Incels? Porn? What do you think?

[fagustree]

“Everything in moderation, including moderation.”

― Oscar Wilde

[JakofClubs]

I'm just going to say that the internet (availability of information) more efficiently arranges markets and that includes the dating market. I think it's always been the case that the top 20% of males get more access to quality women than the bottom 20%. Low-tier men are just more aware of it and band together because the internet is really good at connecting fringe groups.

Imagine being in Victorian England or Spain where everyone was supposed to be celibate until marriage. That's like a whole society of incels.

Does porn desensitize men? Probably, but doesn't eating at a great restaurant make your home cooking taste bland by comparison?

Is porn bad for society? Every time an anti-porn groups tries to prove that porn causes rape or what-ever, they can't find any statistical significance. If global warming is the largest threat for society, having more people watch porn and not procreate is probably a good thing.

Is this more of a problem than it's been historically? I doubt it, probably more like the internet amplification effect of outlying ideas in the click-bait media.

edit: duplicate words

[noblepaladin]

Is porn bad for society? Every time an anti-porn groups tries to prove that porn causes rape or what-ever, they can't find any statistical significance.

Yeah, porn is a convenient target, but it's basically all anecdotal bro-science. People try to sound smart talking about "porn stimulates the brain chemicals, excessive dopamine cause desensitization!". So does everything these days. Our food is engineered to be far more tasty than can be found in the wild. Social media and everything online has algos figuring out the most effective way to stimulate you and draw you in. But it's only porn that is the problem? You basically can't isolate it to one thing any more because we are surrounded by this stuff.

I'm sure porn has negative effects. But it's basically never the primary factor. You might have a 30 year old complain about erectile dysfunction (something that never happened in past generations), and everybody is screaming "it's the porn!". But the 30 year old is also obese, has poor nutrition, poor sleep, and doesn't exercise. Fixing those are more likely to fix his ED than cutting out porn, but it's much easier to blame porn. Also, if you tell someone to cut porn, he'll probably just replace it with video games. Or Netflix. Or social media. Or he'll just jerk off to non-nude pictures of girls. The current generation of "excess porn" is also the generation of "excess everything" because we can stream everything to the phone that is next to you 24/7. In my opinion, porn is like ice cream. It's tasty and it isn't good for you in large quantities. But you can't just replace ice cream with cupcakes and think that you will get better.

If you think about what some people say about porn, it requires jumping through several layers of speculation. "It's the porn causing him to lose his drive to talk to women! It's lowering his testosterone because he is jerking off too much!". You know what else makes someone not want to go out and talk to people? Poor sleep. There are so many things that are the more obvious and more probable answer. And I know it is not politically correct to "body shame", but maybe some guy is an incel because he is fat and ugly (statistically, most people are fat these days), and he can correct that by going to the gym and eating better. There are things that are proven to raise testosterone (better nutrition, not being obese, having enough sleep, etc), but people want to do "no fap" instead.

[spaisin]

Why would you assume a majority of people at the time didn't find that attractive?

I don't, really. But I can't just assume the opposite either; just because fashion mags had plenty and tried and succeeded selling it to teens, doesn't mean much about the general popularity of it. For historic times, the fashions were for the aristocrats; basically being set by the nobility, copied down from there; some people are great at imitating success, but it doesn't say much about the actual likes of the masses, or their lives for that matter.

Right, so you are describing your tastes changing.

I'm describing my tastes changing - changing Against a prominent marketing message. That look being quite prevalent in the content I consume - but it is Not improving my view of it. That's to point out, having intentional campaigns to change "people in general" isn't exactly easy; you may have some effect on some people, but no effect on most (I'm guessing of course).

'Some effect on some people' is absolutely enough for a marketing firm, it's some new customers. But, on another extreme, it's Not enough for anyone who is ideologically trying to make the world a safe space for one group or another; for a safe space, you'd need to convince everyone.

I'm not saying you're an ideologue; you seem to be looking for a more "natural look" for people to accept, which is pretty sane for sure. And I do mostly agree with your overall message. But I doubt there's any way to achieve even that "intentionally" any more than the Global Safe Space (tm) some are after.

Regardless if it's right, it's already being done. It's not just marketing, either, but everything we interact with is going to have some effect on our brain, whether it's listening to an advertisement on YouTube, seeing a neighbor's political sign, or the smell of the fried chicken restaurant across the street.

