would you want to be a survivor if 90% of your sex was wiped out?

[basil67]

So I asked my husband, a 40 year IT worker/employer, about this. He says that someone who hasn't been in the IT industry (or any other industry) for 20 years is unemployable in the industry now.  He also doesn't believe that Starbucks pays better than the lower paying IT jobs did, so the guys who left IT for Starbucks wouldn't have been good workers anyway.  He does however believe that women would step up and get the job done.

When it comes to being one of the last men left on earth, with respect to women, hubby said that women would turn gay rather than take on a guy who's undesirable.  You know, Darwinism and all that.   Conversely, if the guy doesn't want a woman because she's too busy doing other things, his best friend during the apocalypse will be his right (left) hand.   Why? The women will be too busy running IT, keeping the lights on and cars running.... and their female family members would be minding the children and old people. 

Either way, it wouldn't be good to be an undesirable/fussy person during the apocalypse.

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by basil67

[cyphorX]

1 hour ago, basil67 said:

So I asked my husband, a 40 year IT worker/employer, about this. He says that someone who hasn't been in the IT industry (or any other industry) for 20 years is unemployable in the industry now.  He also doesn't believe that Starbucks pays better than the lower paying IT jobs did, so the guys who left IT for Starbucks wouldn't have been good workers anyway.  He does however believe that women would step up and get the job done.

When it comes to being one of the last men left on earth, with respect to women, hubby said that women would turn gay rather than take on a guy who's undesirable.  You know, Darwinism and all that.   Conversely, if the guy doesn't want a woman because she's too busy doing other things, his best friend during the apocalypse will be his right (left) hand.   Why? The women will be too busy running IT, keeping the lights on and cars running.... and their female family members would be minding the children and old people. 

Either way, it wouldn't be good to be an undesirable/fussy person during the apocalypse.

 

  Having been in small towns where women outnumbered men and noticing the difference in the dating dynamics to where I live where men outnumber women, I will politely disagree.

[Justanaverageguy]

Personally I think 50/50 is a good ratio not just for dating but overall societal well being.  Aside from the whole apocalypic event. That kind of imbalance is just going to create many issues in the society and I just wouldn't want to live in it.

As a related aside an interesting statistic the Obama administration found when doing racial equality studies when he was in office was: The future success and wellbeing of young male children was very tightly related to how many male role models / father figures were present in the immidiate community around them. Whether an individual boy had a father themselves suprisingly didn't seem to have much impact - but how many men as a ratio where present in the wider community around them had a really big statistical impact. It seemed to be more of a "community/herd" effect - rather then a family one. Young men that grew up in an environment where there weren't many older men to influence them and all the other young men around them (communities with lots of single mums) scored dramatically lower on future success measures even if they themsevels had fathers. They were more likely to fall into many issues such as drugs. Have crimiunal convictions. Commit violent crimes etc etc. Communities with similar povity levels - but with more men presernt didn't experience the same issues. Was a really striking find in the studies that it was so tightly correlated and how much influnce the "community" and balance in the community really has. Obama started the "My Brothers Keeper" initative which aimed to bring males from outside these communities in to act as male role models to help fix the issue and mittigate the effects.  https://www.obama.org/mbka/

I would expect a similar effect would probably exist for girls in communities with barely any female role models. Overall just wouldn't be a nice  environment to live. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Justanaverageguy

[Wiseman2]

1 hour ago, cyphorX said:

  Having been in small towns where women outnumbered men and noticing the difference in the dating dynamics to where I live where men outnumber women, I will politely disagree.

Noah put 2 of each on the ark, so it looks like you'll have to deal with someone variation of that.

Try going to events that seem to attract more women than men.

If you're running into too many "sausage parties", try different things.

Ask some women friends and family what type of stuff they do and what type of places they go to. 

Are you in a yoga class? Do you go to wine tastings? Do you volunteer at an animal shelter or something? Hang out in places that would attract more women.

