What is your solution to young men dropping out of society?

What is your solution to young men dropping out of society?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Gas the Jews

There isn't really a solution other than giving them a reason to stay plugged-in.

I'm a gay male with a low sex-drive. I have a stable job and a couple of friends. I have literally no reason to pursue marriage or have children, other than the mild intrinsic desires, which I don't seem to have trouble overcoming. Society has granted me all of the superficial material pleasures I want. So yes, I'll live and die alone, but I won't feel that I'm missing too much because I was born a faggot anyone.

Weak men will blindly follow pussy.
Strong men will compete for it.
Want to change society get more of:
Lauren Souther, Faith Goldy, Tara McCarthy, Brittany Pettibone, Kat Timpf, Laura Ingraham, Lana, etc.
Neckbeards will say they don't have original thoughts, with some merit. The fact remains that women define communities, men nations.

...

>all these Canadian posts within seconds of each other

sage

gas

>muh women are the answer to men dropping out of society

Fucking leafs no wonder your country is so cucked.

Gay men usually have good genes. Convincing them not to marry and have children while pursuing their degenerate lifestyle on the side was the greatest Jewish trick of our lifetime.

No the HoloHoax was.

Their biology damns them to a live of either solitude or degeneracy. It can't be neither and it probably won't be both.

Which do you prescribe?

solitude.

Get them jobs with good pay, the rest will fix itself.

Gay men got married and had kids throughout all of history while blowing each other in bathhouses. They should probably get back to doing that. Gay identity is kind of a meme and a lot of gay men end up mental trainwrecks because of it. Just my two cents.

That makes no sense. Of course gay men don't marry and have kids. Think about what you said for a minute.

are you me but Canadian?

GTFO fags your not welcome here.

>human history started in 1980 when coming out gained acceptance
Sweetie no.

You couldn't tell from Trudeau?

National Socialism

/Thread.

I'm not gay.

I didn't say that. This is about biology, of course gays don't have kids and get married. They are gay and if they aren't forced to do it they won't. I'm against degeneracy but I don't believe in forcing them to do something like that.

Nothing... deal w/ it.
They're fine.
Tired of these threads.

> Society gets it shit together
> Stops exploiting people to high hell
> People rejoin society

See.. ez.

"Return to traditional Christianity" is pretty much the catch-all answer to all of the societal issues that Sup Forums is concerned with.

>muh european paganism

Even if paganism taught sound moral virtues (it doesn't), you're not going to convince people to convert en masse to your neckbeard rock-worshipping cult.

Give nerds more blowjobs.
Not like star wars and video games type nerds, but like silicon valley nerds, lawyers, doctors, etc.
That way you would incentivize that kind of productive behavior.

That's my life so far. Trying to mentally prepare for the next fifty years. Falling into alcoholism.

That's true enough. I have a friend who plays the role of my "female companion" at family events. But where are there bathhouses anymore? I thought those disappeared in the 70s.

Perhaps.

I don't remember asking if I was welcome.

>I didn't say that. This is about biology, of course gays don't have kids and get married.
You do realize most older gay men have an ex wife and kids, right? The idea of living your life full gay is a relatively recent phenomenon and to be totally honest detrimental to the overall gene pool.

you're *

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

We aren't the ones (yet) that are giving away our country or large swathes of it to latino's.

They disappeared because everyone who went there got AIDS and died. People seriously thought HIV was a divine punishment for a while there in the 80s and 90s.

>Christianity
>Derivative of Judaism
>Which is a reformed polytheistic religion
Wow big difference there you delusional Abrahamic retards. The jews could've chosen any one of their favourite gods and you would be worshipping that god now.

Sorry no.
Pussy is pretty much free.

The only reason pussy has value is because pussy produces kids.
Outside of bearing a child, a pussy is a wet hole.
Sport fucking pussy = jacking off or fucking silicone. Same feeling. Same result.
Silicon Waifus don't produce kids.
Roasties don't either.

> A wife whose loyal who wants to raise kids has value
> A roastie cum bucket = silicon waifu

Strong intelligent men don't compete or chase cum buckets. They sport fuck and get on with their day. More optimally, you can sport fuck your hand, silicon waifu, or fleshlight. Evolved man sport fucks 2d waifus or 3d silicon waifus.

Dumb/weak men chase and compete for cum bucket roasties.

Biological waifu that produces kids and loyal = only thing worth expelling energy on .. until there are artificial wombs.

The definition of skrong evolves. Normies are always behind the curve. Techies always leading it and ahead. Get some optics on this post .. It's a hard red-pill.

