Summary: New stats show the continued rise in chastity among young men. They point to strange but useful insights about America’s future. This is a follow-up to yesterday’s Top pop stars prepare women for loneliness.
I reject betas. Call me when I’m thirty.
The bolts are popping out of American society, as the machinery that ties us together disintegrates. Marriage evolves into shacking up (more fragile, worse for the kids). Dating evolves into hook-ups. But even those crude and dysfunctional forms of relationships are too difficult for America to maintain. Sex, as usually, shows the real nature of society. Young men are having less of it, a trend showing no signs of stopping.
“The share of Americans not having sex has reached a record high.”
By Christopher Ingraham at the WaPo.
Data from the General Social Survey.
The next graph shows the bottom line: the number of young men celibate for the past year has doubled from the average of the two decades 1989 – 2009. Other graphs show that overall sexual activity by guys has decreased in broad terms (i.e., the number of men having sex weekly and monthly has also declined).
I wrote about this a year ago: The rising number of celibate men: it’s an alarm. Then, as now, the reaction of the great and wise is to blame America’s young men. It’s their just deserts! Most men are betas. Their role of young betas in our new society is to wait patiently while women work on their careers and chase alphas. Betas can get more sex when women eventually decide to “settle” for them. This is explained below. But first, some advice.
Pop stars tell young men about life in the new era
(1) Taylor Swift shows how hot women do Game.
Have a beta boyfriend to take you to dinner and a movie. Have him take you home. Kiss his cheek at the door and fondly wave good-bye. Later go out with your real boyfriend – a bad boy, a real man. He might treat you like dirt and mock your feminist principles. But you’ll love him anyway. Just as Taylor Swift does.
(2) Life as an omega male: you can dream, but that’s all you get.
No documentary you saw in grade school so honestly showed life as an omega as “Touch My Body” by Mariah Carey (2009). 176 million views.
(3) Advice for guys – Begging is beta. It won’t work.
Shawn Mendes demonstrates this in “Treat You Better” (2017). 1.7 billion views on YouTube. Mendes sings about a pitiful ignorant beta. She knows everything he says. How stupid does he think she is? She doesn’t want to be treated “better” (i.e., what he considers “better”).
“I know he’s just not right for you
And you can tell me if I’m off
But I see it on your face
When you say that he’s the one that you want …
“I know I can treat you better than he can
And any girl like you deserves a gentleman
Tell me why are we wasting time
On all your wasted crying …
“I just wanna give you the loving that you’re missing
Baby, just to wake up with you
Would be everything I need and this could be so different
Tell me what you want to do …
“Take my hand, we’ll be fine
Promise I won’t let you down …”
Pop music teaches men many lessons about 21st Century women.
Music videos are the cheapest and easiest education you will ever get. For more examples see Taylor Swift shows us love in the 21st century.
They also provide education for girls: Top pop stars prepare women for loneliness.
When the wall approaches
When “the wall” approaches, women become interested in betas – as sperm donors, helping care for the babies, providers of beta bucks, and companions (to be divorced when no longer needed or desired). This is called “settling”, a stage in Girls’ Game: romance, party-of-her-life, marriage, kids, divorce, money (community property & child support, details here), and independence.
See these articles in The Atlantic explaining “settling” to women: “The Case for Mr. Not-Quite-Right“, “The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough“, and “Reader, Marry Him!“ Settling even works for women in our elite classes.
“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.”
— Sheryl Sandberg (COO of Facebook) in her best-seller Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (2013).
A similar recommendation is given by feminist writer Cristiana Bedei in “Why ‘Settling. Was The Best Decision I Ever Made” at Refinery 29 (h/tip to Dalrock). Her opening …
“When I met my now soon-to-be fiancé, five years ago, I didn’t really think much of him – or us, as a thing. There was no magic or butterflies. …he was way more interested in me than I was in him.”
Five years later, that’s still true.
“He was not my usual type, to be honest. On a dating app, he wouldn’t have stood a chance, with his serious tone and all. Also, I was 25 and pretty much committed to finding a male version of myself. I pictured me and my perfect mate listening to the same music, going to the same events, and doing things together all the time – this person just wasn’t any of this. And to this day, we don’t have that much in common.”