If you're in a sports bar, like every other guy, it's just going to seem like there's not enough women.

You really don't have to wipe out half the human race to get a date.

[central]

Even if 90% of other men died off, there still wouldn't be that many more desirable women available.  Going by threads in various forums, many of those wouldn't want sex anyway, or maybe not with me.  Strictly from a sex/relationship standpoint, I'm not sure there'd be a lot of change for me.  Or maybe the women would enslave the remaining men in breeding pools.  Other societal changes would be massive and no doubt devastating.

[cyphorX]

4 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

Noah put 2 of each on the ark, so it looks like you'll have to deal with someone variation of that.

Try going to events that seem to attract more women than men.

If you're running into too many "sausage parties", try different things.

Ask some women friends and family what type of stuff they do and what type of places they go to. 

Are you in a yoga class? Do you go to wine tastings? Do you volunteer at an animal shelter or something? Hang out in places that would attract more women.

If you're in a sports bar, like every other guy, it's just going to seem like there's not enough women.

You really don't have to wipe out half the human race to get a date.

    I usually tried inexpensive singles meetup's, and joined cycling groups most of the women were already paired up, and it seems yoga attracts a lot of bored trophy wives(at least in my area) in fact almost every place where women outnumber men tend to be on the costly side,  a dive bar with reasonably priced drinks you will see 30 guys and maybe 6 or 7  women 4 of them barfly's, go to a hi end nightclub with a cover charge and overpriced drinks and you will see slightly more women than men.

1 hour ago, central said:

Even if 90% of other men died off, there still wouldn't be that many more desirable women available.  Going by threads in various forums, many of those wouldn't want sex anyway, or maybe not with me.  Strictly from a sex/relationship standpoint, I'm not sure there'd be a lot of change for me.  Or maybe the women would enslave the remaining men in breeding pools.  Other societal changes would be massive and no doubt devastating.

 Nope in this world you are just a victim of changing times, 50+ years ago you would just be a guy who married in your mid - late 30's instead of early 20's(like the charming handsome guys) since prior to that time people dated and married pretty close to their own socioeconomic group, meaning a woman could only marry up one maybe two steps up the social ladder, and because of that most men only had to compete with other guys who were pretty much on the same playing field as them. and from the womans point of view, no matter who she chose within her available options her life was going to pretty much be the same, so things like how nice the guy was, or similar interests mattered a lot more. also picking the type of man who is less likely to someday, "leave for a pack of smokes and never come back" was a must.
every woman had atleast one sad lonely spinster aunt who got swept off her feet by a charming romeo 20 years prior, only to get abandoned after he deflowered her. So basically the man that would be put in the friendzone today would have been the first choice for a husband then. simply because he would be the safer choice, and back then women had too much at stake to risk on romeo. They did not have the safety net of section 8 housing, food stamps and court ordered child support. They had to pick the guy who would be there through thick and thin(the type of guy who today stays in the friendzone for years).

Flash forward to today, with reliable birth control, the breaking down of social stigmas, That smokin hot redhead from the trailer park can attract and marry a doctor or lawyer, So basically an average guy is forced to compete with the top 20% of men for the women that were once in their dating pool.

[central]

8 minutes ago, cyphorX said:

Flash forward to today, with reliable birth control, the breaking down of social stigmas, That smokin hot redhead from the trailer park can attract and marry a doctor or lawyer, So basically an average guy is forced to compete with the top 20% of men for the women that were once in their dating pool.

In that case, I've always been in the top 20%!  In the apocalypse scenario I might more easily find compatible women who'd consider me due to fewer other prospects and the likelihood that monogamy would be supplanted by polygamy, but my point was more that I wouldn't want 10 women.  Being polyamorous, I've already got a wonderful wife, a FWB, and a couple of potential gfs.  Not much would change for me, I think.

