Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879396)

TheFuture 07-26-2019 02:11 PM

Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next?
 
https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill

Where do we go from here?

Unreconstructed Man 07-26-2019 02:14 PM

Cool! A new wiki to “improve” ;)

Jonathan Chance 07-26-2019 02:16 PM

The Moderator Speaks
 
I’m not seeing a debate but I bet we can get to the Pit pretty quickly.

Good luck.

Velocity 07-26-2019 02:17 PM

........Wow. They really put a lot of research/effort into it.


But, like the other thread, these incels/MRAs aren't scientifically wrong. It's just a matter of whether they can win society over, and so far they have a tough uphill slog.

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 02:26 PM

The Dude has some appropriate words for this situation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDude
You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole.

Of course, these clowns aren't right, either, but whatevs.

Czarcasm 07-26-2019 02:30 PM

On a related note: 2+2 now equals 5. Where do we go from here?

Chimera 07-26-2019 02:46 PM

You made me feel dirty clicking that link, but that's largely my fault for not looking at it first.

The chances of them being right about everything is roughly equal to the chance that I'll suddenly sprout wings and be able to fly.

Excuse me while I run every virus scanner I own.

DrCube 07-26-2019 02:47 PM

Science says nothing of the sort. Incel-ism is not a scientific system of thought, and the scientific claims it makes are mostly false.

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21771871)

We? There's no "we". "I" am going to laugh my ass off. "You" should get some professional mental help.

Kobal2 07-26-2019 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21771871)
Where do we go from here?


Hold on, lemme check the register... Hmmm... says here you now get to eat a whole bag of dicks. Hey, don't look at me pal, I don't make the rules. Shall I fetch you a bag, then ; or did you bring your own ?

Jonathan Chance 07-26-2019 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrCube (Post 21771964)
Science says nothing of the sort. Incel-ism is not a scientific system of thought, and the scientific claims it makes are mostly false.

Now, be reasonable. They’re right about a few things.

Men exist
Women exist
Sometimes women and men have sex
Just not with THEM

GreysonCarlisle 07-26-2019 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21771968)
We? There's no "we". "I" am going to laugh my ass off. "You" should get some professional mental help.

[/thread]

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21771871)

We all go to the optometrist to get all of our eyes de-rolled.

Chimera 07-26-2019 03:22 PM

I was unfamiliar with the whole Black Pill thing, so I went to wikipedia;


The "black pill" is a set of beliefs that are commonly held amongst members of incel communities, such as biological determinism, fatalism, and defeatism for unattractive people. Someone who believes in the black pill is referred to as "blackpilled". The black pill has been described by Vox correspondent Zack Beauchamp as "a profoundly sexist ideology that ... amounts to a fundamental rejection of women’s sexual emancipation, labeling women shallow, cruel creatures who will choose only the most attractive men if given the choice."


Sounds like an extremely unhealthy attitude to have about life and other humans. Besides being laughably incorrect.

Czarcasm 07-26-2019 03:22 PM

TheFuture is looking rather dim.

Maserschmidt 07-26-2019 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance (Post 21771980)
Now, be reasonable. They’re right about a few things.

Men exist
Women exist
Sometimes women and men have sex
Just not with THEM

There are actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad.

DCnDC 07-26-2019 03:32 PM

Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.

Velocity 07-26-2019 03:44 PM

The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

Chimera 07-26-2019 03:47 PM

It's often amazing how some men will insist that they're not getting laid because they're not physically attractive, yet at the same time, make zero attempt to get laid with women who are not physically attractive, because somehow, those women aren't good enough.

If you take the attitude of "I can't get model/playmate quality women to sleep with me, then the problem lies in those women, not me, and no woman wants me" is pretty goddamned stupid.

Mr. Miskatonic 07-26-2019 03:47 PM

So the incels made a wiki to justify their 'need' for 12 year old virgins to fuck and discard.

Thinking...no.

Atamasama 07-26-2019 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maserschmidt (Post 21772053)
There are actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad.

Hell, there’s a whole country named Chad on the western border of Sudan.

D_Odds 07-26-2019 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCnDC (Post 21772056)
Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.

So how come they still seem to be multiplying? :confused:

That said, I'd be afraid to click that link with a sandbox in a sandbox in a sandbox through a VPN filtered through another VPN. But I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the scientific evidence contained within is on par with the evidence which proves aliens are kept at Area 51, we did not land on the moon, vaccines don't work, and the earth is flat.

Helmut Doork 07-26-2019 03:52 PM

Yes, a warning about the dodgy website in the link, for those who don't want to spend the evening reinstalling their browser, would have been nice.

Chimera 07-26-2019 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University

Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?

Because NO, all of these places are NOT presenting studies that say "Yup, Incels are exactly, 100% right in all of their suppositions." Most likely, they're only saying "Yes, Incels believe this and feel this way" which is not the same thing.

Sage Rat 07-26-2019 03:53 PM

There are lots of ugly and poor dudes with partners.

The difference is social skills, not suffering from depression, and being reasonable about who you can interest and moving on if you can't.

One might also note that even if you're unable to develop the social skills and etc. you have the choice to spend your time bitching about women or learning to use your hand and moving on with life. We don't all always get everything we want.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

We don't need or care about scientific studies proving they are unfuckable. We know that already from just their attitude. Should they be given sex slaves because of that? No fucking way.

Chronos 07-26-2019 03:59 PM

There are even ugly, poor dudes with beautiful partners. What do these women see in these men? The way to find out would be to ask them. Unfortunately, that whole business of "talking to people" is beyond the typical incel's level of social skills.

iiandyiiii 07-26-2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

"Incels are dumb" -- cite, Harvard University research.

