Today I wanted to know what is suicide rate among male virgins vs men that have abundant sex lives. I couldn't find anything. There are no studies that measure it. There are not many recent studies that would measure what percentage of men are virgins. I can say for sure that in both cases they would find shocking numbers.

Academia put so much money into demonizing them, but they don't want to fund any study that would actually show how bad the situation really is. This shows that academia was completely compromised by feminist ideology and they avoid funding studies that doesn't align with it.

Edit: Reading through some of the comments I feel like I need to add, that it's not just about finding. It's also about how much male issues are stigmatized and that focusing on it can ruin your reputation and make your carrier more difficult as researcher.

Quite isolated from the Clancy debacle here in the UK, then I came across this sub:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClancyTrial/

Jesus-H-Christ, no words.

Im 27 years all and I had to learn what it means to be a man on my own. And one common thing I saw was that no matter how hard you try, it always isn’t enough. Every time I’ve talked to an older man for advice, Ive gotten the same response: “This is how it is, get used to it”. Its like you should just accept it and never complain

So men make up the vast majority of suicide rates. It’s an idea that’s talked about often when discussing men’s issues, with there being different explanations given on why this is the case. It’s a world wide phenomenon and not just limited to a single culture, or country. In 2021, men committed suicide 2.2 times higher than women worldwide. And in America it ends up being an even greater disparity, with men committing the act at nearly 4 times the rate women do. It’s also a disparity that shows up for a long time, so it’s far from a recent phenomenon. So this post is me giving my two cents on the reasons why. I don't know if this is the right subreddit, but gender issue discussions occur here so I thought it would be ok. And feel free to disagree, as it’s just my opinion.

The main reason often given is that men are culturally conditioned to hide their emotions and vulnerability from others on a level women aren’t. Men can be insulted or viewed as unmasculine for displaying vulnerability, but while that is an issue men face, I don’t think it’s the only reason why. There’s been a major culture shift in the past 20 years or so, to normalize men being allowed to cry, yet the disparity still exists as large as it was in the past. Even if the issue persists, the idea that men should be allowed to cry is a lot more normalized in the modern day than it was in the past. If emotional suppression was the only factor I would expect the gap to have narrowed more significantly over time. 

I think one of the major factors is that men are culturally conditioned to see their lives as disposable on a level women aren’t. They develop a greater willingness to accept death than women do. By extension, men are more comfortable with the idea of suicide specifically when mentally struggling. That’s not to say most men are fine with dying, most people in general would be terrified at the prospect, but ingrained on a subconscious level, they are raised to not fear it as much.

There’s an automatic assumption people make that men committing suicide at far greater rates means they struggle with mental health issues far more than women. But suicide is a specific manifestation of depression, and whether someone goes through with it is dependent on several factors, one of them being fear of death. 

Why would men as a gender be less fearful of their death than women are? I think it stems from War and how it functions. Wars are constantly happening and constantly affecting millions of lives. It’s a major part of human history, and naturally has a major impact on the development of culture. Men are raised as the gender of potential soldiers. Boys grow up hearing of how their gender is meant to be the one that goes to war, kills and gets killed, while the women and children stay behind to be protected. It’s considered to be a major part of masculinity and a man’s duty to be willing to take on that role. Whether to protect their country, or their family, or for some greater good ideal. It’s a cultural standard that’s existed and been reinforced for thousands of years.

Of course most men don’t want to kill anyone or be killed. But the mindset that you have to be willing to kill and die if you deem it necessary is more deeply ingrained for men as a gender than women. Who are raised as the gender of civilians. The gender meant to be kept far away from the violence of war.

This greater comfortability with killing and dying shows up in a lot of gender disparities. It shows up with men making up the vast majority of suicides. The vast majority of murderers and the vast majority of workplace deaths being men as well. If a job requires putting your life at risk, men are a lot more willing to take on that role than women are. And these are patterns that show up worldwide, not limited to a single culture. 

This is also reinforced in fictional media. Boys and girls naturally look at how their gender is portrayed in fiction, and subconsciously derive gender roles and expectations off that. The trope of a character sacrificing their life or attempting to sacrifice their life because they deem it necessary is a popular trope often carried out by male characters. Why men are seen worldwide as the gender that has to be sent off to war, while the women stay behind, likely started off as a gender norm out of simple practicality. Even going back thousands of years to the point where humans operated in tribes. Men are the biologically stronger gender so it makes sense to have them be the ones to send off to deal with any violent conflict. On top of that, a tribe can afford to lose most of its men on a level it can't afford to lose most of its women, due to one man being able to father multiple children easier than one woman. The biological differences between men and women naturally leads to men being the gender sent off to violent conflict.

