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.
I keep tellin' you guys, dating and forming human connections...it is much more art/humanities than it is math/science. Insistence on seeing it as math/science and operating that way in life will only build artificial barriers in your mind that hinder your efforts and ability to succeed.
If I were to lay out the specific things that made a partner ideal to me, the statistical odds of me finding that would have been minuscule. It would have seemed impossible, if I'd thought of it that way. If I'd viewed it through such a mathematical lens, I'd have given up and not tried. But I did not do that, and now I'm married to the man of my dreams.
And he does not fit a description that any number of people would come up with for such a rare and perfect person for a woman who did have plenty of "options"...but that doesn't matter. It's not that I'm an outlier, it's that those notions are nonsense to me. I've never cared about statistics or odds or what some study says I should do or like or want or expect. I care about what is possible and what brings me happiness. This philosophy has served me very well.
OK, but when there are statistically FIVE TIMES as many incels as recently before (2008 doesn't seem too far away to me), possibly going from 7% to near or over 35-40% of men, your personal anecdotes and opinions (you are one person with, like all of us, a tiny slice of experience) simply don't weigh out. You simply got lucky to an extent. If you win the lottery or get an inheritance and 40% of people are dirt poor, that doesn't mean poverty "doesn't matter" "is nonsense" etc. 40% of people being left out in a supposedly monogamous society is a huge issue, probably a big problem, and it needs to be acknowledged and its causes examined, which is what I'd like to do here instead of rationalizing, posturing, and covering our own tails. We could have 2 billion people come on here and say they found love, and that would do nothing to cast light on or help solve the issue at hand, since there are 7.7 billion in the world.
Like I said early on, aside from being a man/human being I personally don't have a dog in this race, and statistically am/have been closer to a 'GigaChad' than an incel. I just don't think it's fair or healthy to keep pushing people down the same path in their 20s and 30s when conditions have dramatically changed. It used to be/still is, "go to college, get a good job, find a wife/spouse." Now it's pay $60k/year and rising of non-dischargeable debt for college, get a mediocre job (or pay $60k/yr for grad school and maybe get good job), pay 6-10x salary for a house (when historically it has been 2.5-3x) and have a very high chance of being alone (and if you are a man not in the top 50-70th percentile, be alone and not even get any action/attention once in a while). 'Perfect storm' (for an overused phrase) anyone? What the solution is/alternative paths are, I don't know.
I keep tellin' you guys, dating and forming human connections...it is much more art/humanities than it is math/science. Insistence on seeing it as math/science and operating that way in life will only build artificial barriers in your mind that hinder your efforts and ability to succeed.
If I were to lay out the specific things that made a partner ideal to me, the statistical odds of me finding that would have been minuscule. It would have seemed impossible, if I'd thought of it that way. If I'd viewed it through such a mathematical lens, I'd have given up and not tried. But I did not do that, and now I'm married to the man of my dreams.
And he does not fit a description that any number of people would come up with for such a rare and perfect person for a woman who did have plenty of "options"...but that doesn't matter. It's not that I'm an outlier, it's that those notions are nonsense to me. I've never cared about statistics or odds or what some study says I should do or like or want or expect. I care about what is possible and what brings me happiness. This philosophy has served me very well.
Good for you, SS. When I met my partner in person (knew him first from a forum where we had a common interest and took a leap of faith to travel to meet him) I knew he was not what other women I knew would consider the ideal man. The only person I told about him was my mother, who was in her late 80s at the time. I kept it at the forefront of my mind that I was not going to consider what anyone else might think, only what I thought. It was a matter of "I'd rather live in his world than live without him in mine", and it worked for me.
And since then, women I know have indeed told me "I could never be with someone like that/have that type of relationship. I need <insert list>". Well, fine. You do you. I'll do us.
The point is that we can box ourselves in if we set too many internal rules and become masters of our own despair.
OK, but when there are statistically FIVE TIMES as many incels as recently before (2008 doesn't seem too far away to me), possibly going from 7% to near or over 35-40% of men, your personal anecdotes and opinions (you are one person with, like all of us, a tiny slice of experience) simply don't weigh out. You simply got lucky to an extent. If you win the lottery or find a pot of gold and 40% of people are dirt poor, that doesn't mean poverty "doesn't matter" "is nonsense" etc. 40% of people being left out in a supposedly monogamous society is a huge issue, probably a big problem, and it needs to be acknowledged and its causes examined, which is what I'd like to do here instead of rationalizing, posturing, and covering our own tails. We could have 2 billion people come on here and say they found love, and that would do nothing to cast light on or help solve the issue at hand.