In 900 words she has not said much good about him (her description would be complementary – about a dog). She does not want children, and probably will stay with him until someone better comes along or she gets bored. Her essay implies that one or the other will happen, eventually.
What comes next in the gender wars?
“As more and more women extend the period of time they focus on “finding themselves” until their late 20s and early 30s, an equally large number of men will spend a decade or more waiting for their future wives to tire of having sex with other men.”
— Dalrock looks at marriage in “Time and fantasy.“
Girl’s Game has worked well for two generations (I doubt the same can be said for men’s Game, used by pick-up artists and such). See Millennial girls had a golden age. Gen Z’s inherit wreckage.
Trivia note: this has not worked well for our children. In 2005/06 less than 60% of US adolescents (11, 13, and 15 years old) lived with both birth parents, per the OECD Family Database (source). That was the lowest level among OECD nations. That number is probably lower today – probably much lower. This has helped fuel the rising rate of psychological problems in our young.
But all good games come to an end, since even marks eventually learn. After a decade of little luck with women – with their time and energy spent on booze, drugs, sports, video games, and porn – will the men of Millennials and especially Generation Z marry when their cohorts’ women hang out the “ready and eligible” signs? Will these men risk the high divorce rate and brutally male-hating family courts? Dalrock describes this future with scary boldness in “Time and Fantasy.”
There are already hints that many men will say “no” to women’s offers of marriage. We see few complaints by men about women unwilling to marry them, but increasing volume of complains vice versa. Women see themselves as prizes. Refusal of men to marry them means that the men are defective – or that men worthy of them are in short supply. Journalists supply supporting stories. Such as “Peter Pan Syndrome: A Man’s Fear of Commitment” at the Self-Love-Beauty website – “This is when a man is afraid to grow up. They usually put themselves first and do not want to commit to anything. They are unable to face adult feelings and responsibilities.”
Also common is advice for women, telling them how to get married in the new world. Such “Learn how to make him commit: The Secret Lives of Men” by Joel D. Amos. And we see rationalizations. Lots of rationalizations.
“Where have all the good men gone?” by Alana Kirk in the Daily Mail.
“Five single women share why they’ve struggled to find men worth dating. These sassy, sophisticated, solvent women say they are struggling to find other halves that can measure up.”
As in the Daily Mail: “Are reluctant men to blame for so many women being childless?” The answer is, of course, yes. Women are eternal victims, without responsibility for their woes.
More about the next age of America
The future of America will depend on the men of the Millennial and Z generations. Will they marry? If not, our cultural will radically and rapidly change in ways cannot predict – and might not like.
- Men are abandoning the rat race, & changing American society. — See the data.
- Will young men break America’s family structure?
- Part 1: Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
- Part 2: Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends on the answer.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying. – A review of books from the cutting edge of the revolution.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, and about feminism.
Books to help us understand these massive changes
Sex in History by Reay Tannahill (1980).
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters by Helen Smith (2013).
Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying Mark Regnerus, professor of sociology at U Texas-Austin (2011).
The War on Sex by David M. Halperin and Trevor Hoppe (2017).
Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy by Mark Regnerus, professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin (2017). For more about this great book, see Cheap Sex is the Inconvenient Truth in the end of marriage and Misadventures of a young woman in modern America.
Sociologist Lisa Wade spent five years studying the ‘hookup culture’ for her book American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus (2017). Her conclusions are weird and disturbing.
27 thoughts on “Less sex for young men points to a new world”
The numbers don’t lie, something is happening for sure. The thing I don’t understand, and what I didn’t understand in the previous two posts on the subject is why.
I accept there is a general cultural trend for the expression of dislike and contempt for the male sex, among both men and women. My impression is more among the younger part of the population, more in the US than in the UK or Continental Europe. But its real and to be found in all media and the arts. On the left more than the right – in the Guardian more than the Telegraph or Spectator.
Read the men’s page of the Guardian and be amazed. There is nothing of interest to any ordinary man of the previous generation. Even the exercise and fitness pieces seem to be female oriented.
Why and how has this general contempt for men happened?