That's barely less rigorous than a sampling of the cite in the OP.

Chimera 07-26-2019 04:05 PM

https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/this-i...-lover-survey/

The survey polled more than 64,000 people in 180 countries, asking them about their ideal match — from religious or political preferences to the importance of height. Most women asked identified as heterosexual, but queer and bisexual women also responded. The survey skews young: Nearly 40,600 of the women are ages 18 to 24, with the 25-to-29 age group the second biggest demo. Just under 3,800 were 40 years or older.

Almost 90% of the women rank kindness highest among desirable qualities, followed closely by supportiveness at 86.5%. Intelligence received about 72% of the vote; level of education had 64.5%; and rounding out the Top 5 is confidence, with a little over 60%.

Notice “attractiveness” did not top the list. That might explain why the “average” body type (looking at you, dad bods!) was vastly preferred over “very muscular” types, with 44.8% versus a marginal 2.5%, respectively.


and...

heterosexual women put average penis as No. 3, followed by large hands and, interestingly, a short head of hair

Velocity 07-26-2019 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772102)
Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?

By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772130)
By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html

Ok, so what? They should get sex slaves?

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought.

Seriously? You're going to pull that card? :dubious:

Major claims require major evidence.

If the topic was blue whale mating rituals, sure, I'll accept a cited claim without extensively questioning or checking the sources. But there's not a toxic internet subculture known for distorting facts and research about blue whales (unless I just created it right now?).

But since there is a toxic internet subculture of incels who are known for distorting facts and research about human sexuality, how about we stop equivocating, playing Devil's advocate, drawing false equivalences, and whatever other logical fallacies and rhetorical chicanery typically get pulled by these jerkwads JAQ'ing off all over the place, eh?

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772126)
https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/this-i...-lover-survey/

The survey polled more than 64,000 people in 180 countries, asking them about their ideal match — from religious or political preferences to the importance of height. Most women asked identified as heterosexual, but queer and bisexual women also responded. The survey skews young: Nearly 40,600 of the women are ages 18 to 24, with the 25-to-29 age group the second biggest demo. Just under 3,800 were 40 years or older.

Almost 90% of the women rank kindness highest among desirable qualities, followed closely by supportiveness at 86.5%. Intelligence received about 72% of the vote; level of education had 64.5%; and rounding out the Top 5 is confidence, with a little over 60%.

Notice “attractiveness” did not top the list. That might explain why the “average” body type (looking at you, dad bods!) was vastly preferred over “very muscular” types, with 44.8% versus a marginal 2.5%, respectively.


and...

heterosexual women put average penis as No. 3, followed by large hands and, interestingly, a short head of hair

So, "insecure, creepy as fuck, whiny misogynistic sociopath", was just edged out from a top 5 spot? Bummer.

bump 07-26-2019 04:17 PM

So what if science somehow proves them right about what women want in men?

It isn't going to make them or their attitudes suck any less.

Chingon 07-26-2019 04:18 PM

I certainly wouldn't trust Velocity's claims.

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21772147)
So what if science somehow proves them right about what women want in men?

It isn't going to make them or their attitudes suck any less.

And to add insult to injury, women will still refuse to fuck them.

Grim Render 07-26-2019 04:26 PM

Without clicking on the link, I generally have the impression that many of the Incels assumptions seem correct, but incomplete. And that they draw some very strange and twisted conclusions from them.

I can absolutely believe that women prefer sex with the most attractive-looking males, all other things being equal. But I don't believe all other things are equal, or that its the only thing that matters. And I can believe that males with poor looks, depression and poor social skills won't see much casual sex. I just don't believe thats womens fault.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772102)
Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?

They are distorting the findings to claim they support their position.

From what I can see, the actual quotes they claim appear in the citations do appear in the citations. But they are absolutely cherrypicking and building preposterous houses of cards upon those foundations, and peppering their analysis with just outright bullshit as necessary. They would not pass, say, freshman research paper standards with a C+ or higher.

Just on the presumption that someone will want an example:

Quote:

Any sex a woman has after drinking alcohol can be defined as rape by a man under US law
The US Justice department defines rape as:

Rape: The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

This definition very specifically requires a person's body to be penetrated in order for it to constitute rape. In the normal activities of heterosexual sex, then, according to the US Justice System, only a man can rape a woman, and a woman cannot rape a man. A woman would only be capable of raping a man if she were to penetrate his mouth or anus with an object, and this is not usually part of heterosexual activities.

Furthermore, US law states that if a person is to any extent intoxicated with alcohol (drunk), they are unable to give consent.

In previous generations it was considered normal that two people might meet at a bar or party while drunk and then have sex. However, the combination of these two legal conditions creates a situation where in every case where this now occurs, the man is automatically guilty of rape, and the woman has the right to press charges. Even if the man was passed out completely, if he had an erection, and the women sat on his erection, the man, not the woman, would be guilty of the crime.

This is an example of what happens when the creation of laws is guided by emotional reasons rather than rational scientific thought. Laws like this open up men to grave legal risk for participating in common mutual social sexual liaisons.

References:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/...12-ag-018.html
https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/...n/?page_id=305
The italicized statements are true. The underlined statements are unmitigated dogshit.

That is not the only such example. It's an embarrassing and terrifying scene, and anybody holding that up as an example of "accuracy" should be proportionally ashamed.

begbert2 07-26-2019 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

Incels are lying sacks of shit with a permanent mental bias against all women and all decent men. I don't believe for one instant that the cites say what they think they do.