Like I said early on, aside from being a man/human being I personally don't have a dog in this race, and statistically am/have been closer to a 'GigaChad' than an incel. I just don't think it's fair or healthy to keep pushing people down the same path in their 20s and 30s when conditions have dramatically changed. It used to be/still is, "go to college, get a good job, find a wife/spouse." Now it's pay $60k/year and rising of non-dischargeable debt for college, get a mediocre job (or pay $60k/yr for grad school and maybe get good job), pay 5-10x salary for a house (when historically it has been 2.5-3x) and have a very high chance of being alone (and if you are a man not in the top 60-70th percentile, be alone and not even get any action/attention once in a while). 'Perfect storm' (for an overused phrase) anyone? What the solution is/alternative paths are, I don't know.
You're skewing the #s though. In 2008 about 10% of men and 8% of women reported having no sex that year. In '18 the #s were 28% of men and 18% of women. So the change for men was a magnitude of 2.8, and for women it was a magnitude increase of 2.25. That's a lot less dramatic than the #s you quoted, though as I said in my recent comment, I believe it's still significant.
OK, but when there are statistically FIVE TIMES as many incels as recently before (2008 doesn't seem too far away to me), possibly going from 7% to near or over 35-40% of men, your personal anecdotes and opinions (you are one person with, like all of us, a tiny slice of experience) simply don't weigh out. You simply got lucky to an extent. If you win the lottery or find a pot of gold and 40% of people are dirt poor, that doesn't mean poverty "doesn't matter" "is nonsense" etc. 40% of people being left out in a supposedly monogamous society is a huge issue, probably a big problem, and it needs to be acknowledged and its causes examined, which is what I'd like to do here instead of rationalizing, posturing, and covering our own tails. We could have 2 billion people come on here and say they found love, and that would do nothing to cast light on or help solve the issue at hand.
Like I said early on, aside from being a man/human being I personally don't have a dog in this race, and statistically am/have been closer to a 'GigaChad' than an incel. I just don't think it's fair or healthy to keep pushing people down the same path in their 20s and 30s when conditions have dramatically changed. It used to be/still is, "go to college, get a good job, find a wife/spouse." Now it's pay $60k/year and rising of non-dischargeable debt for college, get a mediocre job (or pay $60k/yr for grad school and maybe get good job), pay 5-10x salary for a house (when historically it has been 2.5-3x) and have a very high chance of being alone (and if you are a man not in the top 60-70th percentile, be alone and not even get any action/attention once in a while). 'Perfect storm' (for an overused phrase) anyone? What the solution is/alternative paths are, I don't know.
OP, the articles you’ve linked to talk about men under age 30. One really has to look at WHY this is happening. It’s not that people are being pushed down an unsuitable path, but that a lot of people (men more so than women) are not pursing any path at all. Women are now entering and completing college at higher rates than men, but this can’t be attributed to men pursuing trades in larger numbers. Young men don’t seem to be doing either. It’s not unreasonable that a young woman wants to date a man who has a solid job and steady place to live. It’s not like we are talking about a really high bard. Yes, rent is higher, but in years past people have lived with roommates or saved up for a bit while living with parents in order to move out.
Put it this way- if a test is given that has a bare minimum cutoff and 60% are failing, then I don’t think it’s always the fault of the test taker to change the test requirements. You wouldn’t want the test makers to lower the standards of a nursing or medical licensing exam because it was too hard, because then you’d end up with patients dying or getting seriously injured. So if the bare minimum for women is men who have a solid job and a place to live, if that is the top 40%, so be it. Women no longer need men to have children and a man who has no steady job or other life skills isn’t really going to be a good contributor as a parent. If women say they’d rather be alone than deal with those men, so be it.
You're skewing the #s though. In 2008 about 10% of men and 8% of women reported having no sex that year. In '18 the #s were 28% of men and 18% of women. So the change for men was a magnitude of 2.8, and for women it was a magnitude increase of 2.25. That's a lot less dramatic than the #s you quoted, though as I said in my recent comment, I believe it's still significant.
