The Rise of Lonely Single Straight Men

I think that on a wider scale this is evolution in action. Single people tend to not reproduce. So they remove their genes from the pool, leaving the children of those who did reproduce. And if people have fewer children then they are propagating their genes to a lesser extent.
 
malachi said:
Unfortunately that's never going to happen. As an human race we are lazy. Look at what are are surrounded by because of ease and convenience.

Netflix\Disney+\On demand TV - No need to leave your house to watch a film. Even a new releases.
Amazon Prime - No need to leave your house to shop
Kindle - No need to leave your house to buy books or visit the local library
GamePass\Steam\PSN - No need to leave your house to buy games and play with friends
Dating Apps - No need to leave your house, go to the club or bar to get sexual interaction.

Many things now can be done without leaving your sofa.

I was totally against dating apps until I moved to another country and covid locked down everything for nearly 2 years.

As someone earlier said, either adapt or die alone. I chose to adapt.
Click to expand...

This is why I think its so hard to find people if you have outdoor hobbies. An ever increasing proportion of the population do not go outside.

Even friends, its near impossible to drag people out to play games at the pub rather than online.

I'm actually doing more on my own now as I'm simply sick of online.
 
413x said:
An interesting topic.

Primarily... Your happiness is your responsibility. Its not great when you need someone to be happy. It's probably more its not great to be miserable if you're alone. Subtle difference.
This means you probably won't really be happy in a relationship. But you'll have responsibility/duty to take your mind off.

Single child free Women? If not sure. Many come across happy. But some maybe never found the right one.



I do think men and women. Want different things. And successful women are going to find it much harder than successful men to get what they want.
I know what many successful men want (hot! Young! Probably some personality)
And these women, many of them will want that rich older man. Sorted.

But successful women? Do they want an equal? Many successful men would not want this. Do they want a hotty? Doesn't feel like it.



What do I want?
-somewhat hot
-fun
-good hobbies.
- no kids (deal breaker)

The last one is actually by far the hardest to find. Also Not many women are adventure sport loving. Not many are even outdoorsy.
Certainly many more men I see biking, kayaking etc. However paddle board is a weird one. Many woman do that.


Our of my outdoorsy. Female friends? All are. Single (not by choice) and only took up these hobbies when single. I think they are filling their time/looking for a partner and then may well slide away from the hobbies.


Hobbies are why I think people are miserable. They don't have any. They need someone else to give them a purpose.
Or the people who only take on hobbies to meet someone.

So many people! I've really struggled to meet people doing the same hobbies. Despite living near a city very near these sports areas of 100'000s of people.


How can there be so many people, yet so few do anything?


Its probably the Internet, social media, consuming though screen that does it.
Click to expand...
Successful career women will always suffer and end up single having pets as replacement for kids.

Older men will happily date the 18 or 21 year old woman working at Mac D's because we admire youth and fertility.

Older women, specially career successful women will never look at the 18 or 21 year old guy because he's on an lower wage, probably won't have an car or his own place. But women will never understand what men are attracted to is different from women.
 
Quartz said:
I think that on a wider scale this is evolution in action. Single people tend to not reproduce. So they remove their genes from the pool, leaving the children of those who did reproduce. And if people have fewer children then they are propagating their genes to a lesser extent.
Click to expand...
it is actually reverse darwinism really..... my understanding is it is the couples in successful careers and generally doing well for themselves who tend (yes i know my brush is wide) to have fewer kids possibly because they left it late to start (if you do a PHD you are far less likley to want to start a family..., where as those who are less career orientated or in dog poor countries living in poverty who are more likely to have multiple children.

not suggesting a fix or anything just a casual observation. (mind you to possibly nuke my own argument the 2 most wealthy people i know one has 3 kids the other 4............. so not an exact statement )
 
SPG said:
A Labrador and a campervan i keep telling you :)
Click to expand...
You are persistent but I do believe you on the the lifestyle to a certain degree. Are we talking fully fitted glamping style or string vest and 'authentic' rust?

Also slightly jealous as I would actually love a campervan but would actually need something like a converted coach with lift, fully adapted for my son to really do what we would like.
 
bigmike20vt said:
it is actually reverse darwinism really..... my understanding is it is the couples in successful careers and generally doing well for themselves who tend (yes i know my brush is wide) to have fewer kids possibly because they left it late to start (if you do a PHD you are far less likley to want to start a family..., where as those who are less career orientated or in dog poor countries living in poverty who are more likely to have multiple children.

not suggesting a fix or anything just a casual observation. (mind you to possibly nuke my own argument the 2 most wealthy people i know one has 3 kids the other 4............. so not an exact statement )
Click to expand...

We aren't having any kids.
We are on what would be (before the crazy inflation) a "good" household income.

But if you threw in a kid it would turn the "average" you and we'd certainly have a lower standard of living.

Throw in the current situation. Nope! Would be concerned!

