Is there any nonfiction on the vast amount of men today living

>>8420285

>vast

I don't know about that. But check out Houllebecque.

also my diary hehe xd

File: ace.jpg (67KB, 314x475px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 314x475px

>>8420285

if not having sex is a result of your will, pic related might be a good starting point.

File: Pope_Francis_in_March_2013.jpg (127KB, 996x996px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 996x996px

Well, OP, it depends on the origin of the abstinence, of course.

Are men living without sex because they are faithful Christians, and Christ, though Saint Paul and others, pretty clearly forbids sex before marriage?

Or are they living without sex because they desperately want to have sex, but can't because they're pathetic sad fucks, so they just shut themselves in their rooms and masturbate?

The two are very different things, and deserve different responses.

>>8420579

I'm guessing the second one + Japanese men preferring 2D + MGTOW's.

4chan? You're already here.

>>8420285
Essentially all of Houellebecq's work. His entire catalog is tfw no gf, even going so far as to imagine scenarios in which humans would be genetically modified to be without a sex drive.

>>8420285
r/deadbedrooms

;_;

I hear this all the time on 4chan, and it seems intuitively correct (or at least it's certainly in accord with how I'm living my life), but is there any actual data to support the idea that men are living without sex/romance to a greater degree than any other historical period?

>>8421855
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25940736

>In the nationally representative General Social Survey, U.S. Adults (N = 33,380) in 2000-2012 (vs. the 1970s and 1980s) had more sexual partners, were more likely to have had sex with a casual date or pickup or an acquaintance, and were more accepting of most non-marital sex (premarital sex, teen sex, and same-sex sexual activity, but not extramarital sex). The percentage who believed premarital sex among adults was "not wrong at all" was 29 % in the early 1970s, 42 % in the 1980s and 1990s, 49 % in the 2000s, and 58 % between 2010 and 2012. Mixed effects (hierarchical linear modeling) analyses separating time period, generation/birth cohort, and age showed that the trend toward greater sexual permissiveness was primarily due to generation. Acceptance of non-marital sex rose steadily between the G.I. generation (born 1901-1924) and Boomers (born 1946-1964), dipped slightly among early Generation X'ers (born 1965-1981), and then rose so that Millennials (also known as Gen Y or Generation Me, born 1982-1999) were the most accepting of non-marital sex. Number of sexual partners increased steadily between the G.I.s and 1960s-born GenX'ers and then dipped among Millennials to return to Boomer levels. The largest changes appeared among White men, with few changes among Black Americans. The results were discussed in the context of growing cultural individualism and rejection of traditional social rules in the U.S.

Also BBC documentary "no sex please, we are japanese"

The question you have to ask, about men who live without sex or romance, is if they are doing so by choice or because they literally CAN'T - and if they can't, is it due to society's expectations having risen, or their own standards having sunk in regards to their predecessors? Or both?

As >>8421870 states, more people are having sex nowadays - the trouble is that for those who don't, there's far less they can do about it.

Many modern men (take your classic, frogposting NEET) are in many ways more unattractive than their predecessors ever were. On the other hand, women have far higher expectations/demands than they did in the past - because feminism and the erosion of former norms/traditions/etc, have given them much more liberty with which to be picky.

I predict the future will be eerily like Plato's Republic: a small caste of Chads who are attractive in every sense, alongside the unwashed Pepes masses whose ressentiment will be dangerous at the best of times.

>>8421831
Elliot Rodger had the same ideal.

>>8421831

He should just start using opioids. It would be the natural conclusion to his apathy and has the added benefit of completely annihilating libido.

>>8421953
>At 18, Houellebecq was rejected for French military service because of a morphine addiction.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/magazine/michel-houellebecq-le-provocateur.html

>>8421977
>It is reckless armchair sociologizing like this that gets him into trouble, a fact he cavalierly dismisses. ''What I write is the truth,'' he told me serenely. Many Parisians disagree. In France, Houellebecq is infamous for giving Michel, his biologist anti-hero, the same last name -- Djerzinski -- as a high-ranking Stalinist official and then defending the gesture by saying Stalin wasn't such a bad guy. After all, Houellebecq told a French magazine that Stalin ''killed a lot of anarchists.'' His antipathy for democracy (''Liberty is equivalent to suffering,'' he said on French TV) has caused much hand-wringing among the intelligentsia. His confidence, however, remains unshakable. ''I find myself morally perfect,'' he said.

what a lad

Girls only like muscular and outgoing guys, so there will soon be lots of literature on it I'm assuming.

