For gen Z, the situation is increasingly hookup centered. Some people are well suited for that and are thriving with an abundance of willing partners. Many pretend to be fine with it, but seem like they would be doing much better in a culture where the purpose of going out was to find a life long partner. You have to practice a degree of detachment. Sex is supposed to be an enjoyable activity that does not necessarily mean anything in the long run, and you are not supposed to fall for someone who you have only spent a single night with. That someone chose to sleep with you does not at all indicate that they won't spend next Friday night with someone else, and you should be able to mostly shrug it off. Expectations of exclusivity easily take a few weeks to months to develop.
Since sex often comes before love, being sexually attractive is extremely important. You sleep with each other and then you see if something develops. This is important, because it runs contrary to what one might otherwise expect: That you find someone with good husband/wife qualities, and then date them to see if attraction develops over time.
This heavily favors the charismatic, outgoing, and self confident people who are good at emotional decoupling. It also helps explain why going to the gym is so popular. Those whose attractive qualities are less immediately obvious, or who want to build a closer connection before sex, tend to stay single for quite a long time even if they are actively looking. Admittedly, I have no idea if this was always the case.
I am not sure if dating apps have done damage. The main issue is the lack of places for young people to organically meet and pair up. Apps, parties, and night clubs are the most common avenues. If you for some reason do not like those, then your options are extremely limited. To the point where even those who dislike going out to party will still do so, as they perceive it as the main way of partnering up.
Tensions over gender norms mostly exist online, or in very left wing environments. Showing distaste for the opposite gender in public is usually frowned upon, especially in social gatherings. Like self-made-human says, this is considered normal. It is something most people accept and deal with, even if they privately prefer things to be different.
Bombadil
20d ago
Sure, but good luck with that. The US are so against social media regulation that they threatened the EU, a collection of sovereign foreign nations, for doing exactly that.
I am simply trying to create an alternative narrative for what might be going on. Likely it is a combination of several things.
Let us say female standards have increased to the point where "just" 5-10% of young men are actually just shit out of luck basically no matter what they do. Then add worsening social skills due to spending less time in person, which makes it so interactions between the sexes are more awkward, further reducing the chances of them leading to anything. A portion of men probably got rejected a handful of times in a row, and generalized that to mean they were undateable. Dating being replaced by hookup culture probably also explains some of it. Young people might report being single and childless but still have casual sex on the side, which would not always be obvious from the statistics. And then the people who are only looking for something more serious could easily give up because finding someone who wants to commit is so hard. Finally add what I wrote above about just not wanting do date, and I think we start to have a plausible-sounding explanation.
I just do not believe that all of it should be blamed on women wanting an unrealistic fantasy.
Bombadil
20d ago
It could be a lack of trying on the male end. People spend more time online, which takes away from stuff done in the real world. They still have to work though, so the time is taken from recreational activities. If I am on social media 4 hours per day, work for 8 + transportation, sleep at least 6, 2 hours for chores, food, exercise, and other daily necessities, and use the weekend on family or friends, I might not really want to spend what little time I have left on dating. It is kind of tiring compared to chilling on the couch, and I can always just watch porn to take the edge off.
Add to this that for many, their social life has moved online as well, for example in the form of MMO guilds and discord communities, and there are even less reasons to leave the house. Going out just to date and nothing else feels super awkward. People want to meet others through their daily activities. But if no daily activities take place outside, then what are you supposed to do? Taking dating online as well is an option, but that has its own issues.
You could meet someone through work, but many might consider the risk of drama to not be worth it. Especially if they have little romantic experience due to what I described above.
If we are negotiating a deal, and I ask if you plan to kill me in case we end up not coming to an agreement, and you say that it isn't off the table... That is a threat. You are threatening to kill me if I don't give you what you want. You would just prefer a different way, but if that turns out impossible or too expensive, you are saying that you will in fact try and kill me.
Using your own criteria here, there is a statement of intention: If a deal cannot be reached, the US military will seize the island from the Danish government. When he makes the threat again after bombing Venezuela, this indicates that the US is willing to risk a war to get what they want. There is also a condition for how it might be avoided: "Sell or give us Greenland, on terms that are acceptable to the US". The negotiating leverage is that no sane country wants to fight the American military, and Trump knows this. He is using the threat of invasion as leverage to get a better deal.
Bombadil
1mo ago
While I more or less agree with your assessment on Trump and how it is easy to overly rationalize things like this, I still believe it is a valuable discussion, beyond just training my analytical skills. Unlike Russia and China, the USA is not (yet) a dictatorship in which the leader has unchecked power. While Trump's tweets may simply be the erratic work of a narcissist, the overall foreign policy can only happen if supported by the larger state apparatus. Thus, it is clear at this point that the negotiation strategy of applying as much pressure as possible and using every piece of leverage available, including shattering the final vestiges of a world order that has existed since the end of the cold war, is a stance supported by the majority of the US government. If acquiring Greenland is such an important goal to the US that this is now official foreign policy, I think it makes sense to look for a semblance of rationality. Only if no satisfying answer can be found, should we conclude that this behavior is as psychotic as it seems on the surface.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Full independence seems more like an ideal that the people like and less like a realistic goal. As I understand it, the current society there literally cannot function without being subsidized by the mainland. There is currently no actionable plan (that I know about) to attain financial independence within the near future.
