I've given up dating

[MrLonely86]

You want me to have kids? 20 million $$$ is price.

 

[user 190541]

People who have children are much more avid consumers than people who don't. When you have even one child, you're spending A LOT more than you would, if you didn't have any children. Just watch a mother of five on an average day at walmart.

Would be interesting to see some statistics on this, but it's very doubtful at first glance. Aprioristically speaking, consumption is related to income, not to the amount of children a person has. We know that a rich, single dude, for example, is likely to consume a whole lot more than a poor family of 5.

Capitalism wants people to have children. Preferably poor children, born out of wedlock, into broken homes, who will be forced to work jobs they can get, because they themselves now have children they need to provide for. And the cycle repeats...

That's true, but those children need not be of the same nationality as that of capitalists. In fact, they don't even need to be from the same continent in which capitalists build and operate their corporate and financial headquarters.

What, 'capitalism,' doesn't want, is single people, and people in relationships, who 'aren't,' having children. No children means far less consumption. Raising children makes consuming necessary. Living for yourself makes consuming, largely optional, aside from rent/real estate, oil, food, and the occasional household good or luxory item; but children REQUIRE: diapers, food, schooling, medical treatment, etc.. etc.. etc..

My objections to this have already been stated, but much of what is written here can be shown to be empirically false. That consumption is suposedly optional for single people, for instance, in a world where most wages are barely enough for people to live on, is quite absurd. Clearly, you're not going beyond a first world perspective. In the third world, at least, there's absolutely no correlation between the amount of children and consumption within the working class. If you're a third world working class person, the more children you have, the less you can spend in regard to each child, and the result is the impoverishment of the family. Even in the first world, though, there's plenty of reason to believe a connection between having kids and consumption is not in any way significant.

 

[TropicalStarfish]

https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/raising-a-child-study/

Having children costs money. It costs money, because humans must consume goods. More children means more consumption.

Even in a third world country, a single man does not require as much food, as a man, wife, and family of three. And a family of three will mean, in the near future, there will be three more potential workers. A man with a family of three may have, 'less to spend,' but that's because it's been spent on the family already...

Based on that link above, a family with 5 children, raised in Mississippi (cheapest state to raise children, based on that study), it would cost annually: $13596(per child) x 5 (five children) = $67980/year. Now factor in at least 15 years before any of the children can begin working: $67980 x 15 (years) = $1,019,700 to raise a family of five in Mississippi.

 

[user 190541]

Certainly, kids are expensive, and it's a fact that this has been exploited by the industry of toys and childcare, for example, so that specific markets could be consolidated, but their golden age is long gone. This alone is very suggestive. The relative relevance of such industries has been steadily declining following the downward trend in birth rates. Plus, if capitalists are indeed so very interested in keeping birth rates up, it begs the question of why they're going down. In fact, if you look closely, state-sponsored child support seems to be intended more as a way of appeasing the proletariat, particularly in European nations, rather than a serious attempt at increasing birth rates, and in any case they've been instituted as part of the policies of the welfare state and social democracy, which are themselves aimed precisely at appeasing the proletariat. When the bourgeoisie and its direct representatives actually decide to interfere with demographic trends, it's generally to sterilize and exterminate poor people, such as in Peru under Fujimori, something that might seem paradoxical since they rely on their cheap labour and the very existence of a reserve army of labour for their economic activities. It goes to show how this situation is complex.

Of course, I'm not creating an impromtu sociological theory here, with all of the research it would naturally imply. I'm just speaking my mind. I may be right, I may be wrong. Judge for yourself.

 

[TropicalStarfish]

Certainly, kids are expensive, and it's a fact that this has been exploited by the industry of toys and childcare, for example, so that specific markets could be consolidated, but their golden age is long gone. This alone is very suggestive. The relative relevance of such industries has been steadily declining following the downward trend in birth rates. Plus, if capitalists are indeed so very interested in keeping birth rates up, it begs the question of why they're going down. In fact, if you look closely, state-sponsored child support seems to be intended more as a way of appeasing the proletariat, particularly in European nations, rather than a serious attempt at increasing birth rates, and in any case they've been instituted as part of the policies of the welfare state and social democracy, which are themselves aimed precisely at appeasing the proletariat. When the bourgeoisie and its direct representatives actually decide to interfere with demographic trends, it's generally to sterilize and exterminate poor people, such as in Peru under Fujimori, something that might seem paradoxical since they rely on their cheap labour and the very existence of a reserve army of labour for their economic activities. It goes to show how this situation is complex.

Of course, I'm not creating an impromtu sociological theory here, with all of the research it would naturally imply. I'm just speaking my mind. I may be right, I may be wrong. Judge for yourself.

