Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. someone like you will then INTERPRET that to mean that if a given woman ends up partnered with one of the men she might have rated as below average, then she has settled and if she claims to be happy, she is lying. That she has no passion or real love for such a man. This oversimplified view may be informed by men's evaluation of women's appeal (looks based, often) but even a lot of men can find themselves surprised by their own attraction to a woman who on initial first glance he wouldn't have rated highly....because he got to KNOW her and discovered unexpected things about her. Women do the same, often.
You're putting words in my mouth, I never said you or others don't have love. But the question is, putting personality appeal aside, why do they rate them so low looks-wise to begin with? What is causing that? It's a question worth answering, because it shows a major detachment from reality. Is it make-up/clothing/etc that makes some women look way way better/more striking than they do in reality, and that becomes their new self-image (maybe compounded by seeing themselves that way in 5,000 crafted selfies)? I don't know the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
2. How on earth does you getting more than your share mean that so many men go without? Do you believe that your sexual partners vanish in a puff of smoke the instant that they are out of your life? Or that they will never be a suitable mate for any man after having been with you? . . . If a man needs must for his own self respect, hold out for a pristine and untouched "female" then who has the unrealistic expectations now? Though as experienced as I've been, I have not once been rejected for it, so I'm sure that most men know better these days.
Again, totally putting words in my mouth, just like 'female' which I don't think I've even said here. I harbor no illusions about finding a virgin in the West, I don't even consider it particularly/significantly preferable. I lost my virginity at 15 and never really considered the issue again (i.e. with regards to women) after that and assumed none were unless I knew otherwise. I am concerned about a woman's history (unless she was a porn star or prostitute) only insofar as whether a tendency towards impulsive/unpredictable/capricious behavior could make a committed relationship and stable framework for children impossible/prohibitively risky.
Some incels seem to be obsessed with virginity, probably due to inadequacies / fear of comparisons, though I do believe there is an independent risk once the 'count' gets too high, since even if one has no inadequacies sexually, every partner is different and some, men at least and I assume women too, are just drawn to variety/novelty/nostalgia. How high that number needs to be, I don't know. It affects pair-bonding potential in both men and women, but I believe studies have shown the effect is substantially more pronounced in women.
But yeah, it does mean that to an extent. Only so many sexual encounters happen in a closed system (college, a bar/club/party, etc.) and if a certain percentile of men hog them and consistently get action, the others get less (not none, but less), and some get none. Sure, a pretty wide range of men get sex, but they get less and a way bigger percentage of men than women (3x as many historically, 20% vs. 60%) get none at all. That's an evolutionary/genetic fact. I have doubts whether self-improvement does anything in a systemic sense, because women as a group/on the whole would likely just adjust their standards upwards and continue the same behavior/M.O..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
3. You believe that the Elliot Rodger incident was fake? Do you have a credible source for that?
Yes, I believe the Elliot Rodger shooting was fake (a classified training exercise cast as reality; along with Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, and other events), but putting that aside, dismissing inceldom entirely as the fault of the incel (when it really isn't, and has a long historical basis) may give rise to real and undesirable political movements, rhetoric, violence, etc. Historically, there were alternative paths to 'absorb' unmarried/unmarriable men (which took up a huge percentage of men): priest, monk, career soldier / sailor / mercenary / pirate, eunuch, slave, etc. (no, reneeh, those last two don't show 'bias' [towards whom?], they're just history). Today we don't have any of those. Almost everyone survives into the same basic framework of adulthood and has the same expectations.
I don't really care if the population goes down, and there's no case for constant growth or even maintenance of our population levels (the only problem is that with our debt-based monetary system, we have to grow, or the Fed/banks will foreclose on literally everything). I certainly don't advocate forcing anyone to have sex or have children. I do think a huge percentage of women are holding out for something it's mathematically certain they'll never get, but they actually believe they'll get it, usually during almost all or all of the years they have the highest chance of attracting men (a female professor of mine made a joke; short version: women keep riding the elevator upwards floor by floor, passing men on them, and at the top floor they finally have to get out and it's all women). I don't think many actually anticipate what happens, they may sense it at some point and start to mentally prepare for the possibility/adapt/rationalize away any regrets, etc. No, not saying that applies to all women (I'm sure some are content with their situation and/or ended up single later due to unforeseen events), but for many it does. I'm certainly not gloating about it [like incels do], I myself haven't found/settled down with anyone yet. Again, in the past this couldn't have happened because of arranged/semi-forced marriages, etc. I'm not saying go back to that, but realize the current system has its drawbacks also.