You are describing the war on men. We can see it, and discuss dynamics and causes with some basis in fact. But we can’t see causes. We can only guess at them.
Perhaps it is women’s nature – their telos. Countess generations of carefully raising them to be wives and mothers (aka indoctrination) allowed us to forget what they were really like. We know the nature of men, which is why the description of “feral men” arouses fear. But we forgot that women are also homo sapiens, and so are just as terrifying in their natural state.
Thank you for raising this question. I’ll write about it.
I would say the cause is very simple, it’s a natural part of the world since the Fall. Does mankind hate God for rational reasons? No, we lust for His position though we can never attain it. Same thing here. The farther Western Society gets from it’s Christian roots, the more of we will see these things.
“The farther Western Society gets from it’s Christian roots, the more of we will see these things.”
I suspect pretty much everyone agrees with you.
Which raises a question: how will this tech affect non-Christian cultures? Such as those in East Asia?
So why are women rejecting all these men?
Please read the post.
If you already read it, re-read more slowly. Especially listen to Taylor Swift and Mariah Carey. Read Sheryl Sandberg’s advice to young women.
I think this may have nailed it right there:
“Countess generations of carefully raising them to be wives and mothers (aka indoctrination) allowed us to forget what they were really like.”
The deterioration of family and community values, both parents working and in turn the raising kids being left to the pre-school / baby-sitting without any guidance in this respect and school system favoring the ideas of equality without any regards of gender basic utility; a notion such as: “you can become a president, but you still better have a husband and kids” has not been deemed sufficiently “equalizing.” (a simplistic but telling take… me thinks)
Compound this with the whole society out of balance: entitlement without responsibility (take and take and not give anything in return) and here we have it — the perfect 21st Century.
(Side-note. JFK’s speech: “Ask not what your country can do for you…” is a good indication that this trend was already well under way during the early 60.)
With the exception of “…to forget what they were really like.” — forget? — they were never like this; since Greece, through Rome and medieval times, even through Renaissance; and all the way to 20th Century; women were at best second class citizens and at worst object-like creatures, and treated as such.
Well, now they have it “much better” — late forties, attractive, educated and sophisticated, solvent BUT never married, childless — that’s what they wanted, eh?
And now for something completely different: http://www.funny2.com/husbandstore.htm
“With the exception of “…to forget what they were really like.” — forget? — they were never like this”
You misunderstand my meaning, which was explained in the following two lines:
What they were like means in the “state of nature” (per Hobbes) – before civilization, before society developed the intense indoctrination to produce men and women to operation complex societies.
I am nothing, but an observer. I read, I think, I read some more and I make an observation or two… and I hope I wouldn’t tend not to make any “conclusions or judgements.” I thought that diversity (of opinion) was the foundation of progress and I see that diversities of characters, genders, races and religions are not that much so; I don’t want to spoil the party, but I can’t take Hobbes as an ‘arbiter’. Mark me naive, but I take Descartes over Hobbes any time of the day.
I and my wife of almost forty years; we both had “checkered” past, but we joined with a mutual understanding — no more distraction! It holds to this day. And then comes this realization:
A guy: “the couple pairing was (is in my opinion still is the best societal formation)”
This seems to me as a purely artificial creation, not following even Hobbes norms; there I say again — we have the government (legislative, judicial, even philosophical) we deserve!
BTW: Good luck to the 28% of lame males.
“since Greece, through Rome and medieval times, even through Renaissance; and all the way to 20th Century; women were at best second class citizens and at worst object-like creatures, and treated as such.”
This is false, that belief is the result of propaganda spread throughout the education system. While women certainly had less autonomy than men, especially those of lower socio-economic status, the overwhelming majority were never treated as second class citizens. They were the power behind the scenes if you will, and that restricted autonomy wasn’t arbitrary, it had a purpose, to forstall what’s happening today. The breakdown of the family, uncontrolled government dependency, children raised to weak and lacking ethics, etc.
Unrestrained female nature is one of the most disruptive forces in society. There is a reason every major religion has heavy strictures on female autonomy, especially sexual.