Ruken 07-26-2019 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

Only the ones who are shit at science. The quality of a citation, assuming it even backs up the point it's being used to support, is not based on where it is published.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 04:57 PM

It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided. I am not an incel myself, but yet I can look at the science and review the articles and from what I've evaluated it has been perfectly sound. If you have any interest in how human sexuality works, you will find the information interesting at the minimum.

Almost every entry comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Almost all are freely available journal articles on the web if you search on Google "journal article title pdf". You check easily if there is any distortion. At least of all the ones I've clicked through I have found no significant distortions. Each section includes quotes directly from the articles, for example.

I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate". There are crazy people among every group or demographic.

I find this information interesting because everyone is always saying "incels are wrong about everything", yet clearly there's an overwhelming amount of science that actually backs them on most of what they say. My impression is now that people just don't like incels so they don't care if they're right or wrong, which is being validated by many of the responses here so far.

Vinyl Turnip 07-26-2019 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chingon (Post 21772152)
I certainly wouldn't trust Velocity's claims.

I don't see why not; he's the board's foremost scholar of inceldom. Author of a long-running apologia for the resentful fuckless fucks and their neverending pity party. One hopes that he is merely a dispassionate observer, but one wouldn't bet one's life on it.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided. I am not an incel myself, but yet I can look at the science and review the articles and find they are perfectly sound. If you have any interest in how human sexuality works, you will find the information interesting at the minimum.

Almost every entry comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Almost all are freely available journal articles on the web if you search on Google "journal article title pdf". You can see easily there is no distortion. At least of all the ones I've clicked through I have found no significant distortions. Each section includes quotes directly from the articles, for example.

I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate".

What's the end goal of accumulating all these studies?

Czarcasm 07-26-2019 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
I am not an incel myself...

Absolute bullshit.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772225)
What's the end goal of accumulating all these studies?

I have absolutely no idea. Knowledge? Understanding? Discussion? What's the purpose of any field of scientific study? Why did the researchers perform those studies in the first place?

They've been rattling around in my brain ever since someone linked me to that page off Reddit. I can't stop thinking about them. I'm not sure what to do with the information or how to feel about it.

Read them for yourself and tell me if you don't find them interesting.

Jackmannii 07-26-2019 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University

Well, I am heavily impressed.

Or would be if I wasn't familiar with the tactic of 1) citing an article and then claiming that the journal/academic institution/agency under whose auspices it appears endorses its conclusions, and 2) pointing to a cherry-picked list of articles/statistics as proof of one's assertions while misinterpreting what those sources say, and/or ignoring a vastly greater body of research/statistics that contradict those assertions.
A good example of #2 is "Miller's Critical Vaccine Studies", a book fawned over by the antivax crowd as impeccable Scientific Proof of their beliefs (the book's author also claims he has communicated with extraterrestrials, but one should not doubt his bona fides on that account :dubious:).

Some links to relevant articles from Velocity's list would be nice, as I also do not wish to click on the original link.

Miller 07-26-2019 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21771871)

I don't know about you, but my tubby, middle-aged, chronically-broke ass is going to go have frequent and vigorous sex with my incredibly hot partner.

Vinyl Turnip 07-26-2019 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772238)
Read them for yourself and tell me if you don't find them interesting.

I haven't read them and I can already tell you that.

elucidator 07-26-2019 05:08 PM

I also am blessed with a partner who is brilliant, insightful, and scorching hot. Her intelligence and good taste is evidenced in many, many ways, not least of which is she occasionally peruses the Dope. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided.

Bias because of the killings, you mean? The crazy people and the shootings? Nah.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21772240)
Well, I am heavily impressed.

Or would be if I wasn't familiar with the tactic of 1) citing an article and then claiming that the journal/academic institution/agency under whose auspices it appears endorses its conclusions, and 2) pointing to a cherry-picked list of articles/statistics as proof of one's assertions while misinterpreting what those sources say, and/or ignoring a vastly greater body of research/statistics that contradict those assertions.
A good example of #2 is "Miller's Critical Vaccine Studies", a book fawned over by the antivax crowd as impeccable Scientific Proof of their beliefs (the book's author also claims he has communicated with extraterrestrials, but one should not doubt his bona fides on that account :dubious:).

Some links to relevant articles from Velocity's list would be nice, as I also do not wish to click on the original link.


Did you actually read any of the articles? If you don't want to click on the link, here I just went and looked and you can find a backed up version on Archive.org:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190722...ific_Blackpill

Seems to look pretty much the same as the current version from what I can tell.

Helmut Doork 07-26-2019 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided...

You nailed that on the head, and kudos to you for returning to the thread. And yes, assuming that enormous amount of text is all true or near true, agree, a very interesting read.

But to answer your question, where to go from here, the only alternatives I see are for straight men to find other outlets for sex than women, or forcing women to have sex with men they don't want to- definitely opposed to the latter, not sure about the former?

TheFuture 07-26-2019 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood (Post 21772246)
Bias because of the killings, you mean? The crazy people and the shootings? Nah.

Well I'm not an expert on this field, so correct me if I'm wrong, but there would be two obvious counterpoints to raise:

1) There have only been 1-4 "incel killers" and their death count is far lower than that of non-virgin male mass murderers. So mass murdering seems to be an equal opportunity activity. I think the few that did go on killings were severely mentally ill with autism or schizophrenia too. Murdering is reprehensible no matter who does it IMO.

2) Some muslims blow themselves up in crowds but it doesn't mean everyone who is muslim is a suicide bomber or has radical beliefs.

begbert2 07-26-2019 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate".