Kids are expensive. If you're not very rich or kids actually help (benefits) it's getting harder and harder to justify
 
413x said:
Kids are expensive. If you're not very rich or kids actually help (benefits) it's getting harder and harder to justify
Click to expand...
I justified it as the main reason for actually being alive.
I could die tomorrow and everything else I’ve done could be deemed as pointless.
 
krooton said:
Met first proper girlfriend (2 years) on a clubbing forum.
Met next gf (2 years) on a different clubbing forum.
Next through a friend, she screwed me over after 6 months.
Next through PoF, together for 5 years, bought a flat, got a cat, but sadly realised she wasn't the right one for me.
Next through OkCupid, got married after 4 years, been together for 7, have a house, and even more cats.

There is ZERO chance I would have randomly met my wife as we went about in completely different circles (mainly by way of music taste), so I wouldn't poo-poo dating sites.
Though the swipey ones a bit crapper as no effort is put in.
Click to expand...

congrats..

yes on reflection i mean the swipey ones, not entirely the more longform ones. :P
 
413x said:
This is why I think its so hard to find people if you have outdoor hobbies. An ever increasing proportion of the population do not go outside.
Click to expand...
it's horrific - yes 50% of women and 1/3rd uk men no exercise ... does everyone lie on dating apps or is this obvious, because they just discuss clubbing/drinking/lieterature/netflix

Almost half of women have done no vigorous exercise in the past 12 months with a majority saying they lacked motivation, a survey has suggested.
The percentages are lower for men, with just over a third saying they had not exercised in that period and half citing a lack of motivation, according to the data from healthcare charity Nuffield Health.
 
Uther said:
It is an unpopular viewpoint on a forum of, I assume, mostly single men, but it is the sole reason we are on the planet.
Click to expand...
popular or not it is a basic animal instinct. That said in modern society it isnt necessary unless you want them. There are lots of ways to have a positive impact on our local area and i promise you the planet will have no problem at all you choosing not to have kids. Cut the world population by 4 billion humans and we would still be at a high enough population for the species to survive. Also modern society does take a lot of fun out of having kids..... you dont see "lower" primates worrying about who has to look after the young, and mummy monkey number 1 does not have a big issue with daddy monkey having a dip in mummy monkey number 2 so long as he is the head of the group. ;)... Also we are the only species to work out contraception.

it could be if there was another primate bright enough to work out how to have sex without having babies, you would see their birth rate drop too.

we split the difference. My wife and i have 1 kid, so the net effect will be the population drops by 1 when we kick the bucket, but at the same time our genes will live on. (not that i give a monkies about that. there is not anything special about my genes.
 
Quartz said:
I think that on a wider scale this is evolution in action. Single people tend to not reproduce. So they remove their genes from the pool, leaving the children of those who did reproduce. And if people have fewer children then they are propagating their genes to a lesser extent.
Click to expand...

Holy cow! Have you considered a career as a detective?
 
Quartz said:
I disagree. Evolution doesn't care about the why, only the what.
Click to expand...
Darwins theory of evolution via natural selection ........ ok i am a geneticist so i cant get this wrong....... i should google and cheat but i wont. is that those most suited to their environment get to be stronger and as such get the opportunity to breed, which means you pass on your traits to the next generation.

Those who are less successful, wont get the opportunity to breed, they will either die out by predation or what ever or will not get to spread their seed via an available mate due to a "better" suitor kicking you out..

Dumb luck also plays a part of course

I am proposing that because of the way society works, that no longer is necessarily the case now really. Not making a moral statement for or against it, but the notion that the strong will survive is not necessarily true any more.
 
bigmike20vt said:
Darwins theory of evolution via natural selection ........ ok i am a geneticist so i cant get this wrong....... i should google and cheat but i wont. is that those most suited to their environment get to be stronger and as such get the opportunity to breed, which means you pass on your traits to the next generation.

Those who are less successful, wont get the opportunity to breed, they will either die out by predation or what ever due to not being suited, or will not get to spread their seed via an available mate.

I am proposing that because of the way society works, that no longer works really. Not making a moral statement for or against it, but the notion that the strong will survive is not necessarily true any more.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Our society has evolved to prioritise and protect the weak allowing them to survive beyond what they would without the active intervention of others. A prime example is modern medicine allowing those with otherwise life limiting hereditary disorders to go on and reproduce, thus further increasing the presence of those disorders in the gene pool whereas in the past they were far less likely to pass those defective genes on.
 
Women , paff after what I heard at work today I might just give up on them . Oh don’t tell the wife .

A guy in operation at the firm I work for has had a complaint made against him as he held a door open for a female member of staff . HR are only upholding the complaint as well - Apparently she felt patronised as this was something that was done in in the past! Like WTF!
 
Dis86 said:
Completely agree. Our society has evolved to prioritise and protect the weak allowing them to survive beyond what they would without the active intervention of others. A prime example is modern medicine allowing those with otherwise life limiting hereditary disorders to go on and reproduce, thus further increasing the presence of those disorders in the gene pool whereas in the past they were far less likely to pass those defective genes on.
Click to expand...
indeed and for the record as an asthmatic who would without my medication have a far lower quality of life I am glad of it...... but it does mean that my potentially faulty genes are passed onto my son, who already has an inhaler.
 
Yay for once I don't meet the criteria - myself and the wife are coming up to 20 years together. I will say though listening to some of the secretarial staff at work ain't no way I'd make it in today's dating game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom