I am 18 and i notice that people my age(including me) are becoming more child-like and more afraid to fully grow,for example: People are taking longer to move out from their parents house,people are showing interests in hobbys that are associated with kids(cartoons,videogames,plushies,etc),people are taking a longer time to mature and become fully responsable. I know that the hobby part dosnt necessarily means that you are imature or "child-like" but i cant stop the feeling that this generation acts more like "grown up kids" than actual adults,i wonder what has caused this change of behavior in our society,what are you guys thoughts about this?

This might trigger some. But I’m speaking from a deeper place not politics, not religion just raw truth.

Abortion shouldn’t even have to be the topic it is. Not because it shouldn’t be legal it should. But because in an aligned world, people wouldn’t be creating life on accident.

Sex is sacred. It’s creation. Energy. Union. Power.

But in this world? It’s been reduced to a dopamine hit. A coping mechanism. A sport. And the consequence? Unwanted kids. Broken homes. Deep regret. Lifelong trauma.

If we were actually conscious If we respected our bodies… If we honored our energy… If we saw the spiritual weight of intimacy…

Then this wouldn’t even be a battlefield.

We’d protect our seeds.

We’d move with discernment.

We’d only lay down with people aligned with our future, not our flesh.

I’m not here to shame. I’m not here to moralize. I’ve been there done that and I think it’s time to be more responsible for your actions and think before you do. I just think we’re overdue for realignment.

Abortion is not the root problem Disconnection is.

Thoughts?

When humans only respect/Acknowledge only one gender ....

If God actually existed we wouldn't have to have such an intricate body

People say omg we as are designed so well. It has to be a creator But you realize that If he actually existed Why do we need any of this? Why do we have lungs A spinal cord Have to breathe oxygen every minute? Have brain cells Have blood?? Kidneys An ass to expell waste???? Have to have kidneys, intestines? We could have just existed as a body if god created us???? Coz he can magically create anything? So??? This seems more like years of evolution than god.

Eating animals is not wrong, not cruel, almost every animal eats animals, and humans are animals too.

And humans having a choice is wrong, a choice is something you like, forcing humans to eat just plants is like forcing a meat-loving omnivore animal to only eat plants.

Humans were eating meat forever just like other animals, eating meat is one of the most things we did, eating meat is like drinking water, it feels so wrong and unnatural to say ''don't drink water'' drink this green juice instead(which tastes 100x time worse than water itself)!

Look, guys, humanity is trying to stop bad things like rape, cannibalism, pedophilia, wars, slavery, etc.

Cuz these things were always a problem for humans and the human world, but eating animals is how we grew, we evolved with other animals, we grow with other animals, we saw how other animals eat other animals, we humans are animals too, if we were supposed to be an herbivore this is how our history would be, so if we didn't survive like elephants, giraffes, etc in our history, this just means we're not meant to be an herbivore focused animal, and we didn't just survive by eating meat either, humans are omnivore that highly like meat, if it is cruel to feed a meat-loving omnivore animal with just plants & herbivore foods, then it is cruel to feed meat-loving omnivore human animals with only plants & herbivore foods.

Also again it's not a choice, if a person isn't capable to change what they can eat, then it's not a choice, stop trying to make this sound like a choice, what you guys saying sounds like every other animal has a right to like the color red, but when humans like color red they are sadist, psychos, cruel, and all of these bad things.

Honestly, this is why I'll never become a vegan, I'll be kind and caring to humans, but I'm never going to care about animals, I'll only care and want that they get a painless death before they become my food, I won't care anything else, vegans morality are their morality, vegans are not the majority of our society, the society we live in exists to protect humans and help humans survive, and human society always helped humans to survive by creating meat foods, why it is wrong now, after 7000+ years of eating meat.

For the record, when laboratory-created meat becomes very good, healthy, tasty, reachable, common, good priced & buyable, and a copy of real meat, etc, I would choose to use only laboratory-created meat, but if I'm forced to just eat plants, I rather starve and die than surviving by only eating plants, so, me being forced to eat plants only would make me care animals less, if vegans want to make me stop eating animals, they can only buy me with a ''perfect'' laboratory created meat that is a clone of real meat.