This is, of course, false. "Incel" is a label that a specific internet subculture self-applied to itself. Like a few other self-applied labels (pro-life, men's rights), it's an attempt to put lipstick on a much uglier pig. Inceldom is not just a comment on your current sexual status, it is an entire worldview that includes a massive quantity of overt misogyny, sociopathy, hatred, and self-hatred, as well as endorsement of villainous acts like rape. And as a flimsy attempt to pretend their hatred has some semblance of justification, they have constructed a distorted view of reality that purports to justify their depredations.

Of course you had to have suspected this already - if inceldom was just "at the moment I'm not dating anybody or succeeding at the pickup scene", then why would it need a slew of articles cherry-picked to support its conclusions?

Velocity 07-26-2019 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21772255)
You nailed that on the head, and kudos to you for returning to the thread. And yes, assuming that enormous amount of text is all true or near true, agree, a very interesting read.

But to answer your question, where to go from here, the only alternatives I see are for straight men to find other outlets for sex than women, or forcing women to have sex with men they don't want to- definitely opposed to the latter, not sure about the former?

IMHO, incels generally have four options:

1. Continue the unhappy status quo forever;
2. Go abroad (not that incel-dom isn't a thing abroad, but most of the discussions about it are about American incels; and even an ugly American is usually granted a certain 'status' in some foreign countries);
3. Improve themselves (depending on situation, much easier said than done - for instance, if you have 3rd-degree burn scars over half your body, that's not cheaply or easily fixed)
4. Try to change society's attitudes

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772238)
They've been rattling around in my brain ever since someone linked me to that page off Reddit.

You really should stay the fuck out of those Incel forums.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772259)
Well I'm not an expert on this field, so correct me if I'm wrong, but there would be two obvious counterpoints to raise:

1) There have only been 1-4 "incel killers" and their death count is far lower than that of non-virgin male mass murderers. So mass murdering seems to be an equal opportunity activity. I think the few that did go on killings were severely mentally ill with autism or schizophrenia too. Murdering is reprehensible no matter who does it IMO.

I may not be an expert either, but ONE IS TOO FUCKING MANY.

Quote:

2) Some muslims blow themselves up in crowds but it doesn't mean everyone who is muslim is a suicide bomber or has radical beliefs.
This is a thread about incels. A group defined by their radical misogyny already. We're not talking about all virgins or all men.

Czarcasm 07-26-2019 05:19 PM

Picking one bullet point at random:
Quote:

More men are raped in the USA every year than women
Most popular culture likes to pretend women are the only victims of rape. However, based on Department of Justice figures, more men are raped in the US every year once prison rapes are counted.

According to these statistics, the number of male rapes is more than double the number of female rapes. However, advocates claim that these figures actually underestimate the number of prison rapes, particularly of juvenile inmates, which constituted 21% percent of prison rape victims in the United States according to a 2007 Bureau of Justice Statistics report.

The public is relatively silent on the subject and little empathy, support, or advocacy is offered to these male victims of rape.

Quotes:

More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons.
In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures.
That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.
Four per cent of prisoners said they had been sexually abused in 2011.
References:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ual-abuse.html
http://jjie.org/advocates-dispute-ag...enile-inmates/
Peer-reviewed journals, my ass.

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided. I am not an incel myself, but yet I can look at the science and review the articles and from what I've evaluated it has been perfectly sound. If you have any interest in how human sexuality works, you will find the information interesting at the minimum.

Almost every entry comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Almost all are freely available journal articles on the web if you search on Google "journal article title pdf". You check easily if there is any distortion. At least of all the ones I've clicked through I have found no significant distortions. Each section includes quotes directly from the articles, for example.

I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate". There are crazy people among every group or demographic.

I find this information interesting because everyone is always saying "incels are wrong about everything", yet clearly there's an overwhelming amount of science that actually backs them on most of what they say. My impression is now that people just don't like incels so they don't care if they're right or wrong, which is being validated by many of the responses here so far.

What do those studies say that isn't already known about human sexual behavior and partner selection? They say that women prefer specific traits in men that have to do with physical, personality and economic attributes. Stop the fucking presses; The science is right!!

So along comes a guy who is on the shallow end of the pool on all of the above attributes and thinks he should be getting banged by lingerie models every night. Because what? Because it's not fair that he drew the short straw on the positive attributes lottery? Even so... and it's undeniably so for some people... work on things you can improve and quit acting like a whining jackass. Or, don't and join the incel circle jerk club and wank yourselves to death about how unfair the world is. Boo fucking hoo. Nobody owes him shit.

begbert2 07-26-2019 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772130)
By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html

I like that this source was explicitly picked out as being representative, because it highlight just how unlikely it is that any of the science says what the incels think it does.


Incel: Look! All women like white people, so as a non-caucasion I'm doomed! Therefore I'm justified in raping people, and also in whatever other part of my twisted worldview I wish to justify by cobbling together this list of cites!

Science: No, you stupid ass. The study just says there are trends. Even with the trends there are still millions of women who are just fine with your skin color - it's your shitty, bigoted personality they can't stand.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by begbert2 (Post 21772261)
This is, of course, false. "Incel" is a label that a specific internet subculture self-applied to itself. Like a few other self-applied labels (pro-life, men's rights), it's an attempt to put lipstick on a much uglier pig. Inceldom is not just a comment on your current sexual status, it is an entire worldview that includes a massive quantity of overt misogyny, sociopathy, hatred, and self-hatred, as well as endorsement of villainous acts like rape. And as a flimsy attempt to pretend their hatred has some semblance of justification, they have constructed a distorted view of reality that purports to justify their depredations.

