"The Lost Boys" – young men opt for virtual life of pornography and gaming

[Mormolyce]

Absolutely this. The laws are absolutely crazy. Feminism has gone WAY too far to the point where men literally have no family rights whatsoever anymore.

Quote me this law you're referring to.

If you can't, then my next question is: how did you come to such a strong opinion about a law if you haven't even read it?

[Cosmic Janitor]

But it wasn't "just go outside", it was that it's not hard to talk to women. Which buck thinks is hard because "women are illogical creatures that defy all laws of men".

The original exchange went like this.

A: You make it sound so easy.
B: It is easy.
A: Uh-huh. Sure.
B: What's so hard about it?
C: It is easy. It also becomes easier the more often you do it.
A: <rambles on about something, not sure if serious>

I have to admit I made it about going outside (as that is the usual phrase used) when it was just about "being easy". I think my point still stands though, with it being easier used as the usual ignoring of the fact that it is indeed not as simple.

[May90]

Overabundance of self-esteem and little care for the results. Do you know where the majority of relationships start out? Work(/school for the youngsters) and small social circles you are familiar with. All places where you stand a lot to loose if your dating attempts are met with failure and your public image takes damage. To give you a hint, not everyone lives in large cities, even though most people seem to think that. If I were to pull the "1 out of 10 will respond positively" (can't remember who to attribute that to) and butcher my attempt to leave a sour taste, then I'd be pretty much done for in my town until a new group of women is old enough to drink . Obviously not true for online dating but that is another beast entirely and as a side note in regards to this topic (the lost boys) it certainly doesn't help the young guys that fall into the weaker categories to read how offended women are about being asked out all the time, especially if you haven't learned to filter out all the incoherent nonsense some people fabricate to fit narrative or that is born out of a lack of correct introspection.

You also assume that every man and every woman eventually finds someone, which is a false premise and has been through history. Furthermore your pre-agricultural society example still holds true today, more often than not - lacking the looks - you have to present something of value while wooing a woman. So instead of a great hunt you now do a great "grind" at your job .

Given the reclining birth rates in the west it wouldn't surprise me that a lot of people are indeed left over in the end. Statistically there are also usually slightly more men than women iirc. I would be interested in some comparisons on how many partners either of the genders has before settling down, it would certainly tell a lot about the social dynamics involved here. Maybe I'll google a bit after work.

Either way, the point I was trying to make is that saying "just go out" is just intellectually dishonest. There are a lot of other circumstances and just going out doesn't get you anywhere most of the time as an average guy. Despite the danger of sounding melodramatic, you have to man up and suffer crushing defeat after crushing defeat to get someone decent of just have a shit ton of luck. Some people just take it better than others, and some take the easy route out which leaves us with the thread's topic at hand.

Well, I was answering to it solely in the context of having sex, not a relationship. And for that, I don't see how it is relevant where you live: unless you are in some town in the middle of nowhere from which you can't get in any major place relatively fast, you can always go somewhere where you can try it anonymously. But yeah, I agree that just going out is a bit of a stretch; some action is still required.

Now, to the relationships in general... Just like you need to present something of value to a woman, a woman has to present something of value to you. Of course, it depends on your standards; some folks will lash at any opportunity, regardless of anything - well, such women exist too. The question is, would you like to even be with someone who is with you just because they are with anyone they can get and you happened to be that anyone? I certainly wouldn't. I really don't see any difference in this regard between genders.
Of course, the difference can be created manually, and that's exactly what often happens: some people from both genders accept the rules of this silly game, and guys try to get anyone they can, while girls try to play hard and such. But you don't have to play this game; there is a lot of people, from both genders, that have self-respect and respect to each other and that know better than to accept some arbitrary rules. Among these people (and I personally wouldn't want to be with anyone else; I hate stupid mind games), you absolutely can find someone perfect for you and to whom you are perfect. Just like people playing "games" form a certain circle (in which, again, every hetero relationship requires both a man and a woman, so in general just as many men find relationships as women do), people with a more practical and unbiased approach form another circle (same story).

Ultimately, any heterosexual human interaction involves a man and a woman. If we assume that it is easy for women and hard for men to find partners, then something just doesn't align mathematically. Yes, perhaps a woman doing nothing at all is more likely to find a partner than a man doing nothing at all, because of this weird "first move" rule - but will she be happy with the partner she ends up with? Sitting and just waiting for the "right guy" sounds like a losing strategy to me. You can wait until you are 30, 40, while more active women find their partners successfully - and then you will still have to do something to attract someone, but your options will be very limited by then.