Anyway, I think the idea that the average guy is competing with the top 20% of men is utter nonsense.  The vast majority of men date, marry and have children, after all, even if they have low sexual market value.  They just end up with someone of comparable SMV, IMO.

[cyphorX]

8 minutes ago, central said:

In that case, I've always been in the top 20%!  In the apocalypse scenario I might more easily find compatible women who'd consider me due to fewer other prospects and the likelihood that monogamy would be supplanted by polygamy, but my point was more that I wouldn't want 10 women.  Being polyamorous, I've already got a wonderful wife, a FWB, and a couple of potential gfs.  Not much would change for me, I think.

Anyway, I think the idea that the average guy is competing with the top 20% of men is utter nonsense.  The vast majority of men date, marry and have children, after all, even if they have low sexual market value.  They just end up with someone of comparable SMV, IMO.

 They are still competing with guys who make significantly more.

[Andy_K]

All other things being equal, I'd rather be alive than not. If 90% are dead I'd rather be in the 10% who aren't. No matter how bad the scenario (except perhaps, perpetual agony and loss of my mind/senses), I choose life.

[Alpacalia]

Quote

So basically an average guy is forced to compete with the top 20% of men for the women that were once in their dating pool.

I know of someone that has had back-to-back long-term girlfriends and has never worked more than a few months in his life (he's in his 30s). He's a nice, attractive young man. He was not as career-oriented as the ladies, and they all had college degrees, while he did not.

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Alpaca

[central]

3 hours ago, cyphorX said:

 They are still competing with guys who make significantly more.

That's mostly irrelevant.  Sure, those wealthier guys may have somewhat better prospects, but in the end they normally can only marry one at a time.  All the other women will adjust their hopes and expectations to be better in line with their own sexual market value and their available prospects.  Great looks will always boost their SMV, but personality, values, career, and compatible goals matter greatly.

[Gaeta]

Just look at online dating. It's composed of 53% men and 47% women. That very small variable makes online dating challenging for men, imagine 90%/10%. 

[Gaeta]

4 hours ago, cyphorX said:

 They are still competing with guys who make significantly more.

Nah, I don't know why men keep thinking that they need lots of money to impress women. If it was true then no plumber, electrician, teacher, carpenter, bus driver, military, would have girlfriends and wives. Only 9% of the population makes above 6 digits wage. 

[lana-banana]

Yes, absolutely. I'm strong and healthy and tough as nails; my problem is genetic issues that would take me down towards the end. My friends and I have joked that in a slasher/zombie movie I would be the compelling female secondary character who would be smart, helpful, and intuitive, only to die of some poorly-explained plot contrivance in the last 20 minutes.

[basil67]

1 hour ago, Gaeta said:

Nah, I don't know why men keep thinking that they need lots of money to impress women. If it was true then no plumber, electrician, teacher, carpenter, bus driver, military, would have girlfriends and wives. Only 9% of the population makes above 6 digits wage. 

Of course, it's only a subset of men who think this.  It's the guys who don't understand women and can't get a girlfriend - they'd rather deflect than self examine.  The rest of the guys, rich and poor, still carry on getting married and having families.

[cyphorX]

24 minutes ago, Gaeta said:

Nah, I don't know why men keep thinking that they need lots of money to impress women. If it was true then no plumber, electrician, teacher, carpenter, bus driver, military, would have girlfriends and wives. Only 9% of the population makes above 6 digits wage. 

 actually those trades make a good living. and depending on where you live most of those are union jobs with benefits, and benefits is just income you don't touch .

