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.
We hear all the time that you don't have to be on a relationship to have sex - I hold myself to a different standard, but I digress - so are these women who are not in relationships 'sleeping around' anyway and getting *that* need satisfied, in addition to the other needs (friends, hobbies, career, etc.)? And if so, doesn't that kinda-sorta give a tad of credence to the incels' point that women have it much easier when it comes to the one thing the incels want that they seemingly cannot have, whether they are in a r/s or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle
Not necessarily. Sonic has said this better in the past, but for many woman any sex isn't better than no sex. The odds of having a safe, satisfying experience from a random hookup aren't worth it for a lot of women to put themselves out there and sleep around in the way many incels imagine. Some women aren't the sleeping around type in general. Which isn't to say that women don't ever do that or that they might not have a trusted FWB to get the job done, but often that job can be done just as well by the toy in their nightstand.
There is this response here, which is very often true. But even if we are talking about a woman sleeping around...
Most women who even do this at all, only do so for a short window of time. Like in between relationships, when they kinda know that they're in a rebound state and either they are acting too weird for a man to want to keep 'em or else they are in a temporary "F it, yolo" state, or they perhaps even know that they are not ready for another relationship but still want to have a good time. Those phases do not usually last a long time. Within anywhere from a few months to years, most women who do this will wind up connecting more meaningfully with someone and forming an exclusive, committed relationship.
So please, please, when anyone thinks about "women who sleep around"...stop thinking of it as "that's the kind of person she is" as though it's a profession or something. Unless she is a sex worker, which ain't what we're talking about here, as far as I can tell.
But beyond that, a woman who happens to be doing this is not even necessarily only going to do so with "top tier Chad" guys. Lots of average men have been the beneficiaries of these phases in women's lives. I can think of a few from in between my two marriages who most DEFINITELY were not "top tier" anything. Some women are into that, some are not, the only thing that matters really is that in terms of having relationship qualities (responsible lifestyle) it matters less if a guy is just a fling or hookup. But to circle back to the "math" attempts, and why they are silly...
OK so that woman got more sex in a year than an incel has had in his life, and he now believes that "women" have all these opportunities. Yet in that year she slept with how many men? 3? 5? 10? More than one, probably, anyhow? Each of those men got a chance to have sex. In the entirety of the picture here, more men got laid than women because of her choices in that year. And they were not dismissable fringe outlier top tier Chad guys. They just weren't incels. In that kind of mindset a woman isn't gonna meticulously hold out for Mr. Perfect, she's gonna go with Mr. Available Physically If Not Emotionally, and Mr. OK What The Hell Why Not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
I haven't the slightest idea what any of those terms mean. Should I assume that ignorance is bliss?
I mean that's up to you. These concepts can be kinda funny until you remember that there are dudes out there who are very serious about believing them and occasionally they snap and go postal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman
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.
I contest that, too. The men I have known who had the highest "body counts" were not the most "desirable." I'll tell you what kind of people they were. (This is important, men, you guys do not understand each other as well as you think, because of that "can't be vulnerable among other men" thing....you show stuff to women that you do NOT show to each other, then you go around thinking that your insecurities are an anomaly and other men are so stoic...they are not. Among other postures that guys make to other guys.) The kind of men who "got lots of women" were not slick players who were enjoying big success. They may have been decent enough to look at, sure, or maybe famous musicians or something. But they are NOT RELATIONSHIP MATERIAL. They have tons of flings and hookups because that's all they can do. Or else, it's all any woman with half a brain will accept from them once she realizes who they really are, or possibly, occasionally, they are even bad in bed.
Point being...those guys have what it takes to get a woman's attention, but they can't keep it. And in time, they usually end up hating women, because deep down, most people want to be loved. Really loved. And they struggle to get there. Not to mention if they told themselves that they were using women the whole time, they may have little respect for women and toxic mindsets that hold them back. Partying ain't all that. It looks glamorous on the surface, but long term, it's most likely to kill ya. If those guys survive a decade or two of this, let alone longer, and they don't forcibly reform themselves and reject that lifestyle in favor of a more meaningful relationship with someone, there's a very good chance that eventually their looks will fade (because looks usually do for us all eventually) or their fortune will be spent on drugs and wild times, or their 15 minutes of fame will pass and they'll no longer be relevant, and they'll be left like a fat old Axl Rose wondering what the hell happened.