Since there are around as many men as women in the world, and since the vast majority of them happen to be heterosexual or bisexual - it is just impossible that one gender has it objectively significantly easier than the other. The math is bad otherwise. It would be different if crazy rules were implemented, like, say, in Saudi Arabia women don't have much say in who they marry, or in some tribes where men should probe their worth first by killing an animal or doing something else difficult and dangerous. But for the lack of those rules, there really isn't much difference here, as it seems to me.

[Lunarock]

Speaking as a woman the thing is men and women BOTH have it hard, BOTH have unrealistic expectations for eachother respectively. Feminism as it is (looking at you radical feminist) do take things too far more often than not and aren't representative of every woman or even the majority they just happen to be vocal. I know a TON of women who agree that the feminist movement as it is today isn't inclusive. Not all of us hate and unappreciate men or want an easy way out. Does rejection suck? Yes both sides face it but you can't view an entire gender in a negative light. If they weren't worth it they weren't.

I'm not going to pretend I'm some saint of a woman who is the golden exception I just hope I can show there are people out there that are more open minded. I love men, I appreciate men, I love d*ck, I don't like buff guys or jerks and the two aren't exclusive, for that matter I don't really have a type. A majority of girls can tell the difference between an asshole and a decent guy we don't have some jerk complex. If you come up to me and I say no it's because I'm not interested in a relationship but I'd be flattered as hell, if a woman is anything but she already had something up her P*ssy and wasn't worth it. Is money attractive? Yes. Is it the defining factor in anything not really. If it is she wasn't worth it.

A lot of western society in general seems to jump to court when things don't go their way, the fact of the matter is that person is probably selfish and a bitch anyway for real people that would rather juggle a child through the court system and argue over custody clearly have other priorities, same goes for someone more focused on how much they can get out of a failed marriage.

Also not really on the topic of this thread but something I've seen and it might help some people. People in general are a lot more varied than just a few defining traits. Music for instance. Liking one genre of music doesn't mean you have refined tastes over other people I would say people tend to like more than one genre. Some people like the vibe. I might feel like listening to classical music and piano covers one moment and explicit rap the next. One song might have lyrics that touch me deeply another could have fun energetic vibes. Same goes for fashion and hobbies (Pertaining to women for instance). Just because ya girl might go to the club and wear a skimpy dress doesn't mean she's any trashier than any other day of the week. One day a girl could wear jeans and layers and the next shorts and a crop top. Doesn't make her any less modest or more of a "whore". And hobbies. People can like a lot of hobbies. For all intents and purposes I am a gamer girl and a nerd who enjoys a good fantasy book or leveling an alt/raiding on WoW in my spare time but I can also enjoy exercising hanging with friends going to the club and dancing provocatively going hiking and skiing or to the beach and travelling the world learning about new cultures and ways of life.

TLDR if anyone is a bitch or has unrealistic expectations man or woman they weren't worth it and people are more than just a few defining traits. Not everyone is out to tear you down spread love and understanding

[Gilbergrape]

...

There is no point discussing sex without acknowledging the difference between penetrating and getting penetrated.
The person, be it man or woman, getting penetrated will find sex a lot easier than the one doing the penetration.

With the invention of the pill and better protection, sex has lost a lot of its initial purpose, to reproduce, and for many has become a past time without any reproduction. But that has not changed the way sex is performed and the roles it brings along. Some obviously still want the good stuff from the old roles, that is the gifts and resources.

And that's why, when you discuss sex, depending on the roles, the ones that get penetrated will play down or ignore the asymmetry of sex, check if the person is into penetrating (has penis, heterosexual), what job (has resources), while trying to get the most out of the persons potential desire to penetrate. This is the way females have secured resources for their offspring.

When you ask women, many, in an authentic moment, will say, a man thinks with his penis. And that's because these women designed their lives around that the penis does the penetrating, and the demands she can rise because of this potential interest in penetrating. Any discussion that leaves this area, wiling to provide for potential penetration, will result in loss of interest. Pointing that out will result in harsh attacks as it questions the fundamentals these women have built their lives on.

