[Puffer Fish]

Some of you might have heard of the bizarre social phenomena in Japan known as hikikomori.
It began to receive attention as a phenomena in Japan after about 2011, and news readers in white countries viewed it with curiosity as one of those extremely bizarre things that is so peculiar to Japanese culture.

Well, now it appears the hikikomori phenomena is appearing in the U.S. too.

For those of you who do not know, it is a phenomena afflicting mostly teen to young adult males, where they become recluses and refuse to leave their rooms and interact with the rest of society. They view themselves as failures and can't face the outside world.

Economic factors are one of the factors that play a big role.

This is not a good sign, and is a very worrying tend for America's future.

Why more US men are falling victim to Japan's anti-social hikikomori trend, New York Post, John Mac Ghlionn, June 5, 2023
https://nypost.com/2023/06/05/us-men-fa ... ori-trend/
Hikikomori trend now in the United States, among young men, The Independent News, Jasmine Kaur, June 10, 2023
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... li=BBnbfcL
"
It appears that Hikikomori has hit the United States shores as well. The Japanese term is used to denote someone who has withdrawn from society.

According to British podcaster Chris Williamson who is based in Austin, Texas, in a discussion with political economist Nicholas Eberstadt, seven million people of prime working age are currently without employment and not seeking jobs. These men also spend too much time indoors and are not sociable at all.

According to a Kyushu University survey in Japan low testosterone levels is one of the common metabolic signatures of Hikikomori in young social recluses – which is important to note because testosterone levels are plummeting among young American men.

In another report in Intelligencer, researcher Alan Teo says that Hikikomori is becoming prevalent in the United States. The American version of people who are not studying, working or training and have simply withdrawn from the world choosing to live in isolation.
"We have a large number of people [in the United States] in their early 20s living the basement bedroom. Often times it is younger men. Struggling with work. Struggling with launching. There is some element of still being stuck in an earlier developmental stage, like that of an adolescent, even though their physical age is that of an adult."
Though they may be able to manage simple day to day activities like a grocery run or they will rarely want to socialise or do anything more than that.
"

There are job opportunities that exist, but they may not be very good opportunities for those with minimal skills (especially for many young men), and may not pay enough to easily pay for housing costs.

Besides economic factors, excessive time spent playing video games and multiplayer interactive computer games are also believed to play a role in many situations. Though it's hard to say which causes the other, they probably both feed into each other in most situations.
But I think it's a mistake--and an easy one to make--for society to just lay all the blame on that, and not look at how the economic circumstances have played a role in shaping this phenomena.

[Godstud]

These people have always existed. We're just more aware of it, now.

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” -G. Michael Hopf

[Puffer Fish]

These people have always existed. We're just more aware of it, now.

I don't think that's the real explanation. (Or it might only be like 7% of it)

Sure, it has always existed. But it's been very rare. Has not really been considered a troubling social phenomena affecting a vast swath of society.
If it had existed on the scale it does now, I think the societies would have noticed it long before now.

[Godstud]

You're probably right. Society allows it to exist. Parents allow their children to stay home, and live in the basement.

When I grew up we were shuffled out the door at 18 years of age. It wasn't permitted, before. Now, they are helicopter parents who pity their poor little darlings and don't allow them to mature. Everyone is so concerned with their feelings, that they aren't concerned with their maturation and development into independent people.

It's hard to have decent testosterone levels when you eat shit food and don't do anything. Exercise, good diet, etc. are what elevates testosterone levels, and so if you live in a basement and eat junk food, you're going to end up with low testosterone.

Video games are fine, but as with all things, balance is important. Parents have to turn their children into adults, and not adult children.

[Puffer Fish]

I think one of the main issues here is young males cannot earn enough to provide for and attract a female mate.

This ends up meaning that, in most cases, young women are attracted to young men by almost entirely non-financial factors. Which might sound good to some, but then you consider how "inequal" that system actually turns out to be, with large number of young women attracted to a very small number of prime men. The concept of commitment has been thrown out the window both due to cultural changes, and because these young men have little to offer financially when it comes to commitment. So it mostly just ends up with lots of hook-up sex and flings, very short-term casual relationships--with the majority of young men being left out. (Of course all these women end up screwed later in life when they age, and their romantic desirability to the other sex goes down, but that's another discussion)
And if someone is lucky enough to be one of these prime men, with so many female options, what does one have to gain from commitment?

There are rough anecdotal numbers out there, something like 70-75% of young women are going after 8% of young men.
This of course leads to a gender imbalance, and a lack of motivation and discouragement on the part of many young men.
I mean when we consider what one of the main motivations are for young men to go out there and work and earn money.

(And that doesn't even include the amount of young women taken by older men, so the numbers are even worse than that.
There is evidence that during economic downturns, a higher percentage of young women enter relationships with older men, who can financially provide for them or have housing. Like the percentage may increase by around 6 to 14 percent.)