Yes, people learn. Yes, some are trying to "teach" others whatever marketing message suits their goals. We can't stop marketers from doing it without massive regulations on speech; and thus we shouldn't. If we did, by the very wording of the restrictions, we'd end up forcing "an accepted message" instead - accepted by who? Why? To what end? Well, by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, that's who. To their unspoken ends, usually their bank account, often their religious ideology, or just simply power for power's sake. None of that sounds great, so how about we just don't? Let's not give them the power?

Moderating porn problems, beyond the actual abuse of people involved in the production; I don't think there's much that should be done "institutionally". I'd prefer not have the WHO define my porn for me. Government programs to educate and such .. not entirely against, but more than little doubtful of the efficacy.

I just find that most people who are "concerned about someone's health" care more about controlling them than actually helping the health, spending time insulting fat people instead of writing congress about the sugar content of peanut butter. (Seriously, peanut butter doesn't need sugar for any reason except that corn syrup is cheaper filler than actual peanut butter.)

You might like me as a dictator of nutrition: a painful tax on carbohydrates(all), ban on aldehyde-containing oils. For a start And you might not; you do you, indeed.

I don't specifically care of most people's health; but I do care of the health of the population on a logical level. More productive, happy people, coming with less healthcare strain. Win-win-win.
I don't really care about a specific fatty on a Cosmo poster, but I'm annoyed at people getting lied to that she's healthy. Even if she might be, the average person with those dimensions isn't going to be. And I'm quite annoyed that the lie is being pushed based on an ideology of nonsense. I don't usually see people "shaming a fat person for being fat", I do see some pointing out the lie getting misinterpreted, likely quite intentionally. It's a cheap misdirect and people seem to be falling for it all over the place.

For the SI cover you referred to; I had to check what you were talking about.. meh. She's pretty hot, but is she really a good fit for "illustrating sports"? The mag seems like a softcore porn anyway, so who cares, but she doesn't exactly ooze fitness. But I have no idea, she might have a killer deadlift.
Overall, might work as a marketing ploy to sell to bigger girls; if only we could sell them healthy living at the same time..

[dalin55738]

@spaisin First off, really enjoyed reading your responses and think we ultimately agree about how this all relates to porn regulation, neither of us seeming that much for it.

But I wanted to respond to a few points (and I apologize now for the length.)

Yes, people learn. Yes, some are trying to "teach" others whatever marketing message suits their goals. We can't stop marketers from doing it without massive regulations on speech; and thus we shouldn't. If we did, by the very wording of the restrictions, we'd end up forcing "an accepted message" instead - accepted by who? Why? To what end? Well, by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, that's who. To their unspoken ends, usually their bank account, often their religious ideology, or just simply power for power's sake. None of that sounds great, so how about we just don't? Let's not give them the power?

Right, so my actual point was that we can't solely look at marketers. Everyone making a public or targeted message is trying to achieve a goal. I used to tutor communications classes and the textbook was called "Everything's an Argument", which points to how all messages are trying to convince someone of something, even if it's as mundane as a "No Parking" sign trying to convince people not to park there.

Since this is at the root of all communication, it's not something so easily regulated. While I think we can do some things that hurt people (like fine companies for false advertising or detain people making credible death threats), I think the important thing is just education and open-mindedness towards studying and understanding how messages affect us.

That's why, with porn, I point out there are different aspects of porn consumption and each has different pros and cons.

Moderating porn problems, beyond the actual abuse of people involved in the production; I don't think there's much that should be done "institutionally". I'd prefer not have the WHO define my porn for me. Government programs to educate and such .. not entirely against, but more than little doubtful of the efficacy.

So I agree that you don't need the government to regulate and oversee every aspect of every industry. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for "institutions" in the sense of qualified third-parties whose sole purpose is to keep the people involved from getting hurt.

While there are clearly problems with both, I think the MPAA and the ESRB represent overall positive aspects of how an industry can create a board that regulates their own industry. By giving us content ratings, theater owners aren't as worried about angry parents yelling at their staff because Deadpool is chopping off heads.

The ESRB requires games with flashing lights to have warnings, otherwise they won't get an ESRB rating. Without a rating, they can't be sold in most stores because the stores have to agree to ESRB rules for distribution.

