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.
As far as incels I don’t think it would stop their anger.
The ones who are extreme and label themselves have clear mental health and anger issues so if you took sex out of the equation they’d find something else to be extremely angry about.
Complaining about lack of sex/women is just a symptom of a much larger issue.
And I consider use of certain terms to be red flag indicators that they do. Things such as: Chad, Stacy, Timothy, hypergamy, females (in certain context when women would be more appropriate), alphas/betas, 80/20, certain slurs and insults I cannot say here (one beginning with c and referring to a man with a cheating wife), red/blue/black pills, the "carousel".... and basically any arguments that echo back to these concepts.
I haven't the slightest idea what any of those terms mean. Should I assume that ignorance is bliss?
My good looking friend has slept with a tremendous amount of women. Sometimes their average looking because he claims they’re easier to sleep with and treat him like a god.
A few weeks after he uses them for sex he stops seeing them these women become heartbroken because they fell for him quickly and thought they were in a relationship meanwhile after a few weeks he wouldn’t be able to pick them out of a lineup.
But they probably think oh ok these good looking dudes are now what i expect to get.
I came across a very recent post by a regular female poster and right away I think she's being used. No I don't know the whole situation but I believe she was used last year and again this year. Two different men, both with power imbalances. But if I point it out it looks like I'm bitter when I talk from experience. Only those that done it or see it know what we are talking about.
One of the best posts dealing with this sort of subject is post 23 by pclem. Third and fourth paragraphs sum it up best.
I came across a very recent post by a regular female poster and right away I think she's being used. No I don't know the whole situation but I believe she was used last year and again this year. Two different men, both with power imbalances. But if I point it out it looks like I'm bitter when I talk from experience. Only those that done it or see it know what we are talking about.
One of the best posts dealing with this sort of subject is post 23 by pclem. Third and fourth paragraphs sum it up best.
Yeah I’ve seen it up close many times with my friend.
I think it’s why my perception of all this stuff in the dating world is so negative.
I have interacted with toxic men first irl and then came to understand them more on CD. That said, I agree with you that most women are not attracted to others solely based on looks, so just showing pictures is not really a good way to assess whether a woman finds another person acceptable.
One issue I found with the first really toxic guy I interacted with was that he had an entirely unrealistic expectation of how a woman should look. This was in the late ‘00s, so well before everyone got into heavily filtering themselves in videos/photos. This was in graduate school and he would go on and on about how even the most attractive women in the class were a 5-6 “at best” and he did not understand why they were so popular. I am guessing he was basing his opinions at that time on seeing women online who had undergone a lot of cosmetic procedures. Of course that is still the case now, but we also have the dichotomy of having someone take a picture today, heavily filter it, and then having someone else take a picture today and post it with totally different results. Men are more likely to expect these women with tiny waists, flawless skin, etc. You hear all about how people get bullied online if they dare to show unretouched photos.
One thing I will say, to balance my posts yesterday where I said women can have as high a standard in men as they want.
Men can also have as high a standard in women as they want. If a man only wants to date a woman with a tiny waist and flawless skin (if that is the standard he chooses for his dating), that is entirely his pejorative. BUT he also needs to face the consequences that if his standard is too high, and he can't find women who meet his standard and who return the feeling, then he will have difficulty finding dates. To me it only becomes toxic once he starts blaming women for all his ills. While if he accepts that it will be difficult, is happy with himself until he finds a woman who meets his standard, then more power to him.
I don't know the details of the guy you are talking about, he probably did have a toxic mindset given your post. But just wanted to give my view that having a high standard in itself is not toxic - neither for a man nor for a woman (and what makes up that standard is up to each person to decide for themselves).
I lurk and occasionally comment on a site designed to help men move away from incel thought. I don't know if it's representative of incels because these men are mostly making some effort to change. I suspect they're less hostile than men who aren't ready to attempt to change or who never will be ready.
They tend to have or be:
-External locus of control (almost all)
-Anxiety (almost all)
-Depression (maybe half)
-Autism (over represented, maybe a third to a half on the AS)
-Over representation of cluster A personality disorders (by their report and my speculation)
-A history of being bullied (most)
-On the surface innocent but distorted ideas about women and dating (some, maybe a quarter)
-Negative and distorted but not dangerous sounding ideas about women and dating (most)
-Toxic and dangerous sounding ideas (rare but loud, they don't last long)
-Asian, Indian, or Middle Eastern living in the west (over represented, maybe a quarter)
-Short stature (about half are quite short, so also over represented)
As to why there are dangerous incels, for starters men are more violent than women. There is a significantly higher rate of Autism and cluster A personality disorders among men compared to women. Autism is far more prevalent now than in the past, and while some of the increase is due to better diagnoses, that doesn't account for all. Women are underdiagnosed, but women with Autism tend to be less socially limited than men. Some of this has to do with the way women are socialized, and some to do with typical gender roles in dating.
So I believe that more men than women have significant social issues that are tough to remediate. More men have these issues than in the past. Men are more likely than women to act out violently across a whole range of issues and adding a significant level of Autism increases isolation and exacerbate things while cluster A PDs can be more directly related to erratic behavior.
About half the men on that site concern me. I'm concerned for their welfare or the welfare of those around them. They say and report doing things that are at least mildly disturbing. I'm not sure what their future holds, but I hope earlier diagnosis, better treatment and more willingness to seek treatment will help somewhat.
