily comprehensive censorship measures should have been your first hint.

I'm grateful to Bitcoin for funding my early retirement but it died in 2017 as far as I am concerned. I prefer to remember it that way.