Stop envying other people who have different lives.
You have not walked in their shoes.
You think you want to...but every person has their own struggles, even if you can't see them, even if it looks damn good from where you stand.
You cannot possibly make the most of whatever you've got, if all you can do is worry about who has more.
So the next time you start feeling squidgy about some guy you think is Chad who got all the p-word, maybe consider that he might be lying and even if he's not...wow, he disappointed a whole lot of women.
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.
Yeah I’ve learned that the hard way. Anxiety and shyness is not a good combo to have.
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.
While you have a somewhat valid point about FLDS, I doubt that all incels are part of the FLDS. My very minor understanding of FLDS is also that they drive out adolescent males to keep the M:F ratio they way they like it.
Presumably the poor kids they drive out go on to have a normal life outside FLDS, which probably means having sex from time to time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman
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.
Maybe? If so, he was terrible about saying that. Does it matter?
Call me part of the lower 80%. I have had sex with a reasonable number of women in my subjective opinion. A bit in high school, some more during and after college. Got married, then divorced, had a small period of flings and brief relationships. Married again.
Now, I know some men who claim to have had sex with 100, 200 or more women. Lets say I even believe some. Then we have Wilt Chamberlain and his 20,000 women. George Clooney apparently has a long list.
That doesn't mean that they have had MORE sex than I have, although they have had more partners. It doesn't mean that I cannot get sex within a reasonable interval when I want it. It certainly doesn't make me an incel.
I got a PM from a person whose thought was that poster was referring to the ratio of people who reproduced, rather than had sex. Ok, maybe valid. I have no objective knowledge on this.
What does this have to do with incels though? Incels are people who have no sex, or virtually no sex. Lets not lump the vast majority of people like myself who have sex a few times a week, with some varying number of partners over the years, who may or may not have decided to have children. That would be gaming the numbers to try and make the incel population look larger than it is.
Normal guys have normal sex. There is no way that 60% of men have no sex.
Status:
"Peace sells...but who's buying?"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: South of Heaven
8,155 posts, read 3,621,007 times
Reputation: 11943
Anyone else remember way back when the advice given to guys who couldn't get a date was to "just be yourself"? LOL
Worst advice ever. These guys are where they are today BECAUSE they were just being themselves, and themselves was not something women were interested in. Now the internet has made them in to themselves, only more bitter. That ain't gonna help.
Now once a guy accepts that he's going to be alone for life and has come to peace with it...that's when "just be yourself" can be very freeing, but not when a guy is still holding out hope. These incel types haven't gotten to that point yet. If they had they wouldn't be so bitter.
Now once a guy accepts that he's going to be alone for life and has come to peace with it...that's when "just be yourself" can be very freeing, but not when a guy is still holding out hope. These incel types haven't gotten to that point yet. If they had they wouldn't be so bitter.
That's the most important takeaway from the whole thing. No one in their entire lives gets everything that they want. Most people are held back from one thing or another by health or finances or opportunity. Dwelling on something that you can't have to the point that you're wallowing in negativity doesn't serve a purpose. Sure, be disappointed, but accept it and live the best life you can.
Anyone else remember way back when the advice given to guys who couldn't get a date was to "just be yourself"? LOL
Worst advice ever. These guys are where they are today BECAUSE they were just being themselves, and themselves was not something women were interested in. Now the internet has made them in to themselves, only more bitter. That ain't gonna help.
Now once a guy accepts that he's going to be alone for life and has come to peace with it...that's when "just be yourself" can be very freeing, but not when a guy is still holding out hope. These incel types haven't gotten to that point yet. If they had they wouldn't be so bitter.
So your advice wouldn’t be to work on yourself your advice would be to just give up
and accept that you’re never gonna get a relationship?