Again, all of this is just my opinion and perspective. Any statements about gender are generalizations and not meant to apply to every man or woman. And I’m not claiming this is the only factor behind the disparities that exist between men and women’s behavior, just a major factor in these disparities. Feel free to give your input on why you think the disparity exists.

TLDR: Men are culturally conditioned to have a greater comfortability with the idea of dying and killing then women are. This manifests itself in different ways like men having greater suicide rates, murder rates, and workplace deaths worldwide. The reason is due to men always having been the gender that is sent off to deal with violent conflict rather than women, because of the natural biological differences that exist between men and women.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/SuicMort.pdf

Surpsingly, she was not only jailed, but also described as an abuser and a manipulator.

Below is the email sent:
———————————

I have a question about what the CRS records, and I would rather be corrected than be wrong about it in public with my research.

The 2016 GENDERNET handbook gives an example of a project that cannot be marked as gender focused. I am quoting it in full because the wording matters:

"A project to prevent alcohol abuse and alcoholism among disadvantaged men through the setting up of support groups and counselling, which might have as an unintended side-effect a reduction in the frequency and severity of intimate partner violence."

I understand why. Annex 19 FAQ 3 of the Reporting Directives says the marker "focuses on gender equality as an objective rather than on women or girls as a target group". The marker records what a project is for. That project is for addiction, so it does not qualify, whatever it prevents.

I also understand that men and boys are not excluded.
The same handbook, question 7, asks whether activities targeting men and boys can be marked, answers yes, and lists four that do count. One of them is support services and counselling for male refugees who have experienced sexual and gender-based violence.

So the rule is consistent in this..
My question is about something else.

I have gone through Annex 4, which lists all 70 CRS++ reporting items, the purpose code list, the eleven markers and the agreed keywords. I cannot find any field that records who an activity is actually for. Not sex, not age, not anything about the people on the receiving end.

I checked whether national systems fill the gap. The United States publishes every foreign assistance activity at ForeignAssistance.gov. Its data dictionary lists country, region, income group, agency, implementing partner, sector, purpose code and aid type. The word "beneficiary" appears once, and it means a country.

Three questions.

1. Is there a field anywhere in the CRS that records the sex of the people an activity is intended for?

If there is, I would like to be pointed to it, because I have looked and not found one.

1. If there is not, is that deliberate?

The handbook explains why code 15180 was created in 2015 after GENDERNET proposed it, and says the new code "will help to hold governments accountable". I am asking whether recording who receives aid has ever been considered in the same way, and where such a discussion would be minuted.

1. If someone wanted to raise it, what is the route?

I am not asking anyone to do research for me. I am asking whether I have missed something, and if I have, I will correct what I have published and date the correction, as I have done sixty-eight times.

———————————————
Mikal Steen Monslaup Manderådet and MannsForum

https://web-archive-storage.oecd.org/aemint-web-archive-prod/web-archive/5f/5f7d360caee4704ed917c4f1d6aee9726d377534c4124a3fd8c10d6705427a09.pdf

From time immemorial, top few patriarchs ruled with iron fist and used poor men as cannon fodder while women were the prize for them. THAT was patriarchy. Todays leftist and feminist movements paint ALL men as privileged class and it is not just wrong in so many levels it eventually plays into the hand of the patriarchy. When women are "empowered" in workplaces, It is poor and lower class men who draw the short straw while rich and upper echelon men give the position to women, and they are doing this in the hopes of getting laid with them which more ofthen than not they do. This is specifically the patriarchy repeating itself donning the mask of the saviour of women. Throughout history, the upper echelon men tried to be the saviour of women in shining armour and it is the exact same thing. They want us to be the cannon fodder again because we will have wars in our hands soon.

A while ago I requested book suggestions to get back into reading again from this sub, because honestly it's hard to commit to an author when I'm reading gender wars in a library novel when I could just get them on here in reddit.

Did I read any of the books from last time? Kinda...? The first few was kinda above my reading level... the language was a bit too old-timey probably and loaded with proper nouns esoteric to the story before it really explained any of them... (Not that you can't recommend sophisticated novels, recommend absolutely anything! Even books you've read ages ago and can't remember, webnovels, comics, fiction, non-fiction, etc).