Edit, I just realized I used the wrong word for omnivore(I used carnivore for the word omnivore), I now changed the word carnivore with the word omnivore in this post. My apologies for the confusion. (My English sucks so don't expect a perfectly written post by me :D.)

Also, I've said what I've said, and I'm just agreeing to disagree with vegans twisting my words to create their own story about my post. I'm not here for the endless & pointless loop-hole vegan arguments, their morality matters to them my morality matters to me and the only morality I accept is today's good society's morality cuz I want to live in a good human society therefore I accept good human society's morality, so yeah vegans can think anything they want I don't care, they just not going to change my mind, unless they give me laboratory-created meat that is a copy of real meat, I'm personally cool with laboratory-created stuff, after all, almost everything we eat and have in our current human society is effected by laboratories and lot of things are created by laboratories. A factory in an example, most factories are just following and mass-producing laboratory recipes.

Also the animals I talk about eating here are currently the most eaten & popular ones and non-endangered animals, like chickens, etc.

So yeah, I don't support eating endangered animals, and I don't support eating animals in a painful way, hell even I can be eaten in a painless way, so yeah eating animals without pain isn't a problem, the problem is lack of people following this, therefore, lack of people creating animal meat in painless ways.

Alright, guys, I personally think I had enough debating for myself here, and I'm just closing reply notifications, cuz 1 person vs the whole internet debating isn't very healthy for one person, I'd like to spend my time with the things I enjoy now, I'm leaving this post to play some video-games.

So I thank everyone for giving their precious time to read my post and make comments, etc, and don't mind me leaving, please leave your comments and argue with each other & other people, even though I might reply or avoid replying, I would come back here to see what you guys talk with each other, etc.

Even though we might not agree on things, let's wish each other a good leaving, so stay safe & take care.

First of all, this is not a political post. No dig here. Only a musing over a whiskey.

I notice that in virtually every subreddit I check out there is a clear abundance of liberals hating on Trump or lamenting something the government is doing against the people (as they see it). I think this is because they are predisposed to look at problems primarily from a creative perspective rather than a logical one per se or industrious one. Not that that is a wrong thing all around.

I believe also that that is the reason the left has far and away more qualitative, artistic, articulate writers (George Orwell, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) than the right. (This point is rather moot now with the advent of the Internet, but still. I'll still speculate most artists (visual, writers, musicians, etc.) today lean left.)

What do you think?

A paradox in this case is society, or the media telling men that certain behaviors toward women are extremely wrong. Yet, in my experience, women often get upset when men don’t do those things.

For example, in my experience, it’s about being sexual. I’m a Gen Z man raised in a society where feminism taught me that objectifying women's bodies is wrong because it’s dehumanizing.

However, in my personal experience with women, I’ve often been called gay for not sexualizing women or flirting with them. Again it's not men telling me that. It's also women (progressive feminist women) telling me that too. This has happened to me a lot in the workplace, in public, and at school.

Another example is how society tells men to treat women as equals.

Yet when I do treat women as equals, they often perceive me as standoffish or cold.

There’s also the expectation that men must initiate romantic or sexual encounters. This pressures all men to act, regardless of social awareness or mutual interest. It creates a situation where persistent or boundary-crossing behavior is seen as “confidence” instead of a red flag.

As a result, some men exploit this norm, justifying intrusive advances under the guise of “just trying” or “being bold.” Because society often praises assertiveness in male pursuit, the line between flirtation and harassment can become dangerously blurred. This expectation ends up enabling creepy behavior.

"Playing hard to get"

When women are expected to say “no” as part of a social game, even when they mean “yes”. It trains men to ignore boundaries in pursuit of hidden consent. This not only confuses communication but also distorts the meaning of a clear “no.”

Men are then pressured to become mind readers, taught that persistence is romantic rather than invasive. This dynamic normalizes boundary-pushing behavior and undermines genuine consent.

In conclusion.

