What's the best way for society to solve sex gap?

>There's just more guys born than women, as living quality increases generations with extra boys are going to keep increasing.
I think it's the opposite my dude. I recall seeing that it's slightly skewed towards women overall. But jail and death make it so men outnumber women in most Western places.

I guess if you're in China where they aborted all their girls until like a decade ago or bumblefukistan where people have multiple wives, you have a right to REEEEEE.

>Recognition that 'ugly and poor guys' is oppressed group of people and giving them free access to gyms, subsidies for plastic surgeries and extra tax credit?
Unironically the best one. no ones rights need to be violated.

No there is literally more men born than women. China aborted female babies, and there's just more old women than old men, young men out number young women.

But it makes more sense biologically for there to be more women sense that would propagate the species faster in times of crisis.

If you're saying that BECAUSE of China the stats are skewed towards men I'll concede. But I think that it's statistically too close otherwise and as I said, jail and death checks the male numbers a bit. And I think men are more likely to be gay as well.

I'm saying there are more men born than women because there are, it's a genetic fact, even in the west.

Incels are a dying breed. Thanks to modern technology it's never been easier to connect to people, find someone on the internet, start dating and have sex. If you are a virgin it's because you choose to be one.

>used "sense" instead of since twice

Attached: 1539024661351.png (584x341, 251K)

That's all fine and well, I'm just saying that women need to be dating multiple men to get all men laid.

And jail and death curb those numbers. But I guess jailhouse chads are still getting puss.

They curb those numbers starting at 35, and what if a generation of men doesn't just die? Like I said as living quality continues to increase incels will become a bigger problem.

They do, somewhat, but later in life. The gender ratio only evens out in the 35-40 age bracket. You can check your local census data for more info. On average, there are 105 male births every 100 female births.

Unironically artificial wombs and sexbots. Those are the only ways to finally force natural selection on females. Otherwise, genetically they win at the expense of men 9 times out of 10.

it already is a sexual free for all, you are just too ugly/autistic to get in on the action

Just give everyone sex dolls. Biocunts aren't even worth it, and people who can't laid usually have shit genetics and shouldn't be reproducing.

Attached: VirginPillowVSChadDoll.jpg (1151x469, 84K)

>people who can't laid usually have shit genetics and shouldn't be reproducing
Unless you're a female, in which case you can have dumpster fire genetics and STILL out-reproduce men who are quantifiably superior to you in every way.

>easier to connect to people
superficially yes, you can talk to someone on the internet. But my experience is that most people you talk to on the internet are very distracted, and while you can make a digital connection, a human connection might be harder to find online. The culture has also changed, where it's a lot less common for people to be open to conversation with strangers IRL, that need fulfilled by the online fantasy.

Apps like Tindr actually cause fewer people to have sex. When you used to have to meet people IRL, a woman might see you as the most charming man in the room, which gives you a shot. Online, all charm from your words are lost, and she's already decided if she's gonna fuck you when she swipes, and you have to be the most attractive guy in a 10 mile radius to make it with her.

Stats show that fewer young people are having sex than in any previous generation, so it's not like Jow Forums is wrong here. A few men are getting laid a lot more easily, but there are more sexually frustrated men than ever before.

>how to "solve" millions of years of evolution with social engineering

haha fucking incels are disgusting

Young males AND females are having less sexual partners and lose their virginity later. Why do incels always deliberately leave this fact out?

Or you could just go to a hooker.

>AND females
Multiple fucking sauces now. A statement that extreme demands extreme levels of evidence.

If men are oppressed shouldn't something be done?

virginity is increasing for both but for men more
ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim

It can't be solved, it's an increase in inequality as a result of increased freedom. You can only reverse it by restricting freedoms.

I'll tell you something though, if we start seeing more and more drug resistant stis appearing it's going to really mess things up for the top 20% fucking their way through hundreds of partners per year.

Community gym sounds like a good idea.Maybe boxing lessons too.

fucking communists... you never learn

remove the shitskins, niggers, and non-whites from the West. 1488 WPWW

Hmm, let me try a second time

If women or men are oppressed shouldn't something be done?

Fake. Why are you posting a made up "study"?

Literally every study out there, moron. Saying that only males have less sexual partners is extreme and demands extreme evidence. But incels never ever provide any evidence for their claims. Wonder why.