>>8422076
The best girls like poor thin introverts who read and drink too much.

>>8421797

Vektor - Terminal Redux

>>8422061
>Stalin wasn't such a bad guy. After all, Houellebecq told a French magazine that Stalin ''killed a lot of anarchists.''
He has a point there.

>>8422092
Those girls don't exist dude. If you're shy then you're shit out of luck.

Just lower your standards for fuck's sake. Not everyone can marry a 7/10+. That's life. Fat/ugly women have it even worse than ugly men do, but they learn to deal with it.

>>8422748
Literally no women have a hard time. A woman doesn't have to be attractive to get laid. Any Chad who's having an off night would fuck a fat chick just to boost his numbers.

>>8422758
>Any Chad who's having an off night would fuck a fat chick just to boost his numbers.

No he wouldn't.

>>8422748
>Fat/ugly women have it even worse than ugly men do
What?
I don't disagree with 'ugly' but fat girls could take a dick by the dozen if they were so inclined. Unless they have small breasts of course. Those woman are truly fucked if they can't 'be bothered' to workout. There is nothing more repulsive on this Earth than a fat woman with no tits.
Now that I think of it, an ugly girl could still probably get fucked all the time, I see it more and more often. All they need do is ask.

>>8422771
Exactly m8. I'm not /r9k/ but women can get laid very easily.

>>8422733
I fucked plenty of them. Didn't say shy though, shyness and introversy are different things.

>>8422944
Then you're probably rich or not-so-introverted.

File: 1444639459460.jpg (312KB, 1594x2578px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1594x2578px

>>8420285
Extension du domaine de la lutte.

>>8422748
>Fat/ugly women have it even worse than ugly men do

lmao no. What world do you live in?

Women literally just have to exist to get laid, because it isn't even expected for them to actively seek sex or court anyone, that's a "man's job".

>>8422998
Feel better for believing this, frogger?

It's true, some fat people find each other, some subjectively ugly people of every degree do too. Men and women, homo or hetero.

It makes me sad to see all these prudish types online, still biting and condescending, trying to get people back into a celibate lifestyle, when they should be out having more sex

>>8422979
Dirt poor and very introverted.

>>8423100
Sex is overrated desu, Epicurus knew and advised against it.?

>>8423133
You shouldn't wrap your life around it, but it is a wonderful thing more people should be doing

>>8423162
It's fleeting pleasure that leads to a lot of heartbreak, disease and new lives born into suffering. It's generally a bad thing.

File: 51EklFKUVdL._SY346_.jpg (30KB, 241x346px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 241x346px

>>8420285
Pic related, to an extent.

I didn't read it, but I heard an interview with the author.

>>8423354
Don't be so anti-natal.
Relationships, sexual or otherwise, need cultivation. Life is sensual, full of a variety of sensations. Learning how to navigate through it is part of the challenge, the fun of it.

>>8423391
Bullshit. Like I said, girls only like outgoing and muscular guys.

>>8423391
Sounds like you got a girlfriend, Buttercup.

>>8423391
Additional human lives are surplus to requirement.

Some places you need a license to own a dog.

Any scum-fuck idiot can pop out a kid.

This is why this world is irredeemable

>>8423397
We all need to work on our confidence. Be strong, anon.

>>8423401
Sadly no. Just older now.

>>8423416
Who said anything about procreation? I'm an advocate of casual non-reproduction sex. More equatable life for all and less children will result, this world maybe irredeemable, but only because we're all burn up thanks to idiot capitalists

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

>>8423397
Maybe, but even when that seems true it's not the whole story. I'm fit and very outgoing on a platonic level, in that I have no idea how to steer interactions and conversation towards anything romantic, and I have a basically nonexistent track record with girls. I meet plenty and even chat with them, but if you don't do literally all the work in pursuing them you're shit out of luck.

I guess my point is that the most important element to getting girls is probably just going after them. Yeah you have to be outgoing enough to hold a conversation, but you don't have to be shredded to get a girl. It's never done anything for me, and I regularly see plenty of unremarkable looking guys on dates with cute girls.