Mixed signals about how we should view gender roles are harmful to society. They’re not progressive, they're regressive in the long run. That’s why this kind of paradoxical thinking is so damaging.

This post will focus on liberal values when it comes to masculinity. Because remove conservative values, remove the red-pill manosphere. And men still have issues. Liberals don't necessarily save men from their issues. Liberals aren't even neutral to men issues. They can even perpetuate men issues too.

I spend a lot of time in left leaning spaces, and also around liberal people in real-life too. And I noticed they are always talking about ways men should do better, or some form of masculinity called "positive masculinity".

Whenever I see someone define "positive masculinity" I always roll my eyes. Whether it's in the media (via shows/movies), social media posts, articles, or a friend in real-life.

I hate the term "positive masculinity" way more than the term toxic masculinity. Because most people definition of "positive masculinity" usually just end up being a pseudo version of traditional masculinity with a feminist gaze.

Most people when talking about "positive masculinity''. They never talked about men having better mental health, not being expected to protect/provide, or go to war. "Positive masculinity" is always about men doing stuff for women or society in general. So "positive masculinity" isn't about helping men themselves. It's about how men can make life easier for others.

A lot of self sacrifice is normalized with the term "positive masculinity". Because again the term isn't about improving men lives. It's about what are some good things men can do for women. So a man earning the title of a "good man" is determining by how beneficial he is to women or society in general.

"Positive masculinity" just uphold rigid gender roles for men. For example, in the Gillette commercial. By the way, the Gillette commercial is a perfect example of society defining "positive masculinity" in such annoying/ironic way.

In the ad, a man is about to flirt with a woman (I think, I don't know because the guy instantly gets stop). Then a other man who is the "good guy with a gun" here, comes up to the potential harrasser by bumping into him. And he says "not cool, not cool" when holding him. So in an ad about men being better from a very popular company. The ad still perpetuate the idea that men should still use violence or at least be confrontational in order to protect women. Again irony is the word here.

Even the whole language around men doing better is rooted in traditional masculine expectations. When Feminists say "men must hold other men accountable" or "standup for women". This just sounds like a dog whistle for men to uphold the protector gender role, and protect women from violent attackers. So again self-sacrifice is how most people define what "positive masculinity" is.

The funny ironic thing is "positive masculinity" is supposed to be a alternative to toxic masculinity. But in reality, again it's just normal traditional masculinity without the misogyny. It has nothing to do with helping men. It's basically the analogy of different toilet, but same shit. "Positive masculinity" vs toxic masculinity is just the "it's the same picture" meme.

Now compare to femininity. Similar to how there isn't toxic femininity. There isn't positive femininity either. Because for the most part modern society (especially liberals) don't have standards or expectations for women. And also of course decades of Feminism progress have made it easier for women too.

So outside a minority of Conservatives. Most people aren't creating a version of "positive femininity" where women are just expected to cater to men, or only do things that benefits men.

Because that would be ridiculous right? That would be misogynistic. But when you switch the genders. This is somehow normalized for men though.

When it comes to femininity in today world. There aren't universal standards for women. Because women have individualism. While for men that individualism doesn't exist, there are universal standards society expects most straight men to adhere to. Most people have a spiritual meaning of masculinity, but not femininity though.

At first glance, this sounds exaggerated. Civilizations collapse because of famine, war, or invasion. Yet history shows a quieter pattern at work beneath those events. Decline often begins with attention. Where a society places its focus predicts what it will become.

Consider ancient Rome in its later centuries. Engineers still knew how to build roads and aqueducts, yet public life revolved around court intrigue, moral signaling, and symbolic conflict. Productivity stalled. Administration grew theatrical. Power concentrated while citizens argued about virtue. What happens when debate becomes a substitute for construction?

Modern societies face challenges that are concrete and solvable. Energy systems require redesign. Artificial intelligence reshapes labor and governance. Economic structures strain under inequality. Space opens as a new frontier of production. These problems demand coordination, patience, and technical skill. Why then does so much cultural energy flow into arguments over gender?

