this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
257 points (92.4% liked)
science
18957 readers
512 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems like a huge part of the problem is equating "self-worth" to "getting laid".
Putting your dick in a woman doesn't make you any more of a man / successful / worth more than anyone else.
Societal expectations need to be rejected. Oh, success is measured by your ability to get married, have a house, and raise your 2.5 children? For a vast majority, NONE OF THAT IS CURRENTLY SUSTAINABLE AND/OR OBTAINABLE. So why bother? Right?
I get it. It ain't right, but I get it.
Yeah, puting a man's dick in you makes you more of a man.
Assuming a penis weighs about 0.1 kilograms^1, and the average weight of a man is around 90 kilograms[^2], we can assume that you will be roughly 0.11% more man!!!
(BY MASS)The measure may be different if we calculate by a change in volume.
[^2]: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320917 ; https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/average-weight-for-men
thank you for your service
It's simple math, really.
Yeah instant double the amount of man.. wanna become a 3x man? Just lmk
It's literally the most natural thing in the world to equate reproductive effectiveness to worth. All life is "worth" their reproductive effectiveness. So not having sex is very relevant to our entire existence as a species.
As such, our mental faculties put a heavy punishment in the form of mental pain, i.e. "self-worth attached to getting laid", on this whole thing.
This has very little to do with societal expectations. It's simple biology. Not getting laid is supposed to be one of the worst things for an organism.
You're rationally right with what you say, but it's simply not very relevant. Rationality does not help with our most deeply rooted biological desires. The only thing that helps is getting them fulfilled, i.e. having sex.
Everything you wrote is nonsense. Pointing at a process that often occurs - evolution - and then working backwards to claim that organisms must feel pain when they don't reproduce is completely antilogical. Evolution may be caused by feelings of pain or suffering when otganisms don't reproduce, or it could be something completely different. You are putting the effect before the cause.
Trying to do evolutionary psychoanalysis on something as cognitively complex as a human is practically guaranteed to give you wrong conclusions. What's more, this sort of bullshit is part and parcel of a lot of bioessentialist rhetoric, so if I were you I would definitely consider revaluating a few things.
In this case the logic is sound. Evolution doesn't often occur, it always occurs. And we're not talking about secondary or tertiary reproductive fitness (ie: humans are efficient at running so they must run, men are physically strong so they must defend), we're talking about actual reproductive encounters.
Its the entire goal of the of all life on earth. There's a carrot for anything getting you closer to reproducing and sticks for anything that moves you the wrong direction. Despair and discomfort can be caused by plenty of things, but you don't have to disentangle the entire human experience to draw the line from a lack of healthy sexual experience to an ideology based on extreme sexual frustration.
Edit: again, down votes with no counter argument. For some reason people agree that abstinence in sex ed is a bad policy but turn around and say sex isn't part of normal human function. Which is it?
None of my argument is about regressive bioessentialism. There's no inherent violent masculinity or genetic fitness or any stance about what relationships are "supposed" to look like. Men are just having less sex than women.
24% of men aged 22-34 did not had sex in 2022-2023 vs 13% of women. That's a much larger cohort to propagate that frustration. You can argue that there are other social factors that make it manifest in this specific toxic ideology (as opposed depression, anxiety and body image issues) but the root cause is the same.
More sex means less frustration about lack of sex, less sex means more. Why jump through hoops to make it about personal failing or some other indirect cause?
It’s not a ‘goal’ there is no purpose or goal to evolution or life…it’s a property of life that it propagates itself but that’s not the goal, reproduction is a function or a property of life. You could also argue the ‘goal’ is survival and there are sticks and carrots poking at making an organism survive, but again it just sounds like you’re misunderstanding how those words are used in academia, you’re doing the same thing with fitness. Fitness in evolution isn’t about running or being strong it’s how well an organism functions in its environment and what makes an organism fit varies from organism to organism and environment to environment.
One of us is misunderstanding for sure.
You're conflating metaphysical goals with the literal biological goals of propogation. It has nothing to do with survival, plenty of animals sacrifice themselves after reproducing, either as a food source or lack of evolutionary pressure to stay alive. The human exceptionalism that our awareness puts us above these natural processes is part of the problem.
Yeah you’re the one misunderstanding lol
Must be a reading comprehension issue, I specifically pointed to genetic [biological] fitness in that context. The definition is right there, I'm not wrong. I can reword it if you want: "my argument is explicitly not supporting eugenics"
And still, no actual counter argument. Just responses that might as well be "I don't like what you're saying" followed by a short philosophical essay. What humans morally should or shouldn't do is completely orthogonal to what humans are as biological creatures.
