MEN & WOMEN: IS DIVORCE IMMINENT?

◼ What if being single were no longer a problem to be solved?

There is something rather paradoxical about the relationships between men and women in contemporary society. Since the 1960s, Western societies have made the mixing of the sexes the norm: in schools, universities, workplaces, leisure activities, and public spaces, men and women have never had so many opportunities to meet. Yet, a segment of today's youth seems perfectly capable of living without the opposite sex playing a central role in their daily lives.

This phenomenon is particularly evident among young men. They play sports and games together, travel together, spend hours on Discord or playing video games, build businesses, go out with friends, and—above all—sometimes forge friendships that are far stronger than one might imagine. And many of them are single.

This single status is not always experienced as a failure. For some, it is involuntary and painful; for others, it has simply become a normal phase of life, or even an opportunity to focus on themselves. Perhaps the most interesting question, then, is not why men "can no longer find women," but rather why men and women seem to be gradually learning to live more separate lives... Or perhaps women no longer really want to spend their lives with a man? We will look at that here.

◼ Being single does not necessarily mean being lonely

The traditional model was relatively straightforward: education, work, a relationship, marriage, and children. Today, that trajectory is no longer mandatory. A 25-year-old man can be single, work, travel, play sports, and go out with friends while considering his life perfectly normal.

Above all, it is important to distinguish between being single and being lonely. One can be single and have a rich social life, whereas someone in a relationship can be deeply isolated. Being single can even offer considerable freedom for a few years: more time, fewer constraints, and greater availability for friends, work, or personal passions. Of course, one shouldn't fall into the opposite trap of claiming that single men are automatically happier or more athletic; studies don't support that conclusion. However, for some men, being single can serve as a powerful catalyst for self-improvement, particularly regarding their physique. She isn't replying to your messages? Fair enough—there’s always a set of bench presses to help you blow off steam.

This phenomenon is particularly interesting in a society where physical appearance plays an increasingly important role. Weightlifting, running, and body transformation routines have become hugely popular among young men. While being single is obviously not the sole reason for this, it can provide an extra source of motivation: if I can't control who falls for me, I can at least try to become stronger, healthier, and more attractive.

◼ The Male Problem: When Seduction Becomes a Minefield

Part of the current male unease lies elsewhere: in seduction itself. Many young men feel that the rules have changed, without anyone having truly explained the new rules to them. Isn't it annoying to see women asking for "deconstructed" men while secretly dreaming of a perfectly virile alpha male? Who can claim to be everything and its opposite?

It is obviously positive for a man to understand that a refusal must be respected and that a woman can sometimes feel insecure. But there is a difference between teaching men to respect boundaries and making them understand that any male initiative is potentially suspect.

The British film "Finding Emily" plays precisely with this ambiguity. Its protagonist believes he is experiencing the beginning of a romantic relationship, but some of his behavior can also be perceived as unsettling. The question then becomes: is he romantic or simply creepy? Most interestingly, director Alicia MacDonald doesn't seem to automatically side with feminists. In an interview, she explains that she wants to bring nuance to these situations and defend the very possibility of romance.

This is probably one of the challenges of modern seduction: maintaining the right to try one's luck without reverting to the era when male persistence was considered proof of love. A man who approaches a woman because he finds her attractive isn't automatically a problem to be solved.

Seduction always involves a degree of social risk. If every clumsy move becomes potentially harassment, many men will end up choosing the simplest solution: not trying at all.

◼ Being a man isn't a problem

The success of the numerous YouTube channels dedicated to contemporary masculinities didn't happen by chance. There's a demand, and it doesn't necessarily come from potential misogynists.

A YouGov survey of more than 35,000 Britons shows that only 6% consider masculinity inherently negative, while 26% consider it positive and 55% neither positive nor negative. Among men, 31% consider it positive. In other words, the majority of Britons simply don't believe that being masculine is a moral problem.

This seems obvious, but after years of talk about "toxic masculinity," some young men have begun to wonder if their own ordinary masculinity is also suspect. A French survey conducted by OpinionWay for Sidaction, presented to the Senate in January 2026, shows that 52% of men surveyed feel that society is "targeting" men, a figure that rises to 59% among 25-34 year olds. The same proportion of men say they no longer know what it means to be a man today.

This feeling is therefore not isolated and partly explains why some young men turn to influencers who talk to them about discipline, sports, success, virility, and self-confidence. Some of this discourse is reasonable, while other aspects are caricatures. The phenomenon deserves to be understood rather than reduced to "the far right is seducing young men."