Gender politics offers a particular kind of engagement. It is emotionally intense. It rewards quick reactions. It resists final answers. Each victory creates a new dispute. This makes participation constant and resolution distant. Who benefits from a system that keeps people busy without changing material outcomes?

Social scientists speak of opportunity cost. Time spent on one task cannot be spent on another. When attention fixes on identity disputes, attention leaves infrastructure, institutions, and long term planning. Is it possible that the loudest conflicts serve as a screen behind which ownership and control continue undisturbed?

Look at periods of rapid progress. The scientific revolution. The industrial age. The early internet era. These moments share a focus on building tools and systems. Cultural disagreements existed, yet they remained secondary. What changed when symbolic battles moved to center stage?

The modern media environment amplifies conflict that is personal and circular. Algorithms reward engagement, and engagement favors outrage. Gender debates fit perfectly into this structure. They feel urgent. They feel moral. They rarely resolve. Does a society shaped by this feedback loop retain the capacity to think in decades rather than minutes?

A civilization obsessed with defining itself struggles to design its future. Builders require quiet, stability, and shared goals. Endless argument fractures all three. History rarely remembers those who win debates. It remembers those who construct systems others rely on.

The question is simple. Will attention return to creation, or will conflict remain the primary industry? History suggests that only one of these paths leads forward.

Religious people cannot grasp this and non believers can't grasp this.

We. Do. Not. Know.

Nobody knows. Everyones belief is just that. A belief.

Until we die we won't know. The fact that nobody has ever been all the way dead and been able to communicate with us means that it's all guess work. Sure, there's people who have died momentarily and come back with stories of God, and stories of blackness. That's just not enough to go because it hasn't been permanent.

We don't even understand consciousness and don't even know what's in our oceans and yet people will shit on others for not believing in God/for believing in an afterlife.

Until we die we don't have a clue and it's all a guess. There's no quantifiable or measurable way to gain anything other than a guess. There's no way to gain any insight or evidence towards either beliefs and I wish hardcore religious people and hardcore atheist could be aware enough to grasp that it's a guess.

Everytime the subject comes up I have atheists acting like im a total moron because they are so sure.

Everytime the subject up with a religious person I get treated like some hedonistic, blasphemous idiot for explaining to them that they don't know.

I wonder what the psychology of this is. Why is it SO hard to grasp...? It seems pretty easily digestible to me. We won't know until we are dead.

It's an age-old fascination, men's attraction to women. It's biologically ingrained to further our species. The sole reason for our birth. A common desire so rooted in every society and species. Endorphins, serotonin, and neurotransmitters work in unison to give us the sweet feeling of euphoria and ecstasy. Bonding those feelings with another person. The joy is so pure and sacred with the sole purpose of uniting two people, surpassing anything short of external stimulants.

Unfortunately, today these feelings are being weaponized to extort men of money and for mental enslavement. Used to pin women against men. Furthermore, the effect of indecent content on the internet has been linked to many negative effects to name a few; addiction, isolation, vulgar intimate acts, damaged relationships, ED, mental health issues like anxiety, depression, chemical imbalances, financial problems linked to spending on online playmates, dehumanizing of people leading to abuse/violence, wired fetishes and trafficking to make such content all backed by decades of research.

Just like any addiction, you need to acknowledge and implement proper procedures to tackle it. Many are going to deny these effects or pretend it does not plague society. It wouldn't have been as big of a concern as it is today if it weren't so easily accessible to minors. Since most minors aren't capable of making rational decisions that might affect them in the future. Many have fully rationalized watching strangers and will go to any lengths to justify the negative effects.

Being an incel does not justify watching a stranger for your release. Close to 97 percent of the targets of violence or aggression in such videos are women. Sometimes people use videos to blackmail and extortion these women. Many of the women seen in these videos are seen as objects for self-gratification instead of humans. Recently sick-minded people have been coercing minors to post such content. Reports of online child exploitation are rising rapidly, with NCMEC’s CyberTipline receiving tens of millions of cases yearly.

Simultaneously these videos groom viewers towards normalizing violent behaviors, sexism, objectifying women, and increasing the risk of acting out horrendous fantasies. Please for the love of humanity stop watching such content.