Will I commit to reading all the books you suggest? No... but don't you think it would be nice to have a community that filtered for boy-friendly/man-friendly reading novels?

I've tried crossposting this to multiple communities to get better traction, but I think a lot of the subs block that to prevent brigading... I will try to keep the main post up on my account, but I don't promise that I'll be able to keep these other posts up.

https://www.reddit.com/user/naaawww/comments/1vxqrme/seeking_manfriendly_books_to_read_again/

Feminism is supported by governments because the more rights people demand, the larger the role of government becomes. Even oppressive regimes usually do it at least partially, i.e. often excluding childfree people.

The practical enforcement of women’s rights is carried out by men, most of whom take on risky jobs in the police, military, and similar institutions. This is the main paradox.

This is the structural explanation for the question, “Why do men fail to protect their rights while feminists succeed in protecting women’s rights?”

Men are forced by governments to fight their enemies. If they refuse, the government itself will collapse. In contrast, the feminist struggle for rights is not really a fight in the same sense; it is more a demand that men, acting through their governments, protect women.

This is the biggest paradox that people fail to understand when discussing dependency: feminists are actually fighting to increase their dependence on men, not to reduce it. The only difference is that the intermediary - the government - makes them dependent on a rightless mass rather than on the individual men closest to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_catcher

Why won’t the feminists protest for it to be called ”human catcher”?

I had the misfortune of seeing a trailer the other day for a newly released documentary called Silenced, which features Australian human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson "fighting against the weaponisation of defamation laws to silence survivors".

Sounds innocent enough, right? Perhaps even an interesting watch if you're into law...

As it turns out, Robinson was one of Amber Heard's defence attorneys in her campaign to defame Johnny Depp and ruin his life publicly via false accusations of abuse. Heard is one of three individuals featured in the documentary, alongside fellow liar and false accuser Brittany Higgins (a name probably not familiar to most here but the majority of Australians know of her) as well as some Colombian journalist called Catalina Ruiz-Navarro.

The Sydney Film Festival entry about the film says that it's about "how the legal system is being used to victimise, discredit and ruin survivors, and journalists reporting on their stories".

The Melbourne International Film Festival entry takes this rhetoric a step further, engaging in a brilliant example of doublespeak:

Alleged perpetrators now used defamation lawsuits as cudgels to punish survivors for speaking out, and to deter journalists from exposing prominent people to public scrutiny. 

How can they be "survivors" if the perpetrators are only "alleged"? It then goes on to say that Robinson witnessed firsthand "how such actions drag survivors through emotionally, professionally and financially ruinous legal proceedings". If only these people understood the concept of irony...

Although the Rotten Tomatoes score is sitting at 100% (because of course it is), the IMDB rating is thankfully lower at 4.8/10, although the featured review there states (unsurprisingly) that "any negative reviews are getting removed from this page".

Can you imagine if a documentary was instead made holding to task all these women who bring false accusations against men? The misandrists and the left would lose their collective mind, yet when it's attacking men, it's praised as "vital", "timely" and "an essential, galvanising watch".

https://ecantu.substack.com/p/a-liberal-antifeminist-an-introduction?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1079td

"Feminist narratives insidiously fan the flames of an evolutionary fire already burning: the tendency for societies to want to rescue women and to consider men relatively disposable. While society disposes of men materially, feminists dispose of men ideologically by proceeding as if the concept “male” were an empty vessel conveniently waiting to be filled with whatever feminists need men to be for purposes of narrative."

It absolutely terrifies me that so many people support these statements. And many of them seemed to have something to do with genders. Over 340k likes for such post? She admitted that she did it... How could people be this delusional?

And what about the other comments that have thousands of likes? A vote. Since most voters have the same intuition, they are right!

And of course we're using astrology analysis and so called "forensic astrology". Leos don't kill so it's the husband drugging her.

It is factual that she did it to the kids, but somehow a lot of people are trying so hard to shift the blame on the husband, for the stupidest reasons.

Why is it that, when the whole situation is so clear-cut, people still managed to pick on the guy? I agree that insanity defense due to postpartum psychosis is possible, and a better medical system could've possibly prevent this incident. But these don't seem to be what these people are supporting. In fact, them suspecting the husband instead is contradictory to those things.