I mean, they are, but not in the sense that that cucked leaf is talking about. Mobilizing male labour isn't a matter of getting them to compete, that's what they're already doing and it's why the losers dropped out. Men within a nation competing for mates just doesn't work, it's not how civilization functions. Orderly, patriarchal mate distribution is simply the finest way to achieve male cooperation, labour, and reproductive discipline.

Faggotry is either just a chemical imbalance or a mental illness.

Can you show me some proof that most of them have an ex wife and kids? I know a few do, but I really don't agree with your idea of forcing gay men these days to have kids and get married. Times have changed, complaining about it on Sup Forums won't change it. If you want kids with good genes, try to get a Chad interested in you.

Good thing they chose the real one, then.

Right. They didn't understand the correlation between bareback sex and AIDS.

If homosexuality is a chemical imbalance, and heterosexuality is, by default, a chemical balance, then you're admitting that free will is an illusion and we are defined by unconscious chemical processes in our biology.

Homosexuality has been observed in literally hundreds of animal species. It serves a function in almost every one. Humanity is unlikely to be the exception.

If your talking about 1 man and 1 women husband and wife yes I agree but that doesn't really have anything to do with young men dropping out of society that is just a way of keeping a level playing ground and keeping social order .

But women can always fire back by saying that it's their right to get fucked by as many Chads as possible, and it's not fair to force them to be with the losers. Your response?

>Homosexuality has been observed in literally hundreds of animal species
*as a behavior. As an innate character trait, it is a contemporary invention with subversive intent.

I'm not going to go hunting for stats now about the fertility of gay men stratified by age. I'm merely noting overall historical trends. It's not a value judgement against gay men per se. Fact of the matter is they used to get married and have kids a lot more than they do now in our era of normalization and to be totally frank those are a lot of (usually white) good genes that are being removed from the gene pool. Take it however you like.

>Homosexuality has been observed in literally hundreds of animal species. It serves a function in almost every one. Humanity is unlikely to be the exception.

Ahhh the old it happens to animals so its ok if it happens to us too meme please both animals and humans can be retarded that doesn't make it a good thing and no I don't deny free will humans can do whatever they like fuck men but that doesn't make it right and not degenerate just because you can do something doesn't make it right.

I'm not gay, I just don't think we should force them to have kids and get married because a woman on Sup Forums wants kids with good genes. I've met older gay guys before who have kids and an ex-wife. But things have changed and I can't support restricting someone's freedom like that. Some statistics would help though, to get some perspective.

Equal mate distribution has very much to do with men dropping out of society. Sex is potentially a stronger motivator than food. Make it easy for as many men as possible, and they'll work to maintain it. Return us to our baser natures, and we'll do our bare minimum once more.

Cold and harsh? 10,000 years of civilization has been built upon the wisdom that women's desires are not important, are detrimental, and must be subverted. Take from that what you will, up to and including the supposition that the majority of men up to the turn of the century were rapists.

Actually civilization demands that we ALL subvert the animal urges (men, too, would prefer to build harems), but here is the key difference: it is only men who get together, conclude this fact, and agree to abide by it. Women do not conclude or agree with the necessity of elevating oneself above the animal urges without male intervention. Every single distinction between man and woman stems from this.

im with leddit spacing guy here

>women in politics at any level

I'm not a women m8. Some gay couples seem to be into adoption or even fertilization with a "donor" mother but of course that's a whole other can of worms. Either way the impact on the gene pool is palpable.

You again, I see now the problem is that you continue to be lodged in the classic liberal misunderstanding of individualist primacy.

Prior to that framing mechanism, and present at the creation of every civilization in the history of our species, was a much different framing - that of the primacy of the family unit. The classic liberalism meme, which underscores all political debate, is designed to make impossible any discussion on the greatest, most cherished values that mankind has grown with.

There are (2) genders and 1 is meant to fuck the other and have off spring anything else is a degenerate mental disorder or chemical imbalance its not "close mindedness" its biology.

Your pic makes an absurd argument. It claims that because gays never demanded marriage and equality before, that they somehow fit into the traditional metric of good society. That's a ridiculous premise that seems to ignore the fact that homosexuals were very blatantly and unabashedly punished (read: killed) for admitting to homosexual behaviours.

Yes, the romans had man-boy love associations and considered it comparable to a boy-scout-like comaraderie today; the older male was a mentor, rather than a rapist.