[May90]

TLDR if anyone is a bitch or has unrealistic expectations man or woman they weren't worth it and people are more than just a few defining traits. Not everyone is out to tear you down spread love and understanding

I'd just add that a person who believes that "Men are [derogatory word]" or "Women are [derogatory word]" has already lost the battle. It is pretty much like starting a business and telling oneself in the process, "My business is so lousy, it definitely will fail. Well, I will try, but I already know the outcome". It is pretty clear how it will turn out.

I am not big on relationships. I do not care about sex at all, I would like a relationship, but not just any relationship - I would like a relationship with a like-minded person with whom we experience strong mutual attraction. I do not have any ideas like "Most men are blablabla", or "Most women are blablabla"; I am willing to give anyone a chance, and I won't judge anyone for anything. I've been rejected, and I've rejected people; these painful experiences didn't force me to generalize, like "Women are fools, they only go for jerks and don't care about us good guys". Reading some bitter folks here, however, it is clear that not everyone thinks this way. What can I say... You reap what you sow: treat people with prejudice - and they will answer with the same. Believe that all women are bad or all men are bad - and they won't be of high opinion of you either.

[Ishayu]

Speaking as a woman the thing is men and women BOTH have it hard, BOTH have unrealistic expectations for eachother respectively. Feminism as it is (looking at you radical feminist) do take things too far more often than not and aren't representative of every woman or even the majority they just happen to be vocal. I know a TON of women who agree that the feminist movement as it is today isn't inclusive. Not all of us hate and unappreciate men or want an easy way out. Does rejection suck? Yes both sides face it but you can't view an entire gender in a negative light. If they weren't worth it they weren't.

I'm not going to pretend I'm some saint of a woman who is the golden exception I just hope I can show there are people out there that are more open minded. I love men, I appreciate men, I love d*ck, I don't like buff guys or jerks and the two aren't exclusive, for that matter I don't really have a type. A majority of girls can tell the difference between an asshole and a decent guy we don't have some jerk complex. If you come up to me and I say no it's because I'm not interested in a relationship but I'd be flattered as hell, if a woman is anything but she already had something up her P*ssy and wasn't worth it. Is money attractive? Yes. Is it the defining factor in anything not really. If it is she wasn't worth it.

A lot of western society in general seems to jump to court when things don't go their way, the fact of the matter is that person is probably selfish and a bitch anyway for real people that would rather juggle a child through the court system and argue over custody clearly have other priorities, same goes for someone more focused on how much they can get out of a failed marriage.

Also not really on the topic of this thread but something I've seen and it might help some people. People in general are a lot more varied than just a few defining traits. Music for instance. Liking one genre of music doesn't mean you have refined tastes over other people I would say people tend to like more than one genre. Some people like the vibe. I might feel like listening to classical music and piano covers one moment and explicit rap the next. One song might have lyrics that touch me deeply another could have fun energetic vibes. Same goes for fashion and hobbies (Pertaining to women for instance). Just because ya girl might go to the club and wear a skimpy dress doesn't mean she's any trashier than any other day of the week. One day a girl could wear jeans and layers and the next shorts and a crop top. Doesn't make her any less modest or more of a "whore". And hobbies. People can like a lot of hobbies. For all intents and purposes I am a gamer girl and a nerd who enjoys a good fantasy book or leveling an alt/raiding on WoW in my spare time but I can also enjoy exercising hanging with friends going to the club and dancing provocatively going hiking and skiing or to the beach and travelling the world learning about new cultures and ways of life.

TLDR if anyone is a bitch or has unrealistic expectations man or woman they weren't worth it and people are more than just a few defining traits. Not everyone is out to tear you down spread love and understanding

This is all well and good and I appreciate people like you exist, but the screeching radical feminists have made the environment such a minefield for men that I have to double triple quadruple to the 8th degree check to make absolutely really totally sure that you're not lying or playing me a for a fool. And it's not that I trust women less than anyone else, it's that the consequences for getting it wrong are REALLY BAD.

I can't simply just trust a woman anymore and assume that it plays out with a fair compromise where at least I can see my children and help raise them and where we share both the burdens and joys of parenthood, and this understandably makes men freakin' PARANOID, myself included. In extension of this, isn't if funny how women have disown a child before birth and have it killed, but men can't do anything? If you stuck your dick in crazy, you can't disown the child even with a trial that proves the woman poked holes in your condoms, for instance - and you also can't see it but you still have to pay child support. I mean come on, for fucks sake.