Of course you had to have suspected this already - if inceldom was just "at the moment I'm not dating anybody or succeeding at the pickup scene", then why would it need a slew of articles cherry-picked to support its conclusions?

But inceldom is just not succeeding at dating and being celibate despite trying. That's the exact definition of the words "involuntarily celibate".

Your definition can most easily be proven wrong by the fact that there are people who claim to be "female incels":
https://www.reddit.com/r/Trufemcels/

So how can say for example misogyny be true of all incels? Do you presume "femcels" hate women too?

Either way, at this point you're just arguing semantics which is not really interesting to me. I don't really care what particular definition people apply to the word "incel". I think it means involuntarily celibate. I watched a recent BBC documentary on incels and 2/3 of the guys featured were nothing like you described. I am not big on making assumptions about massive groups of people or lumping everyone together that shares a condition into one category and assuming I know everything about every person within that group. To me that just sounds like you want a bogeyman to rail against rather than that you're actually trying to understand what's happening in the world.

I am also not interested in the petty business of culture wars.

I'm interested in the understanding the nature of the world and humanity. So I am interested in the points that were raised and summarized in that page.

Even if everything you say about incels is true and every single man who has ever been incel is a rapist/monster/murderer/child-eater/goblin/demon, it wouldn't change whether or not the science says those things, would it?

So while you're free to talk about whatever you want of course, the actual science and implications were more what I was interested in discussing.

Helmut Doork 07-26-2019 05:29 PM

Yes, but trust me, not getting lucky in 2019, with video of any type of girl doing any type of porn you can think of accessible in seconds, is light years better than the 1970's analog with only lingerie catalogs, fully clothed game show models and the occasional Playboy at your disposal.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 21772264)

I didn't even see it from an incel forum. I wouldn't want to spend time on one of those forums because I'm sure they'd be depressing as hell. I saw it from another subreddit post which has now been deleted.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772259)
Well I'm not an expert on this field, so correct me if I'm wrong, but there would be two obvious counterpoints to raise:

1) There have only been 1-4 "incel killers" and their death count is far lower than that of non-virgin male mass murderers. So mass murdering seems to be an equal opportunity activity. I think the few that did go on killings were severely mentally ill with autism or schizophrenia too. Murdering is reprehensible no matter who does it IMO.

In your amateur, uninvested, workaday research into the question when you weren't pursuing other interests that you were totally like, take-it-or-leave-it about, did you happen to come up with any information about who those killers were, and who they killed, and why?

Did you see anything about how the incel community at large reacted to those killings, and what they have to say about the killers now?

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772286)
But inceldom is just not succeeding at dating and being celibate despite trying. That's the exact definition of the words "involuntarily celibate".

Your definition can most easily be proven wrong by the fact that there are people who claim to be "female incels":
https://www.reddit.com/r/Trufemcels/

So how can say for example misogyny be true of all incels? Do you presume "femcels" hate women too?

Either way, at this point you're just arguing semantics which is not really interesting to me. I don't really care what particular definition people apply to the word "incel". I think it means involuntarily celibate. I watched a recent BBC documentary on incels and 2/3 of the guys featured were nothing like you described. I am not big on making assumptions about massive groups of people or lumping everyone together that shares a condition into one category and assuming I know everything about every person within that group. To me that just sounds like you want a bogeyman to rail against rather than that you're actually trying to understand what's happening in the world.

I am also not interested in the petty business of culture wars.

I'm interested in the understanding the nature of the world and humanity. So I am interested in the points that were raised and summarized in that page.

Even if everything you say about incels is true and every single man who has ever been incel is a rapist/monster/murderer/child-eater/goblin/demon, it wouldn't change whether or not the science says those things, would it?

So while you're free to talk about whatever you want of course, the actual science and implications were more what I was interested in discussing.

Hey guess what? Names the groups give themselves usually sound far more innocuous than their beliefs would seem. I'm all for men having rights, but fuck no, I would never join MRA. I'm also for life, but no way am I a pro-lifer. Yes, incell, the word, means involuntary celibate. But the group itself is deeper and far more toxic than that.

So now, ok, you want to talk about the science. What about it?


Edit, I thought of another one. I'm a person who absolutely is for the ethical treatment of animals. But fuck PETA.

begbert2 07-26-2019 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772286)
But inceldom is just not succeeding at dating and being celibate despite trying. That's the exact definition of the words "involuntarily celibate".

And the exact defintion of "pro-life" is "opposes the death penalty for adults too." The label is a lie - or at least tells nowhere near all of the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772286)
I think it means involuntarily celibate.

And nobody can stop you from hewing to wrongness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772286)
Even if everything you say about incels is true and every single man who has ever been incel is a rapist/monster/murderer/child-eater/goblin/demon, it wouldn't change whether or not the science says those things, would it?

So while you're free to talk about whatever you want of course, the actual science and implications were more what I was interested in discussing.

Incels have this thing called "looksmaxing", which is where the misguided fuckers think that if they alter their appearance in the specific correct way it will turn their faces into hypnosis devices which will force women to fuck them. That women aren't yet forced to fuck them is not proof that looksmaxing is the stupidest thing since the square wheel; it is instead proof that they haven't looksmaxed hard enough.

As noted, they're not reading their cites correctly; they're instead reading their cites through the lens of "can I use this cite to support my retarded notion that women are as shallow as puddles and care about nothing, nothing but looks, status, and money?" This means that the implications of the cites are, nay, must be either, "god, incels don't understand their own cites" or "god, this so-called science is shit!"