More female equality in job opportunities (young women are now 13% more likely to have a college degree than young men, in the U.S.) has also meant that when it comes to a potential romantic pairing, the women are often earning more money than the man. So there is less financial reason for women to want to be in a relationship.

[Godstud]

Young men have always had to go out and make themselves attractive with status, health, and wealth, to attract women. Just because some have gotten lazy has not changed what attracts women.

The measure of a person is not how often they can "hook up", but the mate they attract and marry.

There are rough anecdotal numbers out there, something like 70-75% of young women are going after 8% of young men.

It's something like 20% of men, but yes, it exists. Social media has warped this, to where women think that a man paying attention to them means that they can attract that level of man.

The problem with this, is that even a rich man will sleep with women who aren't all knockouts,so these women get a false perception of their value, in the sexual market place. The measure of a woman's sexual marketplace value is by the man she can form a relationship with, not how many men she can sleep with. It is easy for a woman to sleep with many men. The reverse isn't true, unless that man is extremely high value(rich, great looking, charismatic, high status).

To use a euphemism: A key that open many locks is a Master key. A lock that is opened by many keys is a shitty lock.


These men who feel useless need to take some advice from men out there who tell young men to get fit, work hard, improve themselves, and then when they get 30+ they'll be the men that women are attracted to. These advisors, however, are being targeted by Feminists and social media, as misogynist. It's not misogynist to want the best mate, work on yourself, and then want a woman who is, young, fit, feminine, and not promiscuous.

That said, the women are sleeping with the same guys, and the key is for these poor young men to do self improvement so that when these women wake up to the reality, that they'll be there.

[Puffer Fish]

Young men have always had to go out and make themselves attractive with status, health, and wealth, to attract women. Just because some have gotten lazy has not changed what attracts women.

You saying a statement like that makes me suspect you do not grasp the point I was making.

The measure of a person is not how often they can "hook up", but the mate they attract and marry.

Nothing that I stated contradicts that idea.
I am not even sure why you felt the need to say that. The fact that you felt a need to say that again makes me suspect you may not understand or may have misinterpreted the meaning and point of what I wrote.

[Puffer Fish]

To use a euphemism: A key that open many locks is a Master key. A lock that is opened by many keys is a shitty lock.

I do appreciate your amusing analogy.

These men who feel useless need to take some advice from men out there who tell young men to get fit, work hard, improve themselves, and then when they get 30+ they'll be the men that women are attracted to.

The environment is very competitive. Often just focusing on one or the other is not enough. I mean being great at one and just making a decent effort at the other is not enough.

That said, the women are sleeping with the same guys, and the key is for these poor young men to do self improvement so that when these women wake up to the reality, that they'll be there.

That's a great suggestion for individual self-improvement, but let's remember this is a political forum and a political discussion.
While I do appreciate the good old conservative fix-it-yourself attitude, I was trying to focus on a bigger problem in society. One that is resulting from economic and cultural shifts.

[Godstud]

Tes, analogy, not euphemism. I had the wrong word.

Life is competitive and historically only about 50% of men were able to procreate. Nothing much has changed, in that regard.

Self-improvement is the best thing, since you can't actually control societal and cultural change. I honestly think that we can't focus on the people who can't compete, since this is part of the problem in modern society. Many boys are becoming men and they are simply not prepared for manhood and what comes along with that. They've been pampered a bit too much. Thus, competition seems to be worse, when it's simply the same as it has ever been. What women expect from men has not changed that much.

[MistyTiger]

I don't know much about Hikikomori but it sounds to me like introversion. Introversion has always existed and there are TedTalks about introversion and how education looks at it. US education tends towards extroversion so us introverts (like myself) are always shaded to look weak or as very withdrawn. But we are now seeing that the split among extroverts and introverts at least in the US is about a 50% even split. Some people are just more of the brainy, internal looking types and they are suited for engineering and coding. The extroverts are more sociable and are better motivational speakers or advertising execs. CEOs can be introverts or extroverts, same with presidents. A leader does not have to be an extrovert to be a success. It's just how we perceive the world, doesn't mean one way is better than the other. I identify as a sigma and I can take charge of a situation if I feel like no one else wants to take over and I do not see an alpha. Sigmas and Alphas can butt heads as the Sigma is parallel but just refuses to rule over the hierarchy of betas and deltas. Some Sigmas do become Alphas, but I do not want to make the change as I don't like the rules of the hierarchy, I prefer to be the observer.

As to these young men, they need guidance from parent figures. It seems like they are not getting that and that is the fault of their parents and their community. Society needs to be more welcoming towards introverts. I know that many times as a child I felt like an outcast. If not for my mother and few lovely teachers over the years, I would be so lost.

Society can be cold and mean. If you want to be invested in society, you have to know the rules and play the game, "go all in". It's not a bad thing to refuse to be a part of the game. I tried to get into it but found it draining, and got burned. I understand the rules, but I do not like them. So I am not fully in society.