While most porn sites I've seen do a great job preventing minors from accidentally finding it (like with meta tags to stay off "Safe Search" Google, age gates, etc.), I don't know what they're doing, if anything, to help people who suffer negative consequences of the different aspects of porn consumption. Should they add a time limit to help addicts, like Nintendo does with a lot of their products? Or maybe we just don't know enough about the problems to make a decision.

Ultimately, it's all about learning more and conducting research.

but I'm annoyed at people getting lied to that she's healthy. Even if she might be, the average person with those dimensions isn't going to be.

I honestly don't see groups lying that "fat people are all healthy, so you should never worry". I think the bigger issue, like I hinted at, is that you can't determine a person's health based solely on their physical appearance. And even if you could, why go out of your way to make them feel bad?

But more importantly, why do so many people think showing a fat person is the same as advocating for their lifestyle? Fat people exist so they should exist as characters in TV shows and models on magazine covers, right? Granted, I think Sports Illustrated cares more about the controversy they knew this would stir than actually helping a perceived social problem, but that ties into the overall idea about messages and their intents versus their effects (which is a whole other can of worms we don't need to open).

As an aside, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue issue isn't making a statement about health. You'd mentioned not knowing about it, but the SI Swimsuit Issue is a holdover from when they would bump sales by selling (you actually guessed it) softcore porn to a largely male audience. There isn't a relationship to athleticism at all. In fact, plenty of feminist organizations would criticize them for doing this, especially as more women broadcasters entered the field.

I'd even go so far as to argue that these sorts of publicity stunts are a cynical attempt to prevent that sort of negative controversy by making it appear as if they're doing something essentially pro-feminist. But they're just trying to sell magazines, so we've all been tricked into spreading "word of mouth" after all. (Damn you, communication!)

And, and just real quick:

You might like me as a dictator of nutrition: a painful tax on carbohydrates(all), ban on aldehyde-containing oils. For a start

Actually, I wouldn't particularly like that because it doesn't fix the problem, which is that government subsidies are currently making processed foods in the US cheaper than produce. The reason high-fructose corn syrup and soy are in practically everything is because factories are paid by the US government to buy crops from farmers at a lower price. Therefore, they get put into everything when the alternative is more expensive (and it almost always is).

So if you start taxing carbohydrates, regular people will just have to start allocating more of their funds to groceries than other things in their life. And without a knowledge of nutrition, how can we guarantee this will have them buying more nutritious foods than low-carb processed foods that are equally unhealthy? Like I said before, you can't just focus on macro-nutrients but micro-nutrients, too. In this respect, I think a public school curriculum that includes comprehensive nutrition education should be required beyond half a semester in Physical Education class (which is what I got).

[spaisin]

First off, really enjoyed reading your responses and think we ultimately agree about ...

Yup, it's been interesting

I think the MPAA and the ESRB represent overall positive aspects of how an industry can create a board that regulates their own industry.

Those two aren't horrible, but points like "Without a rating, they can't be sold in most stores because the stores have to agree to ESRB rules for distribution." make me pretty uneasy. One thing to provide the service of a rating, another to ban commerce of an item.

I honestly don't see groups lying that "fat people are all healthy, so you should never worry".

"Everything is a message", said some relatively sane person. So, I'd say this is too:
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3 ... resize=980:*

Now, the article itself isn't making exactly the claim the image is; but the image is sending a pretty damn clear one, no?
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/body/a3 ... hape-size/

There's also the honorable "anorexic" Tess Holiday, who could survive a year without an added calorie (not merely a joke, check the fasting fatman on youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheFastingFatman/videos
And Adele had some interesting things to say after getting involved in a bit of skinny shaming; the culture is pulling into all kinds of rotten directions. I'll leave that one up to the reader..

And even if you could, why go out of your way to make them feel bad?

Where did I imply this, and did I say something about "cheap misdirects"? (No worries, just don't do it again )

I'd even go so far as to argue that these sorts of publicity stunts are a cynical attempt to prevent that sort of negative controversy by making it appear as if they're doing something essentially pro-feminist.

That may well be the case; I doubt they're trying to appease an -ism, they should know that's not possible. But I kinda suspect it's a bit grimmer than that; they're just trying to gain a point on their ESG-score.

Actually, I wouldn't particularly like that because it doesn't fix the problem, which is that government subsidies are currently making processed foods in the US cheaper than produce.

