blarghly @ blarghly @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 64Joined 3 wk. ago
I honestly wouldn't peg you as conservative, even with your "conservative" views. You sound like a reasonable moderate.
Sounds like a pretty big cope. Sex isn't about cumming. It's about emotional connection with another human being. Being unable to get fulfillment of this basic human need is sad and lonely. This is why fleshlights have a stigma that beating your bishop the old fashioned way doesn't - every healthy teenaged boy spanks it on the reg. But actually purchasing a device speaks to a level of hopelessness at obtaining actual sex that is sad, which implies a failure to be attractive, which is itself unattractive.
If that were true, we would expect richer countries to have higher birth rates. Instead, we see roughly the opposite trend. The richer a country gets, typically, the lower the birth rate. You can't tell me that a teacher and a data entry clerk in Virginia are less economically capable of raising children than subsistence farmers in Malawi, no matter how high the rent in Virginia is.
If you want to see high income places with high birth rates, then you end up in very traditional/religious cultures, like Mormons and the Arab petro-states, where women face extremely high cultural pressure (if not force/violence) to be child-bearers.
Some books I enjoyed when I was a kid that didn't fit the trips above:
- The Contender
- The Tripod Series
- Call It Courage
I'd really like to see the evidence for this statement, since it really seems like this trend is just an extension of the phenomenon we see in poorer countries: when you give women education, opportunities, and birth control, fewer of them will have children. It stands to reason that the more education, the more opportunities available, and the more freely accessible birth control is, the fewer women will have children.
Me, but I have no dogs and don't play video games.
Tribalism. They'll find a way to think Trump is good, because that is a necessity for tribal membership for them.
Young people are struggling with mental health and relationships, but there are small shifts in beliefs and behaviors that could help.
Gotta disagree here. They always sell the "quick fix", but the reality is that changing your beliefs about the world is no small thing.
Their lack of representation in any zeitgeist I've encountered is kind of OP's point.
Sorry, I'm a kinky fuck, but I'm not that kinky
But muh violent revolution against the capitalists!!!
This is a great point, until you want to ask your hot date to come home with you.
Everything I've ever heard about femboys has (a) been exclusively online and (b) implied they take it up the ass. Not saying there is anything wrong with this, but effeminate gay men is the opposite of what OP is talking about.
The issue is that you presume the options are either public housing or a tent. You are missing the other option, which is simply allowing developers to build more housing on their own and removing the ability to speculate on land value, forcing land owners to earn an income only by the benefit their land provides to others. Zoning reform, good urban infrastructure, and Georgist tax policy do this without necessitating terrible concrete commie blocks everywhere
This seems true only on short time scales, and in corporate work structures. On long time scales and with more collaborative, voluntary work structures, a group of people working together and supporting each other will almost certainly outperform a disorganized collection of non-communicative individuals. We can see this is true because, yaknow, society exists.
Thank God someone in this thread actually knows how HOAs work.
I’ve learned that i’m a LOT less sexual than a lot of my peers so I just don’t get it.
This is probably the differentiating factor. I am a highly sexual person.
You would be categorized in the study as "childless" - wanting children but being unable to have them - and thus would not be part of the headline statistic.