So I suggest that the large majority of women who aren't total arseholes get together in support of men's reproductive rights as well as women's to get this balanced out. This sounds like I'm suggesting women to become MRA's, and in some ways I am, but I really don't want it to become an identity or go anywhere near as far as where Feminism has gone, if you get my drift? Just... help fix this. Please D:

[Lunarock]

This is all well and good and I appreciate people like you exist, but the screeching radical feminists have made the environment such a minefield for men that I have to double triple quadruple to the 8th degree check to make absolutely really totally sure that you're not lying or playing me a for a fool. And it's not that I trust women less than anyone else, it's that the consequences for getting it wrong are REALLY BAD.

I can't simply just trust a woman anymore and assume that it plays out with a fair compromise where at least I can see my children and help raise them and where we share both the burdens and joys of parenthood, and this understandably makes men freakin' PARANOID, myself included. In extension of this, isn't if funny how women have disown a child before birth and have it killed, but men can't do anything? If you stuck your dick in crazy, you can't disown the child even with a trial that proves the woman poked holes in your condoms, for instance - and you also can't see it but you still have to pay child support. I mean come on, for fucks sake.

So I suggest that the large majority of women who aren't total arseholes get together in support of men's reproductive rights as well as women's to get this balanced out. This sounds like I'm suggesting women to become MRA's, and in some ways I am, but I really don't want it to become an identity or go anywhere near as far as where Feminism has gone, if you get my drift? Just... help fix this. Please D:

I get where you're coming from sadly it seems that the vocal whether representative as a whole or not have the most impact. Trust me I try not to be one of those people that sees the world through jaded eyes there's so much good in the world but sometimes it feels like things aren't changing for the better and it makes me want to do more. At the end of the day we all want happiness right? Why do we need the extra of lowering people's self-esteem.

[Super Kami Dende]

I find it hilarious, Women get all "I"M STRONG AND INDEPENDENT AND NEED NO MAN".
Then when dudes stop caring about their bullshit and just start fapping and having fun playing Videogames they are like "OMG MEN ARE LOST AND PATHETIC"

At least Porn and Videogames don't annoy me.

[May90]

This is all well and good and I appreciate people like you exist, but the screeching radical feminists have made the environment such a minefield for men that I have to double triple quadruple to the 8th degree check to make absolutely really totally sure that you're not lying or playing me a for a fool. And it's not that I trust women less than anyone else, it's that the consequences for getting it wrong are REALLY BAD.

I can't simply just trust a woman anymore and assume that it plays out with a fair compromise where at least I can see my children and help raise them and where we share both the burdens and joys of parenthood, and this understandably makes men freakin' PARANOID, myself included. In extension of this, isn't if funny how women have disown a child before birth and have it killed, but men can't do anything? If you stuck your dick in crazy, you can't disown the child even with a trial that proves the woman poked holes in your condoms, for instance - and you also can't see it but you still have to pay child support. I mean come on, for fucks sake.

So I suggest that the large majority of women who aren't total arseholes get together in support of men's reproductive rights as well as women's to get this balanced out. This sounds like I'm suggesting women to become MRA's, and in some ways I am, but I really don't want it to become an identity or go anywhere near as far as where Feminism has gone, if you get my drift? Just... help fix this. Please D:

I think you are greatly overestimating the influence of radical feminism. The only risks you really have is if you get into a marriage and then break up on bad terms. But if that really bothers you, you don't have to get married; just have an everlasting relationship with someone, with kids and stuff - you risk absolutely nothing.

Or are there some other dangers I'm not aware of?

[Ishayu]

I think you are greatly overestimating the influence of radical feminism. The only risks you really have is if you get into a marriage and then break up on bad terms. But if that really bothers you, you don't have to get married; just have an everlasting relationship with someone, with kids and stuff - you risk absolutely nothing.

Or are there some other dangers I'm not aware of?

Yeah, there are several.

But first, why should it be so much worse for a man to break up a marriage than a woman from a legal perspective? Why does the woman always win so much and the man lose so much, even whe nthe woman initiates it? We have some pretty crazy statistics in Denmark, I believe last I heard that in Denmark, almost half of marriages end in divorce, and in over 80% of the cases, the woman initiated it.