I agree that the oppression of women in the West has been exaggerated. Allegations of “object-like objects” is absurd (note that people in general were poorly treated in the past). For example – In ancient Rome, women had considerable freedom – esp as widows. Their plays during the Imperium, as in Shakespeare, expressed men’s fear of being cuckolds. Not what you’d expect for people treated as objects.
“Unrestrained female nature is one of the most disruptive forces in society.”
That is a vital insight. Also true of men, of course – but most people are aware of that. Women have been as tightly leashed, but we’ve forgotten why – instead having fantasies about women’s nature. The next generation or two will be a lesson.
Guys, wake up!
Absurdity is entirely in the eye of the beholder:
It wasn’t until 1975 that women could open a bank account in their own name.
Men’s treatment of women through the ages has been succinctly summed up by Professor R. Howard Bloch:
The ritual denunciation of women constitutes something on the order of a cultural constant, reaching back to the Old Testament as well as to Ancient Greece and extending through the fifteenth century. Found in Roman tradition, it dominates ecclesiastical writing, letters, sermons, theological tracts, discussions and compilations of canon law; scientific works, as part and parcel of biological, gynaecological, and medical knowledge; and philosophy. The discourse of misogyny runs like a rich vein throughout the breadth of medieval literature.
Some people claim there was a Golden Age in prehistory where the matriarchy ruled, but no evidence has been found to prove or disprove this.
Documents of all the ancient cultures (Greek, Roman, Mosaic, Hebrew, Celtic, Germanic, Assyrian, Christian, Babylonian) depict women as already subordinated to men socially and legally. Among the many quotes from the Bible that insist upon women’s inferiority is this one from Genesis 3:xvi ‘Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee’.
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign . . .
Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband…
Yeah, I’m still awake…
Wow, do you get all your info from Ms magazine?
(1) “Documents of all the ancient cultures (Greek, Roman, Mosaic, Hebrew, Celtic, Germanic, Assyrian, Christian, Babylonian) depict women as already subordinated to men socially and legally”
Totally bogus. Women, esp widows, had considerable autonomy in the Roman Empire.
Ditto in the Germanic tribes. Free women inherited the rank of their father if unmarried, or their husband if married. As in many warrior cultures (e.g, Samuri in Japan), wives controlled the household. The weregild or recompense due for the killing or injuring of a woman was twice that of a man of the same rank in Alemannic law.
Determining overall equality is not a simple matter.
“Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,”
You must be kidding. Don’t just believe what feminists tell you. Read. Shakespeare is filled with strong women acting in non-subordinate roles. Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing. Isabella in Measure for Measure. The comedies have strong women like Portia and Rosalind. Where there are none, it is a tragedy.
Also note frequent concerns with cuckoldry, which occurs in societies with a high degree of wive’s autonomy.
“Yeah, I’m still awake…”
But not aware.
We forgot who women really were, is absolutely right, the couple pairing was ( is in my opinion still is the best societal formation), pre Hobbes I think both men and women were different, maybe this 28% actually also represents the pasts, too.
I have kept chickens for years on our small hobby farm, with chickens, what happens if I hatch the usual spring chicks and don’t cull the male half of chicks down to the prime, two or three? The strongest gets the largest group of females and if I have enough chickens the second strongest will get a smaller less dominant (within the female pecking order) batch of females, the two strongest then keep the remaining cockerels well away from the females. The joint attacks are brutal and usually end in death. The long and the short of it is we keep the males separate, so they don’t fight, keep the strongest one and the rest go in the freezer (we humanely cull them first!).
We are looking like that situation in humans, the alphas are servicing the majority of chicks, the lowest betas are chased off. This is how nature is mainly, the strongest gets to breed. Females are programmed to seek the strongest (or wealthiest or whatever is the combination of attractive features).
The alpha males get the majority of chicks, what the dominant cockerel does is just jump on, they fight off the less dominant doing the same thing. In our world when young and fertile the alphas are attracted to their prime breeding age and as they leave prime breeding age (unless they are very pretty or some other factor – give great head or tail) they are passes by. That is when the next level of the cockerels get their chance that is pre Hobbes and it is moving back that way.
