Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
In my opinion women are losing sexual power and sexual value through counterintuitive outcomes to health initiatives and sociological positioning. I find this fascinating and while there are many reasons I will limit this to about four thought points for consideration regarding the issue which are dating, marriage, and casual sex each being a shortened form.
Dating
Dating has gotten significantly worse for women and significantly better for men. The reason this is happens to be a very basic truth that we now live in a global society so whereas even 30 years ago you were competing against perhaps everyone in your city or the local cities you are now able to be competing against people across the globe and comparison is going to create a strange new breed of competition. The reason why this is worse for women than for men is threefold:
1. Men have asking rights in most societies.
2. Women have greater vulnerability in sexual contact and thus greater vestment.
3. Contraception.
The first reason listed can be explained as "Male Power" which is preferred by both males and females across cultures in choosing a mate. In other words women tend to be "asked out" versus aggressively mating themselves to the males they find attractive. This isn't changing. It isn't becoming something of an equal status even with the word equality plastered everywhere and most women prefer to be asked out and most men prefer to do the asking across all boundaries given sufficient social status.
This is really important because if males have asking rights that means that they also have the ultimate rejection rights. The woman who is not sought is at significantly greater disadvantage than the man who is not because men can "solve" this and women can't in the proactive sense that while females can indirectly increase their attractiveness males can directly increase their attractiveness. Examples of this are that a man can go and get muscular and show physical prowess, he can attain social power and show social prowess, he can acquire great knowledge and show intellectual prowess and so forth and so on all means to climb in dominance and thus visibility to females. Inversely if a woman works out she will get noticed more, not become more capable of asking, just be noticed more, if a woman makes more money that may or may not increase her desirability, if she acquires great social power that also may or may not increase her desirability and fundamentally while the male doctor is sexy the female doctor is ... a doctor.
This bleeds into politics and leadership hierarchies in companies where individuals still prefer male managers even though multiple times we've found females make better managers overall. Male leadership is not an engrained in society element because this tends to be true across the world even in countries where humans have striven to create incredible equality; for some reason the idea of the male being that which has the power seems to be more appealing. Returning to dating this also puts the onus of choice on the male so females are now competing not only against individuals across the planet but also airbrush techniques and other media management and advertisement. This level of power isn't shared either so because females are reduced to states of almost reactive improvement and indirect effect on attractiveness it is very difficult to imagine a means of acquiring power in such an arena.
Historically this was the opposite. Women had the power because they did not have to compete with thousands of other women and the hierarchy for women was clearer and gender roles actually helped make it easier to see who was better or worse in those terms. While I do not think that we should return to such a time, not at all, I do recognize that the competition is better when it is clearer so being the best housewife was a real metric and now you really don't have clear metrics for which to measure a woman but men maintained their clear metrics and honestly that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
This leads me into the vulnerability. First, pregnancy, that's a real threat. Even if you do everything in your power pregnancy is a woman's issue. Yes, men, if you read that sentence, it is so; pregnancy is a woman's issue. Please do not argue with that. So this means that caring for partner choice has a lot more weight for females than males which in turn needs to be understood as a very, very bad thing because not only do men hold the most power by mere acknowledgement rights but then women are fundamentally at risk for choosing among the suitors, the few that actually acknowledge them wrong. So while a male has, in the modern day, thousands of options not even including those he can pay for among other things to trade for pure sex if that's what he wants, the female has the options limited to those who want her and decide she's attractive enough to mate with.
This turns the whole female empowerment movement on its head because for millennia we acted as though females were the gatekeepers, and they were in smaller communes, because all the males were viable for choice and thus all the females wouldn't necessarily be tied to one male all of their lives. Modern unions are a lot less practical and more emotionally driven so in dating this translates as women losing gatekeeping privileges because if a woman says no to a man the man has hundreds of other options and fundamentally while men do complain that it stings to be turned down that is not because it was a woman but because it means he doesn't have the social status to be accepted which is an ego problem that is internal. When a man avoids or refuses a woman that's an external problem altogether.
This takes us to birth control. So now there's no vestment. So originally the system was getting worse because males had all that power but females had vestment so they had to choose better but now that vestment is gone thanks to birth control female viability drops like a stone in the ocean. Male birth control is arriving, it is not a futuristic concept anymore, and female birth control is already here and we've condoms and spermicide and Plan B and other substances and methods to keep pregnancy "at bay" but that also reduces the rationale to commit to any relationship.
This creates the tension for the choice paradox. Now both sexes have hundreds of thousands of options so that means that with males having the main asking and acknowledging power males are going to be at an advantage; returning to the above point that women are able to passively increase their attractiveness to males rather than directly and thusly are weakened because the number of routes and qualifications has significantly dropped for the gender role for women you have a really large set of very sexually attractive women but nothing else to separate them. So this leads to a really critical question:
"What makes female A better than female B?"
