>>508420094
>But the real damage is in what it’s done to expectations around women and relationships.
the real identity of OP has been revealed at the end of the first paragraph, how freudian
>Look at the media these guys consume—wall-to-wall idealized, impossibly perfect girls
that's mostly every media and book in human history. Please study fiction before posting nonsense. Both males and females in fictional stories aren't supposed to be realistic, same as the stories themselves aren't realistic - because of they would be, nobody would watch them. Why would anyone spend their time watching/reading something they already experience anyway, in real life?
Fiction was ALWAYS a form of escapism, but not just escapism for its sake.
If you'd study Carl Jung, and his Archetypes, you'd know that world fiction, religion, mythology and even dreams are all founded in unrealistic characters, however - these characters matter a lot for civilisation, because they remind people of the archetypal forms: like the muse, the lover, the wise man, the protector, the hero, the villain, etc. These forms subconsciously live within us, they are templates, yes templates are unrealistic, but they are what define and communicate human existence.
Kys.
>The result? 60%—sixty percent—of zoomer men aged 18 to 30 have literally never even approached a woman in person.
this has nothing to do with anything you mentioned earlier in your post. Men don't approach women today, but women also reject being approached. Expectations are high on both sides of the field, and not because of media. There are fundamental economic and sociological reasons for it - lets start with the sexual revolution, with how women can now provide for themselves without the help of a man, or how today's technology makes it easy for lonely people to survive on their own, or how economy makes marriage irrelevant, or how women hold total supremacy in courts over disputes or divorce. Or how partnership became irrelevant