         Also I'm not saying a paycheck to paycheck guy can't find a girlfriend, but that guy has to struggle, except in very specific situations.  most of us past the age of 25ish notice when we go out are quickly aware of the hierarchy we see who the women flock to or respond to and it's usually the guys with obvious signs of wealth and many of these guys have jerky attitudes, out of shape etc etc but will have the hottest woman in the club at his table. Guys see this and of course they start to think women are focused on money.  Just like women notice a woman can be b****y and rude but if she looks like a Hooters waitress she will have a string of guys hovering around her especially as they get older and still maintain their looks(because they become more of a unicorn being 45 - 50+ and can still fit in their HS cheerleader outfit) .    So no you don't always have to have a lot of disposable income to impress women BUT it takes that to EASILY impress women.  I work in IT now but it's a low paying job but I chose it because it pay's my bill's(barely) and my schedule is very flexible. My old manager tried to poach me to work at his new company for a lot more money to do pretty much what I do know,  but I would have a set schedule and have to work in a cubical(I work from home now) and dress business causal(Yeesh), I politely turned him down, an ex at the time heard the conversation and it became an issue for her she apparently could not understand why I turned down that much more money, I explained that I liked my life and taking that job would disrupt it in a negative way that was not worth the extra money.   Sad thing is she made about the same income as me a lot more when she got bonuses but most of the time the same or a little less, and the reasons I did not take that job are the very things she hated about her job lol.  But her actions told me she would rather me hate my job and make more money and have less time with her, than be happy at my job and make enough to pay my bills and be able to spend more time with her, even though her main complaint about the guy she was with before me was he was a workaholic she never got to see.

 

[Gaeta]

11 hours ago, cyphorX said:

 actually those trades make a good living. and depending on where you live most of those are union jobs with benefits, and benefits is just income you don't touch .

         who the women flock to or respond to and it's usually the guys with obvious signs of wealth 

Yes those are good jobs here too, good enough to be a home owner and raise a family but far from giving you wealth. You keep going with this *women go for wealth*, no they don't. And those women aiming at wealth are they the type of women you want in your life anyway?

[cyphorX]

7 hours ago, Gaeta said:

Yes those are good jobs here too, good enough to be a home owner and raise a family but far from giving you wealth. You keep going with this *women go for wealth*, no they don't. And those women aiming at wealth are they the type of women you want in your life anyway?

  What I mean was those jobs will attract materialistic women also lol(there are different levels to being materialistic),  that show "king of queens" got complaints from certain women's watchdog groups as "yet another show with a fat guy with a hot wife"  even though for the east coast that was realistic because A. he had a union job. B. women outnumber men in NewYork. lol

 When I lived in Akron a lot of average looking guys who recently got union job's would stop by some neighborhood bar still in their work-shirts after getting off work to attract women and it usually worked, I had a friend that got in at the ford stamping plant who would do that, and it was night and day who he was attracting after getting a UAW job vs coming in his street clothes(disgusting behavier).  It took him 5 years to get that job as it typically had an 8 year waiting list so a larger than average amount of people at the plant must have retired or died that year(plus his uncle was a foremen and he had alot of UAW cousins).

But anyway when I talk about decent, ok looking employed  men who get rejected do to their jobs I'm talking about guys who can pay their rent/mortgage/bills but not much left over, the 3rd shift guy at 7-11, the guy working the cellphone shop at the mall, the bar tender at a dive bar, an assistant/shift manager at a fastfood joint, a shift manager at gamestop.

 You know? jobs where you make enough to be self sufficient but not enough to throw money around, or he can splurge and take you on a nice date every few months or denny's or chilies a couple times a month can afford to travel if he plans waaaaay in advance on priceline and goes during their off season. 

 But his female counterpart in the same situation is not hindered in dating and even guys who make considerably more will not dismiss them out of hand, and many of the really attractive ones will reject guys who are in the same looks/financial level as her(they often end up being the real life version of the "king of Queens" wife.)

[basil67]

23 hours ago, cyphorX said:

I work in IT now but it's a low paying job but I chose it because it pay's my bill's(barely) and my schedule is very flexible. My old manager tried to poach me to work at his new company for a lot more money to do pretty much what I do know,  but I would have a set schedule and have to work in a cubical(I work from home now) and dress business causal(Yeesh), I politely turned him down, an ex at the time heard the conversation and it became an issue for her she apparently could not understand why I turned down that much more money, I explained that I liked my life and taking that job would disrupt it in a negative way that was not worth the extra money.