Well, I phrased it as "adding" taxes to carbs & seed oils to keep the idea country neutral; if some silly little nation somewhere is granting negative taxes to the crap, adding some will first make it even and then start the actual taxation. And I wouldn't mind adding soy protein (or just soy as a whole) to the list either. So, no major disagreements in my opinion

So if you start taxing carbohydrates, regular people will just have to start allocating more of their funds to groceries than other things in their life.

It's always the customer paying the tax bill in any case; removing a subsidy has the exact effect as adding a tax. The price will rise, and I'm fine with it. That's the point. We can pay a higher price to pay for the blood pressure meds in the long run, or subsidize quality meat production. Or people can move to healthier foods.
Macros vs nutrition trivia: One point for naming each dietary carbohydrate essential for human life?
(hint, listing them all nets you a total of 0 points)



I think we've derailed the thread pretty decently; and probably burned a few fuses on all sides of everything... but thanks, it's been fun

[book_guy]

lots to keep up with here ... haven't had a chance to read it all ... yet ...

[figroll]

Personally, I find it very hard to separate Incels from their misogyny as you don't need to read very much into it to realise there is a lot more going on than just young men who cannot get laid.

Contrapoints has an excellent video on them here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2briZ6fB0

[dalin55738]

I think we've derailed the thread pretty decently; and probably burned a few fuses on all sides of everything... but thanks, it's been fun

Agreed

But I do think it's related. Regulating porn is either designed to stop people from doing something to themselves or stopping content creators from doing something with their bodies. The idea that society influences how we view each others bodies, and our own, plays into that.

I honestly don't see groups lying that "fat people are all healthy, so you should never worry".

"Everything is a message", said some relatively sane person. So, I'd say this is too:

Right, so the "groups" I'm talking about are actual advocacy organizations, not media companies. Again, I'm too cynical about the intentions of corporations to assume they would ever put social issues above profit. If anything, that giant headline on the cover is designed to cause outrage amongst anti-HAES communities because "there's no such thing as bad publicity", right?

Where did I imply this, and did I say something about "cheap misdirects"? (No worries, just don't do it again )

The language could've been selected better, but I wasn't saying you specifically but people who promote fat-shaming. After all, that aspect of the convo stemmed from this comment I had made earlier:

I just find that most people who are "concerned about someone's health" care more about controlling them than actually helping the health, spending time insulting fat people instead of writing congress about the sugar content of peanut butter.

So my use of "you" was the general "you", i.e. "one", referring to those hypothetical people I'd mentioned earlier. Granted, I should've clarified, so sorry for the offense and I'll be more careful with my word choice next time

[spaisin]

The language could've been selected better, but I wasn't saying you specifically

Yup, I know. I did recognize it as a passive, but it was also perfectly viable to be read as a cheap misdirect.. so, I myself went with a cheap misdirect just to drive the point home.. you monster

but people who promote fat-shaming.

I still haven't seen any; next time you spot one, send me a link.
Note: I do see some dickheads DOING it. It's the cheapest form of insult to hurl at anyone, so if you just want to insult someone, it's a staple go-to and always will be. I don't see anyone PROMOTING it.

Right, so the "groups" I'm talking about are actual advocacy organizations, not media companies.

So you seem; and I don't really know why. I haven't.
But, even if we were to consider the actual HAES (Healthy at Every Size, for anyone else who would need to google the acronym)
Do you think they would have ANY opposition to the Cosmo message? It's basically straight out of their mission statements. Does it really matter which of them posted it?

designed to cause outrage amongst anti-HAES communities

Well, that sounds rather ominous. I'd like to assess the threat, so: What is the website for the largest anti-HAES community? I've never heard of one, let alone plural.

Silly word games? Maybe; but language is important.
Silly prizes? ... we shall see

[dalin55738]

you monster

.·´¯`(>▂<)´¯`·.

but people who promote fat-shaming.

I still haven't seen any; next time you spot one, send me a link.
Note: I do see some dickheads DOING it. It's the cheapest form of insult to hurl at anyone, so if you just want to insult someone, it's a staple go-to and always will be. I don't see anyone PROMOTING it.

My dad was a huge proponent of publicly shaming people for things he thought they shouldn't do, specifically smoking and being fat. I honestly heard him argue that it was okay to do this (i.e. "promoting it") more than I heard him actually fat-shaming people.