Lol I hope you never become a motivational speaker
Status:
"Peace sells...but who's buying?"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: South of Heaven
8,155 posts, read 3,621,007 times
Reputation: 11943
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMo
So your advice wouldn’t be to work on yourself your advice would be to just give up
and accept that you’re never gonna get a relationship?
Lol I hope you never become a motivational speaker
The advice I'm poking fun at is to "just be yourself" not "work on yourself". Working on yourself is good advice and acknowledges the person's own role in their predicament instead of casting all the blame outward. If nothing works no matter what you do though, you eventually gotta reach the acceptance phase instead of just growing more and more bitter and resentful. That's when it becomes freeing to just be yourself.
The advice I'm poking fun at is to "just be yourself" not "work on yourself". Working on yourself is good advice and acknowledges the person's own role in their predicament instead of casting all the blame outward. If nothing works no matter what you do though, you eventually gotta reach the acceptance phase instead of just growing more and more bitter and resentful. That's when it becomes freeing to just be yourself.
Fair though I think it’s a very small percentage of people who can’t get anyone if they improve on their weaknesses.
And those are the extreme incels that you hear talk on those specials and clearly belong in psych wards and not in regular society because they’re so nuts and you can see shooting a place up.
Those people are so far gone and mentally ill that I think it’s impossible for them to see their faults and improve.
Most who are somewhat normal but battle with things like insecurity anxiety etc can overcome those things to get a relationship with the proper help.
We hear all the time that you don't have to be on a relationship to have sex - I hold myself to a different standard, but I digress - so are these women who are not in relationships 'sleeping around' anyway and getting *that* need satisfied, in addition to the other needs (friends, hobbies, career, etc.)? And if so, doesn't that kinda-sorta give a tad of credence to the incels' point that women have it much easier when it comes to the one thing the incels want that they seemingly cannot have, whether they are in a r/s or not?
1) I don't think that's as common as the incel would make it out to be. Most women that are getting physical companionship outside of a monogamous LTR seem to be doing so with a friendly ex, or otherwise long term but very casual partner.
2) Plenty of women (and men) that have been in relationships are perfectly happy NOT being in them. They're very happy not having to deal with the 'carrying costs' unless they're mentally 100% on board with the relationship; it isn't like a car, having it to have it doesn't make a lot of sense.
3) That ignores that the risks aren't the same for men and women. That risk has a value or a cost.
Here's the other thing...incel's *think* they know what they want, but they don't. They don't have the experience to know that they cannot have what they want because it doesn't exist. They think they want sex, but they want validation, admiration, etc, and have an absurd picture of a relationship really looks like.
Going back to number 2, most people of both genders fully understand that relationships come with a cost. Incel's don't seem to get that.
We hear all the time that you don't have to be on a relationship to have sex - I hold myself to a different standard, but I digress - so are these women who are not in relationships 'sleeping around' anyway and getting *that* need satisfied, in addition to the other needs (friends, hobbies, career, etc.)? And if so, doesn't that kinda-sorta give a tad of credence to the incels' point that women have it much easier when it comes to the one thing the incels want that they seemingly cannot have, whether they are in a r/s or not?
I think that most women probably do have an easier time getting random sex. However, it is moderately noteworthy that the term “incel” was originally coined by a woman to describe herself.
Even if incels have a minor point as you propose, it does not justify the appalling attitudes that many have as a result. The weird fixations on virginity, the focus on number of partners in relation to some dubious ranking of desirability, the standards of male attractiveness that some seem to think is required to attract a woman, are all self destructive.
Now, aside from random hookups, I think that both genders are probably about equal in being able to develop relationships, which tend to include sex. If incels could work on their innate creepiness and weirdness, they would likely be able to attract somebody interested in hanging out with them.
I think that demystifying sex and relationships would be beneficial for incels. The problem is that is difficult to do. Most of us just figure it out as we go along, with varying results. Incels who are missing the very foundations of this type of human interaction would probably benefit from therapy and some sort of socialization primer.
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.
