Welcome to the bottleneck

It's very difficult to discern what the graph is actually saying. It's a shit graph

there's that too but i figured out what was triggering my autism. the blue behind the pink showing (bottom and right sides) and the pink being over the border on the bottom-left and top-right corners. the "Female advantage" text is also bothering me but not as much.
i'm a little relieved but also more annoyed now.
t. autism

I don't believe the data.

There is no way that 90 percent of women in that age range are having sex every year. Am I crazy for believing this? More than 9 out of 10 women? Seems off to me.

Thanks for reminding me to uninstall that shit

Welcome to Jow Forums. Where facts and fiction are treated equally.

Why don't you test it yourself, make a tinder for a girl who shouldn't get anything out of it in your opinion

if you really wanna know that is

And that leads into accurate statistics of celibacy percentage in both genders over the last 20 years how?

You don't believe that the average person has sex at least once a year?

That's not too crazy

Well you have the data suggesting 80/20 and you can experiment yourself and get concurring results, what's your problem really, do you just not want it to be true and demand large studies be undertaken (so you can reject those too no doubt)

What is 80/20 and what data supports it?

That age range is too large to be of practical value, but the amount of female virgins should still be clearly higher than the "celibate in the last year" value. That alone makes it suspect.

if it's users of okcupid then not a lot of them are going to be virgins

It says "in America" , not okcupid users.

is that seriously surprising to you? I thought it would be higher than 9 in 10 honestly.

There are more than 10% female virgins at that age range.

Why don't you test it yourself, make a tinder for a guy who shouldn't get anything out of it in your opinion

People have made profiles with Elliot and other incels and got matches and messages.

I fucking doubt it m8

Official statistics good enough for you?

Attached: virgins.png (1012x667, 72K)

Tinder really is bad for young men.
OKcupid is the only one nerdy guys have a chance on because it puts profile and social/political views first and as long as you can pretend to be /leftypol/ girls will respond to you, but most people use Tinder and it's just a meat market based entirely on pictures.

OKCupid could have some improvements tho, I have like 30 matches I have no clue who they are and I think it would be nice for women to be able to send a question or message without us both actually matching.

these stats make me sad and i wanna fucking kill myself

FUCK

Attached: ratatat_splash-1.jpg (1024x407, 34K)

>killing himself over made up bullshit graphs
Shiggy diggy.

I have though. Do you really think that you can get any incel laid with tinder? Because I can definitely get any girl laid off tinder. I can get a female black square action on tinder.

Why do female virgins go up at some ages

Sources to (sort of) go with it:
- fabiusmaximus.com/2018/05/12/rising-celibacy-and-domesticating-men/
- ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim

I was on Tinder the entirety of this summer, and didn't get one single match.

Attached: apu-apustaja-balloon.png (1024x1024, 452K)

>sort of
Neither relates to OP's graph. Plus they are not studies but blogposts. The first one is rabid autistic ranting, he even uses a well known fake graph. The second one is not much better, again using questionable data and his sources are "hurr trust me".

Can you find something to support this on a reliable site? Such as CDC?

tbf i was already sad and wildly unstable, one more roastie turning me down and im going over that cliff bro

Go to a prostitute, she won't turn you down as long as you have taken a shower and wear clean clothes.

>very clearly did not read any of the links provided

Attached: bemused-spongebob.jpg (228x320, 21K)

we both know the answer to your rhetorical question user.

You indeed didn't. If you had you'd know those are shitty links.

>The rise of young male sexlessness isn't about Chads and Stacies; it isn't primarily about Tinder or Bumble; it's not mostly about attitudinal shifts in what women want from relationships; and it's not mainly about some new war between the sexes. It's mostly about people spending more years in school and spending more years living at home. But that's not actually a story about some change in sexual politics; instead, it's a story about the modern knowledge economy, and to some extent exorbitant housing costs.
sauce: Lyman Stone

Attached: 1516032670798.jpg (640x643, 264K)

Did you even read the articles? The second ones source is not hurr trust me. Obfuscation.

You mean this guy right?

No I meant who I replied to but they appear to be the same person

Incel denial is like climate change denial

...no, user, i mean the source of that quote, not the poster in this thread.

Actual studies show less sex for both males and females. It's obvious a post is fake when it claims less men but more women are having sex.

Well maybe your data is wrong? They're both from surveys. And once again, tinder.

in case it's needed, here is the last paragraph from second link, which is also i can draw a diagram if necessary.
>b-b-b-but lesbians and trannies and biases and sample size

i missed a button. sudokuing now.

Attached: 1530121737628.png (494x399, 30K)

I've found it easier to have hookups since tinder, but then again my issues always been social not appearance and tinders mostly based on appearance

Oh also your cdc data ends in 2013 while the gss data ends in 2016. Also, the gss data goes into the amount of sex had in the last year as well as virginity.

I thought it should be clear to you that theybaren't talking about the article by some christian website that reduces everything to women are changing in the end, they're talking about the data you asked for itt.

You see it's a delica

Delicate situation because saying bad things about women isn't politically correct so you won't find anyone willing to point fingers at women despite the data*

and i was talking about a quote from the guy that made this graph, so what

Attached: 1542631458883.jpg (770x500, 63K)

Is your point that his math must be bad? He agrees with you normies on incels so tread carefully as you carelessly attempt to silence the incels

no i wasn't commenting on anyones maths or numbers, that was a different user. i posted the quote then the pic of the quote then the post you just replied to and now this post.
other user(s) is/are not me.