Women taking a more commited stance in terms of having kids or not is one aspect of the individualism gone amok thing that I actually agree with.

For a species which I think it is fair to say is defined by its many delusions, one of the least talked about is the normalisation of using the sex act solely for pleasure.

When you think about it, sex for pleasure is really quite stupid and you’re effectively being conned by your limbic system into a completely meaningless act (if reproduction isn’t sought after).

The only reason it’s pleasurable in the first place is to incentivise reproduction. If your limbic system was smart enough to distinguish, when you engaged in sex for non-procreative purposes, no pleasure would be present. But it isn’t and so you’re simultaneously deceiving your biology by having sex for pleasure while also being ruled by your biological conditioning, even though it would never wish to pursue sex acts which didn’t target reproduction.

If the limbic system had the facility to understand that there was a 0% chance of reproduction occurring then the urges and good feelings wouldn’t be there. With this in mind, why are people so willing to make themselves slaves to impulses which have goals with no relevance to most modern day sex?

Throughout the history of western society, men have been the primary creators. The great authors, philosophers, poets, painters, and sculptors, were all men until relatively recently. These were dignified, masculine pursuits that men (who had the means to do so) devoted themselves to and were (contemporaneously and/or retrospectively) admired for. The point to take home here is that these pursuits were seen by men as masculine.

But at some point very recently, a switch seems to have been flipped. Don't get me wrong, men are still present in all of the fields I mentioned. But the average man is discouraged from pursuing those arts. If you look at college statistics for art-related studies, they are overwhelmingly female-heavy (this is merely one statistic showing how men are less involved in the arts than before, this is not disparaging women in any way). And if you merely exist as a man in 2024, you must be aware on some level of the societal pressure from the men around you. Masculine pursuits in the modern era are either science/science-adjacent or fully based on the acquisition of money. If you do pursue the arts as a man, other MEN see you as less masculine. I've even heard people say things along the lines of "that man draws, he must be so in touch with his feminine side". Which would be a crazy statement some 100 years ago because the arts used to be masculine. But now the arts are feminine and can only be pursued at a cost to one's masculinity according to toxic masculinity!!!!!!!!!! (again, I am not blaming feminism or women, I am pointing out that toxic masculinity propagated by men has created and pushed this anti-art narrative for other men)

This switch may have a role in the current crisis of the modern man. We have bad mental health, high loneliness, lack of a sense of purpose, are becoming increasingly more inclined to right-wing extremism, and many other problems I'm sure you have heard of. I wonder if the feminizing of the creative arts (which men have invented by themselves and use as a way to suppress other men, again, not blaming women) has contributed in a significant way to this crisis, with men having less outlets for their emotions/creative drives because their (new-found) beliefs in masculinity do not include the creative arts.

What do you guys think?

(for the record I am not against women in any way, and I am very happy they have been allowed into creative spaces, this is a critique on modern masculinity not on women)

how did a single cell create eyesight, hearing, ability to reproduce, eat and most of all Cognitive ability. Able see perfectly, hear perfectly, taste different objects, feel different objects etc. all from a single cell. hard to Fanthom how we came about and what needed to happen for us to exist...Literally trillion things needed to happen for us to Exist the way we do...Its like black Magic how something non living becomes Alive and has ability to think, comprehend, reproduce, survive etc.

Proponents of capitalism claim that capitalism resulted in technological inventions and lifted x millions of people out of poverty.

I believe that the phrase "necessity is the mother of all inventions" is largely true. I also agree that capitalism did A) cause certain inventions B) sped up certain inventions. However, the 2 previous sentences are both true, then it must logically follow that capitalism created and sped up inventions, so capitalism would be the "necessity" of these inventions, meaning that without capitalism, certain inventions and the speeding up of certain inventions would not have been required in the first place.