So, during the apocalypse when 90% of men die, will this be your work ethic?  You'll do absolute minimum required while the other men and women do all they can to fill the gap left by the men who died?

[cyphorX]

2 hours ago, basil67 said:

So, during the apocalypse when 90% of men die, will this be your work ethic?  You'll do absolute minimum required while the other men and women do all they can to fill the gap left by the men who died?

 First off it would not be an apocalypse 90% of the male population would be roughly 40% of the HUMAN population. again there would still be more men on the planet than there were in 1900 , a time when there were actually more trade and manufacturing jobs than their are now. and most of that stuff is automated now anyway. yes it would be a rough couple of years but we would enjoy 20 - 30 years of there being "slightly" more jobs than people to fill them which brings wages up it's one of the reasons most historians believe the black death was one of the major factors that led to the Renaissance, because 2/3 of Europe's population was wiped out surviving workers and tradesmen were able to charge more for their labor and could now afford to have their children educated as prior to then most outside of nobility, aristocracy, merchant families and the clergy could not even read.

it's one of the rules of capitalism, the masses only do well when there is a labor shortage, the wealthy do best(for themselves) when there is a labor surplus as it brings wages down and they can exploit the working classes easier.

[Alpacalia]

On 3/18/2021 at 11:04 PM, cyphorX said:

 where I would love living in a world with fewer men lol

I understand how difficult it can be to navigate the dating world. What is the rationale behind this?

[Dis]

35 minutes ago, Alpaca said:

I understand how difficult it can be to navigate the dating world. What is the rationale behind this?

I don't want to speak for OP but I get the sense he's frustrated with OLD and feels there's too much competition 

 

Hence, the topic of the thread where if this was the case he feels he would have an easier go of it 

[basil67]

1 hour ago, cyphorX said:

 First off it would not be an apocalypse 90% of the male population would be roughly 40% of the HUMAN population. again there would still be more men on the planet than there were in 1900 , a time when there were actually more trade and manufacturing jobs than their are now. and most of that stuff is automated now anyway. yes it would be a rough couple of years but we would enjoy 20 - 30 years of there being "slightly" more jobs than people to fill them which brings wages up it's one of the reasons most historians believe the black death was one of the major factors that led to the Renaissance, because 2/3 of Europe's population was wiped out surviving workers and tradesmen were able to charge more for their labor and could now afford to have their children educated as prior to then most outside of nobility, aristocracy, merchant families and the clergy could not even read.

it's one of the rules of capitalism, the masses only do well when there is a labor shortage, the wealthy do best(for themselves) when there is a labor surplus as it brings wages down and they can exploit the working classes easier.

Nope.  Your scenario was the 90% of one gender would "drop dead".   This is the stuff of apocalypse and far more catastrophic than a scenario which took men and women roughly equally over a period of years.   And it goes back to all the reasons I've been citing:  unequal distribution of skills across genders, highly specialised jobs which allow us to 'keep the lights on', mental health impacts on the remaining survivors, and women being more highly at risk of being raped and attacked by the remaining men who are the lowest of the low.  

In the 14th century, the jobs weren't the highly specialised ones we have today.  Yes, I'm sure the men who built wagons was good at their job....but if 2/3 of the people died, the remaining guy would only have to build wagons for the people who were left.  It would all roughly work out equally.   But if 90% of the men dropped dead, there would still be as many households to keep afloat and the skills required are both more diverse and more specialised than back in 1900, let alone 1300's.  

And of course, you've been referring to how women like men who work hard and lead....well these guys will get put up on an even higher pedestal in such a situation because the situation will allow them to shine even more brightly.    But the guy who still only does what is necessary to survive, doesn't lead, doesn't take on more than he did before to help fill the gap - he will remain invisible to the women who are of any quality.   