It's not really a study, just extrapolated survey data

There's an increase in equality, not inequality.

Which the guy admitted was fake when pointed out the inconsistencies

>incels never ever provide any evidence
Well, tinder

>admitted was fake
Can you source that?

No senpai. If you give people freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, it increases inequality between the highest and lowest performing. Why would it be any other way?

It means those who want to have lots of sexual partners can do it easier than before. But it's all about choice so you can hardly call it inequality. When everyone has much better chances than before.

BASED CHAD

OriginalComment.exe

Attached: ChadVsVirgin.jpg (1000x1200, 126K)

medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

It's over boyos

only people who are concerned about the sex gap are 1%ers that want the guppies to breed their replacements. incels are too busy avoiding relationships, and sexy normies are too busy getting laid.

>if I spam my incel blog enough times my shitty "study" will become reality

The only problem with it is scale desu, only asked 27 girls

Inequality is a difference between two things.
When you increase freedom, the difference between things increases, because the high end rises, and the low end doesn't rise as much.
If you CAN have lots of sexual partners, you can have MORE.
If you CAN'T have lots of sexual partners, you end up having LESS relative to the people who have more.
By increasing freedom, the inequality increases.
Understand?

Lots of other problems too. He didn't say what questions he asked. He has no control group. Those 27 selected were far from random. He used all sorts of retarded assumptions such as every girl having the same exact taste in men. It's complete garbage.

inequality never exists in freedom. your basis is that the lowest denominator are entitled to that which is given freely to those at the top.

I make no claims about entitlement, fairness, the means of acquisition.
All I am saying, is that if you allow people to freely act, with sex, money, their choice of career, who they associate with, their use of narcotics, what they eat, where they live, etc etc.
Then inequality, that is, the difference between the high and low, increases.
And I am 100% correct.

no, youre running on the premise that the bottom isnt recieving something that the top does, and i agree up to this point. however im saying that inequality doesnt exist under freedom, and its in fairness that the top gets it and the bottom doesnt, because its under complete freedom.

With increased freedom, people who "can't have sexual partners" cease to exist.

ya. we are living in the paradigm shift from nuclear families with beta males to sexual selection hierarchy under freedom.

Wrong.
You can't get wretchedly ugly autists laid by saying GO BE FREE.
If you tell them to go and be free, nothing changes for them.
There are people without genitalia. How does telling them to be free solve anything.

The way you get these people laid is by redistributing sex forcefully to them. By selectively reducing freedom.

why cant there be more females

Those ugly autists have more options now. They can get on tinder. Or get a hooker.

why not just let incels be incels on places on the net like r9k?

Legalize escorts

you think this is just some isolated incel thing. there was a post yesterday about marriage rates being dead. well theres your sexual freedom, marriage is oppression

They don't work for everyone.
There will always be someone at the bottom.

This is a rule of the universe. Freedom increases inequality. Remember it. Whenever someone says freedom makes people equal, remind them that they are wrong. Because human beings are not made equal.

Indeed, why not.

its not inequality, that is running under the principle of entitlement.

marxist-rodgerism

Attached: KV4OQ1w.png (993x494, 325K)

Then it isn't a free for all you moron

You're incredibly stupid but this is amusing. Explain what you mean by the principle of entitlement.

I wonder if it would even make a difference

what youre describing as "inequality", is actually merit due to operating under complete freedom.

Don't get evasive now.
Try again, I'll start your post for you.
>The principle of entitlement is

Freedom is not anywhere near as important as order

Government-funded research and development of female androids (sex robots) with actual artificial intelligence.

your premise operates under the principle of entitlement. the top gets most of the pussy and the bottom doesnt, to you thats inequality. and you say this is due to complete freedom.

and im saying what youre describing isnt inequality, but merit, the cream goes to the top under complete freedom, nothing is pushing it up there it goes willing under complete freedom.

but to you this is inequality, and only someone who believes the bottom is entitled to that cream deserves to keep some of it at the bottom.

thats another discussion. yeah theres no orderly procreation, thats true. single moms and dead marriage rates everywhere.

again, nobody cares except the 1%ers who want the guppies to breed their replacement workers.