If I'm misunderstanding the dozens of hours of conversations I've had with personal friends who professionally research animal+human evolution and behavioral neuroscience, please enlighten me. To summarize my understanding:
All of this points to a very reasonable statement: humans are designed for a non-zero amount sex and large deviations from that can negatively impact social behavior.
People in this thread hallucinate that as an endorsement of regressive public policy or toxic ideology. It's possible (if you reeeeally really stretch your mind) to want more healthy sexual behavior in society without also supporting sexual enslavement.
It's not though. I'm not working backwards. I'm just not writing a dissertation. It's possible to observe lack of sex leading to psychological pain in all the different societies throughout all of history we have as humans. It's incredibly more likely to be caused by our biology than by artificially created societal expectations.
Yeah sure, but it's also one of the most natural things in the world to bite people
Of course it is, if you have rabies
Rabies is natural ;3
I'm asexual. Can't relate, I guess.
EDIT: Wait, that's even shittier!! People unable or have difficulty reproducing are worth less to society?? I may be a bit naïve, but I don't believe that's a majority of society believes something like that. That's disgusting.
The comment was about self worth not societal worth. Being asexual shouldn't matter with that argument because you wouldn't feel the same sexual drive; your self worth isn't impacted.
Self-worth can be a result of societal expectations. Your parents badgering you about how you should "go get married and have a family" to show how "successful" you are as a person is very much a thing. It can greatly impact a person.
The only reason a person would feel bad is because society is pushing the narrative that they should feel bad if they aren't having sex with someone.
Sure true, but you can't ignore that humans have millions of years of evolution that have honed our physiological and social behavior to act a certain way. Just because it's not rational doesn't mean you can flip a switch and shrug it off.
For example, peer pressure in teens is more than a normal learned behavior. The need to conform to an in-group that (historically) will be your lifelong community is immense. The pain of exclusion and embarrassment is amplified, closer to actual physical pain, compared to what an adult/child might feel in the same situation.
...is because reproduction is a core part of animal evolution. An asexual person saying that core discomfort is invalid is like a person who can't feel physical pain rolling their eyes at touching a hot stove.
I'm not saying it's invalid, I'm just saying that I personally don't believe that it's the true core of the issue!
It's way more than just "Men mad because monke brain want sex mad because no sex".
What is the core of the issue? "Society bad"? There are a lot of comorbid social ills but you can't reduce everything to your favorites.
Economic frustration will likely manifest as anti immigrant sentiment. Extremist groups provide inclusion as a cure for social isolation. Degrading healthcare systems are fertile ground for anti-vax and pseudo-medicine. Digital echo chambers give a space to amplify every toxic narrative.
Occam's razor says the guys preaching the fatalistic misogyny gospel are probably experiencing some strong sexual frustration. If they didn't have that problem they could find something else to be mad about.
No toxic ideology precludes the others, but a racist with a stable marriage isn't going to be blackpilled. He already knows minorities are the real problem.
Dunno what to tell you, but your second sentence is just wrong. It is mainly "men mad because monke brain want sex".
You only think it's not because like you said, you can't relate to most people since you're asexual.
It's not the absolute truth. But it's most likely the largest part of the explanation.
People like putting blame on "society", and while societal pressures surely play a part, the reason it's so nice to mainly blame society is because it creates a problem that has an acceptable solution.
Because what do you say when you say society is mainly to blame here? You're saying it's completely fine for many men not to have sex. Just have to fix society making it hard for them to live without sex. If my assumption is correct though, that doesn't help those men very much. But who does it help? Anyone those men would want to have sex with, because they're not under "threat" anymore.
Yeah i have sad it before. Many young men belive that to be a good person they must me the manlyest man to have manned in the history of manhood. Anything else and they a moral failure.
And you believe that men are fuck machines, fuck beasts, that to be a man is to fuck. Well thrn a man that is not having sex is failure of a man.
Changing their. Minda is not just a changing some view it is changing their whole world view. It is the sane as convincing the pope to convert to Buddhism. It is way more then facts or some conversations ot converting a whole generation.
Pro tip: getting laid creates more problems than it solves.
Oh, I'm well aware. I'm one of those problems. 😎
Pro tip: don't say "getting laid", ever, unless you want to sound misogynistic.