◼ The Darker Aspects of the Phenomenon

This is also where we must discuss the incel phenomenon, without resorting to caricatures. The term originally referred to people who considered themselves involuntarily single. Research has indeed identified greater loneliness and less social support among some men who define themselves as incels.

The problem begins when this frustration becomes an ideology, with the idea that women are responsible for men's situation and that violence is a legitimate response. At this point, reasonable discussion breaks down, and we must maintain common sense and a sense of ethics.

The issue of male distress is, however, serious enough not to be dismissed.

In France, men account for nearly three-quarters of suicides. The causes are multiple, and it would be absurd to claim that "toxic masculinity" or feminism alone explain this difference. But it's legitimate to wonder whether some men are particularly bad at asking for help when they're struggling, and whether feelings of social, romantic, or professional decline can sometimes exacerbate this isolation.

Therefore, we must be able to discuss these difficulties without transforming every male frustration into proof of misogyny, but also without transforming every male suffering into justification for hatred of women.

SOCIETY > NATTY OR NOT ?

Scroll any fitness feed long enough and you’ll run into it: a shredded 19-year-old with cannonball delts and a paper-thin waist, followed by the inevitable comment war—natty or not? What started as a niche bodybuilding debate has exploded into a full-blown internet sport. Entire channels are now built around dissecting physiques, timelines, and lighting tricks to deliver a verdict. It’s half science, half spectacle—and it’s going viral.

🟢Where Did “Natty or Not” Come From?

The question itself isn’t new. Bodybuilding has always had a shadow side—rumors, accusations, quiet enhancements. What’s changed is the scale and the audience.

Around 2020, something shifted. Lockdowns pushed millions of young men online. Gyms closed, then reopened as near-sacred spaces. At the same time, TikTok and YouTube Shorts created a new visual economy: short, punchy, hyper-optimized clips where physiques became content. Enter looksmaxing—a loosely defined movement focused on optimizing male appearance to its perceived peak: jawlines, skin, height illusions, and, of course, muscle.

“Natty or not” became the enforcement arm of that culture. If looks are currency, then authenticity is everything. Accusing someone of being “not natty” is essentially calling them a fraud—someone who cheated the system while selling an image of discipline and self-mastery.

It’s not just about muscles. It’s about masculine credibility.

🟢A Quick History of Getting Huge

Bodybuilding didn’t begin with syringes and supplement stacks. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, strongmen like Eugen Sandow promoted physiques that were aesthetic, balanced, and achievable—at least in theory. The ideal body wasn’t grotesquely large; it was symmetrical, almost classical.

By the mid-20th century, bodybuilding evolved into a competitive sport. The rise of icons like Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1970s brought mass appeal—and, quietly, performance-enhancing drugs into the mainstream of elite competition.

From there, things escalated. The 1990s and early 2000s ushered in the “mass monster” era—bodies that were undeniably impressive but increasingly divorced from what most people would consider attainable or even healthy.

Today, social media has blended all eras together. You’ll see classic aesthetics, modern mass, and everything in between—often without clear disclosure of how those physiques were built.

🟢What Does “Not Natty” Actually Mean?

Being “not natty” typically refers to the use of anabolic steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). These substances mimic or amplify hormones like testosterone, accelerating muscle growth, recovery, and strength beyond natural limits.

But steroids are just the headline. The full “enhanced” toolkit can include:

• Testosterone replacement or amplification

• Growth hormone

• SARMs (Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators)

• Fat-burning compounds like clenbuterol

• Insulin manipulation

• Diuretics for extreme leanness

An athlete doesn’t need to use all of these to be considered “unnatural.” Even a single cycle of anabolic steroids usually puts someone outside the “natty” category.

The key point: these substances fundamentally alter the body’s natural hormonal balance. They don’t just speed things up—they change the rules entirely.

🟢Aesthetic or Dangerously Virile?

There’s a primal fantasy lurking beneath the “natty or not” obsession: the desire to look not just strong, but fearsome—like a lion in the jungle, built for dominance rather than admiration. It’s the imagined aura of figures like Attila the Hun—raw, intimidating, almost inhuman in presence. 

But here’s the paradox: the same men chasing that aura are also curating themselves for visual appeal—clear skin, symmetry, sharp lines, the kind of physique that turns heads rather than starts fights. In other words, they’re trying to be both predator and sculpture. And those ideals don’t fully align. 

The mythical Apollo represents the opposite pole: beauty, proportion, and effortless harmony. History—and human instinct—suggest that this balanced ideal has far more staying power. A body built to attract, rather than intimidate, isn’t just more sustainable; it’s more aligned with how men actually thrive in the modern world.