[cyphorX]

1 hour ago, basil67 said:

Nope.  Your scenario was the 90% of one gender would "drop dead".   This is the stuff of apocalypse and far more catastrophic than a scenario which took men and women roughly equally over a period of years.   And it goes back to all the reasons I've been citing:  unequal distribution of skills across genders, highly specialised jobs which allow us to 'keep the lights on', mental health impacts on the remaining survivors, and women being more highly at risk of being raped and attacked by the remaining men who are the lowest of the low.  

In the 14th century, the jobs weren't the highly specialised ones we have today.  Yes, I'm sure the men who built wagons was good at their job....but if 2/3 of the people died, the remaining guy would only have to build wagons for the people who were left.  It would all roughly work out equally.   But if 90% of the men dropped dead, there would still be as many households to keep afloat and the skills required are both more diverse and more specialised than back in 1900, let alone 1300's.  

And of course, you've been referring to how women like men who work hard and lead....well these guys will get put up on an even higher pedestal in such a situation because the situation will allow them to shine even more brightly.    But the guy who still only does what is necessary to survive, doesn't lead, doesn't take on more than he did before to help fill the gap - he will remain invisible to the women who are of any quality.   

     actually remaining workers at that time had more work than before the plague as most of their business was from local aristocracy(distant relatives of the royal family or decedents of war heroes who were granted land and title and placed in charge of remote towns and villages) and do to their isolation they fared better than the peasants.

   And I never said women like men who work hard(it's actually the opposite), I said women like men with a lot of disposable income. I'm in IT I would have access to jobs that I know how to do but don't have a degree for, all of a sudden my 20 year old Certifications just became more valuable hell most of the coding languages I learned in the 90's and early 2000's are still in use today so it would not take long to catch up as I have a better grasp of the basics than someone with a fresh new degree(most modern code is written on top off code that dates back to the 70's I still see date stamps that old in opensource code in modern applications.)   

Also have you ever been to one of those former factory towns where women greatly outnumber men? a woman in one of my threads mentioned it, she said it's the next town over from her. saying how the women are always dressed to the 9's and the men are all homeless lookin(I'm humorously paraphrasing), but it's because in towns like that men don't have to work as hard to attract the fair sex. it's why people can live in one place and have no issues getting girlfriends or boyfriends and move to another part of the country(where the male/female ratio is different) and can't get a date to save their life. or the reverse like a plain Jane from LA or Miami moves to the midwest and learns she is a hottie outside of those cities.

 Now I know if you are fat, ugly and smell like goat cheese you will have trouble dating no matter where you live, and if you are a hansom/beautiful trust-fund baby dating will be easy where ever you live. But for those who are on the fence when it comes to RMV (relationship market value)  male/female ratio (and local culture to a lesser degree) makes a huge difference. and by on the fence I mean someone who people will "casually date" while looking for something better,   I remember taking roadtrips with my friends and passing through those towns, we new when we were in one just from the positive attention from women being equally spread throughout our group. back home in the big city only 2 of us got the positive attention. and that attention was dialed up to 11 compared to home where the ratio was more heavily male.

[Gaeta]

17 hours ago, cyphorX said:

 But anyway when I talk about decent, ok looking employed  men who get rejected do to their jobs I'm talking about guys who can pay their rent/mortgage/bills but not much left over, the 3rd shift guy at 7-11, the guy working the cellphone shop at the mall, the bar tender at a dive bar, an assistant/shift manager at a fastfood joint, a shift manager at gamestop.

Sucks to be them but that's the life they picked and they get what comes with it. It takes 18 months to take a welding course and be paid $35/hr. The same for a long list of trades. 

It's a dog eat dog world. If a man is 45 years old working at minimal wage in a cellphone shop then he can't be complaining the ladies find that to be a problem. If he does that as a student job it's pretty cool but men/women are suppose to better themselves with the years not stay stagnant in a student job.