Because proper science properly understood doesn't lead to obviously false conclusions, such as their belief that only super-attractive men can get the attention of women.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood (Post 21772297)
In your amateur, uninvested, workaday research into the question when you weren't pursuing other interests that you were totally like, take-it-or-leave-it about, did you happen to come up with any information about who those killers were, and who they killed, and why?

Did you see anything about how the incel community at large reacted to those killings, and what they have to say about the killers now?


The only ones I know about are Elliot Rodger who killed his roommates and I think two women and Alek Minassian who drove the bus into a crowd. I think Elliot Rodger committed his crime before there was even the word "incel" - I remember seeing he posted on bodybuilding.com. Alek Minassian supposedly made a post about 4chan and some incel memes. I read he was very mentally ill and used to make animal sounds while walking down the hallway at school.

Honestly murderers are not something I spend time reading/thinking/talking about because it's depressing and disturbing. I don't read about what John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy did either. I don't like true crime subjects in general.

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772286)
But inceldom is just not succeeding at dating and being celibate despite trying.

From the article linked in Post #56:
Quote:

Violently misogynist rhetoric is widespread in incel groups, where members routinely talk about a movement to “strike back” at women for depriving them of sex ― something to which many feel entitled. Thousands of lonely men like Eric are drawn in by the allure of camaraderie. But the distorting, echo chamber quality of the internet can fuel radicalization within these networks.

“You feel like brothers to me,” one man wrote to the forum Incels.me in April. “Never before have I felt so loved, or surrounded by people like me.” As is common in the group, his posts became angrier over time ― shifting from queries such as “How do I make friends online?” to lurid descriptions of violent and sexually depraved fantasies, and a threat to commit mass murder. According to his posts, he’s 18 years old. He could not be reached for an interview.
Quote:

Your definition can most easily be proven wrong by the fact that there are people who claim to be "female incels":
https://www.reddit.com/r/Trufemcels/
Emphasis on "claim". For all you know, those are GIRLs.

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772286)
To me that just sounds like you want a bogeyman to rail against rather than that you're actually trying to understand what's happening in the world.
I'm interested in the understanding the nature of the world and humanity. So I am interested in the points that were raised and summarized in that page.

Fine. Let's take the scientific approach. What's more likely?:
a) all the women in the world had a meeting and decided that there will be a certain group of men that they will not fuck under any circumstances.
-or-
b) there is a certain group of men with serious character flaws that simply are not desirable to the overwhelming majority of women.

Euphonious Polemic 07-26-2019 05:42 PM

It's really weird how women do not like to date men who are angry, bitter, self absorbed and generally dislike women except as a place to put their penis.

I guess we'll never know exactly why women feel this way. Total mystery.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic (Post 21772322)
It's really weird how women do not like to date men who are angry, bitter, self absorbed and generally dislike women except as a place to put their penis.

I guess we'll never know exactly why women feel this way. Total mystery.

Yes, but science!

HMS Irruncible 07-26-2019 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21771885)
But, like the other thread, these incels/MRAs aren't scientifically wrong. It's just a matter of whether they can win society over, and so far they have a tough uphill slog.

The moon landing hoaxers scientifically know more about 99% of space flight than I do. It's just a matter of whether they can win society over. So far they have a tough uphill slog.

Unfortunately, I have no grounds to comment because I do not have Ph. D in astrophysics. I guess we'll never know if men landed on the moon.

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic (Post 21772322)
It's really weird how women do not like to date men who are angry, bitter, self absorbed and generally dislike women except as a place to put their penis.

I guess we'll never know exactly why women feel this way. Total mystery.

Broads, man.

Chimera 07-26-2019 05:49 PM

As a point of reference for the OP, who is new around here.

We tend to get a lot of this shit where people have found something they like/find interesting and then they come here and do a basic dump;

a> Read these 42 articles with cites and then you can discuss this with me.
b> Watch these 87 youtube videos and then let's discuss.

We've seen it too many times and no, we're not interested in doing people's homework for them or watching a bunch of videos to see what the OP is on about. If that's a problem for you (and it seems to be for most of these types), tough shit. You're asking a bunch of total strangers from all walks of life to spend hours looking at something they may not be interested in before they can talk to you and you're not giving us an actual discussion, you're telling us to do homework first before you're willing to discuss it.

If someone asked us to watch a bunch of videos on any random subject, from earthworms to nuclear physics, with zero initial arguments or information, they are, every damned time, going to get the same "oh go fuck yourself" response from people here. Ain't no one got time for that shit.


A better approach is to talk specifics and bring cites. To lay out your argument, your points FIRST and then invite discussion.

Eventually, you'll notice that a lot of "Hey, watch this video <link> and discuss!" posts get closed or even cornfielded IMMEDIATELY.

If you want a better response, then do better with your initial post.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772311)
The only ones I know about are Elliot Rodger who killed his roommates and I think two women and Alek Minassian who drove the bus into a crowd. I think Elliot Rodger committed his crime before there was even the word "incel" - I remember seeing he posted on bodybuilding.com. Alek Minassian supposedly made a post about 4chan and some incel memes. I read he was very mentally ill and used to make animal sounds while walking down the hallway at school.

Honestly murderers are not something I spend time reading/thinking/talking about because it's depressing and disturbing. I don't read about what John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy did either. I don't like true crime subjects in general.