Waste of post; you didn't read the graph I cited. It says that in 2007-2008, 8% of men AT age 30 (not under age 30) were virgins, and in 2018 that number was 27% (and on a near-vertical trend, not accounting for lying, etc.; so it's probably closer to 40% by now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict
OP, the articles you’ve linked to talk about men under age 30. One really has to look at WHY this is happening. It’s not that people are being pushed down an unsuitable path, but that a lot of people (men more so than women) are not pursing any path at all. Women are now entering and completing college at higher rates than men, but this can’t be attributed to men pursuing trades in larger numbers. Young men don’t seem to be doing either. It’s not unreasonable that a young woman wants to date a man who has a solid job and steady place to live. It’s not like we are talking about a really high bard. Yes, rent is higher, but in years past people have lived with roommates or saved up for a bit while living with parents in order to move out.
Put it this way- if a test is given that has a bare minimum cutoff and 60% are failing, then I don’t think it’s always the fault of the test taker to change the test requirements. You wouldn’t want the test makers to lower the standards of a nursing or medical licensing exam because it was too hard, because then you’d end up with patients dying or getting seriously injured. So if the bare minimum for women is men who have a solid job and a place to live, if that is the top 40%, so be it. Women no longer need men to have children and a man who has no steady job or other life skills isn’t really going to be a good contributor as a parent. If women say they’d rather be alone than deal with those men, so be it.
But yes, it is unreasonable. Think about it for two seconds, why is a woman who is 5'4 (average, and thus not likely to produce particularly tall children, if tallness is desirable), makes $50k a year, and is a solid 5 in reality (and maybe a 7.5 with make-up, highlights, push-up bra, body-shaping spandex, plastic surgery, photo filters, old photos, deceptive angles, etc.) not content or 'settling' with a 5 man who is 5'9, average-looking with no artificial enhancements (elevator shoes, muscle implants, etc.) and makes $50k/year??? If what she wants is equality and commitment? That's not settling or below average for her, that's dead-on what she gets. As soon as a woman believes she deserves more, she is not reasonable (relative to the surface presumptions/expectations of our society) and is setting up herself and a percentage of men for statistically likely failure. As always, I'm only using these criteria (height looks money) because they're easily quantifiable.
Just looking at height, it has been statistically proven that attractiveness to women plummets when you are under 5'9, which is the 50th percentile for men, and drops off a cliff under 5'7-5'8 (which is maybe the 35th percentile or so). Should it really be that way though, if we're talking about rationality (i.e. in a society that posits gender equality and expects committed monogamy)? No it shouldn't. Thankfully, I am well above all the main thresholds, but it sucks big-time if you're not, and a huge percentage of men aren't. Again, not misogyny, these are facts that have been determined in mainstream studies. If we're going to rethink/retool a lot of major presumptions/societal conditions, that's fine and maybe we should, but that's another topic.
OK, but when there are statistically FIVE TIMES as many incels as recently before (2008 doesn't seem too far away to me), possibly going from 7% to near or over 35-40% of men, your personal anecdotes and opinions (you are one person with, like all of us, a tiny slice of experience) simply don't weigh out. You simply got lucky to an extent. If you win the lottery or get an inheritance and 40% of people are dirt poor, that doesn't mean poverty "doesn't matter" "is nonsense" etc. 40% of people being left out in a supposedly monogamous society is a huge issue, probably a big problem, and it needs to be acknowledged and its causes examined, which is what I'd like to do here instead of rationalizing, posturing, and covering our own tails. We could have 2 billion people come on here and say they found love, and that would do nothing to cast light on or help solve the issue at hand, since there are 7.7 billion in the world.
Like I said early on, aside from being a man/human being I personally don't have a dog in this race, and statistically am/have been closer to a 'GigaChad' than an incel. I just don't think it's fair or healthy to keep pushing people down the same path in their 20s and 30s when conditions have dramatically changed. It used to be/still is, "go to college, get a good job, find a wife/spouse." Now it's pay $60k/year and rising of non-dischargeable debt for college, get a mediocre job (or pay $60k/yr for grad school and maybe get good job), pay 5-10x salary for a house (when historically it has been 2.5-3x) and have a very high chance of being alone (and if you are a man not in the top 60-70th percentile, be alone and not even get any action/attention once in a while). 'Perfect storm' (for an overused phrase) anyone? What the solution is/alternative paths are, I don't know.