That the picture conflates homosexuality with gay pedophilia is another point of contention. The Bible clearly, explicitly declares homosexuality a sin. Christian societies, therefore, considered homosexuality a sin. Don't act like everyone was cool with gay people for hundreds of years, and then for the first half of the 20th century it became a social issue. Gay were routinely banished, tortured, or executed for being gay. There is no debate about that.

Now, please, oh, please tell me the difference between a behaviour and a character trait. What separates one's behaviours from one's character traits. If you saw a man getting fucked in the ass by another man, and then he told you he was not gay, would you believe him?

Your definition of "right" seems to be synonymous with "conducive to procreation." If that is your standard for "right," than many cases of rape are right as well.

Wtf are you talking about I already said that I agree with you and understand the importance of 1 man and 1 women for social order but what does that have to do with this we already have that unless your talking about cucks that really isn't relevant

Whatever the impact on the gene pool is, I can't support what you propose.

What are you going on about? I don't support forcing people against their will to live lifestyles they don't want to just because some autists on Sup Forums think they can tell other people what to do.

But I just explained what it has to do with this. You said:
>that doesn't really have anything to do with young men dropping out of society
and then I explained how it has to do with men dropping out of society.
Is there perhaps a part of your phrasing that should have been reconsidered? I'm not sure what you're looking for.

>born gay
>literally believing a talking point desperately created in the 80's for the gay lobby to counter the right's argument that you can change your sexual orientation back to the way it was before based on no science whatsoever

Well let me put it this was fag a man is not meant to fuck another man he is meant to fuck a women hence why she has a vagina and he has a penis .And for a man to want to irrationally want to fuck someone of his own sex he either has a chemical imbalance or has a degenerate mental illness.

I know you don't support that, believe me. We have experienced over two hundred years of intellectual elite spuriously arguing that love and freedom are no different from permissiveness.
The product of course has been generations of dependents. The nasty truth is that we may have discipline imposed upon us, or we may be set free from any and all institutions of refinement and inevitably find ourselves depending on entities like governments for survival. That is the ultimate folly of the classic liberal notion of freedom:

You may have freedom from guidance, or you may have freedom from dependence. We chose the latter, and we chose wrong.

Im saying it doesn't have anything to do with it because we already have 1 man and 1 women unless you leafs really are all cucks and can't get a wife because most guys here can. So how can something that we already do be the solution to a different problem your not making sense.

This is just a sheer display of ignorance. Really.

>man is born with dick, woman with vagina
>therefore man is "meant to" fuck woman

>man's dick does not get hard in front of woman
>therefore man has chemical imbalance or mental illness.

Do you not see how ridiculous that logic is. If you put brain biology on a pedestal, you have to take it whichever way it comes.


Read a little bit and learn a little bit about biology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

remove women from the workplace. men's pay doubles, and women have to actually depend on them again. this gives men an incentive to be productive. also, get rid of contraception so that people have to practice sexual morality again.
>inb4 muh niggers
remove them as well

>Whatever the impact on the gene pool is, I can't support what you propose.
"Encouraging" gay men to go back to living a lie (for a little while) and passing on their genes while eventually going full gay is a lot less damaging in terms of societal impact and eugenic reproduction imho. It's not as if a large chunk of them don't want kids anyway. Only problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too and raise children with two fathers. Children need mothers.

>Let natural selection take it's course, enabling people to do what they want and if they are strong, they will survive longer regardless of their degeneracy, and if they are weak, they perish quickly

Or

>Force people to do things their entire lives they don't want to do because autists on Sup Forums with control issues think they can tell other people what to do because women want kids with good genes and we must always give women what they want at any cost

I pick the first one.

Oh, I get you now.
No right now we have a corpse of a notion once called marriage. This is a monogamous pair bond, but it is NOT an enforced monogamous pair bond. The social setup we have right now bypasses the fundamental purpose of marriage, which was to curtail the critically important sexual relations between the sexes.

Marriage today is not a commitment, in fact violating the contract and ending it is incentivized.
Marriage today is not a guarantee of anything, there are no sexual obligations going into or continuing on through marriage.
Marriage today is not linked to sex at all in fact, and the animalistic harem behavior of humans free from imposed reproductive discipline that causes this mayhem in the first place is free to carry on.
So marriage today cannot do what you and I agree marriage should be doing. Thus, men are not incentivized to invest in one, and are therefore dropping out.

But again, you're a nobody on Sup Forums with no power, so why should gay men be forced to do what you want? Times have changed, they don't have to do that anymore. I disagree with you because you are essentially trying to take control of their entire lives and make them do something they don't want to do.

>remove women from the workplace
But user., how else can I convince my wife and female acquaintances to give me breathing room without bribing them with jobs?