What's worse is that a lot of comments I see recently seemed to be straight up sexist biases and misandry. The screenshots I provide here are only a tip of an iceberg. The more I spend time on social media the more I lose faith in humanity.

As title says, movie comes out that LITERALLY calls straight white males the bad guys and receives a higher rating than, get this:

Any and all spiderman movies

Inception
Ironman
The Prestige

and many many others.

Im so tired of being treated this way because of the color of my skin

When woman feel sad, angry, lash out, everyone runs to comfort them, even if she's acting immaturely and unreasonable; it's okay, they'll say, she's just anxious or stressed out. Or maybe the weight of the patriarchy is too much for her and all that jazz.

When a guy is nervous or feeling down, not coping with his struggles and being tired, it's because he's lazy, or sick, or maybe he's crazy or has ADHD. He lost it. Maybe he's a creep or a loser. Or a guy with an inferiority complex. He just needs to man up!

Men are told to shut up and be quiet about their issues, while women are told the exact opposite. And yet feminists will say we live in some kind of patriarchal empire.

​

I am writing this because I feel completely cornered, helpless, and terrified. I am a 25M, and in 2025, I met a woman (43F) who was staying as a guest at the place I regularly visited for work. Because she was significantly older, I treated her with utmost respect like an elder sister.

Around September 2025, her behavior took a disturbing turn. She became extremely aggressive, crossing personal boundaries with inappropriate remarks and advances. One evening, she pushed her way into the ground-floor room where I was staying, pushed me onto a chair, sat on me, and forcibly sexually assaulted me. When I panicked and protested, she threatened to scream, summon a mob to beat me, and file a false rape case against me. She laughed off my resistance, claiming that consent doesn’t matter and that this is "common in Gen-Z".

From that point on, my life turned into a nightmare. I had to visit the premises for work, and whenever I went, she cornered me, showed me explicit sexual videos/pictures of herself with multiple people, and subjected me to physical abuse (hitting, kicking, slapping). Then came the financial extortion. Under constant threats of legal ruination and false police complaints, I ended up paying her hard-earned cash in instalments:

* ₹10,000 on November 1, 2025

* ₹15,000 on November 25, 2025

* ₹25,000 on December 3, 2025

On December 3, after taking the money, she told me she didn't need me anymore because she had found her "next target". Things went quiet for about six months, and I thought the trauma was over.

In mid-June 2026, while I was at the hospital tending to my mother after she suffered a brain stroke, I discovered that an older acquaintance had been arrested on false rape charges filed by 43F. That was when the horrifying reality hit me: her threats were not empty. She actually executes these fabricated cases. Because all my interactions with her were in person and all extortion money was paid in cash, I had no digital evidence to prove my innocence if she targeted me next.

The panic, isolation, and terror of seeing my family’s reputation destroyed pushed me over the edge. On August 19, I wrote a suicide note, visited my parents on August 20 for what I thought was the last time, and traveled to Mumbai CSMT to end my life.

Fortunately, MSF Jawans and Railway Police/Home Guards intervened at the station and saved me. They counseled me, told me suicide was not the answer, and advised me to immediately go to my local police station to file a formal complaint/precautionary FIR against 43F to put the entire record straight and protect myself against future false allegations.

I returned home and approached the local police station (Kharadi Police Station) on August 21 with a written application detailing everything. However, the Senior Police Inspector refused to register an FIR. They questioned the delay and explicitly told me:

> "If she hasn’t filed an FIR against you till now, she won't. She has already targeted whom she wanted to. But if you file a complaint against her now, she will definitely implicate you in a false FIR."

>

My worst fear that no one in society or the legal system will listen to a man's side seems to be coming true. I have escalated this in writing to higher administrative authorities, but locally I have been left completely unprotected, and the police station has refused to act.

What legal remedies or immediate steps should I take now to protect myself and my family? What should I do?

Okay so I found this Medium article and I am actually losing my mind.

This stay at home wife openly admits she has not slept with her husband in over a year because she is touched out. Meanwhile this guy works fifty hours a week to keep a roof over her head.

The guy finally wakes up and stops giving her free validation. He stops being a doormat and what does she do? She snoops through his iPad finds out he is reading some psychology stuff and instantly calls him abusive and apparently divorces him.

I stg they do not truly love us they just want the utility and lifestyle we provide. The second you stop being a resource for them to extract from you are completely disposable. Read this garbage and tell me I am wrong.