Men with even mild Autism or say Schizoid Personality Disorder would have struggled to date in 1922 or 1972 as much as today. Men on that site who struggle now for other reasons that are more easily dealt with will probably figure things out in a year or three or five. Ironically though, I suspect the biggest jump in older virgin men and late to start dating men are made up of this group that will eventually find a partner. I think societal changes are mostly responsible for their #s and for the particular pain they feel being among that #.
As women become less dependent on men or marriage, the rates of marriage has dropped and the age of first marriages has gone up. While some people will cohabit, later and less marriage means there there are still more people spending long periods single through their 20s. Some of those longer single men and women would have married in their 20s 50 yrs ago. Women tend to cope with being single better due to better social support from family and friends.
Although it's overemphasized, looks play a part in all of this. A man with modest looks and a more treatable but still impactful issue like moderate social anxiety will likely have a tougher time dating than a woman with the same issues. If a man's looks and even occasional quirky behavior make it almost certain that women won't approach him or send undeniable signals of interest, the same isn't likely true for a similar woman. A modest looking woman with moderate social anxiety is far more likely to have some dating options. Those options may not be great, but she's more likely to struggle with dating and relationships than to struggle to do either at all.
Add social media to the mix. Everyone is vulnerable to FOMO after indulging in too much social media, but intuitively it seems more painful to me to view social media from completely outside the fun images that permeate that medium than to be inside with a less glowing image.
As to solutions, I'm mildly hopeful about several things. The social changes that have largely freed women from dependence on men and from limited social roles will eventually help men also. I see no reason why men can't form deeper and more mutually supportive friendships with men and women, except that it's not expected of them or particularly lauded. Men can defy those limits now, but I believe that will get easier in the future. Same with therapy, taking care of his physical health, and other types of support.
Although I haven't mentioned it, a lot of what incel men believe about being a man (or woman) is a distorted version of old stereotypes straight out of Toxic Men's Rights beliefs and far right anti woman backlash bull****. I believe this stuff will be with us for a while, but I think and hope we're hearing its ugly death rattle now. For now there's a weird connection between men who use and abuse women and men who have little or no contact with women at all that I don't think will exist in a decade or two.
And men can adapt right now, without society's permission or the approval of bloviating MRA types. They can shift their perspective, change their behavior, pay more healthy attention to their appearance, and examine their expectations that don't serve them well. That's all or most of what some men need to do, and for others it's the first step they need to take before making other changes.
Edit to add;
The internet doesn't help. I suspect the mostly gone hardcore incel sites drew some men in who absent the internet of those sites would have never seen themselves as more than not terribly attractive and a bit unlucky. But forging an identity as an incel never helps, and at least slows the guy's progress toward figuring things out. Many of the men I feel will find there way felt like online communities offered them something when they were vulnerable and when seemingly no one else did, even if they knew on some level it was ****.
Agreed being a little laid back and quiet is way worse for Man for a few reasons.
For one Men usually have to approach….Also being shy is not considered a masculine trait so it turns women off.
Lastly things like popularity status and social proof are way more important to women then Men in terms of importance and attraction…Having lots of friends and being popular is important to women…Even if you’re a nerd a women wants you to be the king of your nerd tribe.
I read about half way through the thread, and it just appears to me that this is yet another case of people who are blaming their issues on another group. It is never "them" that might be the problem. If these people want to call themselves any name, that is there choice, especially if they use it to advertise their existence.
I truly do believe that any decent person that doesn't have an untreated personality disorder can find a relationship with the same or opposite sex, whichever they desire, with a little work. Relationships require a LOT of work on a continual basis. There are both men and women who are willing to have sexual relationships without it amounting to anything other than sex, but a sexual relationship must not be mistaken for anything more than that.
Just another case of people blaming their issues on someone else. I find it odd that so many want to advertise the way they have sex, who they want to have sex with, etc. in the first place.
This woman and man hating that goes on is most often a reflection of a different problem. The number of sociopaths grow all the time!
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..
What? Do you really thing that 60% of men, more than half of the men out there, get no sex at all? How do you reconcile that with the fact that approximately 55% of men are currently married, some others are widowed/divorced, and it is obvious that some portion of never married men are sexually active?
Your numbers don't seem to make any sense.
Quote:
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),
What? Do you really thing that 60% of men, more than half of the men out there, get no sex at all? How do you reconcile that with the fact that approximately 55% of men are currently married, some others are widowed/divorced, and it is obvious that some portion of never married men are sexually active?
Your numbers don't seem to make any sense.
Ok, that is just nuts.
This really makes no sense unless that poster is referring to something like the FLDS where men have more than one wife. However, I hardly think it is a plus for women to be married off at 12 to a guy 4 or 5x their age. Even back in the day when men were getting married 2 or 3x because their first and second wives died in childbirth, younger men were also dying during all the wars that were going on.
What? Do you really thing that 60% of men, more than half of the men out there, get no sex at all? How do you reconcile that with the fact that approximately 55% of men are currently married, some others are widowed/divorced, and it is obvious that some portion of never married men are sexually active?
Your numbers don't seem to make any sense.
I thought he was implying a small percentage of men had slept with the same amount of women than the bottom 80%. Whereas for females there isn't such a wide range. Basically the most desirable men will sleep with as many women as they can. Desirable women not so much although they can their numbers are the same as the average but higher than the below average. My simplistic take.
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.
