If women are having lots of sex thanks to sexual liberation, why are there so many male virgins?

Jewgle is really a great source.

Why does this thread exist then

You made the odd claim without proof. Source for "so many male virgins"?

>Because reported,saged,mocked,unhidden,hidden again,and ignored.
Top kek, here's a (you) for making me laugh.

we gave women freedom without taking their social value away
too many males are slaves to pussy and chase too many girls at once. this lets women pick whoever they want.

Helps to memorize this diagram OP. End of discussion.

Attached: 2453262572572.jpg (755x629, 54K)

Creating a shitty diagram in mspaint totally makes it true!

Unfortunately it is true. Only a few men are deemed adequate enough for women and they are a good 4-5 points above the women themselves in attractiveness. This is why those few men disproportionately get the majority of women.

I don't know what kind of narrative you're trying to push here. It's a social dynamic that is well known even among normies, let alone robots.

Attached: 3262556435.jpg (126x121, 5K)

But that's not true at all. Men and women have sex in roughly equal numbers. What kind of agenda do you have to try to push such lies? Gay/tranny psyops again?

Well okay then. You do you.

The only one pushing lies is you, roastie.

Why can't you all go back to plebit or /soc/ instead of bringing your cancer here?

just stop, ur clearly baiting, just look at the people here its over 80% male, the whole of Jow Forums is 80% male so blow it out ur ass with muh poor roasties

There are literally the same amount of male virgins as female:

Are you implying that there are lots more male virgins than females? Because that's false.

I'm going to bite and assume you aren't larping.

Historically, more women have reproduced than men.

There was a study comparing genetic markers of the Y chromosome (paternal) and mitochondrial DNA (mitochondria is exclusively maternal), researchers found out that "Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today while only one man did the same."

The same social dynamic is still in effect today, and if you want to argue against genetic markers, you can most certainly try.

Source:
psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-2223-5-13

Attached: 13323_2014_Article_104_Fig6_HTML.jpg (1200x856, 85K)

Normie brains are defective.
You dont need a diagram to tell you roasties would rather have sex with someone whose above their level.
Its as common sense as 1+1=2

This study concludes that at one point in time about 8000 years ago an anomaly occurred. Historically reproduction rates have been about equal. Current statistics show about 50% of men and women end up reproducing. These are all easily available facts. It doesn't make sense that you latch onto that one study, which shows one prehistorical number, and somehow pretend it applies to today more than accurate statistics.

Men would also rather have sex with someone above their level. Common sense.

But men are pigs and will fuck a skinny man wearing a skirt

>itt we swallow bait, hook and sink wholeheartedly

No, fuck off with your homogay agenda.

Even if they dont theyll fuck some ugly fem creature

Naturally woman go for the best genes. Its to improve humanity.

Attached: 64.jpg (500x333, 40K)

Because chads exist.

Sage goes in all fields.

Not necesarily, they also go for the most aggressive.

Only in times of war and insecure times to defend their offspring. In times of peace they go after the cute soyboys because they make better fathers.

Their feelings have nothing to do with whats needed at the time.

>Historically reproduction rates have been about equal.
Then why hasn't this presumed equality been reflected in the genetic studies? Human mitochondrial DNA mutates roughly every 3800 years which is enough to erase or dilute whatever evidence of prehistoric hypergamy that occurred 8000 years ago. Instead, it has persisted and remains a strong indicator in genetic records up to present day.

You're actually incorrect, I've actually supplied 2 independent studies. The first article was referencing "A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture" published in the CSH genome research. The other is "Human paternal and maternal demographic histories: insights from high-resolution Y chromosome and mtDNA sequences" published in the BMC investigative genetics.

I could go look for more, but I don't know if it's worth the effort if you are going to lazily dismiss the studies while providing no evidence of your own to support the contrary.

Attached: 1305041864213.jpg (320x240, 11K)

If a woman feels insecure she tends to go after the aggressive ape because he seems to promise defense. If she feels secure she goes after the one which promises to raise the offspring in a stable environment aka the sweet soyboy. If she is me mentally fucked up she tends to seek security even in times of peace. Thats about it.

Id get rid of interesting and just put good looking
all the chads i know that do well with women are boring with no personality and just slay because of their looks

So you insist that your prehistorical figures apply to today more than actual, accurate figures? How illogical are you? Are you a woman?

Fuck off you crybaby cuck

Yeah i dont know why people admire chad here so much.
Most of them are coddled pretty boys with life on ez mode.

I thought the same thing, and have had the same personal experiences

These normalfags will never learn

I'm saying that a 1:1 ratio of male to female mating pattern would have been seen in our genetic history by now. But we don't see any evidence for it.

If there are modern, actual, accurate figures that you claim to have, I would like to see them.

Attached: 82758972345.jpg (1280x720, 136K)

Just have a daughter instead of a son.
If you have a son hell grow up to be a bald guy playing pokemon ultraviolet, while if you have a daughter itll pay dividends.

About 50% of men and women reproduce. Why do you find this so hard to believe and have to desperately try to falsify it?