And I had a conversation with a religious, moderately conservative co-worker about this where she argued that shaming serves a positive social purpose and it's okay to fat shame. Granted, that could be considered "excusing" the behavior more than "promoting" it. But because you can "promote" something without giving explicit verbal or written support, I would argue that "excusing" a behavior is a passive form of promotion.

Aside from personal anecotes, Reddit used to have entire groups dedicated to fat-shaming, such as r/FatPeopleHate. I would argue any group dedicated to the activity inherently promotes the behavior. And I'll discuss those groups later in the "communities" section of this dissertation

It's basically straight out of their mission statements. Does it really matter which of them posted it?

I mean, yeah: it does matter. If we're going to get nitpicky over the specific meanings of words, then we should also get specifc with who is using them.

It's also important to note that the phrasing "This is healthy!" is superimposed over a fat model, yes, but a fat model wearing a workout outfit and sneakers. If we're going to analyze the language, we have to assume "This" doesn't refer to the woman but what the photo is presenting, the "vibe", if you will. And in that case, it's the vibe of fat people, visibly happy, wearing athletic gear. With that in mind, I think making the assumption that this is "lying" about people's health is a strange assumption to make.

Maybe you're right that some groups are lying about the relationship between health and obesity, but I just don't think this example is doing that.

designed to cause outrage amongst anti-HAES communities

Well, that sounds rather ominous. I'd like to assess the threat, so: What is the website for the largest anti-HAES community? I've never heard of one, let alone plural.

Aside from the aforementioned subreddits, there are plenty of communities on TikTok, of all places. Here's an article from a couple years ago.

I think TikTok "communities" are fascinating in the same way as Twitter communities, in that they are far less centralized and crop up organically. Instead of coming to a specific forum with a username and writing in designated areas based on topics (like Milovana), the algorithm uses your interests and engagement actions to deliver you content while also delivering your content to other people.

I honestly didn't realize this was a possible way for a proper "community" to develop, but after being active on TikTok the past couple years, I've made some friends. And it's not just content creators but people commenting on videos. Eventually you start communicating back and forth through comments, possibly following each other, then making videos responding to each other.

So even though these sorts of "organic" communities are different than message boards and things like Facebook or Nextdoor, where you can create "groups" that act similarly to forums, they are communities nonetheless.

With that in mind, here's a YouTuber I enjoy who covers a lot of men on TikTok engaging in toxic behaviors. This specific video covers channels who spend a lot of time fat-shaming people. They aren't just criticizing the HAES movement but are shaming people who are doing something like dancing or swimming while also being fat.

Similar to what I said before about communities dedicated to the action, if someone is dedicating time and effort to creating a lot of content where they engage in a certain behavior, that's a way of promoting it.

Silly word games? Maybe; but language is important.

Oh, I agree 100%. I have a Bachelor's degree in Linguistics, so this is an endlessly interesting subject to me, which is why I nerd out over these responses.

One of the things I like to point out, which ties into a lot of the presuppositions I've made about some of the terminology, is there aren't only "semantic" meanings to utterance but "pragmatic" ones as well.

An easy example is asking someone, "Can you close the door?" This is a "Yes/No" question but, unless the person is being a smartass, they're going to understand this as a request for action and go close the door.

It can be hard to prove the intentions behind an utterance because they can be intentionally obscured. For example, a date goes well and you want to find out if sex is a possibility. So as you walk the girl to her apartment, you ask if you can come in for "coffee". If she says no, there's plausible deniability that you were only talking about "coffee". But if she says yes, depending on how she says it, you might not even bother maintaining the façade and head straight to the bedroom.

And sometimes you have to examine the non-verbal context of the situation. Here's a scene in Fargo where a driver is pulled over and the cop asks to see his license and registration. He hands over his wallet with his license partially exposed and a $50 bill sticking out. While he never explicitly bribes the officer, the officer uses context to assume that is what's happening.

Anyway, now we're not even talking about porn or incels anymore, so I'll probably stop responding, despite having fun doing so

[spaisin]

I humored myself with a point by point reply, but geez these are getting lengthy; and a long post of even lighthearted disagreement laced with a little humor starts feeling like an attack, so I don't think I'll post that. Just a couple of the main points from there:

First off, well, sorry for your dad; sounds like a poor role model. Although, I don't get how one ends up 'often' spouting defense for an activity they don't really do themselves; sounds a little weird if he was promoting fat shaming while not involved in it.