You're putting words in my mouth, I never said you or others don't have love. But the question is, putting personality appeal aside, why do they rate them so low looks-wise to begin with? What is causing that? It's a question worth answering, because it shows a major detachment from reality.
Again, totally putting words in my mouth, just like 'female' which I don't think I've even said here. I harbor no illusions about finding a virgin in the West, I don't even consider it particularly/significantly preferable. I lost my virginity at 15 and never really considered the issue again (i.e. with regards to women) after that and assumed none were unless I knew otherwise. I am concerned about a woman's history (unless she was a porn star or prostitute) only insofar as whether a tendency towards impulsive/unpredictable/capricious behavior will make possible or impossible/very risky a committed relationship and stable framework for children.
Some incels seem to be obsessed with virginity, probably due to inadequacies / fear of comparisons, though I do believe there is an independent risk once the 'count' gets too high, since even if one has no inadequacies sexually, every partner is different and some, men at least and I assume women too, are just drawn to variety/novelty/nostalgia. How high that number needs to be, I don't know. It affects pair-bonding potential in both men and women, but I believe studies have shown the effect is substantially more pronounced in women.
But yeah, it does mean that to an extent. Only so many sexual encounters happen in a closed system (college, a bar/club, etc.) and if a certain percentile of men hog them and consistently get action, the others get less (not none, but less), and some get none. Sure, a pretty wide range of men get sex, but they get less and a way bigger percentage of men than women (3x as many historically, 20% vs. 60%) get none at all. That's an evolutionary/genetic fact. I have doubts whether self-improvement does anything in a systemic sense, because women would likely just adjust their standards upwards and continue the same behavior/M.O..
Yes, I believe the Elliot Rodger shooting was fake (a classified training exercise cast as reality; along with Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, and other events), but putting that aside, dismissing inceldom entirely as the problem of the incel (when it isn't, and has a long historical basis) may give rise to real and undesirable political movements, violence, etc. Historically, there were alternative paths to 'absorb' unmarried/unmarriable men (a huge percentage): priest, monk, career soldier / sailor / mercenary / pirate, eunuch, slave, etc. (no, reneeh, those last two don't show 'bias' [towards whom?], they're just history). Today we don't have any of those. Almost everyone survives into the same basic framework of adulthood and has the same expectations.
I don't really care if the population goes down, and there's no case for constant growth or even maintenance of our population levels (the only problem is that with our debt-based monetary system, we have to grow, or the Fed/banks will foreclose on literally everything). I certainly don't advocate forcing anyone to have sex or have children. I do think a huge percentage of women are holding out for something it's mathematically certain they'll never get, but they actually believe they'll get it, usually during almost all or all of the years they have the highest chance of attracting men (a female professor of mine made a joke; short version: women keep riding the elevator upwards floor by floor, passing men on them, and at the top floor they finally have to get out and it's all women). I don't think many actually anticipate what happens, they may sense it at some point and start to mentally prepare for the possibility/adapt/rationalize away any regrets, etc. No, not saying that applies to all women (I'm sure some are content with their situation and/or ended up single later due to unforeseen events), but for many it does. I'm certainly not gloating about it, I myself haven't found/settled down with anyone yet. Again, in the past this couldn't have happened because of arranged/semi-forced marriages, etc. I'm not saying go back to that, but realize the current system has its drawbacks also.
That's like your spouse saying, "I'm having an affair with your parent, but putting that aside.......". That first clause is gonna be hard to just un****ing hear, you know.
I guess what I was trying (failing?) to pin down is that if one's happiness requires power for them and less freedom for others, then it kinda goes against what America at least has always been based on and the values that we strive for. "Freedom" means choices, options. Including the freedom to make bad choices, and even the freedom to fail. As well as the responsibility to live with whatever reality your actions create for you. You can't rely on basically artificial power structures to guarantee you a life you want. Ya might have to tinker your brain, make some different choices, maybe move somewhere else if your current environment isn't working for you...something. Is this easy? No. Often it isn't. Usually it's hard and occasionally it might even be impossible. But being angry that others (specific others or society in general) did not show up to be a living solution to your problems, isn't gonna get anyone anywhere.
Let's ask our resident incels. CD is loaded with them. Anyone want to weigh in?
