Remedial sex ed for zoomers: you're still an incel in the eyes of God

Millennial "dating" woes are going viral again, with gen z set up to do even worse (nearly half are incels). Fertility rates are spiraling. All discourse on the subject is from terminally ngmi femcels who have no idea what they are talking about. As a millennial with 4 kids, I thought I might offer some wisdom to the zoomers who might still make it. Some of you are good people and don't deserve to be exterminated.

Your primary barrier to sexual success seems to be that you don't actually want it or don't know what it is. The "systemic issue" is just that no one does either. You are probably ideologically resistant to the real thing in some way. I won't try to persuade you but at least we can solve the "what" question:

First of all, "dating" isn't real. It's an asexual simulacrum of mating, like masturbation. Ground yourself in darwinian first principles: You got laid last weekend? Unless she got pregnant you're still an incel in the eyes of God. If you're thinking about your "dating" or even worse "romantic" woes, looking for a "life partner", "companionship" or any of that, you're cooked before you even start.

You need a *mate* you can make *children* with. Here are your criteria: same class, same culture, same attractiveness, good family values, and youth. Marrying out of your league generally doesn't work, and other mixes are risky. But you also want to balance out genetic deficiencies. The purpose of sex is genetic trade: you offer intelligence, they offer conscientiousness. If you have enough kids, some of them get both and you win the real darwin award. Does this sound eugenicist? It is. The whole point of sex and marriage is selective breeding.

It is easy to get distracted with fake selection criteria. Education and money are the usual culprits. You'll also hear bullshit like "sexual compatability" "intellectual stimulation" "best friend" "true love" and such. Keep your eye on the ball: marriage is about sex is about eugenics. All that matters is that your partner is genetically suitable, willing to enter into a breeding partnership, and trustworthy with your children. Everything else is epiphenomena. Corollary: your money, education, status, most of your "personality", etc are irrelevant non-qualifications, for men as well as women.

(A friend interjects here to warn you that while I describe this in cold and calculating terms, I am in fact a romantic at heart with a loving and joyful marriage and should not be trusted about this. I retort that most modern people including myself and him have a deficiency in rational thinking about love, and don't need me to indulge their romantic fantasies.)

For raising children there is approximately no other arrangement that works as well as monogamous lifelong commitment selected on both love chemistry and rational eugenic concerns. Widespread belief otherwise is cope. With modern economics, a full time mom is also a near-must and more feasible than you think.

Ideological and legal support for these things has collapsed, so you're on your own for actual implementation. The closer you and your spouse can approximate to absolute unbreakable commitment to each other for the full term of your mutual child-raising (ie the rest of your life), the better it's going to go for both of you and the kids. As such, ideological commitment to the institution of marriage, humility, and good conflict resolution chemistry is a must-have.

Some of you already know all this, but I can see that many don't. There is much else that needs to be said about ideal male and female archetypes, tactical advice for landing a mate, economics of marriage and kids, etc, but we'll have to leave that for another time. The most important thing is getting your sexual fundamentals straight: sex is about reproduction, marriage is a eugenic institution, and if she's not pregnant, you're still an incel.

>>3479
I've been thinking along these lines, and you've managed to put it succinctly and side step the issue. Most dating discourse is plainly wrong because dating itself is a psyop. We aren't meant to be dating. Dating is a fake institution invented by Boomers and the sexual revolution to put self pleasure and maximum release from societal restraints on a pedestal -- perpetual Woodstock, one never ending music and drug induced orgasm for all. Someone on twitter proposed to think about it as we Europeans have done it for millennia: courtship. Would be interesting to further draw out explicitly the differences, as you have coldly done.

Maybe it's a bit of a blackpilled, but the realisation I've come to is that I don't think this is a solvable thing. It's hard to overstate how radically different our mode of production, mode of social relations and ideological beliefs, cultural norms, are from how we've lived for millennia. Most people's phenotypes are just unadapted to the current environment, of no fault of their own. I think mainly we are going through a massive genetic and cultural bottleneck event. Not to say individuals don't also have moral failings, but that has always existed. I think now it is easier for people with moral failings to be dysfunctional and cause their social circles to be more dysfunctional as well. I don't think that “nothing” should be done either. There are plenty of people of good breeding that have been mislead and are worth saving, and there's no better way of doing it than setting an example yourself. Speak the truth, read history, look into what marriage was look into what healthy relations between the sexes were. Many things can't be saved, but through full devotion and love we can weather the storms.

>>3481
I think it's the sexual revolution ideology and cultural norms more than anything else that's causing the normie genocide. And yeah a lot of it is that by removing corrective restraints like people going to church and having to listen to the wisdom of the philosophers, dysfunction begets more dysfunction. For society overall, that's a total disaster. For the individual, it's completely within your power to solve: just don't be a normie.