Second up, I think you have a blind spot around HAES. You give a logical structure against fat-shaming:
"But because you can "promote" <something> without giving explicit verbal or written support, I would argue that "excusing" <a behavior> is a passive form of promotion."

Without acknowledging it being exactly what people criticise HAES for:
"But because you can "promote" <being fat> without giving explicit verbal or written support, I would argue that "excusing" <being fat> is a passive form of promotion."


When I asked for an example of an "anti-HAES community", I expected seeing people grouped together somewhere by their shared opposition to HAES. For a comical approach, pointing to Oxford Medical home page might've been a decent one. But you link an article about a filter published by TikTok, and teens playing around with it. That's not a community, nor is it anti anything, much less anti HAES. That's about as threatening as cat-girl filters.


For that youtube vid; that's Noah Samsen ragging on Isaac Butterfield. I skimmed it a bit, and then I realized Isaac has made a reply to that very thing. He's likely equally entertaining to watch, so here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNL6ImC3Wk

Now, Isaac might be a decent example of what we're talking about.
He's a comedian. He talks a lot about HAES. His relevant jokes are mostly about the unhealthy messaging. He jokes a lot, which creates a whole lot of opportunities to cut his more edgy quips into outrage videos. And he loves the attention, as he can then humor his audience by pointing out the tricks being used. While calling the clippers names to get clipped more. And the outrage machine keeps churning. And churning. And churnin.

Does he go around calling people fat just because they're fat? No. He's an ex-fatty himself; he was pretty massive, and he went through the struggle to get to a healthy size.

Now he's mocking people who would actively enable his past self staying obese.

Is it the best thing to do? Not necessarily;
Is it wrong? I can't really say, his experience seems to drive him to it, he might be perfectly right in doing it.

But, this is a guy getting painted fatphobic just for getting himself in shape.
Oh wait, this was one of the times where language matters, I guess..?

[throwawayacct]

Personally, I find it very hard to separate Incels from their misogyny as you don't need to read very much into it to realise there is a lot more going on than just young men who cannot get laid.

Contrapoints has an excellent video on them here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2briZ6fB0

ding ding ding ding!

The lack of getting laid/positive attention from preferred gender is simply ONE facet of this...movement.

Another facet is the christian fascism running as an undercurrent with so many; some are race supremacists, some are just fascists, but the ends are the same.

[spaisin]

Hah.. watch out book_guy, if you keep on this track of self-inspection, you might end you developing an irresistible desire to drag people out of their houses and executing them on the streets whenever they're not praying to their god-emperor hard enough...

christian fascist ... geez

[fragrantEmulsion]

If you lived any time before ~10,000 BCE, you physically labored to feed your tribe. Your hormone production was not marred by microplastics, it was bolstered by a diet of red meat, greens, nuts, and berries.

You fucked your second or third cousin, and did not have any idea or preference otherwise. You probably fucked multiple cousins during a ceremonial orgy. You had no concept of individual privacy or propriety. Your parents probably fucked in front of you. You probably didn't even know who your father was. And it didn't matter because your mom probably fucked everyone in the village before having you.

This was the norm for millions of years.

Now, you live in plywood and gypsum boxes and sit for 90% of your waking life. Your heavily processed food is brought to you on trucks, packaged in containers with microplastics that limit your ability to produce testosterone. You don't live near your family. All your friends are on a message board online. They're filling your head with racist propaganda while secretly jerking off to BBC porn. You feel emasculated, and buy a gun to make yourself feel better.

You might fetishize things that are not possible. Like MLP clop-clop, guro, or women who want to make eye contact with you. At the very least, your entire conception of sex comes from media designed to be fantasy.

You're nearing 30 and you've never been on a date before. You have severe social anxiety, it's getting worse. Every dating app you've tried has lowered your self esteem to the point where you don't want to try anymore. The only people who understand are people like you who have the same experiences. Your online friends, from the message board.

You don't hear anything other than the same hateful, depressing, self-loathing rhetoric. From the men who have been with women too, talking about their ex wives and how much they got fucked by the court in their divorce.

Every effort you make to better yourself seems to fail because you don't have a community that supports you. You have mental health issues, and they're getting worse. You have no career prospects and your wages are stagnating. There is no reason to live other than the most basic pleasures: high fructose corn syrup, masturbation, or the next season of Mushoku Tensei.

Porn is only part of the problem.