Yes, I was an incel until 14, I didn't have sex at that age but I did touch my first boob then. Of course I wasn't interested in sex for too many years before that.
The only thing I have to add is that I feel sorry for the guys who the girls think are strange.
...
It has been proven in studies that women believe the 'average man' to be approximately the 80th to 90th percentile of men (in terms of height, looks, money, insert other quantifiable marker), not the 50th. Meaning the 60th to 80th percentile are below-average, 'settle' material, the 40th to 60th are the dregs to be avoided, and the rest essentially don't exist. Whatever the exact numbers, whether it's 25%, 35%, 45%, you have a huge percentage of men who are totally off the radar. This is not a new phenomenon, as only 40% of men historically have reproduced (usually in a context of polygamy/polygyny), while I believe 80% or more of women have reproduced. We can't keep ignoring this as a factor and saying that it's all just a defective mentality in the incels.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
Please cite these studies of women's expectations and for BALANCE, I'm sure you can find something similar for men's expectations. I'm not buying what you're selling (in terms of the typical male and female) but show me a decent study or two and I'd consider it. Otherwise, it's just your biased supposition and when you use words like eunuch and slave...yeah, it's definitely biased.
Did you ever produce this and I missed it?
Considering how much of your argument hinges on this "fact" you really need to prop it up a bit better, else it all crumbles.
You're putting words in my mouth, I never said you or others don't have love. But the question is, putting personality appeal aside, why do they rate them so low looks-wise to begin with? What is causing that? It's a question worth answering, because it shows a major detachment from reality. Is it make-up/clothing/etc that makes some women look way way better/more striking than they do in reality, and that becomes their new self-image (maybe compounded by seeing themselves that way in 5,000 crafted selfies)? I don't know the answer.
Again, totally putting words in my mouth, just like 'female' which I don't think I've even said here. I harbor no illusions about finding a virgin in the West, I don't even consider it particularly/significantly preferable. I lost my virginity at 15 and never really considered the issue again (i.e. with regards to women) after that and assumed none were unless I knew otherwise. I am concerned about a woman's history (unless she was a porn star or prostitute) only insofar as whether a tendency towards impulsive/unpredictable/capricious behavior could make a committed relationship and stable framework for children impossible/prohibitively risky.
Some incels seem to be obsessed with virginity, probably due to inadequacies / fear of comparisons, though I do believe there is an independent risk once the 'count' gets too high, since even if one has no inadequacies sexually, every partner is different and some, men at least and I assume women too, are just drawn to variety/novelty/nostalgia. How high that number needs to be, I don't know. It affects pair-bonding potential in both men and women, but I believe studies have shown the effect is substantially more pronounced in women.
But yeah, it does mean that to an extent. Only so many sexual encounters happen in a closed system (college, a bar/club/party, etc.) and if a certain percentile of men hog them and consistently get action, the others get less (not none, but less), and some get none. Sure, a pretty wide range of men get sex, but they get less and a way bigger percentage of men than women (3x as many historically, 20% vs. 60%) get none at all. That's an evolutionary/genetic fact. I have doubts whether self-improvement does anything in a systemic sense, because women as a group/on the whole would likely just adjust their standards upwards and continue the same behavior/M.O..
Yes, I believe the Elliot Rodger shooting was fake (a classified training exercise cast as reality; along with Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, and other events), but putting that aside, dismissing inceldom entirely as the fault of the incel (when it really isn't, and has a long historical basis) may give rise to real and undesirable political movements, rhetoric, violence, etc. Historically, there were alternative paths to 'absorb' unmarried/unmarriable men (which took up a huge percentage of men): priest, monk, career soldier / sailor / mercenary / pirate, eunuch, slave, etc. (no, reneeh, those last two don't show 'bias' [towards whom?], they're just history). Today we don't have any of those. Almost everyone survives into the same basic framework of adulthood and has the same expectations.
I don't really care if the population goes down, and there's no case for constant growth or even maintenance of our population levels (the only problem is that with our debt-based monetary system, we have to grow, or the Fed/banks will foreclose on literally everything). I certainly don't advocate forcing anyone to have sex or have children. I do think a huge percentage of women are holding out for something it's mathematically certain they'll never get, but they actually believe they'll get it, usually during almost all or all of the years they have the highest chance of attracting men (a female professor of mine made a joke; short version: women keep riding the elevator upwards floor by floor, passing men on them, and at the top floor they finally have to get out and it's all women). I don't think many actually anticipate what happens, they may sense it at some point and start to mentally prepare for the possibility/adapt/rationalize away any regrets, etc. No, not saying that applies to all women (I'm sure some are content with their situation and/or ended up single later due to unforeseen events), but for many it does. I'm certainly not gloating about it [like incels do], I myself haven't found/settled down with anyone yet. Again, in the past this couldn't have happened because of arranged/semi-forced marriages, etc. I'm not saying go back to that, but realize the current system has its drawbacks also.
