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.
Isn't being 'friendly' the precursor to liking someone 'romantically'? I mean... my partner was 'friendly' towards me before things developed in a romantic way.
We certainly would not be where we are now if she was 'unfriendly' towards me lol.
So elaborate on this if you don't mind.
In Cuddle Monster's case, the cashiers that he targeted were friendly because that is their job. From his telling, there was no conversation, no flirtation, nothing to indicate that these women were open to any more contact from him than what was needed from their business interaction. Yet, he called them at work or found their number to ask them out in a way that's not generally how people get to know each other. Now he's blaming women in general and these women specifically for not being nice to him.
I actually think that this is connected to a bunch of other things. It's easy to pin it to the subject of sex since it seems like that's "the problem." But I believe that there is more going on in a much bigger sense, that is leading to this stuff.
Because the worst bad actors of the incel movement are not simply guys who can't get laid. If anything that is more a symptom than the disease, and just gives them one complaint to focus their anger and grievance.
It is the sense of frustrated entitlement, hopelessness and despair and ensuing rage about it...that is the real issue. What feeds that?
1. The sheer extent of wealth inequality in many nations is a contributor. When conditions are like this, everyone (including, actually, the wealthy) gets less happy and more prone to focus on perceived wrongs. People in general get more hung up on whether or not the are getting what they feel they deserve, or whether they feel they deserve what they have. And those who don't start out with any really great advantages or opportunities might wonder if they will ever even be able to afford what used to be middle class milestones, like owning a home or having children without constantly fearing for if they can reliably provide for them. It's not just people's net worth on the ropes in an economy like America's is now...it's their dignity.
2. The internet. The sheer flooding of porn and the ability for people to spiral into increasing isolation and troll/bully mindsets and to see their nasty attitudes validated and mirrored if they find other incels in groups or forums.
3. A highly divisive social atmosphere driven by international political actors. It has been a very deliberate tactic to feed the mentality into people, "You're not getting the life you deserve, want, and should have, and it is THOSE other people's fault! You should hate them. You might even consider making war against them, for surely they are the enemy of your happiness!" This particular instance simply happens to be men getting that way about women and successful men. But their perception of reality is distorted, and it is done ON PURPOSE.
4. And all of this is happening against a backdrop of female empowerment. Women can control our reproduction, we can vote, we can become successful in college and the workplace. We can lead nations and companies. We can conduct all of the financial and property transactions that men can. This has been the case for less than one full lifetime in America. We are no longer helpless to live a full life without a man (or a charitable family) to help with our basic support. We can go just as far as any man and some of us can go much further than most. And no fault divorce is now the law of the land. Which means that in order for a man to find, catch, and keep, a loving relationship with a woman, and one that isn't fraught with problems, he must step up and get said woman to LIKE HIM. He's got to be a more appealing option, than a woman's own company alone is to her. Neither of my Grandmothers liked my Grandfathers. They both made it until death did them part, and by the time it happened those couples were more hate than love, but if they'd been young people today they would have split up long sooner. No woman will tolerate what either of my Grandmothers did, or their mothers or their mothers' mothers. Men however, have been slow to catch up and stubborn about changing their behavior, and it's been very unclear about what aspects they even SHOULD consider changing or not. I do not blame men for feeling confused and uncertain sometimes. And how are they supposed to adapt, anyways, if we've all been driven to hide in our homes staring at screens rather than interacting with other PEOPLE?? (Pandemic lockdowns, while perhaps necessary, I suspect have set a lot of people back in this regard.)
1-3 yep.............#4 to a point but then you went off the rails
I have a socially maladjusted cousin who had similar disturbing thoughts and eventually embraced the ideology in his 20s.
From what I gather, incels aren't obsessed with sex per say but the lack of any form of intimacy with the opposite sex. My cousin growing up, never had any female friends
Ever consider your cousin was just a wingnut? I've got one (though we have never met), he is late 20s lives at home, some college but not a graduate, no job/ no drivers license and a very oddball personality.
I have also heard it said that women want the bad boy who will be good to only them while men want the good girl who will bad only for them.
Neither expectation is all that realistic because bad boys are..........wait for it.............bad. So it's unlikely they will become kind caring individuals.
There is also a "survival" logic tied to having the baddest Alpha Male protecting you and your children. Unfortunately, that emotional button doesn't necessarily work in modern culture. Though it was said that in the former Soviet Union, an engineer or a scientist got the ladies hot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuddle monster
As for the guys who want a good girl who will be his very own personal bad girl, that's just as unlikely because a girl who has made a decision to save herself for that one special guy may be doing so due to a religious upbringing in which she has been taught her whole life that sex is something bad that should be avoided. So it's unlikely that she will be able to disregard that programming and magically turn into some sort of sex machine once she is married.
When all the incompatibilities are considered, it's no wonder that there are so few successful relationships these days.
Though masked by modern socialist propaganda, in the "bad old days" when property rights were paramount, the blood line of descent was vital to the stability of society. In a culture where childless marriages would leave land unclaimed, and open to controversy, the pressure to have children, especially male, was behind some of the customs of marriage and lawful procreation.