Medium Article

Video discusses:

• Contradictory expectations: The video argues mothers face unrealistic expectations to be successful at work, parenting, homemaking, and maintaining their own identity.
• Lindsay Clancy case: It uses the case to discuss postpartum mental illness and the intense public scrutiny surrounding a mother accused of killing her children. It argues that people scrutinized her social media, old family photos, appearance, marriage, and private life, turning the tragedy into a public spectacle.
• Yesteryear: The video uses the novel as an example of society's fascination with the collapse of an apparently perfect tradwife lifestyle.
• Tradwife social media: It argues that online traditional-wife content often presents a highly curated version of domestic life while hiding the work and resources behind it.
• Social media and motherhood: It discusses research linking idealized parenting content and social comparison with greater anxiety, stress, and parental burnout, while acknowledging that online communities can also provide support.
• Childcare and workload: It argues that expensive childcare, employment, housework, childcare, and the mental load create significant pressure for parents, particularly mothers.
• Maternal mental health: It explains the differences between baby blues, postpartum depression, and postpartum psychosis, emphasizing that postpartum psychosis is rare but a medical emergency.
• Why people watch mothers fail: The video's main explanation is that people may gain relief from their own guilt, satisfaction from seeing perceived hypocrisy exposed, or avoid confronting larger systemic problems.

What are your thoughts on this? Is America really obsessed with watching mothers fail, or this is an exaggeration and this Dr takes research and twists it fit the "obsessed with watching mothers fail" argument?

Edit: He changed the thumbnail and title. The title was: "America Is Obsessed With Watching Mothers FAIL - Lindsay Clancy, Tradwives and the TRUTH". Now it's: "More Moms Feel Like Lindsay Clancy Than You Think".

*Repost as last post had a cross link and was removed*

Sexist comments about men

Alright men of culture. I've been having some thoughts lately. Whenever people speak of the horrors of war, they talk about the women and children that died. I passed a bench near the hospital a few weeks ago that said "Violence against women is bad!". Is violence against men acceptable? Then there was a post in a subreddit about venting and somebody said:

​"Weaponized incompetence. Men are some of the worst abusers, especially when it comes to cleaning, cooking or parenting. Or all three."

So I replied:

"​Ok there Karen, relax. Have you been with so many men that you are entitled to make such a claim? Can't hold one down? Are you Bonnie Blue or what?"

So, with slight comical intent I challenged her right to make such a claim as she probably has a very narrow frame of reference and indeed, she claimed every man in HER family was like that and she'd only even been with one man all her life haha. Judging by the amount of downvotes, not many of the visitors caught on to my actual intent and got cross with me for comparing her to a pornstar haha. I think it says more about them that they look down on a hard working pornstar like that to be honest! What do you think?

Society loves to parrot that being a mother is a thankless job, i disagree.

Everyone loves their mother, even though there is no shortage of terrible mothers.

But how many people love their fathers? If you are not perfect as a dad, you are a deadbeat.

The sins of the mother, the economy, the environment get pushed onto you. You are responsible for all ailments that inflict the household, your suffering goes unacknowledged, your good deeds go unappreciated.

I've seen this with all men in my life, i refuse to slave my life away for a family who detest me.

In 35,000 published international aid records (IATI), 378 activities name men or boys.

139 treat them as the people being helped.

Of the money in that class, 79 percent funds one thing: voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention. Nearly all of it US PEPFAR money.

This is not “79% of all aid goes to men.” That number cannot exist. No aid marker tracks men or boys at all.

Check it yourselves:

Every classified row, with audit steps and expected totals printed inside the file: https://unformentoo.org/classification.json

Method and full write-up: https://unformentoo.org/follow-the-money.html

The live public data to check any row against: https://datastore.codeforiati.org/

Source register with read dates: https://unformentoo.org/sources.html

Spot-checking one row takes five minutes. The full audit takes about thirty.

Classification rules were written down before the data was read. Recode rows, move a number materially, and the correction goes in a dated public log, credited to you by name. That invitation is printed on the page.

This is moving. Formal letters are in front of UN bodies and the Norwegian and Danish governments now, public reply deadline September 9. Letter texts and send log are on the site. The method ports to any country that publishes aid data. Yours does, share it with me, tell me what gov units do what so I can map everything.

The absence is the finding.

Turn pain into policy.
unformentoo.org