>we don't see any evidence that women and men have both mated
Liar or stupid?

I know this is a stupid ass bait thread so i'll just leave it here and call it a day

Attached: sexual revolution.jpg (755x553, 60K)

What a 1:1 ratio means in this instance is that a male has managed to pass on his genes equally as a female would. Instead we see a 17:1 split where for every 1 male that has reproduced, 17 females would have as well. This strongly suggests that most females congregate around a few men to reproduce.

Attached: 1293033708071.png (493x402, 8K)

The 17:1 split occurred 8000 years ago one time. It has not repeated even once during history. Why are you so buttmad that the reproduction ratio is close to 1:1?

Because he didnt get a girl.
1:1 makes him feel worse

Slightly more men are having sex than that. 10 women are having sex with 8 men or something like that.
The virgin rate is only 20% at our age.
In Japan it's 30%

>Virgins don't exist in this day and age
>Every virgin on Jow Forums is an anomaly
>Why are there millions upon millions of anomalies
It's almost like that image above is actually true.

There are not millions of bitter virgin manchildren. Not even close. Robots are a tiny vocal minority. There are far less of you than you think.

Like I said, if the 17:1 split was an isolated incident, it would have been diluted or erased from our genetic records.
Likewise, if 1:1 was the norm, it would have been reflected in the genetic records, which isn't the case.

All genetic studies show a clear mismatch between a majority of females successfully reproducing with a few males. Which also indicate that a majority of other males never got the chance to pass on their genes.

No need to get personal. I'm just citing studies is all.

Attached: 1305545322579.png (142x138, 3K)

There are 320 million people in the us
The chances that there are million of bitter virgin man children is pretty high
>oh but I'm not from the us
Then you don't matter gift

50% of Jow Forums probably is a virgin incel.
Jow Forums has 27 million users according to this
Jow Forums.org/advertise
There are millions of virgin incels at the very least no matter how inaccurate this is.

>All genetic studies
You can't even provide a single one. Obviously, since the reproduction ratio is 1:1 today, it's amazing how you so angrily deny this undisputable fact.

We aren't gonna believe you. Tumblr or reddit might be more your speed where you can say being a virgin is impossible.

Source: your ass. 50% is way too high, it won't be significantly different from the general population.

What's the reproduction ratio today if not 1:1? Provide source.

Yes it would. Jow Forums is 60% virgin according to the strawpolls. I am willing to bet the most popular boards are just as virgin. If not 60% then probably 40 or 30%. /a/ has regular posters at all times which means they almost never work or are busy. Chances of an animeNEET or Jow Forumstard being virgin is high.

Jow Forums is the board where virgins congregate the most, so it's ridiculous to think any other board would have anywhere near the amount of virgins. The majority of virgins on boards like /a/ are underaged or very young. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the virginity rates on Jow Forums's demographics differ significantly from the general population. After all Jow Forums is a normie mainstream site.

What a skewed world view. It is by no means mainstream.
I bet there's lots of virgins on other boards or at least people who rarely have sex.
Jow Forums is mostly full of people who pay for sex.

Boards like Jow Forums probably have less virgins than average. It all evens out.

I wonder just how sheltered do you have to be to believe bullshit such as "there are as many female virgins as male ones..."

Did this guy even go to highschool?

Lol, I remember being 12, and seeing all the girls in my class wait outside the school gate for the guys in the rugby team (there was a sports field next to our school and a semi-pro rugby team practiced there) to finish practice. These guys were in their 20s and when they finished their practice they would head over to our school gate to flirt with my classmates, manhandle them and French kiss them in front of us, then they would take them home in their cars to fuck them. By age 17 all the girls had 5+ years of sexual experience behind them, while almost all of my male classmates remained virgin, except a couple of them who visited a prostitute for their graduation party

You are the sheltered one. You actually believe there are lots more male virgins despite statistics proving otherwise. This is just a coping mechanism to make you feel better about being a virgin. You lie to yourself that you are part of the 80% of males who don't have sex, instead of the actual 1%.

>Everything you saw was a lie
>You're sheltered
>There are no virgins
You sound delusional.

So I was simply hallucinating from ages 12 to 17. Interesting

I must have been hallucinating too all those times I overheard the girls in my class, aged 12, discuss how they had lost their virginity and how much they liked being fucked

Statistics are out there. They are more reliable than your confirmation bias. You literally see what you want to see.

crisismagazine.com/2011/studies-show-virginity-and-hook-ups-both-on-the-rise

>muh anecdotal evidence
Are you this stupid?

Yes, this just reiterates what everyone knows. Hookups happen more frequently, but young people also wait until later to have sex and have less sexual partners. And there is no signicant difference between sexual habits of men and women.

theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool
Why is there more female contribution to the genepool than male?
It's because historically males have gotten less sex. This was regulated by religion and monogamy. Without that we are returning to primal instincts and most men are going to stop contributing to the genepool again.