In fact, adultery (adulterating a blood line of inheritance) could only be committed by the woman / wife. No man was ever stoned for being an adulterer. A man who sired a child without a marriage contract, had no effect on his existing contract with his spouse and their children who would inherit upon his death. An illegitimate child can always inherit from his mother, but without a marriage contract, he got nothing from the father.
Under the original rules, before the strict dogmatists gained control, a child sired outside of the marriage was only grounds for a divorce. This enabled the woman to marry the father and legitimize the child. Which also explained why the former husband kept "his" children and the marriage property (their inheritance).
One of the reasons, was based on which parties were the obligated parties to care for the woman in question. For an unmarried woman, if she were still at home, an illegitimate child would become a burden on the Father. (This is also the basis for the custom of asking the parent for permission to wed and bed. Which in earlier times, extended to all behavior.)
However, a financially independent woman (a rarity) was free to do what she wanted, without fear of condemnation for adultery or fornication.
Customs like taking the family name of the man was rooted in the party obligated to support the wife and her children. If a woman was financially independent and did not require the man's lifelong support, she signified it by keeping her family name - and control over HER property. Thus we see hyphenated names among nobility. And even in the case of the Queen of England, she kept her family name, Windsor, and didn't take her husband's family name, Mountbatten. Neither did her children. SHE was the sovereign, after all.
In other words, a woman who kept her family name meant that the man was free of the obligation to support her during his lifetime. He was only obligated to endow their children.
. . . .
Much has been lost, thanks to the propaganda ministry and its incessant rewriting of history. But you can readily find proof in the Old Testament, that women could be unmarried concubines, and not be guilty of fornication nor adultery. The man was only obligated to provide, food, raiment, and shelter, and nothing more. Nor did their children inherit from him.
. . . .
Of course, under socialism, and the State's primary claim upon our property, such things as absolute ownership of private property became obsolete. Why else could a government tax an inheritance?
Socialism is anti-religion for good reason- - -
. . .
• A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children...
• Proverbs 13:22
• Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
• Exodus 22:22
• And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless...
• Zechariah 7:10
...
Taking from one to give to another, especially the taxation of inheritance, is a violation of the common law as well as Biblical principles.
CONCUBINE - A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
Exodus 21:10 If another [woman] he take for him, her food, her covering, and her habitation, he doth not withdraw ...
- - - Exodus 21:10
A man was obligated to provide food, raiment, and shelter to his concubine, but did not endow her children with his property. This did not involve a breach of any existing marriage compact, hence it was not adultery nor fornication. Nor was a concubine an ‘inferior’ or ‘second wife.’ Her children has no legal claim to the endowment of the father.
Multiple spouses and multiple concubines weren't condemned nor immoral.
1 Kings 11:3 (KJV) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
2 Chronicles 11:21 (KJV) And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)
The only mention of monogamy is in reference to BISHOPS.
1 Timothy 3:2 (KJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
NPC= Non Player Character. It originated in role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, but the concept holds true for video games and movies.
Essentially, they are the background characters that exist to advance the plot. Things like the bartender, doorman, ambulance driver, shopkeeper, young kid that gets run over by a horse/train/car, the love interest early in the movie that dies tragically and gives the lead character a reason for mourning.
Incels seem to view women in this way. Women exist in the world as gatekeepers to sex. They are a challenge to be met, and if you win the challenge, you get laid as a reward. The woman reacts positively to certain verbal statements (game), negatively to others, and makes judgements based upon your charisma (a typical character statistic in many games). If you say the right things in the right order and are attractive enough, the woman automatically puts out.
The NPC/woman doesn't have a full personality, history, goals or interests of her own. She is just a stock character.
Geeky is pretty self-evident, and over time has moved from a term of condemnation to a term often used by people to self-identify with certain types of pop culture.
Grok is a reference from a Robert Heinlein novel. Maybe Stranger in a Strange Land? It is a synonym for "understand", with connotations of both intellectual and emotional understanding.
You might say that my statement is a mild form of internet flirting with Sonic Spork. She has mentioned NPCs previously, as well as a few things like playing Magic (a fantasy card game). I was just throwing back a vaguely related sci-fi term for the amusement factor. It seemed like a fun thing to include in this thread given the subject matter.
Of course, explaining in detail kills it a bit, just like explaining the punch line to a joke.
But just out of curiosity, why would a guy calling you on the phone be so much worse than talking to you in person? He would still be a stranger that you knew almost nothing about other than what he looked like. So basically it comes down to looks?
Looks are a part of it, but probably not nearly as much as you think. A voice on a phone is not an entire person, and the phone is not where people start any sort of real interaction. Interactions on the phone are either sales calls, transactional things like making a dentist appointment, or conversations between friends/family. Calling somebody and asking them out is closest to a sales call, but even then there are plenty of differences.
Think about movies. In the movies, the romance always starts with a visual interaction, some in person meeting. Also in the movies, the bad guy (stalker, kidnapper, blackmailer...) makes contact by phone as a disembodied voice. By making an initial approach by phone, you are putting yourself in the second category.