Bombadil
1mo ago
The main issue I have here is that the growing tensions you describe are mainly due to the Trump administration's extremely aggressive negotiation tactics and hostile rhetoric. It was an avoidable problem. Keep treating the EU like allies, and the tensions would not have been there. Hell, even after all this, the European leadership at large still seems to be holding out hope that the US will reverse course, and that everything can just go back to normal.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Yes. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that asking to buy Greenland was apparently the first idea the Trump administration had. As if treating Denmark like a loyal ally and negotiating with her to increase the existing force was never an option. This is why I find it most likely that simply owning the landmass (either as a prestige project or to cement the US as a Great Power) is the main goal. Because this is the only thing that explicitly requires ownership.
Bombadil
1mo ago
NATO has sent troops into sovereign countries as the result of security council decisions in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations). In addition, the US and EU have enforced sanctions in unison against countries who threatened the established world order, attempting to force them into compliance. This is not nothing, and this era is currently changing in front of our eyes.
You spin a fairly convincing narrative. Together with some of the other commenters here, such as @naraburns and @Totalitarianit i now have a better sense of why the US would want to own the country, rather than simply having a military Prescence there. As well as how ownership would further her military goals. This has certainly been educational.
Bombadil
1mo ago
In the hypothethical situation where the Trump administration expends a significant amount of resources to acquire Greenland, something that the US has wanted to do for more than a hundred years, would there even be a mandate to give it back while receiving nothing in return? I imagine the sunk cost would be way too high to justify.
Hell, would Denmark even want it back? It is possible that she is defending Greenland mostly out of a sense of duty and national pride. But not having to subsidize the population might end up being enough of a boon for the mainland to not want that responsibility back years after finally losing it.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Militarily speaking, what would acquiring Greenland do to limit the risks you lay out here? They have military bases there, and the other NATO countries also believe in climate change and have an interest in keeping the area under control. Denmark has a tendency to cede American requests for military presence, so why can't the US meet their goals without acquiring Greenland and throwing their alliances into question?
Bombadil
1mo ago
Retaliation for the tariffs. Back in 2025 when Trump threatened tariffs left and right, EU leaders stated that it would retaliate as one body if even a single country was targeted. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/22/europe-has-a-trade-bazooka-against-trumps-trade-tariffs.html
Bombadil
1mo ago
Yeah. none of this is insurmountable, just very expensive. The question becomes how much the US is willing to pay.
Bombadil
1mo ago
This ignores the threat of sanctions resulting in retaliation from the EU, which could cause real economic damage to the US. If it was this easy, the administration would have already done it.
Bombadil
1mo ago
I must admit, I had not heard this was an official position. Regardless, an offer to bribe the people runs into three problems:
- The money promised must be significantly more than what Denmark is currently providing, to account for the uncertainty inherent in a regime change.
- The Inuits currently live under pretty favorable conditions in that they have a lot of autonomy. Those conditions might change as the US takes over, which is something the payment would have to account for.
- Low trust in the US. The current administration seems to use every piece of leverage they have to get what they want, and are clearly willing to disregard international law if following it would be contrary to their interests. If they do acquire Greenland, what is going to stop them from going back on any promises they made, once Denmark and the other European countries are no longer in a position to bail the Inuits out?
The new thing here is that the US is no longer trying to work together with the EU and NATO countries. It used to be that these bodies were responsible for enforcing UN laws in the world. Now, the US is putting immense strain on its alliances and trying to go at it alone, going so far as to threaten an ally. As a result, the rules are changing. When the main enforcer of international laws ceases to enforce them, international law no longer exists.
As for Greenland, there is a significant difference between having military bases there and officially being in charge. Right now, the US has no sway over local laws, and Denmark is subsidizing the population. Both of these things would change with a takeover.
USA really, seriously wants to own Greenland.
Trump has made this extremely clear ever since his first presidency when he first offered to buy the island from the Danish government. At the time, the Danes made it very clear that this was not possible. They could not legally sell the island, and if they could, it still would not be for sale. This presidency, he has been probing around, trying to find an effective strategy that can give the administration what they want. He made that clear in 2025 by essentially stating that no tactic is off the table. He has since attempted the following:
- Threaten a military takeover. He did this by stating that military intervention was not considered off the table.This was shut down by European leaders promising to retaliate.
- Convince the locals to declare independence. In reality, independence for Greenland means choosing a new master (thus creating an obvious opportunity for the US), as their current society cannot survive without subsidies from a wealthier nation. However, the administration failed to convince the Inuits. I suspect they might return to this strategy in the future though, if the current one does not work.