You don't even know what point you're trying to make. My classmates were only an anomaly and normal women would never share a good looking male with their friends? Lmao.

>anecdotal
>sheltered
which is it?

I don't understand the mental gymnastics you have to jump through to believe that prehistorical genetic data tells you about today's sexual activity better than studies actually about today's sexual activity.

Adding to this, most of my classmates haven't had girlfriends. Practically all of them starting visiting prostitutes regularly in their early-mid 20s though

Speaking of which, you never hear of women who had to pay someone to take their virginity. But according to the redditor posting in this thread, male and female sexual habits are the same? Funny how that works

Your problem is that you are stuck in high school mentality. Most likely you shut yourself in the basement after high school and never learned about adult society. You believe the real world is like high school.

The world is like high school you fool

Are you serious? I'm in junior year at university and there is this ape running back on the football team lives in my dorm two doors down. I kept seeing a steady stream of white bitches in and out and started keeping a count. Since christmas break and after football season he has had 61 different girls that I know of in his dorm room and they leave all mussed up after a few hours.

They sleep only with chads. The majority of men are not chads. Brainlet

Attached: 1523268236794-r9k.png (817x443, 34K)

That doesn't agree with math. If what you said were true there would be a huge amount of male virgins and no female virgins. Which obviously is not the case.

I provided 2 studies a few posts above in I also asked for studies that provide evidence on the contrary, and nobody has given me any. They keep dodging the question.

Attached: 1293031381443.png (344x341, 8K)

You posted studies about prehistorical mating anomalies. How does that relate to sexual activity statistics of today?

Interesting... so women stop being attracted to tall, robust blonde athletes with square jaws the moment they get their HS diploma?

all I know is I did one of those ancestry DNA test along with my brother and sister and none of us has the same father despite believing we did. In fact we all have different fathers. Poor dad hasn't got one child.

>How does that relate to sexual activity statistics of today?

Because I have to keep repeating myself by explaining inCurrent genetic records still show that we have a lopsided ratio of male to female contribution to the gene pool. Honestly I also don't know why you keep separating so called 'prehistoric genes' from current day since they are the foundation for human genetic studies. You don't get to redefine what genetics are relevant and are not.

This is also my fourth time asking for you to provide evidence on the contrary, either in cited studies or otherwise, but you keep dodging the question.

Attached: 1306960866464.png (209x215, 3K)

Today's sexual activity is undergoing a change. We are heading back to prehistoric times.

You can't even do 10 seconds in google? There is no significant difference in sexual activity between genders. You have yet to provide evidence.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243202016003005

Apparently over 80% of men and women reproduce. Identical numbers pretty much.

answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/272416.html

Implying I said their are no women virgins

I see, you keep spouting nonsense and unrelated statistics and hope nobody points out your mistakes. That 17:1 figure from 8000 years ago actually proves that it's 1:1 today. If only 1 out of 17 males would reproduce, that would mean only 6% of males are fathers. Clearly this is not the case.

They were never attracted to them in the first place, idiot. Even in high school the 20/80 rule applies. For any given man only 20% of women will find him attractive, 80% will not.

>80% of males who don't have sex

the fuck? stop misinterpreting the 80/20 rule you retard. nothing to do with virginity. It means women will jump to the top 20 percent of men if given the chance.

>For any given man only 20% of women will find him attractive, 80% will not.
You fucked up your phrasing, big time. Right?
Or are all men equally found attractive, by a fifth of women, and this is what's known on r9k as the 20/80 rule, you think?

It varies but 20% is the average as shown by okcupid studies. So overall men will have 10%-30% of women attracted to them. This is because all women have different tastes.

>answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/272416.html

>Case studies of 61 women and men
>Draws from out of date studies ranging from 1920-2001
>Opinion poll
>"Women and men tended to assign different meanings to virginity"

Unimaginably small sample size, outdated case pool, it's an OPINION poll, and they can't even control variables to decide on a proper definition of virginity. What kind of study are you trying to cite here? This is a joke if you are even remotely trying to use this against verified genetic studies.

>answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/272416.html

>"Apparently over 80% of men and women reproduce."
>Outdated study from 1997
>Opinion poll again
>No proper definition of what defined a man as a father i.e. NO controls have been set to exclude adoption, or men raising children who are not genetically related, or men who are paying child support.

>"Apparently over 80% of men and women reproduce." is a quote coming from a book cited in the study called "Redefining Fatherhood" by Nancy E. Dowd.
>nyupress.org/books/9780814719251/ "Dowd makes the case for reenvisioning fatherhood away from genes and dollars, and toward nurture. Integrating economic, social and legal aspects of fathering, she makes the case for focusing on social, nurturing behavior as the core meaning of fatherhood."
>Basically the author is writing a book trying to convince men that paternity isn't relevant and that you should raise a child without questioning your paternity.

These studies are incredibly weak and can't hold a candle to genetic studies.

Attached: 1293030987666.jpg (126x101, 3K)

I wonder just how divorced from reality you have to be in order to believe something like this... Are you a woman by any chance?