OK well as Homina mentioned, it is damn hard to have a reasonable conversation with someone after they say that these mass shooting events are fake.
But I already established that part of the mindset that I consider to be...shall we say, of concern in this "movement" (yeah, it's a "movement" alright, how do we as a society flush it?)... is the preference to believe in conspiracy theories. Any news that a person wishes not to believe can simply be called fake.
I don't know how you reason with anybody who feels they've got every right to warp reality around their biases. I already mentioned that I personally believe (here's my own tinfoil hat talk) that bad actors on the global stage have made a deliberate effort to destabilize the societies of countries that align against them by spreading propaganda and pitting us against each other. They (ah, the ubiquitous "they") have made it so that any and everything can be called into doubt and lead to division. Lots of people have no trust for the institutions that our own (for me, America) nations' functions depend on, and will doubt any information given no matter how credible or well supported, spinning and eating up narratives no matter how outlandish. All that matters is adherence to one's own "side" of things and the truth is whatever you want to think that props it up.
That basic thing right there, is where the division lies from just men who struggle to find love, and those who have taken it to the toxic & obsessed place. The joining online with conspiracies that persuade them that it's a form of systemic oppression, that twist the facts, that establish that since nothing is "being done" to ease their pain, they have enemies who are doing them injury.
But I do not believe that there are sufficient numbers of men OR WOMEN out there who are failing to pair up and make families (if that's what they want) that anything at all needs to be done by anyone other than an individual who is having problems. I'm not talking about fault, fault is a pointless concept here. I'm talking about responsibility. My life is my responsibility. An incel's life is NOT my responsibility. No other person (now that I've raised my children to adulthood) is my responsibility, only myself.
Me...I do believe that these shootings were real. I absolutely do. Which would feed your point that this problem of incels is a pressure cooker about to blow that society "should" in theory be concerned about. But that, I'm afraid, would be a matter of negotiating with terrorists. And I don't believe that we ought.
About the only thing that I feel "should be done" is to work to reduce the effects of bad actors (foreign psyops and propaganda) that infest spaces where we interact online. Free speech was never meant to stand without certain limits, or to mean that loony or even poisonous ideas should be given the same standing as reason and reality, or that all speech should be given a platform or be free of all consequence.
Beyond that, there should be and there ARE plenty of resources for self improvement out there, that anyone can avail themselves of. Some can't or won't but I do not see why that is my problem.
I also don't see why it's a problem that any person might initially evaluate appearances as not impressive, but then get to know someone and find them more attractive than they did on first sight. You seem to find that an alarming notion, and I have no idea why. As for women being somehow unable to bond after having some number of sex partners, and these vague "studies, I believe" that you claim back that up. I'm not buying it. People are not static, not unchanging. What a person does in some phase of their life may be very different from what they decide to do months or years later. And what you describe about women holding out for perfection just isn't what I've seen in reality. If anything, younger women make errors in judgment because we're by definition young and unwise, and partner less discriminately than we should sometimes, which is why a lot of women wind up divorced. But you'd have to see her as something other than a fembot unit, and more as a person navigating life and learning lessons. The women with really high standards are generally the ones who have divorced in their 30s or older, who have learned what we will not tolerate. And that it's much better to be alone. It is not a matter of biological clocks and picking mates from lineups and digital 1-10 rating readouts over heads, it's a matter of messy, chaotic, human lived experiences out there.
Which brings me to another way in which I feel that incel men often seem very stuck. It almost looks like autism spectrum stuff... They really want dating to be math and science, when in fact it's far more arts and humanities. The math and science approach does not work very well. And the only men I've ever heard describing it as "a numbers game" are not very happy with their results and outcomes.
All the demonization of incels I've read over the years seems at least in part the creation of a convenient bogeyman to vent frustration over the lack of marriageable men, however they are defined. It's surely not because women fear for their safety; the chances of being killed or injured by an incel are infinitesimally small. Safety, as it so often is, is just a socially acceptable pretext to hate on people that you want to hate on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
