How celibate woman became a threat.....

[Aspychata]

How Celibate Women Became a Threat

"Increasingly, women are both sexual and celibate at once, and perhaps that makes them doubly threatening," writes Maria Yagoda.

time.com

 

[Aspychata]

I do feel judged, for having zero interests in hookups. Do any others feel this way? I think tons of porn on the internet aren't really helping either, this misleads men to formulating incorrectly that we all run around actively looking. Being ASD, also doesn't help much either. I don't see how my needs of feeling safe and looking for healthy relationships get crossed over into Bumble me......, (not).

I understand some men here may be upset about this, but l truly like to foster healthy discussions. I also noticed that there are a lot of very sensitive and respectful men here at the forum. So their imput is very welcomed.

 

[Masked Man]

I can certainly understand why a lot of women feel this way and I don't fault anyone for feeling this way. I think a lot of men need to come to terms that we fundamentally view women as objects we possess in order to inflate our status among other men. Sort of like the nice cars we buy or the nice furniture, house, etc. It's not to impress women - it's to impress and achieve status with other men.

I read something the other day that put it in a way I had never thought of before.

In the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team; they are the ball​

Which is basically saying that the patriarchy is a system designed to allow men to compete with one another using women. Women aren't the enemy of the patriarchy, they're its tools.

And I can see why women are sick of this and leaving it behind. It's shameful.

 

[TBRS1]

It always strikes me as weird, if not outright grotesque, that people won't accept the fact that different people want, or don't want, different stuff in life.

I mean really - leave people to make their own personal choices with knicker bunching and pearl clutching.

Peeps is crazy. And inappropriately into other folkeses private lives.

 

[Hypnalis]

Dating apps are not reality. They don't exist to do anything useful - they exist to make money by applying manipulative algorithms in a context where people are far less rational than they like to think.

That article is by a journalist, about a change in the algorithm and some related advertising. And it makes the unwise assumption that the dating apps (a) don't understand their customers, and (b) can be shamed into behaving according to the "pretend world".

The pressure on the dating apps' cash flow and profits doesn't come from women /lol.

BTW: in 2024, the "patriarchy" is a straw man.

Few of us are old enough to remember a time when it was real (though OFC the real one wasn't the fantasy version being peddled these days) , and the checks and balances that made it sociologically stable. But some of us were there as children and young adults.

Hearing about it from people who learned about the made-up "straw-man version" from ideologically-colored modern education, literature, and word of mouth is weird, because it so conclusively demonstrates the existence of the pretend world /lol.

Why might it matter? The pretend world has become harmful. Things are changing (**) as a result of that. Dating is the "canary in the coal mine".

(**) I shouldn't have to say this, but it makes sense to get it done:
Sociological changes are very rarely violent, and won't necessarily improve or worsen things in the long run. This one certainly can't be planned or controlled.

It will just happen, and a new "new normal" will establish itself.

 

[Masked Man]

Dating apps are not reality. They don't exist to do anything useful - they exist to make money by applying manipulative algorithms in a context where people are far less rational than they like to think.

That article is by a journalist about a change in the algorithm and some related advertising. And it make the unwise assumption that the dating apps (a) don't understand their customers, and (b) can be shamed into behaving according to the "pretend world".

The pressure on the dating apps' cash flow and profits doesn't come from women /lol.

BTW: in 2024, the "patriarchy" is a straw man.

Few of us are old enough to remember a time when it was real, and the checks and balances that made it sociologically stable. But some of us were there as children and young adults.

Hearing about it from people who learned about the made-up straw-man version from ideologically-colored modern education, literature, and word of mouth is weird, because it so conclusively demonstrates the existence of the pretend world /lol.

Why might it matter? The pretend world has become harmful. Things are changing (**) as a result of that. Dating is the "canary in the coal mine".

(**) I shouldn't have to say this, but it makes sense to get it done:
Sociological changes are very rarely violent, and won't necessarily improve or worsen things in the long run. This one certainly can't be planned or controlled.

It will just happen, and a new "new normal" will establish itself.

the thing about dating apps is that it's a small sample of the population. And unfortunately it's more likely to represent the group who is dating online because they are unable to meet partners in real life, for one reason or another. And as men outnumber women on dating apps, it's pretty easy to see why a lot of women want nothing to do with online dating.

 

[Aspychata]

I was warned that there were many married men on them. Not really sold on dating apps as the new normal.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Based on the u tube videos I have watched lately, appears the pendulum is shifting or at least unintended consequence are happening due the the sexual revolution us baby boomers kicked off n the 1960's. For both sexes the rules have changed. Thank God I'm married.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

the thing about dating apps is that it's a small sample of the population. And unfortunately it's more likely to represent the group who is dating online because they are unable to meet partners in real life, for one reason or another. And as men outnumber women on dating apps, it's pretty easy to see why a lot of women want nothing to do with online dating.