But getting back to your point: If you have a child with someone you are not married to, you have to pay childcare and alimony to her regardless of whether she wanted the child or cheated on you and so on. In fact, having sex with someone you're married to is even more dangerous than being married.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I think you are greatly overestimating the influence of radical feminism. The only risks you really have is if you get into a marriage and then break up on bad terms. But if that really bothers you, you don't have to get married; just have an everlasting relationship with someone, with kids and stuff - you risk absolutely nothing.

Or are there some other dangers I'm not aware of?

I don't have time for lengthy replies at the moment, but I want to take a jab at that:

Dear viewer, please be advised that this piece of advice depends heavily on the country you are living in and it's laws. For further information please consult your local law adviser.

At least here in Germany we now have things like marriage-like cohabitation/living-arrangements (made that translation up) where some of these rules still apply. Since fewer and fewer people marry the law makers realized/thought that they need to extend some of the rights and requirements to people that don't officially do that but still live like that. This comes with pros and cons as one might imagine. I'm sure we are not the only ones that go that direction, so just because you don't marry does not guarantee you freedom at all.

[May90]

Yeah, there are several.

But first, why should it be so much worse for a man to break up a marriage than a woman from a legal perspective? Why does the woman always win so much and the man lose so much, even whe nthe woman initiates it? We have some pretty crazy statistics in Denmark, I believe last I heard that in Denmark, almost half of marriages end in divorce, and in over 80% of the cases, the woman initiated it.

But getting back to your point: If you have a child with someone you are not married to, you have to pay childcare and alimony to her regardless of whether she wanted the child or cheated on you and so on. In fact, having sex with someone you're married to is even more dangerous than being married.

I don't know about Denmark, really, but in most countries the bias comes from the idea that children belong to the woman, because she gave birth to them; this idea is very controversial, and I personally don't agree with it - but it is what it is. Plus there is a certain societal bias, as well. I thought these things mattered only in case of marriage though.

But the thing is, if you've found the right person, then you have little to worry about. There is such thing as love in human lives, and if you are in deep mutual love with someone, then you are almost guaranteed to, at worst, part on good terms (hence, not having to worry about all these crazy things), and at best, have a great life together to the end of your lives. People who marry only to go for divorce later and claim as much as possible, of course, exist, but I don't think such people are hard to spot. You can't be with such a person, say, for 2 years without figuring out their intent.

So, yes, I think people make too much of a deal of it. I agree that these laws are unfair, but I disagree that it is something a smart person who knows what they want from their partner should worry about.

I don't have time for lengthy replies at the moment, but I want to take a jab at that:

Dear viewer, please be advised that this piece of advice depends heavily on the country you are living in and it's laws. For further information please consult your local law adviser.

At least here in Germany we now have things like marriage-like cohabitation/living-arrangements (made that translation up) where some of these rules still apply. Since fewer and fewer people marry the law makers realized/thought that they need to extend some of the rights and requirements to people that don't officially do that but still live like that. This comes with pros and cons as one might imagine. I'm sure we are not the only ones that go that direction, so just because you don't marry does not guarantee you freedom at all.

These things are weird. If you ask me, the government should stay away from people's personal lives, completely, and if people have some dispute like that - they should settle it between themselves. That's also why I do not quite approve of the institute of marriage: it just shouldn't be the government's, the church's or anyone else's business but the partners'. But traditions are traditions...

[Katie N]

There is no point discussing sex without acknowledging the difference between penetrating and getting penetrated.
The person, be it man or woman, getting penetrated will find sex a lot easier than the one doing the penetration.

With the invention of the pill and better protection, sex has lost a lot of its initial purpose, to reproduce, and for many has become a past time without any reproduction. But that has not changed the way sex is performed and the roles it brings along. Some obviously still want the good stuff from the old roles, that is the gifts and resources.

And that's why, when you discuss sex, depending on the roles, the ones that get penetrated will play down or ignore the asymmetry of sex, check if the person is into penetrating (has penis, heterosexual), what job (has resources), while trying to get the most out of the persons potential desire to penetrate. This is the way females have secured resources for their offspring.

When you ask women, many, in an authentic moment, will say, a man thinks with his penis. And that's because these women designed their lives around that the penis does the penetrating, and the demands she can rise because of this potential interest in penetrating. Any discussion that leaves this area, wiling to provide for potential penetration, will result in loss of interest. Pointing that out will result in harsh attacks as it questions the fundamentals these women have built their lives on.

What do you mean with this?

