This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not quite.
There's some subset of women who aren't having sexual encounters at all.
Of the women having sexual encounters, this implies that about 60% of those encounters are with a particular subset of men.
And then we ALSO have data that women are on average having more sexual encounters than ever.
So contingent on the amount of women actually having sex (somewhere around 80% of young women, based on self reports) the vast majority of their sex is with a small cohort of men.
And the contingent of men having sex is decreasing fairly quickly. Suggesting that the % of men on the receiving end of these sexual encounters is getting even more exclusive.
The only sane interpretation is that women are having more sex, on average, with a smaller pool of guys.
Which is, ONCE AGAIN, backed up by data from Dating apps.
A small % of guys are even matching with women, let alone having sex with them.
Am I the only one that uses google anymore?
Half of Young men just aren't dating.
Around 45% have never asked a woman out at all.
That's 50% out of the pool already. Do you think a guy who turns 25 with minimal/zero dating experience is likely to turn that around and have success with women by age 30?
As of 2023, 60% of young men reported they were single. That number. 34% of young women reported being single. WHO ARE THE WOMEN DATING if not those young men?
As of 2026, around 34% of young men report being in a 'serious' relationship.. Situation is not really improving.
So we're hovering somewhere around 70% of young dudes who are not currently on trajectory to get married.
You tell me why that would be, if men actually want to get married. What's the holdup, why can't they attract a partner?
There's little reason to think that'll improve.
And you can hear women tell you the exact same thing straight from their mouth.
"If your standards don't eliminate most, they're not high enough."
"I'd rather die alone... ...than know that I didn't get it all."
This is being openly stated, in publicly viewable forums, young women TELLING YOU DIRECTLY that most men aren't sufficient for them. THEY'RE NOT HIDING IT.
Why would that be? What possible explanation is there other than... some large % of men (60%? 70%? 80%?) don't rise to their notice.
I've discussed each of these individual points before, of course. Its getting very rote to have this discussion when the data still says the same thing, and all the new data just reinforces the existing point.
My precise position is that about 50% of men are invisible to women, with an additional 30% that only become visible on occasion once acknowledged.
Maximus goes in to it with some detail
The most likely explanations:
More options
Context Copy link
You really have to click through and look at the methodology itself, not just copy-paste whatever clickbait summary it's posted with. Best I can tell, you are misreading this survey in a way that actually reverses its findings.
Here are the actual questions and responses from the Pew survey. Notice how "dating casually" in this survey falls in the singledom region! The figure in the article also confirms: "single" as a category refers to respondents who are not married, living with a partner or in a committed romantic relationship.
So for this survey, all your Chads playing the field are showing up in the same 60% as the incels. Given that respondents aged 18-29 get binned separately from respondents aged 30-49, it's plausible the entire story with any disparities is just the completely unremarkable fact that women date men a few years older, so many of the committed partners of mid-20s women are showing up in the 30-49 age bracket (25% not married or LTR).
They asked additionally about people's relationship goals, seemingly using a single question: "Are you looking looking (for committed romantic relationship, casual dates or either one)?" Answering "yes" to this could match either the Chad seeking more flings or the incel seeking to lose his v-card, and answering "no" could equally well mean "I've given up" or "Nah, I'm cool with hookups, no relationship." So again, AFAICT this study gives zero way of differentiating between incel and Chad; the questions route them into the same buckets.
(Lastly, 39% of women aged 65+ are not married or in LTR, versus 25% of men in that bracket, but I notice you don't express the same concern about those ladies' lonely fate. Why is that?)
Seriously, all survey-based social science is terrible, but it becomes 1000x more terrible if you start with a preconceived conclusion and just Google around for supporting headlines. Consider all the much-hyped survey-based studies claiming to show that Republicans are inherently stupider and less empathic than Democrats. Do you accept these summaries uncritically because Science! No? Then should you also exercise some critical scrutiny about studies like these? [edited for clarity]
More options
Context Copy link
It's like a combination of several factors, the largest being the Dave Chappelle skit about 'I don't have a girlfriend, but there's some women'd be upset to hear that'.
Mitch Hedburg line, I believe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link