A rich guy I know from University, has six or eight kids out of wedlock, the family money it tied up in trust and they get an allowance (and not that huge), they were all young, pretty and after his money, at 45 he married a slightly less rich girl of 35, they both have trust funds and immediately had two kids that will get all the money. His wild oats are often married to Betas. She dated, skied and sowed her wild oats for ten year, too. I will say his wife’s sister is divorced with two children, the second husband is an Accountant from a poor family, who struggled to buy a simple flat in London, now he lives in a luxury area in a penthouse, held in her trust Fund and he would have to leave that flat if they divorced. In fact his old flat is let out and waiting for him if they split up.
I read a book by Edward Rudderford about the UK in 1750’s , it said this was the most money orientated time in history, maybe we are just in a cycle and back there for various reasons.
Just a Guy,
Thanks for that incisive analysis! Note that the nature of “alpha” is broad, and differs (I think) between cultures. When I was a social service work (welfare officer) in the ancient 1970s, to get welfare benefits for a new child women were required to identify the biological “father” who knocked her up. We had a team that tracked down the guys and pressured them to sign payment orders.
One guy we saw a lot. He had a dozen or so kids. He lived in a apartment. His wife lived in the apt on the left; his favorite mistress in the one on the right. He had kids by other women, of course. He was a short-order cook. Short, slender, cocky – and charismatic. He had no surplus income, and considered signing a paternity agreement a mark of honor (he had too little income to pay child support). He was African American. The women were both Black and White.
I’ve seen studies showing that criminals hare more reproductive success than law-abiding men. Serial killers received countless letters from women offering to marry them, or just bear their children.
I suspect this period might be considered a learning experience in the West.
My rich University mate saw the kids as badges of honor, too.
He had three differences to your short order chef, he was slightly overweight, rich and white. Cocky and charismatic the same. The family used limited companies and Trusts Funds to protect the money, so these girls got less than they would from the average beta earner in divorce.
I think it is exactly true about bad guys, after my first marriage ended i was working in a bank as an Economist. I was 31 then and partied a lot and was “not at my most caring”, I scored a lot. fast forward two year I was made redundant and drifted in College/ University Lecturing, drinking under control, lost weight due to sports training and even helped out with maths support in the local library with poorer kids. You guessed it I scored half as often, if that.
It wasn’t so long ago that I was excoriated here as being an immature defeatist having succumbed to nihilism. That said, I have to give credit where it’s due; it’s a strong and self-aware man that’s willing to redefine his beliefs according to emergent data rather than carry on as a zealot.
Much ink has been expended on the destruction of gender relations in those geographical areas which were founded upon or been suffused by Western culture. To a point I agree that the defeminisation of women, as it relates to their eschewing of traditional gender behaviour on a sociosexual evolutionary level has rendered the sexual marketplace a monument to the Pareto principle. That said, I would argue that there’s a related, countercausal, and complementary force at work: Calhoun’s beautiful ones.
I’m not referencing the mouse utopia experiment to clothe the recent loss of social cohesion in apocalyptic overtones so much as I’m trying to posit a partial explanation in the rise of sexlessness amongst young men, which I’m sure you’ll agree is the most troubling demographic to find in the midst of a sex deficit when so much of their biological and chemical energy is charged in seeking that expenditure.
For the millennial generation, it’s completely reasonable to assign the cause of the disparity of sex access between men and women to female selectivity via unchecked hypergamy but for the new generation I’m less convinced. In the later stages of the Malthusian sink, Calhoun’s experiment demonstrated the emergence of a class of self-indulgent, socially ascetic, and reproductively abstemious males. This avoidance behaviour, he argued in his Death Squared paper, was the result of generational degradation of the female mother-lover-mother ideal. Unnatural breeding and resource paradigms damaged the breeding, weaning, and rearing behaviour of females. This led to plummeting birthrates and poor, or no, bonding between mothers and pups. Those pups that survived had no learned behaviour regarding these activities, leading to a positive feedback loop that irreparably damaged the reproductive capacity of the colony, even when single, otherwise healthy, breeding pairs were transported to new enclosures.