[Ishayu]

I don't know about Denmark, really, but in most countries the bias comes from the idea that children belong to the woman, because she gave birth to them; this idea is very controversial, and I personally don't agree with it - but it is what it is. Plus there is a certain societal bias, as well. I thought these things mattered only in case of marriage though.

But the thing is, if you've found the right person, then you have little to worry about. There is such thing as love in human lives, and if you are in deep mutual love with someone, then you are almost guaranteed to, at worst, part on good terms (hence, not having to worry about all these crazy things), and at best, have a great life together to the end of your lives. People who marry only to go for divorce later and claim as much as possible, of course, exist, but I don't think such people are hard to spot. You can't be with such a person, say, for 2 years without figuring out their intent.

So, yes, I think people make too much of a deal of it. I agree that these laws are unfair, but I disagree that it is something a smart person who knows what they want from their partner should worry about.

Knowing what you want from a partner and getting it are two very different things. It is also possible for love to turn into hate. I don't know how many stories have been written about that happening, but the fact that they're hugely popular and raletable to practically the entire globe should tell you something.

And I actually agree that a child belongs to a woman because she gives birth to it, but that child also belongs to the father for having sired it, both either of them should have the right to renounce the child in the same timespan an abortion is allowed (In Denmark 14 weeks iirc) and with that leave BOTH responsibilites and benefits.

[May90]

Knowing what you want from a partner and getting it are two very different things. It is also possible for love to turn into hate. I don't know how many stories have been written about that happening, but the fact that they're hugely popular and raletable to practically the entire globe should tell you something.

And I actually agree that a child belongs to a woman because she gives birth to it, but that child also belongs to the father for having sired it, both either of them should have the right to renounce the child in the same timespan an abortion is allowed (In Denmark 14 weeks iirc) and with that leave BOTH responsibilites and benefits.

Regardless of who keeps the child/children, I strongly dislike the idea of one parent paying child support for children left with another parent. This is a crazy system, you shouldn't have to pay something to someone who you have nothing to do with anymore and who you don't owe anything. If anyone should pay the support, it is the government. Except maybe for cases when the divorce happened by apparent fault of one of the partners; if the guy was an alcoholic and ruined everything, for example, then he should pay something.

But if you've found the "right" person, then the risks are minimal. Yes, love can turn into hate. But when that happens, there is always a reason for it. It doesn't happen spontaneously, it happens because of the lack of communication in a relationship: people start disliking something about each other and, rather than talking about it and deciding what they can do about it, they either hold it within themselves, slowly growing resentment, or they express it in heated arguments and fights, that only make the matters worse. If two people genuinely love each other and are completely open with each other, then I don't see how they can end up hating each other. I definitely know a HUGE ton of couples that either stayed loving each other forever, or broke up on good terms. My mother and father got divorced because they had very different ideas on how to live their lives, but they still love each other and talk on Skype every Sunday warmly.

[Ishayu]

Quote me this law you're referring to.

If you can't, then my next question is: how did you come to such a strong opinion about a law if you haven't even read it?

I'm not going to "quote you the law" because it's in Danish and because there's a metric ton of it and because some of it isn't even law but is simply unclear but the judge is feminist, but what I will do is link you to where women in Denmark go to extract money.

http://www.statsforvaltningen.dk/site.aspx?p=4557
Particularly look at Børnebidrag, Ægtefællebidrag, separation. The site tries to put a spin on it to claim that it *can* go from woman to man, but it never does.

I know this is anecdotal, but I doubt it is random - of the ~90 kids I knew at school, about 40% of them had divorced parents. This was in 2004. In 100% of those cases, the father had either been removed entirely from the child's life and was paying child support or the mother had the child for 12 days every 2 weeks, after which the father had the child for 2 days, i.e. the father had the child once every 2 weekends. This is completely standard and still goes on routinely.

Also, my own aunt had a son when I was 6 years old. I am now 26. Since then, she has married and left 8 men, and her son, named Joachim, had to fight for 3 years to be rid of her to live with his father because she was drunk every night and couldn't settle down at all. He was moved to over 10 different schools in the span of 8 years.
She literally did everything she could to prevent Joachim leaving her. He eventually won the case after 3 years and couldn't start the case until he was 15 because before then he had no rights to even decide, so from age 8 until 18 he was completely screwed.
Even though it was completely obvious what was going on, the mother was picked as the default destination for him even though the father wanted him and he wanted to go to his father because his mother was unstable, and the father ended up defaulting on the support benefits she was extracting from him even though he was working two jobs because he also had a house and she left him and therefore stopped paying into the house.
And keep in mind, this is my aunt I'm talking about being his mother. Needless to say, I don't think she treated her children well (there was a second one, who was a girl, but she managed OK because she was born much earlier)

This BS ruined his life completely.