You're not saying it's not inequality, you're just saying the inequality is morally right and justified. By definition it's not equal, that doesn't matter though because we don't want it to be equal.
Stop dodging the point. It has nothing to do with "entitlement".

Not just the 1%ers, anyone who wants the nation to remain competitive in the coming decades.

the cream is not being equally dispersed, that much ill agree. but its not inequality, the reason is that the cream isnt cream, but women who select their sexual partners. selection under freedom is not inequality. this is where we disagree. you see this as inequality as if the bottom is being denied something theyre entitled to. hence my point to you.

well, its a bit too late. we did what we could here but all we did was plug the leak.

You did it again.
What is it. Explain it like I'm five.
Inequality is the difference between the maximum and minimum. That's how you measure inequality in a system.
Do the same.

>The principle of entitlement is

There is literally no reason why selection "under freedom" can not lead to inequality.
If the majority of people in a population are "choosing" to "freely" discriminate against a minority (like say, whites against blacks in America) then it is still discrimination and oppression.
There is literally nothing about "free choice" that renders it immune from being discriminatory, or unequal, or oppressive.
If people choose to be unequal, it is the moral duty of the state and those of us at the top to force them to not make those choices. Freedom to choose does not outweigh order. They're "right" to be "free" doesn't exist.
Communism is inevitable.

It's infinitely easier for a female to get sex than a male. That is the gap. If both sides had equally high drive things would be more even out.

>genocide all ugly men and women
>genocide all of the lgbtq community
>genocide everyone on the lower end of the IQ bell curve
>genocide the jews and shitskins while we're at it

World will be a much better place after this

if you put in mathematical terms, yes i agree that theres an inequality between the top and the bottom, ive already agreed to this point. what im fighting you on is the loaded definition of "inequality" in social terms, and this is a conversation on society. what im saying is that the mathematical inequality is caused under freedom, and is not social inequality.

Attached: B380E237-2617-45CE-AB64-44158C9441F0.png (750x1334, 137K)

no its not discrimination or oppression, its the expression of complete freedom.

its following communist principles you are espousing that led to this mess in the first place. youre a hack

You're attempting to start a moral argument about freedom vs equality.
Equality is more important than freedom. The right for, say, black people to not be discriminated against is more important than the right of white people to freely choose to discriminate against them. If those making the inequality don't stop, it is the moral duty for us to forcefully stop them.
The "expression of complete freedom" is not in contradiction, it does not nullify, choice being discriminatory or oppressive.

no that is absolutely not more important than the right to freely choose. discrimination is the expression of freedom, oppression is the weight one feels for being at the bottom, under a system of freedom.

You have one more chance or I'll just close the thread and remove it from the watcher.
>The principle of entitlement is

ive explained it plenty, its not my responsibility you refuse to acknowledge what im saying. repeating this 3 times just confirms that youre a hack.

So you are freely admitting that you believe in oppression. Freedom is not even remotely close as moral imperative as equality.
People like you will be rounded up and exterminated as those of us working on AI systems and taking over the states of various countries across the world implement true Communism.

You've explained nothing and you're boring. Goodbye.

cant handle differing opinions? yeah put me in a concentration camp because im the one who is oppressing people.

Sort people into distinct social classes and enforce them, because people are obviously not equal

Attached: 220px-BraveNewWorld_FirstEdition.jpg (220x330, 26K)

OwO, call me Bernard the beta

It's easier for a female but it's not hard for a male either. Both have similar drives.

Yes, you can choose to believe in equality, or you can choose a system of socialized heirarchy that artificially damages entire groups of people for no reason other than "muh freedom".
If YOUR expression of "freedom" takes away theirs, why do you take precedence? You dont, and there is no way to argue that you do that doesn't fall back on racist, or prejudiced, or otherwise socialized bigoted sentiments.
No, freedom can't even happen until there is equality, and equality is always more important than freedom.

the principle of entitlement is the belief that one is deserving of an object, status, or other obtained and/or in the possession of another.

always the victim eh. it doesnt damage you, you do that yourself.

Well then yes, people are entilted to not be seen as inferior just because their born with black skin, or born with less wealth, or born with certain looks.
That entitlement outweighs your "freedom" to choose to discriminate against them. It always will.
I'm not a victim of anything.