This also applies to poverty:

So people use the phrase "capitalism lifted x million out of poverty" to erroneously defend capitalism as well. But it is not that simple. It is conflating cause and effect. Capitalism itself caused poverty, then lifted some people out of it eventually. Before capitalism, there was no "poverty" in the sense that it is used now: this metric is within the confines of capitalism itself, so it is a logical error to claim that capitalism was necessary for lifting people out of poverty. People were fine for their time before capitalism. It is strange to compare today to the past. It is not a valid comparison. Yes, right now we can't imagine living without washing machines, but back then even without technology they were happy. Do you honestly think that they thought "I wish I had a washing machine" when washing clothes back then? I highly doubt it, it was simply their reality/they were used to it/it was normal for them. What else would they have done with more free time? Worry about bills? Go on tiktok? Fight about politics on social media? They already had a healthy balance of work and free time, and they did not get a chance to worry or get sad or get FOMO and low self esteem while on social media as a result of too much free time like we have now.

So it is strange and arrogant to automatically assume that humans were always suffering until all these inventions and technology and capitalism came. Humans have been around for over 200k years, they lived naturally. It is arrogant to claim that all that time was bad. It doesn't work like that. It is too much of a simplistic argument. As populations would grow, there would have been necessity for inventions regardless of capitalism. So yes capitalism sped up some inventions, and perhaps caused some inventions that wouldn't have been invented without it, but people would have made a sufficient number of inventions regardless, as/when needed, even without capitalism.

The breakthroughs humanity achieved were achieved in spite of the oppressive structures of patriarchy, rather than because of them.

If the devil is real maybe he is the good guy. Because of how humans work, maybe he knows that if he puts us through a bunch of shit and then just leaves us alone he knows we can accomplish anything because it then becomes easy.

Boomers are unable to understand the rising infallibility of laziness and the gloomy demise of men. When boomers were growing up they had it all handed down to them: a wife, a nuclear family, and a job able to comfortably provide a house and other luxuries. Today a man goes to university and gets a master's degree, accumulates debt, and struggles to find a job in such an economy. Even if he gets lucky and secures a job he is barely able to get by and on top of that, he has no motivation to work since the purpose behind most jobs today seems to make the rich richer. To get motivation men consume sloth telling them to go to the gym, work hard get discipline, and one day you might be able to be the minority. What a joke! Statistically 1% of the world has twice as much wealth as 99% of the population. And 80% of women find 10% of the men attractive.

Then comes the struggle to find a woman to come home to and be embraced which is close to impossible due to the standards set by a facade created on social media. Boomers didn't have social media and would marry people they grew up with. However, even after all the trauma of getting rejected by women, objectified, and humiliated you find a woman to settle down with, there is no guarantee it will last since today 41% of marriages end in a divorce with her taking away half of the wealth you worked long hours for and custody of the kids. As I come to accept that my dreams of being married and raising a family will remain a dream I realize boomers will never understand making them understand is a losing battle.

Discrimination comes in two forms: passive and active. Passive discrimination is imposed from the outside. You treat threatening humans, those with greater authority, or those with more possessions differently to distance yourself from the threat of survival. Active discrimination is based on your own judgment. You discriminate against humans you don’t acknowledge or deem unworthy of respect. Today’s society is one of passive discrimination. It takes for granted discriminating based on status, wealth, or appearance, regardless of individual character. These tangible metrics act like badges of rank in our society, and polarization is deliberately encouraged. If our society’s members could treat people without regard to material metrics, we wouldn’t be dominated by the most despicable humans.

For most of history, sex was grounded be it biology, religion, family, or social ritual. For most part, It wasn’t always fair but it was clear. With the advent of contraceptives, Old structures collapsed shifting the whole dynamic. Sex was no longer tied to consequences making it more frequent and recreational. What was once instinctive or inherited was now left to personal choice and many find themselves overwhelmed, outsourcing meaning to culture, media, or validation.

I gave this a little thought and I get the whole thing about being accepting of others but there is a limit to that. I can’t just go my whole day overthinking whether I said the right or wrong thing to someone. Just let them deal with it like a man.. It also makes me think we take things as a culture too personally if we are hung up on what a person said or what we said to a person. Fuck my feelings and fuck theirs.