And say you're a male who wants to raise children, but who believes that a child should be raised by two parents who are married, and who believes that a divorce will be catastrophic, and believes that if he gets divorced, he will be blamed for it because he's a faggot.

What should such a faggot do?

Hell is for ever!

I'm bouncing ideas around. If you want to adhere to religiously to whatever the slightly left of center dogma of the day is you should probably stick to reddit. Either way the genetic impact of gay men not reproducing should be definitely be looked at.

ridiculous? Its not ridiculous its common sense and logical. Sorry if basic biology is too hard for fags to understand.

break the washing machines and make the fuckers work at home.

World War 3

>they will survive longer regardless of their degeneracy
This is in fact not true. Survival is ideal within civilization, civilization is the product of civility, civility is defined by self control, and therefore hedonism, natural selection, natural behavior in general, are all anathema to civilization.
You are discussing the use of animal politics to guide a human abstraction, and there is a reason you cannot name a successful civilization that began without the enforcement of institutions of discipline over the animal behaviors.

>because women want kids with good genes and we must always give women what they want at any cost
Oh, no, I wasn't arguing that point. I'm but I responded to with because I saw the same issue with your framing present in that point. My point is still about the restriction of female sexuality, although interestingly enough you'll achieve point 1 if you permit women to pursue point 2 by proxy.

>autists on Sup Forums
You trot this line out, even though you know I'm discussing the Cartesian point of 10,000 years of human civilization and the notions discussed and furthered by the greatest men to ever live. Is this perhaps a deflection?

Jokes on you all
I am on my way to get out of society in human interaction matter while keeping benefits like ability to buy food, earn money and have access to any and all services
t. Forest Keeper in training

>convince
"Do what I say or you starve."

Well this is a tricky issue because when men do go out and get married 50% of the time women divorce and take half is shit so there isn't a risk reward for getting married which needs to change. Its all the anti men laws that causing that problem. For exp even if a man is just accused of being a rapist he faces repercussions

I dunno breh divorce rates are through the fucking roof anyway, women get divorced these days if you sneeze at them wrong. A women divorcing a man who was gay all along would probably virtue signal about it on Facebook about it how she was #sobrave for freeing her gay husband of heteronormative reactionary patriarchal oppression

Gas the moose niggers. Leaf war now!!!

>ad hominem

Address what I said. Either brain biology tells us what is right - ie. that a man should fuck a woman - or it doesn't. Pick one. Having it both ways is hypocritical and disingenuous.

I'm not opposed to traditionalism. I love the society we are currently losing. I admire men and women who raised families with a mother and a father and good values and stern discipline and defined gender roles and all the rest. But my biology does not allow me to live that life without being a fraud.

That picture is not young men dropping out of society. That's young men being social. I realize that leafs wouldn't know the difference because you spend all year hiding from moose inside your log cabin and don't have friends, but come on.

Exactly. As much as I think I would live a more meaningful with a wife and children, I cannot justify the risk of entering a legal partnership with a woman.

>in the woods
>"access to any and all services"

pick one. And where you gonna put all the money you make, the fucking tree bank?

actually, I will put it in the jars and dig it somewhere
also, 3 hour drive to get some supplies is not too much for me, so I still have access, but delayed a bit compared to city scum

>I'm bouncing ideas around. If you want to adhere to religiously to whatever the slightly left of center dogma of the day is you should probably stick to reddit

It's not about being a leftist. You're a nobody on Sup Forums trying to force others to do something they don't want to do, and I'm just reminding you that it's a pipe dream. Gay men no longer have to do what you ask of them, so they won't. Why not increase the incentives for straight men, particularly Chads, to reproduce?

>This is in fact not true. Survival is ideal within civilization, civilization is the product of civility, civility is defined by self control, and therefore hedonism, natural selection, natural behavior in general, are all anathema to civilization.
>You trot this line out, even though you know I'm discussing the Cartesian point of 10,000 years of human civilization and the notions discussed and furthered by the greatest men to ever live. Is this perhaps a deflection?

I know what poster you are and I am merely saying that nobody on Sup Forums has the power to force anybody to do anything, and if you dispute this point you are wrong. Try to be as bitter as you want about it, tip your fedora as much as you want, it's still a fact. I'm not saying being gay is OK, I'm saying it's not OK to force them to have kids and marry women if they don't want to.