Cool, cool. So, since neither of us are like super into it or anything. Probably neither of us knew that Rodger

Quote:

explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him, and punish sexually active men because he envied them. After uploading the video, Rodger e-mailed a lengthy autobiographical manuscript to some of his acquaintances, his therapist and several family members. The document, titled "My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger", was made available on the Internet and became widely known as his manifesto. In it, he described his childhood, family conflicts, frustration over not being able to find a girlfriend, his hatred of women, his contempt for couples (especially interracial couples), and his plans for what he described as "retribution".


and that video was recorded while he was on his way to a sorority house to shoot the women there. But I just stumbled on that right now! And then weirdly enough, it turns out that

Crazy. Who knows -- if I looked, maybe there would be a fuckton of other stuff out there that I didn't even know about before right now, just like you didn't. Maybe like a lot, enough that later I'll be like hey it's wild that I didn't know anything about this if I knew who incels were.

I've just changed my opinion on incels. They seem like jerks! You too, right? Just two not-at-all-incel guys who don't defend them on the internet now that we know how fucked up they are, that's you and me!

TheFuture 07-26-2019 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21772255)
You nailed that on the head, and kudos to you for returning to the thread. And yes, assuming that enormous amount of text is all true or near true, agree, a very interesting read.

But to answer your question, where to go from here, the only alternatives I see are for straight men to find other outlets for sex than women, or forcing women to have sex with men they don't want to- definitely opposed to the latter, not sure about the former?

Those were my thoughts too. Based particularly on the trendlines:

https://incels.wiki/w/images/thumb/1...750px-Aaqa.jpg

There are three outcomes actually:

1) Men find alternative sex outlets than women.
2) Women are forced to have sex with men they don't want.
3) Men go completely without sex or companionship.

#2 is not possible. It does seem correct that enforced monogamy via religion with "no sex before marriage" and enforcing marriage as an institution would have helped level the playing field for men at women's disadvantage in the past, but I see no way to force the world back into that mold and I can't say it would be good even if you could.

#3 does not seem like a good option. I think men are very sexually driven and if you have a whole 28%+ of young men who are sexless it's going to likely lead to more problems and crime in the long run as some of the crazier ones might explode.

#1 seems like the only viable solution and I think sex dolls will eventually need to fill that void. The technology though might take another 20-30 years to become useful so until then I think it's going to get uglier out there.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood (Post 21772345)
Cool, cool. So, since neither of us are like super into it or anything. Probably neither of us knew that Rodger



and that video was recorded while he was on his way to a sorority house to shoot the women there. But I just stumbled on that right now! And then weirdly enough, it turns out that



Crazy. Who knows -- if I looked, maybe there would be a fuckton of other stuff out there that I didn't even know about before right now, just like you didn't. Maybe like a lot, enough that later I'll be like hey it's wild that I didn't know anything about this if I knew who incels were.

I've just changed my opinion on incels. They seem like jerks! You too, right? Just two not-at-all-incel guys who don't defend them on the internet now that we know how fucked up they are, that's you and me!

So what about the "femcels" then? Do they do the same things? I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that every incel guy (or girl) worships Elliot Rodger.

Chimera 07-26-2019 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772352)
3) Men go completely without sex or companionship.


#3 does not seem like a good option. I think men are very sexually driven and if you have a whole 28%+ of young men who are sexless it's going to likely lead to more problems and crime in the long run as some of the crazier ones might explode.


You have a hand. Use it.

Lots of humans go without companionship and regular sex with partners without going bonkers or harming others. It's when you become convinced that it is your right to have sex with other people that YOU become a danger to the people around you. You (generic you) have no fucking rights to harm or impose upon anyone else. Period.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 05:59 PM

Quote:

So what about the "femcels" then? Do they do the same things? I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that every incel guy (or girl) worships Elliot Rodger.
I'm super dumb and for the life of me I can't figure out what the fuck your point is!

So many crazy things are happening today.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood (Post 21772367)
I'm super dumb and for the life of me I can't figure out what the fuck your point is!

So many crazy things are happening today.


Well I just went to the femcels site and here's a post from one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trufemcels/...ny_easier_for/

I just realized life doesn't get any easier for single females the older we get (self.Trufemcels)

I am almost 26 and while I understand I'm not over 30, life isn't what I expected to be.

I still remember my childhood. When I was a kid I'd always assume I'd be a cool teenager. That I would have curves and boobs since my mom had both and that I'd also be tall (from my dad's side. Haven't seen him since 1999). Well by the time I got to be about 15 I realized neither was going to happen. I seemed to have drawn the short end of the genetic stick. I got stuck with my dad's naturally thin figure and mom's short height without the boobs or curves. Insult to injury I also have big feet for my height. My mom is the same way but her body masks that fact. I was and still am a hairy girl. I didn't reach 100 lbs until I was 16 and even then I didn't fill out until I was darn near 20.

I'm also a bit awkward. My mom always assured me I was beautiful and that one day I'd be a model and everyone would envy me. Well of course I have the size down but there's no market in the modeling world for a thin girl barely pushing 100 lbs. So of course it didn't happen. I also assumed that when I was a teen I'd have a boyfriend. Then I'd later assume I eventually would have someone in my mid 20s. After all, people havd been telling me ad nauseam that I'd meet the right person and have a family one day.

Well, I'm 26 in a few months and have no social life. Same as high school. I was also stupid enough to fool myself that a guy who crushed on me in high school and talked to me in spite of the fact of being found repulsive by eveyone else in school would be waiting for me. And I based this thought on some dumb dream I'd had of him getting me pregnant and him looking up at my bulging stomach. I'd had this dream in 2010. And it's one of three dreams in my entire life that I remember so vividly. So I assumed this as some sort of sign.