I don’t think it’s anywhere near 35-40% of men. I also don’t know how they are possibly collecting this data. Most men are not Chads and aren’t great looking and don’t earn a lot of money but they still get women.
I think it’s much harder to meet people today (and I think this “criteria†for determining who is dateable and who isn’t is making it harder. I was attractive and self supporting and did online dating for over a decade without much luck, because people dismiss you immediately if you are a certain age, weight, etc. I had one guy stop writing because I went to the gym, and apparently he dated someone once who exercised obsessively. So his new “criteria†now excluded any woman who exercised at all….but of course they still had to be in shape!
This list of demands didn’t exist before online dating. That is one of the reasons why its harder today. And it’s harder for women too.
Waste of post; you didn't read the graph I cited. It says that in 2007-2008, 8% of men AT age 30 (not under age 30) were virgins, and in 2018 that number was 27% (and on a near-vertical trend, not accounting for lying, etc.; so it's probably closer to 40% by now).
I did not see your citation, but I find those numbers really hard to believe. 28% of men virgins at 30? That sounds so out of whack that I am very dubious
I did not see your citation, but I find those numbers really hard to believe. 28% of men virgins at 30? That sounds so out of whack that I am very dubious
Would you mind reposting your link?
Link is in prior post, to Maxim story which corroborates GSS/Washington Post story. Not sure of your age, etc., but it is indeed out of whack, due to new, 100%-coincident factors such as social media, texting (which allows men to handle communications and schedule encounters with many women, with little to no work or guts/risk of rejection), and online dating that have thrown dating dynamics out of whack. That's [I believe] why inceldom is now 'a thing,' which was basically OP's question. I will sooner believe studies (where there is zero gain to be had by exaggerating the issue) than believe my personal assumptions (as one person with a necessarily tiny scope of experience) about people's sex lives are correct.
Waste of post; you didn't read the graph I cited. It says that in 2007-2008, 8% of men AT age 30 (not under age 30) were virgins, and in 2018 that number was 27% (and on a near-vertical trend, not accounting for lying, etc.; so it's probably closer to 40% by now).
But yes, it is unreasonable. Think about it for two seconds, why is a woman who is 5'4 (average, and thus not likely to produce particularly tall children, if tallness is desirable), makes $50k a year, and is a solid 5 in reality (and maybe a 7.5 with make-up, highlights, push-up bra, body-shaping spandex, plastic surgery, photo filters, old photos, deceptive angles, etc.) not content or 'settling' with a 5 man who is 5'9, average-looking with no artificial enhancements (elevator shoes, muscle implants, etc.) and makes $50k/year??? If what she wants is equality and commitment? That's not settling or below average for her, that's dead-on what she gets. As soon as a woman believes she deserves more, she is not reasonable (relative to the surface presumptions/expectations of our society) and is setting up herself and a percentage of men for statistically likely failure. As always, I'm only using these criteria (height looks money) because they're easily quantifiable.
Just looking at height, it has been statistically proven that attractiveness to women plummets when you are under 5'9, which is the 50th percentile for men, and drops off a cliff under 5'7-5'8 (which is maybe the 35th percentile or so). Should it really be that way though, if we're talking about rationality (i.e. in a society that posits gender equality and expects committed monogamy)? No it shouldn't. Thankfully, I am well above all the main thresholds, but it sucks big-time if you're not, and a huge percentage of men aren't. Again, not misogyny, these are facts that have been determined in mainstream studies. If we're going to rethink/retool a lot of major presumptions/societal conditions, that's fine and maybe we should, but that's another topic.
I think you're wrong. The Washington post story fleetiebelle sourced says that the # is 28% the past year. The Maxim story you sourced said the same thing. The source you posted that you admit you altered says something else, though it's also attributed to the WaPo.
I'll go with the 2 out 0f 3 un retouched graphs and text.
I think you're wrong. The Washington post story fleetiebelle sourced says that the # is 28% the past year. The Maxim story you sourced said the same thing. The source you posted that you admit you altered says something else, though it's also attributed to the WaPo.
I'll go with the 2 out 0f 3 un retouched graphs and text.
Nothing was retouched or altered, I simply added text below the graph.
Pretty pathetic that when a thrice-corroborated study (referred to here, you need to scroll further down: https://www.maxim.com/news/millennia...n-ever-2019-4/) blows up your argument (that inceldom is imagined and can be cured by an attitude adjustment), you deny it's real.
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.