[zenkai]

I remember this stuff from the 1990s, back then it was the religious right talking about the dangers of video games and pornography

---

"The Lost Boys" – young men opt for virtual life of pornography and gaming

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-lost-b...15-go7mi9.html

A generation of young men is being lost to arousal addiction, preferring the instant gratification offered by online pornography and gaming to the challenges of real-life interactions.

In their new book Man, Interrupted, US psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleague Nikita Coulombe argue that these young men are growing up isolated, socially stunted, unmotivated, struggling academically and with unrealistic sexual expectations of themselves and potential partners.

Stanford University Professor Emeritus Zimbardo said his study of 20,000 young men found many were retreating to the digital worlds of pornography and gaming where there are instant rewards, clear goals, fewer risks and consequences, more excitement and no fear of rejection.

"Porn guarantees sexual gratification without rejection, and without the time and money needed to go out on a date," he told Fairfax Media. "Video games offer a degree of instant gratification, but also offer structured goals and feedback on performance, which is currently lacking in most real-world spheres for men."
His co-author Ms Coulombe said young men were being conditioned to always expect a reward. "Real life doesn't work like that. Real-life rewards require planning and there is no guarantee of success in any pursuit."

One young man interviewed for the book said: "I think the on-demand pleasure, gratification, control and stress release of pornography and video games reduces our patience, makes us hold ourselves to unrealistic expectations and cripples us socially."

As the young male brain adapts to the intense stimulation of pornography and gaming which is available free and all the time on the internet, too much use of either makes them forget their responsibilities or lose interest in daily real life. They struggle to form relationships as they haven't developed real-world interpersonal skills.

Professor Zimbardo describes excessive use of gaming and pornography as "arousal addiction", which he said is different to other addictions.

"With alcohol, drugs or gambling you want more of the same, but with porn and video games you want the same – but different. You need novelty in order to achieve the same high," he said. "To get the same amount of stimulation you need new material, seeing the same images over and over again becomes uninteresting after a short time."

It is estimated that up to 10 per cent of gamers have a problem, while teenage boys watch an average of two hours of pornography a week – starting well before they have any real-life sexual experiences.

Australian sex educator Liz Walker said arousal addiction underlies the "edging" masturbation trend popular with young men. To keep themselves on the edge of an orgasm for hours at a time they will watch one pornography clip after another.

"The levels are that intense that trying to break away from [the habit] is near impossible," Ms Walker said.

Experts say that young men who are sensation seeking, suffer low self-esteem or anxiety, or have poor family connections are more vulnerable to arousal addiction.

The Man, Interrupted authors believe that if these trends continue, a group of men will opt out of society, others will increasingly turn to crime, and there will be a decline in marriage and family formation.

"More women of course will be asking 'where are all the good men?' as they become more educated and financially well-off than their male peers," Ms Coulombe said.

Porn doesn't require child support, I don't blame them.

[Berengil]

I am of two minds about it

On the one hand it's a good thing for everyone who wants to be free of social expectations

On the other, it doesn't seem to be a good recipe for overall social cohesion

Yeah, I think that's about right. I tend toward the side of thinking freedom is most important. Social cohesion a little less so, as long as people obey the law. I'm at a loss as to how the degree of freedom we have now could be preserved while also promoting a healthy social environment.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I think that's about right. I tend toward the side of thinking freedom is most important. Social cohesion a little less so, as long as people obey the law. I'm at a loss as to how the degree of freedom we have now could be preserved while also promoting a healthy social environment.

For me it's kind of a conflict of interest

I'm staunchly atheist, rational, etc, and I love my freedom and ability to live a fun and commitment-free life without being forced to have children and build a family, and modern society enables me to do this better than any generation before

At the same time I realise that if everyone behaved like me by living rather selfishly, we'd end up with a lot more promiscuity, divorce, single mothers, kids brought up poorly, increased inequality, social tensions, all possibly leading to the rise of populism.... wait a minute