Just off the cuff, birthrates decline for the following reasons, as societies become more advanced:
-Access to birth control
-Women taking up careers, rather than taking up motherhood (Being a mom doesn't leave the time required to compete equally with a man, in the career space (unless one can afford child care or has a stay at home dad (which are rarities)))
--Women pursuing higher education and then subsequently careers (see above).
-In earlier times, children were a labor force asset to agrarian families. Having children meant having more people to work the fields and the farm.
--child labor laws became a thing (see above.)
-Longer lifespan means more time to think about and be choosy about starting a family and finding a mate, which means less time, overall, to reproduce, as the age of fertility for women remains the same, despite lifespan increases.
-The complexity of child rearing has increased. In the past, you could live out your adult life without even having completed primary school; while now, a highschool education is the bare minimum for many jobs.
-The power of money is not what it used to be. A family with only one working person (the man), could earn enough to support seven children, own a home, and a car, with one job that didn't require higher education.

Those are the only things I can think of, off the top of my head; but, they are enough to significantly affect birthrates of, for example, America, Canada, Britain, EU, Australia/New Zealand, Japan. The demographics of these countries reflect the birthrate decline.

And yes, the elite, of societies, have often flirted with or tried to directly use eugenics, upon their respective populaces. Generally what ends up happening however, is war; because of the boom bust cycle. Boom time is peaceful, bust time is full of depression, anger, fear, and grinding poverty, and war is a great way to revitalize an economy, and shrink the population back to something more sustainable; and, then the process just repeats itself, barring any technology discoveries (such as birth control and all the stuff above, increases in crop yields, vaccines & medical advancements, etc..) that can help in the process of sustaining larger populations as well as sustaining economic growth.

Planned economies seem like a good solution to the above problem, except plans don't always work out as intended, and you can't really plan for anything, indefinitely, which means, you still end up with unaccounted for variables that must be navigated and mitigated, which, in the end, isn't much different than the alternative in the first place (not to mention Communist/Socialist societies can't exist in a perfect vacuum, they are forced to compete, if there are capitalists in other countries; this will tend to put them in direct conflict with a competitor who may not, 'play fair.' And that's supposing power and greed haven't corrupted the social system already, ie: Stalin/Mao types). The perfect example is China's, 'one child policy.' Despite legitimate moral objections to it's implementation, probably seemed like a good idea, at the time; but, now China may not be able to support the growth it sustained in the last 20 years, with the population it will have after 10 years from now. So, their plans didn't plan out. And that's a country that reviled the intellectuals and elites, and literally usurped them (ie: destroyed them, or tried to). And now they also have a dictator for life.

(side note: I don't think people having more children is a solution of any kind. Though, there are some people who I consider foolish, who do think that.)

Probably off topic by now, so, anywho. Pardon me..

 

[michael2]

This seems like a non hateful take on things

I actually watched this same video about a week ago.

He repeats what I've heard other men on Youtube say, that the 20s for men has historically been a tough time and it will all fall in place in your 30s. That might be true, but today it's far, far worse then it's ever been.

I understand his advice about making friends, but I strongly dislike the idea of using people as a means to an end. I would like male friends who understand me and get me so we can hang out and truly understand eachother, not because I think having them will make me more attractive to women.

Yeah, I think inexperience and past failures play a big role. I think there's a mental block there for those who have failed so much in the past. It's like a fat person who loses a lot of weight and looks great but thinks they still look bad. Plus, women can sense when a guy doesn't have a lot of experience. If I could have just one success, it would be like a snowball effect. The more success someone has, the more confidence they have. That's another problem. Women like confident guys, but if you don't have any success, how are you supposed to gain confidence? It's like people who first graduate from college. Employers want experience, but how are you supposed to get experience if you don't get hired in the first place?

Confidence is a funny thing.

You know, its like when I was still in school. I was a very quiet kid. I never said anything. But when I became a senior in high school, all the kids in the lower grades respected me without a word. I could go on the buss, sit in the very back next to obnoxious, loud, bad kids who were sophomores or juniors, but they never once dared bothered me. Because I was a senior. I was the same person I was as a freshman. But having the aura of being a senior changed people's perspective about me.

That's why confidence to me is such a garbage indicator of someone's character or value. People can become confident from superficial things like being good looking, or being very socially adept. It has actually very little to do with someone's actual character and personality. Being attracted to confidence is like being attracted to a man's height or a woman's long hair. It's superficial.

 

[okidoke]

That's why confidence to me is such a garbage indicator of someone's character or value. People can become confident from superficial things like being good looking, or being very socially adept. It has actually very little to do with someone's actual character and personality. Being attracted to confidence is like being attracted to a man's height or a woman's long hair. It's superficial.

I don’t think that many people are attracted to only confidence though. It’s a whole package. Confidence is a useful tool for achieving, like so many other traits.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Confidence just draws people to you, it's up to you to make them want to stay.

 

[sub5male]

True confidence is a result of having success. Absent of success, confidence is merely delusional. For example, a man can have great confidence about his ability to play baseball but if he cannot hit, catch, throw or run very well then he is not a good baseball player despite what he thinks about himself.

The same goes for dating. If a man has a lot of confidence but is not having any luck with the women he is attracted to then what he believes about himself is irrelevant and he very likely does not have the looks and or height to get the results he is seeking.