Nothing. In dating because female A and female B and female C ... and female ZZA are all attractive and that's the only metric there's nothing else there. In fact that push for individuality has greater injured women because without a metric there's no incentive to stick it out! If the female is agitating, dump her, get someone else, and it is rather easy if the male were able to get female A's attention because that means he's qualified for reception from other females. Women end long-term relationships far more often than men, that's well documented and spoken of, but what isn't whispered is that men are significantly more prone to casual dating now and basically run the system.
Marriage
So first, a riddle: "In Divorce Who Has It Worse?"
Most people instinctively jump to "MEN!" however that is the wrong answer. So let's say that a divorce occurs a man really does lose 60% of his possessions that he directly bought in the divorce but once the dust is settled if there is a settlement for a long-term alimony and he was the one making the most funding he pays about 6% a year to his ex-spouse. Alright.
Let's talk about the real aftermath. Let's say that the female in question was an physicist but the two married and had a child and she became a stay-at-home-mom (SAHM) and this worked out for five years so she hadn't worked in five years. How easy is it for her to just waltz in and get her old job back? If you answered, "Easy" you are wrong, it is incredibly difficult; it is also why it is so puzzling how we know that women end most long-term relationships and marriages because the detriments are astounding.
Alimony is not magic, that is, you don't really just get alimony just because you were a spouse once in most places where alimony itself was designed to help with this very problem where women exited the workforce and lost their ability to earn money and thus it was compensation for that. After a certain income most people lose the ability to collect alimony and alimony is a tax write-off (or taxable, depending on which end you are on of the deal) specifically because of this thought process where basically you're no longer married but still paying a 'marriage contribution' if you will. For the record under the new tax laws this is no longer true and alimony isn't deductible or taxable however there is a strong likelihood that alimony may decrease because of this in negotiations.
The economics of marriage are really interesting though in relation to sexual power. Men have less incentive to marry because a 60% loss in a year is massive and really heart wrenching and not worth pursuing but also because if females are capable economic engines since marriage has lost most of its practical value there's no reason to combine. Economically your taxable income goes up, unless you've a unified budget your costs go up, your quality of life may go up or down depending on the longevity, marriage itself tends to do more damage if it ends in divorce than never marrying to begin with and there is a solution that satisfies the male needs without it!
Long-term girlfriends. Yes! Because women don't have any metrics or any relationship / sexual power long-term girlfriends are becoming more common. It isn't that people are partnering less it is that people are genuinely just marrying less so this creates a real conundrum because in the past this was looked down upon. You didn't marry just because you were in love or just for economic reasons generally but also for social reasons but because on all fronts marriage is being seen as more of a stupid thing except in the emotional sense it is losing traction.
Worse yet marriage is so significantly emotional that it seems to act almost as a female "rite of passage" rather than an actual social state. In other words females prance about thinking about their weddings and not their partners anymore and to some degree this is alright but to a large degree this is what leads to poor choices to begin with and why younger people marrying fails so much more than older individuals. Commonly misquoted the divorce rate is not 50% for everyone, only the highest risk groups have that, it drops substantially after a certain age (25, less impulsive), educational attainment (better thinking skills), and monetary power (higher/stable quality of life) but these aren't emotional facts and emotion drives modern marriage so this also leads to the inverse.
Fear.
Men are terrified of marrying because they should be because why wouldn't they be? You can lose everything. You can have the woman and never marry her and if she leaves, it stings, but there are other women. Society has flipped 180 and stopped telling you to marry and to almost most certainly rethink that. The idea has gained enough traction that divorce is so outrageously in the favor the female that it isn't worth risking. Parental rights for men are completely wonky and courts do give women their children even if they are the lesser parent in the obvious sense. While this isn't about men's issues I want to show that men's issues do play a part in the decision to through in one's gauntlet.
And worse because there are no defined metrics it's a crapshoot! "Oh I really like her", isn't enough. It is not only random but unpredictable and with mostly women ending these things you never know when you'll face that chopping block. Marital power for women has diminished to practically nothing because the conversation itself now follows along this dialogue:
F: "I want to get married."
M: "Why?"
F(Words): "I think it is a good thing to do"
F(Thoughts): "I was promised this as a little girl."
M(Words): "Oh, yeah, well um..."
M(Thoughts): "I could lose everything. How do I know you'll be here in 10 years?"
F(Words): "It's been 3 years."
F(Thoughts): "We had the sex. I am physically attractive. You chose me. I did my part."
M(Words): "Yeah..."
M(Thoughts): "I earned the money. I got the status. I asked you out. I did my part."
If it isn't a starstruck love that is torrid and a marriage that isn't within twenty minutes it takes years and years to get beyond this risk management problem for most men because the risk is just significantly greater with all the data we have out here and the fact that ultimately there is no "The One" and Tinder will provide where God does not and Woman hath refused.