As it relates to us, humans in particular ideally have their earliest emotional bonding with their mothers, see the support and comfort they provide to mate and children alike, and use that as a touchstone of investment that enables them to justify taking on the burden of supporting a mate and family. Men, and young men in particular, are beings of great potential energy. The expenditure of energy as a finite being is in its essence a recognition of like value, whether real or anticipated. Perhaps it is that young men no longer see the utility in investing in a social arrangement with which they have no exposure, certainly no positive association, and in which they have no reasonable expectation of durability. That’s not to say that this is entirely conscious; there is much that we do that is done partly or entirely instinctually. Perhaps that instinct, as in the case of Calhoun, has been eroded.
Just my thoughts.
I don’t see the relevance of Calhoun’s experiments to our situation. There are no drastic behavioral differences (with respect to gender relations) between those living in low density rural areas and exoburbs – the suburbs that ring our cities – and low density urban areas (eg, Chicago, San Francisco) – and high density urban areas (e.g.,Manhattan).
While not engaging in the typical woman-hating ranting, I found the following article from the /r/menslib community:
There seem to be a few factors here.
1 – The above article brings about a bunch of factors which all generally decrease sex (lack of money, living at home longer, hookup culture, changing social norms, porn, etc.). It also seems to be that lack of coupling is the key symptom of the lower birth rate and marriage rate. The overall amount of sex is going down (the pie is shrinking).
2 – That said, the /r/TheRedPill community had a different take on the subject numbers: the mens numbers are going down but the womens are stable. The amount of sex from women is stable (some men are taking bigger slices).
The top post on the /r/TRP community for a while was insightful – more sex is going to those at the top – you should be at the top! Losing 3 points of BMI (20 pounds) and gaining 1 point of strength (stronger than an additional 15% of those around you) numerically making you 30% more attractive (click [website] for numeric proof). It is apparently shockingly easy to go from “fair to middlin’ ” to “top tier” through lifting alone. The other gems in that link are that 100% of women prefer a developed upper body, and that they can judge upper body strength with startling accuracy (w/in 10%).
Yes it is true that fewer and fewer men are having more and more sex, but all the explanations I’ve seen, here and elsewhere, do not address one of the most important factors involved: we have established legal and policy obstacles in the way of all but the top ranking alphas. For the poor beta and lower, asking the wrong girl out used to get a painful and humiliating rejection, but that’s all. Today your life can be ruined at the whim of some cunt you might not even have anything to do with, just that your presence (on the job, in school, even in church) makes her “uncomfortable” or feel “unsafe”.
Sooner or later some future Paul Nungesser will cut open the Emma Sulkowicz that lied to ruin his life. At least he will then get a fair criminal trial for a crime that can be objectively determined, in which he will be presumed innocent until convicted.
Women have always had a pretty low opinion of men. But until recently, economic necessity required them to keep it to themselves. Industrialization, bureaucratization, and corporatization have eliminated that economic necessity. Women no longer keep their opinion of men to themselves. They think can can say whatever they want and men will still come crawling when needed, because, well, to put it crudely, p*ssy. I believe that women are wrong. Most men are not stupid and most men are not masochists. They see how women treat them and they see what happens to men who get involved in sexual relationships with women. Men know how to walk away from a bad deal. More and more will do so as women get crazier and crazier.
I was thinking along a similar path, wondering how women have changed since their indoctrination (all societies, everywhere and always indoctrinate children) changed radically starting in the 1960s – in effect unleashing women’s basic nature.
At the same time, men were being more tightly reined in – a process accelerating today.
Our society is the collision of those two trends. Your comment describes the result.
These last two posts have nailed it as far as I can see. And the methodology of the latter is this legal and societal nightmare we live in today. Sex today is not a wise choice, and even when you finally get some fear of the risks and what could happen ruin the moment. Knowing that we are never safe from some vindictive mental case, even 20 years later we could be destroyed, creates an ever present feeling of fear and a constant reminder of our worthlessness in the eyes of the law.
By the way, awesome website.
Thanks for the feedback! It is a massive body of research and analysis, going back to 2003.
Click Here To See Songs Lyrics -> https://www.alotlyrics.com/
Pingback: 7 Signs you're a Beta Male: What is a beta male and how to change?