I guess if you don't instinctively understand the difference, I won't be able to explain it.
It sounds as if you have made some level of peace with your life. I hope that is the case and you are content with things.
NPC= Non Player Character. It originated in role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, but the concept holds true for video games and movies.
Essentially, they are the background characters that exist to advance the plot. Things like the bartender, doorman, ambulance driver, shopkeeper, young kid that gets run over by a horse/train/car, the love interest early in the movie that dies tragically and gives the lead character a reason for mourning.
Incels seem to view women in this way. Women exist in the world as gatekeepers to sex. They are a challenge to be met, and if you win the challenge, you get laid as a reward. The woman reacts positively to certain verbal statements (game), negatively to others, and makes judgements based upon your charisma (a typical character statistic in many games). If you say the right things in the right order and are attractive enough, the woman automatically puts out.
The NPC/woman doesn't have a full personality, history, goals or interests of her own. She is just a stock character.
Geeky is pretty self-evident, and over time has moved from a term of condemnation to a term often used by people to self-identify with certain types of pop culture.
Grok is a reference from a Robert Heinlein novel. Maybe Stranger in a Strange Land? It is a synonym for "understand", with connotations of both intellectual and emotional understanding.
You might say that my statement is a mild form of internet flirting with Sonic Spork. She has mentioned NPCs previously, as well as a few things like playing Magic (a fantasy card game). I was just throwing back a vaguely related sci-fi term for the amusement factor. It seemed like a fun thing to include in this thread given the subject matter.
Of course, explaining in detail kills it a bit, just like explaining the punch line to a joke.
Good point about the NPCs. Like that coworker who performed the “experiment” - it was like when you play the video game and try different actions with a specific character to see what happens. IRL, you can’t keep chatting up the cute innkeeper and plying her with gifts that are her “favorite” to build up hearts and ultimately land a relationship and marriage. However, it was precisely what my coworker was trying to do.
I’m probably a little geeky because I understood all of your references.
One mindset I have noticed in this thread and among some shy/quiet men in real life, is they think that society overvalues confidence. And I have some sympathy for that - confidence often will get you as far as competence, and certainly in areas that involve convincing others to get on your side (dating, politics, etc). In western society at least, confidence does seem to be overvalued.
Incels pickup on this observation and take it to the absurd and toxic extreme. In their thinking they see anyone displaying confidence as obnoxious and manipulative, anyone who likes confident people as toxic and to be blamed. Like many other extremist type thinking, it involves taking a kernel of truth and stretching it to the unhealthy extreme.
I do think confidence is overvalued, but I also don't think it is anyone's fault. It is a manifestation of a very simple fact - humans are not mind readers. In some people's utopia maybe we could plug into each other (no not that kind of romantic plugging in - I mean brain to brain), and directly download each others competence and character, entirely bypassing confidence. Meanwhile in the real world, we can only go by external presentation, of which confidence is a major part.
Let me give an analogy.
I am lost and looking for directions. I go up to John and ask his help. He smiles, looks me in the eye and says "I know exactly where that is. Go left for about 100m, then turn right by the big church.
I also ask Tom. He says while looking the wrong way and shuffling around "Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure, I don't know, maybe I do know, I think it is right for 200m and then maybe you turn left. not 100% but I think maybe that is right."
I take Johns advice. I think most people would.
Tom thinks he knew the location better than John and gets frustrated that I listed to John. Tom thinks that confidence should have no say on which I pick - he thinks I am a fool to pick the most confident person. Instead he thinks I should completely ignore confidence and pick the competent one.
And Tom has a valid point. What I really want is competence, not confidence. Perhaps Tom was the more competent one when it came to knowing the location - just because he stuttered and hesitated and was full of doubt doesn't mean that his directions were wrong. Perhaps he was wrong, perhaps he was right. Given that I cannot read his mind, nor references from his previous direction giving CV, I have to go with what I have access to. And that is confidence, which I use as a proxy for competence.
So while I have sympathy for people who are frustrated that confidence has such a big role to play in western culture, I don't have much sympathy for those who take that line for thinking to the toxic extreme. Tom can learn to cut out the unnecessary doubt, while keeping valid doubt and not becoming over confident either. But to achieve that Tom has to want to learn.
Well I disagree. Chads are indeed real and I have seen them in action. In fact they are out there right now lurking in the shadows.
The men incels call Chad are real, no doubt. I'm not sure being loud and obnoxious are features but those traits are often tolerated bugs. And some of us mistake assertiveness and a healthy level of self regard as loud and obnoxious.
I'm not sure that Mightyqueen was denying the existence of very attractive men who some women kind of lose their **** around. Men whose social lives are dramatically different from most men's. Those men exist, just like very attractive women who enjoy that kind of social privilege exist.
I think it's your fixation on this and the implication at least that a man can be Chad, or sort of recede into non existence. As I said above, there are real men incels point to and label Chad, but those real men aren't Chad. Chad is an idea. He lives in incel's heads as a sort of symbolic self critical message that says they'll never be......good looking enough or chill enough or tall enough, or just enough. Never. Enough.
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.