- Currently, the administration is attempting to use the situation in Venezuela as leverage. They are showing that the threats of invasion were not empty, using the implication to frighten the relevant parties into submission. Once again, European leaders have, through indicating support for Denmark, threatened retaliation if the US invades. I suspect this will be enough to deter the administration once more. Although if Europe had not been supportive and instead let Denmark stand alone, I do not doubt that America would be planning an invasion right now.
This begs the question though: Why does the US want Greenland so badly? It is a frozen rock in the middle of the ocean, with an entire population living off government subsidies. Why not just let Denmark pay the bill while the states keep their bases? I have some ideas below, ordered from what I think makes the least sense to the most:
- It is a hedge against global warming. As the earth grows hotter, Greenland will become increasingly habitable, making the island much more valuable as other landmasses are swallowed by the ocean.
- Real estate for data centers. The island is cold and remote, with a lot of empty space and rare earths in the ground. To my layman's knowledge though, construction of the necessary infrastructure would be ludicrously expensive, even though the land itself might be cheap. Still, I would not put it past the likes of Elon Musk to try something like this anyway.
- To secure the North Atlantic against military threats. This seems like the official reason, but I don't really buy it. America already has military bases on Greenland, and I do not see why the military could not simply send more equipment and personnel there if the government wanted a larger presence. No official ownership necessary. If this is wrong, then I invite any other commenter to correct me.
- To control the rare earths. Rare earths are a priority of the Trump administration, and even though extracting them is supposedly ridiculously expensive, the mere possibility of another country (China) gaining access to them might be enough to warrant official occupation. This way, the US government, not the Inuits, would be in control of who is allowed to mine there.
- It is in the American "Sphere of Influence". It is possible that the world order is turning towards one in which Great Powers (USA, Russia, China, and maybe the EU) hold influence over the smaller countries in their vicinity. The smaller countries remain sovereign and independent as long as they operate in the interest of their great power. In this scenario, the USA views all of the Americas as being under her sphere of influence, including Canada and Greenland. These countries will either bow to their leader or suffer her wrath.
- The purpose is to secure Trump's (and more broadly, the Republican's) legacy as president. Trump clearly cares a lot about his image, with the most recent example being how hard he has tried to win the Nobel Peace price. Successfully expanding the nation's territory with the world's largest island would go down in the history books, cementing this administration as potentially the greatest one since world war 2.
Bombadil
1mo ago
This is also partly a communication issue, no? The woman either failed to communicate what she wants from the man, or the man did not listen or understand when she did so.
Had the man not watched porn but still been abstaining from sex for decades, he would also not know how to satisfy a woman. So you get the same experience of the woman leaving unsatisfied. The main difference would be that the abstainer probably has fewer preconceptions, so maybe he will be more careful. But that does not directly correlate with being better at sex.
I grew up being taught the ideals of a rules-based world where the US stood for international law based on western values. Besides, conservatives tend to use the sovereignty of nations as an argument against globalism. I assumed the argument against foreign aid programs was one of sovereignty. Each country is responsible for their own people. Perhaps most importantly, I was under the impression that being anti-war was a really important part of Trump's campaign. I genuinely believed that was a big reason for people to vote for him.
It seems my desire to be charitable may have led me to wrong conclusions, which have now been corrected. At least until further evidence presents itself.
Bombadil
1mo ago
America has bombed another sovereign nation. This is literally starting a war with a country that was not a military threat to the US, and (at least to my knowledge) were not at all at risk of going to war themselves. Even if it turns out to be short-lived, this starts a war that would have not otherwise occurred. The literal opposite of peace. I would suggest that people who support this are not anti-war at all. They are anti-losing, anti-spending-lots-of-money-on-prolonged-conflicts, pro-US-can-do-whatever-it-wants, and they clearly do not care about the sovereignty of other countries.
You argue that this intervention was needed but do not explain why. Until I gain a satisfying explanation of why this attack was necessary and worthwhile, I will be forced to believe in the above.
I am curious: Trump campaigned on being anti-war, and has attempted to brand himself as a peacemaker this past year. Will starting a war be what drives his supporters away from him? Or will this be considered largely justified?
I could see a world where it is spun as being the best way to spend American resources in the interest of the people, in some roundabout way furthering "America First". But would the voters really buy that?
It depends a lot on your age. 20 somethings and 30 somethings don't mix all that much. What I described above mostly holds true for those in their mid twenties and younger, with more options for those between 30 and 50. For some reason, young people are just not that interested in doing stuff organized by people much older than them, or in hobbies that require them to follow a set schedule. Older folks will happily invite younger people into their spaces, but when mostly everyone is at least 10 years older than you (or the activity is dominated by one gender), there isn't a lot of room for romance.
That said, you can still find mixed-gender activites with room for socializing, even if you are young. However, they can be few and far between, require more initiative to find, or are specific to certain hobbies. And even then, the hookup-centered nature of things persists.
This sounds about right. I am not sure people necessarily perceive the value in developing hosting skills, and those who do, might be disappointed with how hard it can be to get people to commit. It is a shame though, as good hosts are generally pretty popular within their communities.
More options
Context Copy link