Right, but the fundamental reason those laws were agitated for was to subvert the purpose of marriage because it flies in the face of what women are biologically inclined to do and psychologically inclined to have an impossible time overcoming. The solution isn't to just "change anti male laws" because that won't fix the fundamental problem of women racking up divorces and being free to enter a marriage contract that does not require any return obligation, in particular sexual obligation. We've explored that the main purpose of marriage is to incentivize male labour through guaranteed pussy, but there are no vectors to this remaining.

The brutality of it is that this isn't tricky at all. We have to go back. We have to undo it all. We have to undo Feminism, we have to undo suffrage, we have to get rid of the entire broken philosophy up to and including the classic liberal revolution that resulted in the belief that we exist to fuck around sucking down Coke and McDonald's for 80 years until we die and anyone who imposes on that is a criminal. The idea that the purpose of a nation is no greater than to allow a collective of unrelated strangers exist without any requirement or guidance on the fact that they'll need to have something to do with one another.

Marriage is legally binding. The woman submits to the man. A woman is to retain her chastity until marriage. There may be no alternatives.

It's not tricky at all. Repeal the 19th amendment, ban divorce entirely, make adultery a felony, and permanently ban unwed mothers and their bastards from receiving government aid of any kind. Poof, done.

Buddy when i say right I don't mean morally right morals don't decide this biology does and like i said men are meant and to fuck women and vice versa if a human irrationally wants to fuck someone of its own sex it either has a chemical imbalances or a degenerate mental disorder. homosexuality is by no means normal in humans or animals and if they were they would cease to exist it happens sometimes sure just like sometimes people are born retarded but that doesn't mean it should be accepted.

Global warfare.

>nobody on Sup Forums has the power to force anybody to do anything
This is unrelated to a discussion of how things ought to be and is a sidestep to the points presented. Drag it back to Sup Forums all you want, but you'll look back in time and forever be left without an explanation as to how this progressive belief of yours has never once been present and accounted for at a time when the chips were down, the veneer of society was worn off, and men were called upon to be at their greatest and build the final frontier of human achievement.

Let society collapse. It is diseased and rotten to the core, and the only cure is fire.

this.
Fags and weirdos will always run back to this contradiction though. Sucks no one cares about consistency or truth.

Repealing the 19th amendment delegitimizes your government by its own highest decree of law.
It's not tricky, but it's not that simple. Making things right will take blood in the streets, and if we're lucky, our countries will have different names by the end of it.

I said nothing about morality. I said that if you think that brain biology determines that a man "OUGHT TO" fuck a woman, and vice versa, than you have to accept that brain biology also determines when a man "OUGHT TO" fuck another man, because both instincts come from the same place.

You have not provided a shred of evidence that a chemical imbalance has anything to do with it because you haven't described what a chemical balance is, or provided any evidence thereof.

Similarly, you haven't even defined mental disorder, let alone presented evidence that homosexuality is an example of one.

Define "normal" for me please. What is normal, what determines it? Who decides it? What actions demonstrate it? What outcomes validate it?

Pregnant giraffes have a long gestation period. Males in the herd, in order to express their sexual aggression and desires while the women in the herd are pregnant and therefore unavailable, display homosexual behaviours. It keeps the males engaged. It allows them a sexual outlet, and also serves the function of asserting dominance within the herd. These are all useful and "normal" functions within the herd, which, in the long run, facilitate the growth of the species.

Care to elaborate?

>t. A FUCKING LEAF who doesn't understand the US
We repealed the 18th. The 19th is no different.

True this isn't just going to be a simple law change there needs to be death and fighting for real change and I hope by the end of it there is a wall on the southern border and the US and Canada are 1 United nation with no degenerates

>This is unrelated to a discussion of how things ought to be and is a sidestep to the points presented

Oh yes, if only I had a dollar for every time people online talked about how things ought to be. It's not a sidestep. The other guy was seriously talking about forcing gay men to marry women and have kids, and I am against that because I don't believe in violating people's freedom like that.

>Drag it back to Sup Forums all you want, but you'll look back in time and forever be left without an explanation as to how this progressive belief of yours has never once been present and accounted for at a time when the chips were down

I've been on Sup Forums for a while and you and I and all of us have gone through many phases, I won't look back on it like you said. The archive is essentially a deep web rabbit hole, and I don't see my views as 'progressive', I see them as promoting individual and collective liberty, regardless of if it's left or right.

No its gonna take a lot more than repealing to fix this.

>What is your solution to young men dropping out of society?

They'd have to turn off the internet, including their beloved fashy retard hugbox aka Sup Forums.

The solution is total war.

Oh.
Okay fair, I forgot about that.
Point's still pretty relevant otherwise I mean repealing the 19th WILL result in blood on the streets.