I made this thread because I can see as you say a lot of good people who aren't going to make it for lack of clarity and example. Maybe we should make it a regular theme. "Ask Me Anything", etc. That said, I never spoke to anyone who had succeeded at marriage before I did it myself, though I did consume various internet propaganda that set my ideals right. Setting the ideological ideals is the more important thing, I think.

It is solvable but not coordinable (nuclear warfare risk is also solvable but not coordinable). The solution is to ban all means of birth control. This will also set transwomen apart from women because when horny they will not get knocked up and emotionally bond to babies, solving the gender/sex dissonance (the opposite of dysphoria that is i.e. the collective uncertainty about what others are / should be treated like). In any case it should be remembered in this discussion that (1) not wanting to mate is ok, (2) most people of course should take all the advise given for mating because they do want to mate, and (3) out of all theories as to what the fuck has happened, it is very likely that the original cause was "simply" birth control. U.S. did model population growth as a NATSEC risk and it is possible it did not become a thing naturally but without better evidence I would lean towards "birth control was invented and largely due to economical reasons became widely adopted in some parts of the world, causing in those parts the traditional knocked-up-stuck-at-home-feminity to disappear from reality if not people's minds." It is probable that without birth control web would have developed into an informative and much less malicious place because women are far more easily manipulated by social media than men are and their truth works differently. I think the fast internet scandal that is never become a topic again after news cycle ends would not exist because men tend to bring up issues again and not be entertrained as much by drama as by living up to principles and making things right as they believe regardless of social cost whereas when large fraction of internetters is women the median "voter" user will due risk/cost aversion always choose to ignore things that which if raised up again would stir conflict.

> The solution is to ban all means of birth control

This format is worse than useless: "the solution is to simply <thing that will never happen>". It leads to blackpilling and learned helplessness.

The left equivalent are climate doomers who demand a global cap on CO2 emissions. The serious ones are depressed because this will not happen, so they wallow around thinking Earth is doomed. The unserious ones just use it as a signifier for their politics-as-social-club personal affiliation. Neither gets anything done.

The underlying trap in common is excessively linear thinking. The world is complex and people are both more inventive (on the right curve) and more malleable (at all levels) than you can imagine.

- We solved the carbon issue by inventing and mass producing solar panels at 1/1000th the cost over 10 years. If this sounds utopian, it already happened. China is now running a massive buildout as we speak. [Ironically it is the same enviro-doomers who are primarily culprits in retarding this process in the West--this is what I mean by worse than useless, doomerthought is typically actively harmful.]

- We'll solve the birthrates, too. The amount of invention and cultural change that can happen over 10 years would blow your mind. Look at the period 1959 to 1969 that got us into this mess to begin within--the way out can be just as fast.

I don't know the exact shape that the solution will take, but I can see the outline. It will be a combination of better reproductive technology, cultural invention, media power, and simple natural selection. We're living in the middle of a Great Filter for those with predispositions to redditbrain. A big happy family will be aspirational again. A wave of childless millenials (mentally unhealthy single 40+ women, in particular) will serve as a warning to the next few generations. No woman wants to turn into this: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLnawdfRd8g/

What I know for sure is that the solution is not "ban birthcontrol". That kind of ploddingly linear thought is spiritually German.

>>3497
I'll steelman the "ban birth control" meme: you're right that a global ban from the government isn't going to happen, but let me tell you about actually existing "better reproductive technology": not using birth control. Women who have a lot of kids don't use it. Not just at each marginal moment choosing not to use it like some kind of GMU automaton, but as a general policy they have effectively banned it from their own lives. Often this is the result of family or local culture effectively banning it as a matter of social expectation.

The other actually existing "better reproductive technology" is to get married and start earlier. In other words, this problem is extremely overwhelmingly solved for any culture that actually wants it. "Better reproductive technology" is mostly a scam to extract money from that one or two generations of women who naively planned their teens, 20s, and 30s around not reproducing and then realized at the last minute that they don't want to spend their 40s, 50s, and 60s with no hope of children. It mostly won't work, but lots of money will change hands. The next generation, if they care to reproduce, will do so by getting married early and not using birth control.

You are right that dooming is counterproductive and this is going to be solved one way or the other. It's a self-solving problem. The people who want to survive will reproduce (by getting married early and not using birth control) and take over the world, those who would rather not won't. It's that simple.

I think what people who are worried about the birth rate are really worried about is the upstream problem which is the death of western civilization. Collapsing birth rates are one small symptom of that, not a cause.