They're not from surveys, they are from a source undisclosed by the blog and unverifiable.

That graph gets posted here all the time and there is every reason to think it's either fake or very badly constructed. No source data for it has ever been posted.

So you're not the one talking about the articles and trying to prove you read them? What fucking post did you step in?

They're from sources disclosed by the blog which are surveys nice try liar liar pants on fire.

>unsourced data on an incel blog is true and you must not question it
>verifiable data on government site is false
This is what incels actually believe.

cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm

>a source undisclosed by the blog and unverifiable.
you know what happened right? it must have been shut down.
*sets up more floormats for the upcoming gymnastics*
yeah. i think you think i'm saying this is a valid graph that you should take as truth when i never said that.
quote from guy
graph from guy
same guy
thats all.
nope, that is the other user. i did in fact read them, i read them when they were new, and i'm not arguing with you about anything or trying to disprove anything. i was merely posting a quote and then the source of the quote. that is literally it.

The source data can be found through the link itt but it is behind a paywall of like 200$ dollars once again nice try liar (actually though kind of a point but still a liar so go fuck yourself)

forgot link because busy sudokuing still
twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/992105680000749570

Believe I pointed out that your data ends at 2013 as opposed to the gss ending in 2016. I wish you'd make this difficult.

Link me where your posts start

>Link me where your posts start
i already said exactly which posts were mine user.

You sure make a lot of my excuses for me, almost as if your points are so bad you need to use strawmans

might as well drop some redpills.

>GSS for males

Attached: 1543445448705.png (991x721, 293K)

Where? Actual link to source, not "hurr trust me".

>GSS for females

Attached: 1517583458277.png (992x717, 291K)

Well it's pretty confusing when you jump in for someone who didn't read the article to show you didn't get the article. Show me where your posts start, link

>Quantitative meta-analysis of 3 statistical surveys

Attached: 1525193802528.png (640x532, 162K)

Can you not google? Do you actually care or are you just desperate to poke holes? They told you where the data is from.

>GSS, criterion:marriage

Attached: 1542327321663.png (640x532, 140K)

>just trust the government

>NFSG, criterion:education, datapoints:03

Attached: 1520607261079.png (640x532, 109K)

You are a liar. The source data is not found behind that $200 paywall. Think about it for a second, an incel could never afford that money to make a study.

Where is that GSS data located? Still waiting for a source. From actually GSS and not an incel blog.

>Statista, average sexual partners, 01

Attached: 1536341721385.png (1189x877, 74K)

Statista, average sexual partners, 02

Attached: 1529477189267.png (1167x860, 30K)

>I will post more unsourced graphs with no source data that will scare facts away!

They didn't say where the data is from. Stop lying.

You're theorizing that the data for sale isn't real if you actually buy it?

Google the gss like you have two iq points to rub together if you're curious, I'm done entertaining angry dissenters

>Mom! Look! I posted more fake graphs! And when they ask for a source I will just link to my blog.

>sexually transmitted diseases, CDC

Attached: 1542891825682.png (909x664, 137K)

You act like the source is hard to find

>divorce rates 001

Attached: 1535885216400.png (940x978, 65K)

Hot tip for any student or non-student anons: you can often directly contact the author of published papers via email and get a free copy.

Attached: 1535997997244.png (326x273, 143K)

>divorce rates 002

Attached: 1525192771657.png (939x981, 66K)

>divorce rates 003

Attached: 1525808095054.png (951x892, 60K)

>american high school students (intercourse-2017), Statista

Attached: 1530068118722.png (1189x719, 60K)

>tfw the anti incels are now scrambling to discredit their own cdc. What am I saying they probably won't hesitate like that.

Looks like they just run scared when they realize they can't bullshit anymore

Most women go after top tier men
Most men go for a range of women

But this is aggregated from a dating app, and a lot of guys will match with anyone.

>But this is aggregated from a dating app, and a lot of guys will match with anyone.
So it's a useless graph?...

Bear in mind that the source of these statistics is a self-reported survey. These are known to be incredibly unreliable.

I remember reading a study some twenty years ago (research on sex habits is older than you think) which was, essentially, a sex study about sex studies. People will vary wildly in their responses depending on who is asking the questions. Men answering to men tend to inflate the number of sexual partners they have had and decrease the age they lost their virginity. Women answering to women did the opposite. Men answering to women were the most honest, whilst paradoxically, women answering to men were the most unreliable.

Self-reported sex statistics are junk, and they are second only to self-reported exercise statistics in their flawed uselessness. Studies done with FitBits (or similar) have concluded that the average person over-reports how much exercise they are getting by anywhere from 40 to 400%. Sex statistics are likely to be even more unreliable, as there is no way of checking unless you make people wear cameras on their foreheads 24/7 for years.

In other words - take all this with one huge pinch of salt.

Attached: 1541708042916.png (1200x863, 1.37M)

>In the less than 10% zone
Good thing I gave up.

>Google it
This always means "I have nothing". Why can't you link to those GSS statistics? You just said they exist.