I saw both sides with my sons, older one attracted women like flies. Second oldest used his imagination became tour guide for city, now married father of my grand daughter.

 

[Judge]

Seems to me any man who would be inclined to feel threatened just because a woman chooses to exercise her freedom of choice for any reason at all is a man to be avoided.

Worse still are men who insist on denying women the freedom to manage their own lives apart from their own bodies. Threats to women which are very real at the moment.

 

[jsilver256]

I would be very honest in your profile. 17 years ago on Match.com I wrote I was looking for a man to marry with compatible views and desires, and I did not want to waste my time with anyone not aligned with that. Got a lot more men agreeing with me than I thought, but then again, this was in the US city with the biggest male-to-female ratio. Celebrating our 16th anniversary tomorrow.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

How men and women view each other via nature has changed which in turn has changed the rules. My sons were the real contrast saw it first hand. older son had looks brains, significant placement on male hierarchy had choice of ladies. Second son had to overcome learning disability, so put a plan together worked the plan knew what he wanted fiance has Phd in education. Watching him work his plan stunned me. My concern with the ladies is many are approaching menopause very quickly, at least the millennials so how the new rules work will be an issue.couple of years from know will be a real serious issue.

 

[Cryptid]

Celibate women as threats? To WHOM, exactly?

With roughly 2,228,571,429 women in the world who MIGHT be of legal age for consensual sex, how could 2,228,571,428 of them be a threat to a faithfully married man like me?

I don't get it.

 

[Cryptid]

Here is one key phrase from the article: "One 23-year-old woman told me she and her friends referred to themselves as sluts 'to signal us being hot and in control of our bodies', regardless of sexual activity."

So . . . is a woman who is in control of her own body somehow perceived as a threat to a man looking for a sex-partner? Or is it the entire Patriarchy that feels threatened every time a woman says "No" to one of its members?

Either way, some (most?) men need to grow up and face the FACT that men do NOT own women or (especially) their reproductive organs.

 

[The Pandector]

If I thought there was any chance of success, I might try a dating app that didn’t expect sexual involvement. It would be nice to have some female companionship. If something more developed, that might be okay.

But I don’t see myself even showing up anywhere where you have to explicitly declare that you’re not there for physical intimacy.
* shudder *

 

[thejuice]

Celibate woman are a threat to Bumble's profitability, yes.

 

[thejuice]

The continuation of 'The Patriarchy' ideology is an economic necessity for those in the clicks business

 

[Hypnalis]

Seems to me any man who would be inclined to feel threatened just because a woman chooses to exercise her freedom of choice for any reason at all is a man to be avoided.

This isn't false. But you ignored the implication: such a women is completely unsuitable as a wife and mother.
So the avoidance strategy is working both ways, with great effect on society.

Children require commitment and continuity. This requires an agreement, binding on both parties, that provides the necessary time and resources to raise good children.
Note that it is both sides (though extras are possible OFC). The statistics are in, they're solid, and they demonstrate that all children need both female and male role models. The old way of raising children has turned out to be much more effective than current norms.

BTW the new approach is working: the world has changed. The interesting question is whether it's already broken or if there's still a way to recover.
These days there are many people talking about the problems, but even partial solutions are scarce.

 

[Hypnalis]

I was warned that there were many married men on them. Not really sold on dating apps as the new normal.

"Dating" is a euphemism. It has been from the start. There's never been any data that shows those apps worked well for everyone. And there's plenty that indicates they're probably not good for anyone (even the "winners").

BTW: an interesting statistical fact:
If there were 5 M's for every F on a dating app, it would follow that even if selection was efficient and fair, the "top" 20% of males would be sufficient to match all the females.

I've seen claims of the relative M/F proportions from "2-3 to 1" to "9 to 1". The numbers vary suspiciously, depending on the point the presenter is trying to make, and all of the people I've seen using those stats (F-centric, M-centric, and with a mixed audience) have had an obvious agenda.

My (soft) conclusion is that most of them are innumerate, and many of the others (all three types) are being deliberately "flexible with the facts".

In your shoes I wouldn't take any of the secondary claims seriously (i.e. claims like "there are married men, but (implied and certainly false) no married women"). The truth is out there somewhere of course, but hard to find.

Personally I don't care about those apps (If I want to meet people I do it IRL), so I have no reason to search through the "fog of lies and half-truths" hoping to stumble on occasional indisputable facts /lol.

 

[thejuice]

Unless there is solid proof that men cheat more than women id bet theres as many adulterous women on the platform too