In fact, in many ways a man's looks & height are his confidence because a tall, good looking man will be viewed as confident due to his physical attractiveness. At the same time a short, ugly but confident man will be labeled an arrogant creep by many women only because they are not physically attracted to him.

 

[ardour]

True confidence is a result of having success. Absent of success, confidence is merely delusional. For example, a man can have great confidence about his ability to play baseball but if he cannot hit, catch, throw or run very well then he is not a good baseball player despite what he thinks about himself.

The same goes for dating. If a man has a lot of confidence but is not having any luck with the women he is attracted to then what he believes about himself is irrelevant and he very likely does not have the looks and or height to get the results he is seeking.

In fact, in many ways a man's looks & height are his confidence because a tall, good looking man will be viewed as confident due to his physical attractiveness. At the same time a short, ugly but confident man will be labeled an arrogant creep by many women only because they are not physically attracted to him.

Confidence is more a starting point imo. No it won't compensate for ****** social skills, bad appearance, or negative feedack, but at the very least you need enough of it to muster up the courage. Self-loathing tends to come across in weird and off-putting mannerisms.

 

[sub5male]

I would agree up to the point about self loathing somehow being sensed by women as always being a negative. There are men who are self loathing and toxic yet still have a strong abiiity to attract good looking women based on the mans high level of physical appearance alone regardless of his opinion of himself-these are the so called "bad boys" whom women are so often very much into. In many of these cases the mans self loathing itself may be a positive factor for women because they often wish to "save" him from himself and to show him how much he really is worth depsite his low self esteem. It's only when a man does not meet her looks threshold that his self loathing becomes a negative to her and then the ugly, self loathing man is a creep and a loser so not worthy of her time and affection.

 

[Kortelan]

There's a story to how I found this forum (I was reading the "List of internet phenomena" Wikipedia page when, after a few clicks, I got here), but that's for another time. Since I'm here anyway, I'm gonna tell you guys and girls my story (because why not?).

I've given up dating.

Just this year I've met 3 different women, all of which rejected me. Now, I'd be perfectly fine with rejection if it weren't for the fact that they'd seem interested at first, but then lose interest for no discernible reason.

Actually, scratch that, I'd be totally fine with rejection even then, only if it didn't feel like all the time we spent talking and doing stuff together were only means for them to judge me. Like there was no fun involved, only business as usual.

I've always believed that relationships should be about accepting our special other for who they are, including every quality and flaw that they have, but apparently some women (and they are not few) have different ideas.

Normally, I'd believe, even if you don't end up feeling sexually attracted to someone you've been dating, the experience of dating that person should be enough to keep a friendship going. Beats me why you'd date someone you don't feel sexually attracted to, but to each their own.

But no, once again some women seem to have different ideas.

Furthermore, by discussing this issue directly with them, I was able to confirm that, indeed, I was being judged. And I don't mean judged like the way you'd judge if a person has the same life goes that you do, or, in other words, whether you're on the same page or not. I mean it in an immoral way, as if people were nothing but objects that you can throw away when they're no longer convenient to you.

This is wrong.

What's more, I was able to ascertain the precise reason I was rejected. In at least 2 of the 3 times I was dating, those girls claimed they didn't feel sexually attracted to me because (guess it...) they found me boring.

Like I'm some type of court jester that exists only for the purpose of entertaining women. Sure, you'd like to have some fun with your special other, anyone would, but that fun comes (or should come) from the basic, fundamental fact of human company, of human interaction which you get to experience by pretty much being in the company of anyone who isn't straight-out revolting. Now, that doesn't mean that you should consider every human being that isn't straight-out revolting a potential mate, just that you can't expect people to be particularly entertaining all the time. It's like people are starting to forget the most basic, obvious things.

I'm tall (1,84m), good-looking (at least believe so), have my own house, have a relatively good financial standing, I'm a normal person in so many ways, there's just this one particular, special thing about me - I'm somewhat shy, don't like to go to parties, don't like places with too many people, and I very much like to study and talk about philosophy and all of that related stuff.

It's like these girls want to feel some sort of animalesque lust or fall in love when they've just met a man. You date a person one time and that is enough for you to positively conclude that that man is unequivocally, irretrievably boring? This would be unbelievable had I not seen it with my own two eyes.

This is completely absurd. Talk about unrealistic standards.

And then there's those guys that wanna tell you that you have to change yourself in order to get the girls. Just imagine that.

If every woman I meet is gonna be like that not only I'll be satisfied remaining single, I very much prefer it that way.

What are your thoughts on this matter? I don't wanna sound misogynistic, but if I told you that this whole experience didn't leave me a little more misogynistic than I was before, I'd be lying.

Whoa bro, you are like my Tyler durden. Of course, I follow up with studying and philosophy and somewhat psychology too. But, I am short and unhealthy shape. I'm somewhat mysogynistic and I am not ashamed of it. I don't even see the point of being with someone (only for sexual pleasures). So, I ask myself, do I really need this person in my Life? No. It's ok to be alone, after all no one is gonna follow us to hell .

 

[MrLonely86]

My peeing on toilette lasts longer than average relationship.