One of the biggest copes i have seen making the rounds is that only chads who make up around 20% of men are having sex, The reason that this is cope and isn't just being wrong is that it would be nice to have several other people on our side to maybe one day turn the tide and change how things are done in our society to hopefully put an end to this forced isolation we face from the world.
But this cope, where does it likely come from?
This image has circulated across the web, and from simply following the trendline one can assume that by now 2024 the rate of male virginity should around the 60s something that I once used to believe.
So what's wrong with this line of thinking.
The graph image is spoofed
One of the easiest ways to trick somebody is take something that is true and put some lies into that truth, I have reason to believe that this image has been altered from the article it actually came from. For starters this image does not appear in the original article it supposedly came from (https://archive.ph/20241108090903/h...icans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/) it's just not there, however a different graph appears on the supposed source of this image that is somewhat similar to the graph above
It's interesting this graph actually shows the supposed men virginity rate 1% higher then the spoofed image, but pay more attention to this graph. What does it say? "share of men and women between ages 18 and 30 reporting no sex in the past year" this is not a virginity graph, the title is even different instead of saying Young male virginity on the rise it says "Young men driving the decline in sex". This is completely different then virginity if you got laid when you were 17 in 2017 and didn't get laid when you were 18 in 2018 you are on this graph, If you got laid in 2012 and didn't have any sex in 2018 you are on this graph. This is NOT a graph for virgins.
Now the "Young male virginity on the rise" graph does share the same font as the original graph and looks legit, however it would be easy to figure out the properly font to fake such a graph as the Washington post publicly publishes what fonts it uses https://build.washingtonpost.com/foundations/typography#Font. and even if it didn't https://www.findmyfont.com/ could easily find you the font, or even a font that is a free alternative to the $70 dollar ITC Franklin font that they use in this graph for the title. The other font used in this graph is Franklin Gothic Book which is free to download and comes already packaged in most photo editing tools.
As you can see it is very easy to fake such a graph, I used Plymouth-Serial-Extrabold for the title here and you probably couldn't tell the difference. The only way you could tell this graph fake if I didn't tell you it was fake is that I purposely made the graph not make sense with the percentage rate of "young men who are blackpilled" going below the number 0 which is impossible
Furthermore there is more evidence to suggest that the graph is a fake, first of all there are these weird 2 holes in the 10 and 20% lines and their is a the slight cut off on the top of text "2008". also for some reason the 30% line was completely removed. all of these show a sloppy editing job.
But the final blow for this, the ultimate evidence that this is a fake graph is it's actually source Reddit
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/upv1uy/oc_young_male_virginity_on_the_rise/
"[OC]" implies that this graph is a original creation however this is actually just a spoof of a graph that is real and people for the past couple of years have taken this graph as gospel when it actually a fraud.
What are the actual rates
(https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim)
by looking how this study defines incel, We are still a small minority of men, now the cut off date is 10 years ago but following the trend line starting at 2012 if it were to grow at a continuous rate incels as defined by this graph would be 11% of the male population. still a small minority. It's fair to assume the rate has increased a little more since then so a fair estimate imo would be 16%.
Conclusion
This does not disprove hypergamy but it does recontextualize it by comparing an estimated incel rate of 16% with the infamous OKcupid women vs men rating the opposite genders attractiveness graph
And we can assume based on how men rate women and how women rate men Hypergamy looks like this
Most women are settling for men when getting into relationships with men, these men do end up having sex however it's not very frequent and she's not enjoying it which leads to her eventually not having sex with the man and leading to the infamous "dead bedroom" phenomenon. Yes the chad's of the top 20% do get most of the sex from women however chad doesn't fuck everything that moves so the women that are not attractive to the chads aim a little lower and get with normies, these women are attracted to these normie males however most of them would leave those normie men in a instant if chad ever came knocking around.
But this cope, where does it likely come from?
This image has circulated across the web, and from simply following the trendline one can assume that by now 2024 the rate of male virginity should around the 60s something that I once used to believe.
So what's wrong with this line of thinking.
The graph image is spoofed
One of the easiest ways to trick somebody is take something that is true and put some lies into that truth, I have reason to believe that this image has been altered from the article it actually came from. For starters this image does not appear in the original article it supposedly came from (https://archive.ph/20241108090903/h...icans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/) it's just not there, however a different graph appears on the supposed source of this image that is somewhat similar to the graph above
It's interesting this graph actually shows the supposed men virginity rate 1% higher then the spoofed image, but pay more attention to this graph. What does it say? "share of men and women between ages 18 and 30 reporting no sex in the past year" this is not a virginity graph, the title is even different instead of saying Young male virginity on the rise it says "Young men driving the decline in sex". This is completely different then virginity if you got laid when you were 17 in 2017 and didn't get laid when you were 18 in 2018 you are on this graph, If you got laid in 2012 and didn't have any sex in 2018 you are on this graph. This is NOT a graph for virgins.
Now the "Young male virginity on the rise" graph does share the same font as the original graph and looks legit, however it would be easy to figure out the properly font to fake such a graph as the Washington post publicly publishes what fonts it uses https://build.washingtonpost.com/foundations/typography#Font. and even if it didn't https://www.findmyfont.com/ could easily find you the font, or even a font that is a free alternative to the $70 dollar ITC Franklin font that they use in this graph for the title. The other font used in this graph is Franklin Gothic Book which is free to download and comes already packaged in most photo editing tools.
As you can see it is very easy to fake such a graph, I used Plymouth-Serial-Extrabold for the title here and you probably couldn't tell the difference. The only way you could tell this graph fake if I didn't tell you it was fake is that I purposely made the graph not make sense with the percentage rate of "young men who are blackpilled" going below the number 0 which is impossible
Furthermore there is more evidence to suggest that the graph is a fake, first of all there are these weird 2 holes in the 10 and 20% lines and their is a the slight cut off on the top of text "2008". also for some reason the 30% line was completely removed. all of these show a sloppy editing job.
But the final blow for this, the ultimate evidence that this is a fake graph is it's actually source Reddit
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/upv1uy/oc_young_male_virginity_on_the_rise/
"[OC]" implies that this graph is a original creation however this is actually just a spoof of a graph that is real and people for the past couple of years have taken this graph as gospel when it actually a fraud.
What are the actual rates
(https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim)
by looking how this study defines incel, We are still a small minority of men, now the cut off date is 10 years ago but following the trend line starting at 2012 if it were to grow at a continuous rate incels as defined by this graph would be 11% of the male population. still a small minority. It's fair to assume the rate has increased a little more since then so a fair estimate imo would be 16%.
Conclusion
This does not disprove hypergamy but it does recontextualize it by comparing an estimated incel rate of 16% with the infamous OKcupid women vs men rating the opposite genders attractiveness graph
And we can assume based on how men rate women and how women rate men Hypergamy looks like this
Most women are settling for men when getting into relationships with men, these men do end up having sex however it's not very frequent and she's not enjoying it which leads to her eventually not having sex with the man and leading to the infamous "dead bedroom" phenomenon. Yes the chad's of the top 20% do get most of the sex from women however chad doesn't fuck everything that moves so the women that are not attractive to the chads aim a little lower and get with normies, these women are attracted to these normie males however most of them would leave those normie men in a instant if chad ever came knocking around.
Last edited:
yeah it's the modern insane lottery, grind and mandatory male performance (money/status/looks/per soynality) with a very possible heartbreak/divorce rape at the end that makes me see the past as almost super privileged when in reality it was kinda fair.