Casual Sex
"Female sexual liberation!" I love this phrase because it literally allows a man such as myself to go out, get my dick sucked, fuck the shit out of a woman and then turn around and say "I did it for feminism!" I'm not entirely kidding. From a more serious vantage point sexual empowerment through wanton action allows males to state that they are just participating in the movement as by-standers because females are, in droves, going into 'slutty phases' and 'experimenting' away their sexual power. Which is awesome!
I am not a major supporter of virginity as a concept, let me get that out of the way, but if you look at the value of sex alone it isn't very valuable and the fact that you can get someone who has had more dick in them than the cumulative mass of Moby's body with a finger swipe because she's in a phase is a huge problem for competing women. We as a global society say, "No one wants an easy woman" yet easy women exist specifically because someone wants them due to the fact that males are the approaching, initiating and confirming party for most sexual activities.
I believe the anti-sexualization campaigns, which are good, no, sexual assault and sexual misconduct are bad before you lose yourself to some kind of nonsensical rhetoric, had an adverse effect on this truth. While I fully agree that all parties need to consent the problem became that the adds attempted to affirm, "No means no" as a woman's position, not a shared position, because females are the greater victims of sexual assaults hands down. This is not up for debate. This creates the illusion that females choose males when in fact as males are the approaching party males choose females and females have the right to accept or deny that particular suitor. This is a completely different dynamic than what most of this generation, myself included, grew up under in which until the late 90's even males were simply assumed to always want it and females were assumed to essentially never be responsible for reprehensible sexual activities with males unwilling.
This is important because it confirms the falsehood that females have all the sexual power. Casual sex and "The Slut" show that in fact they have none. There are men who will not have sex with women who are known to be sexually promiscuous (and vice versa) however the key difference is that males who want this sex tend to know where to congregate and how to get it meaning that the females show up at these places rather than dictate them and many of the apps started regarding sex and dating are done so with males in mind.
Take for instance the counterintuitive approach of "restriction". Match.com (iirc, could have been Cupid) had a problem where men were simply spamming women with nonsense propositions that were pre-copied junk. They fixed this by saying that males only have a certain amount of messages and that females didn't have this. In the case of AshleyMadison.com males are the only ones to pay and it is free for females. In the case of Bumble the app only allows females to speak first to the males. Regarding Tinder as an extension to the above both individuals have to match before either can speak to one another. Now why aren't there restrictions on females?
"Because females are more rational" or "Because females have the sexual power" or ... "Because females drive the sales." Yes. If you are female and you are reading this you are being sold when you use these services. I am sorry but you are the willing product. So the reason why there has to be restrictions isn't because men are creeps but instead it is the inverse: Women are the stock. The entire point of using those websites is to acquire sex or a partner and that is why Tinder is regarded moreso as a hookup app to males and a dating app to females and also why male and female profile behavior tends to be so significantly different.
This goes on to be a further problem when it comes to the inclusion of the reality of contraceptives and multiple choices. If the unspoken and likely unrecognized rule is that the female that signs up is essentially selling herself on the platform as available for something any number of females will do which entices males to not bother with females as partners and to literally use these apps for their original purpose which is sex. Sex doesn't just sell well it sells perfectly when you have an entire plethora of models you don't have to pay!
This isn't shocking. Pornography isn't dying due to the rise in homemade scenes but because not only is there now a legal way to attain sex for free with little to no effort while aiding a woman in her "sexual liberation!" phase but they are willingly selling it for zero dollars! It is the ultimate scam. And because you will never run into anyone you don't match with you're inherently on the spot! You can't lose. This ties into marriage and dating because obviously now you've got a system where you can "try before you buy" at no cost with no risk and a woman who wants to be tried without any promise of purchase. What? For less than Netflix (Tinder pricing) you can swipe 10,000 models who freely lend themselves to the service and hit a win if you're male. The odds are so in your favor that you may as well because even if you fail to meet someone within 20 miles the maximum it goes (iirc) is 100 mile radius or even further with whatever plus features as I've never bought it personally. Unless you live in Antarctica you'll match.
Can you make the deal any sweeter?
Yes. It is quickly and easily repeatable. While I hate to say it females and sex itself has become fundamentally a past-time that males have access to on the cheap. It is amazing, really, you can spend $40 on a dinner and (for the lack of a better term) fuck the shit out of a woman you actually like who you would pay hundreds of dollars to bang and then when you're done just do it again and if she's artsy it's even cheaper. And if you're in college it can be even cheaper! Like just go to the dorm and the only cost is your showing up.
It amuses me to no end that most societies don't "like sluts" but we have created an entire system directly related to turning the normal upstanding female into just eye candy in a vending machine. To be frank, no pun intended, women are fucked if this keeps up.
Most Helpful Guy