I messaged him on FB and we talked a bit and tried to subltly flirt. But it's been 3 days now. No response.

I guess hollywood needs to tell more stories of ugly and awkward girls who never grow out of that and lead sad lives. My family was also dysfunctional so I have no close knit family to turn to for support. I mainly have my uncle who I'm close with but we are long distance and he suffers from depression a bit.

At this point I really feel there's not much hope for a love life for me. I am making good money and I get to pursue my passion but what's the point when you're getting old alone? I always thought that I'd never want to grow old. Especially if it means a few more decades of working and going home for the most part.


It doesn't say anything about misogyny, mass murder, Elliot Rodger, or anything like that.

I also note that the trendline from the Washington Post shows female celibacy is rising too though much slower than men. If we are heading for a Japan trajectory both men and women will have much higher celibacy rates in a few years.

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772356)
I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that every incel guy (or girl) worships Elliot Rodger.

Also from the article linked in Post #56:
Quote:

After a man went on a rampage in Toronto on Sunday, killing a young woman and a 10-year-old girl, incel groups erupted in excitement over the possibility that he was a fellow incel.

“Another hERo?” one man asked the forum Incels.me, emphasizing “ER” in reference to Elliot Rodger, a self-proclaimed incel who killed himself and six others in 2014. “ERs need to get lessons from ISIS on how to kill a ton of people at once,” said another, apparently critiquing the Toronto shooter’s “low” death toll. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, but police said there’s no evidence to support that claim.

Rodger, who was 22 years old at the time of his murder-suicide in Isla Vista, California, spent his short adult life dreaming of ways to punish women for inflicting his “sexual starvation.” He belonged to multiple misogynist forums that, he said, “confirmed many of the theories I had about how wicked and degenerate women really are.”

Rodger is a virtual martyr among radical incels, who cheer each other on as they fantasize about raping and killing women, and emulating his massacre. So far, at least three men who reportedly described him in glorifying terms online have gone on killing sprees. Extremism experts warn that as incel groups proliferate, the threat of another mass murder grows.

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772374)
If we are heading for a Japan trajectory both men and women will have much higher celibacy rates in a few years.

If true (and you've done a piss poor job so far arguing your points), so what? Why is this inherently other people's problem?

iiandyiiii 07-26-2019 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772130)
By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html

This doesn't tell us about inborn/genetic/evolutionary preferences. Culture and media in most of the world has had a Euro-centric standard of beauty for many decades, if not longer.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772374)
It doesn't say anything about misogyny, mass murder, Elliot Rodger, or anything like that.

I also note that the trendline from the Washington Post shows female celibacy is rising too though much slower than men. If we are heading for a Japan trajectory both men and women will have much higher celibacy rates in a few years.

And?

I mean, you linked to a femcel community. I clicked on your link. Know what it says there?

Quote:

Why don't femcels allow date requests from incels?

The incel community at large welcomes rhetoric housing misogyny, hatred, and violence.

In addition to their very negative narrative about women, they also lack nuance and love to troll.
That's what it says there. So what the fuck are you talking about? Is this a thread about how incels aren't dangerous selfish scumbags and are actually making a lot of sense, or is it a thread about something else? You said people are "biased" against incels. I have demonstrated why. What does the fact that there's some other subcommunity that also knows that incels are dangerous selfish scumbags do to promote your position that incels aren't dangerous selfish scumbags?

iiandyiiii 07-26-2019 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided. I am not an incel myself, but yet I can look at the science and review the articles and from what I've evaluated it has been perfectly sound. If you have any interest in how human sexuality works, you will find the information interesting at the minimum.

Almost every entry comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Almost all are freely available journal articles on the web if you search on Google "journal article title pdf". You check easily if there is any distortion. At least of all the ones I've clicked through I have found no significant distortions. Each section includes quotes directly from the articles, for example.

I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate". There are crazy people among every group or demographic.

I find this information interesting because everyone is always saying "incels are wrong about everything", yet clearly there's an overwhelming amount of science that actually backs them on most of what they say. My impression is now that people just don't like incels so they don't care if they're right or wrong, which is being validated by many of the responses here so far.

From the analysis so far, the link jumps between mundane statements of fact and ridiculous, counterfactual supposition, with no differentiation between the two, as in post #38. Sounds like crap science -- people taking mundane scientific facts and extrapolating these into utter bullshit.

begbert2 07-26-2019 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772356)
So what about the "femcels" then? Do they do the same things? I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that every incel guy (or girl) worships Elliot Rodger.

I'll just start out by saying that this is pure speculation, because I sure as fuck am not going to go digging around in incel forum to find a so-called "femcel" and then try and read enough of their posts to do an accurate psychological profile on them.

But, just speculating, a few possibilities come to mind.

1) They're fake. GIRLs or just made up as a way for Incels to have something to point to and say "So what about the "femcels" then?"

2) They've flipped the belief system. As best I can tell from what I've heard, the core Incel belief system is "[Other gender] is divided between shallow brainless robots who only sex with the cream of the crop, and hideous scum that's not worth my time. [My gender] has a bunch of better-looking people than me and I'm jealous of them. My only chance of success would be to physically transform myself into something perfect (and I might try to do so) - or alternatively since I can't succeed, it would also be awesome if all these other people who I've decided are excluding me would just die."

As a basic belief system, there's nothing specific about the genders that makes it so the genders couldn't be flipped. Which would make "femcels" just a bunch of bitter sexless women who are sliding in next to the bitter sexless men and joining in the lament. Each of them refuses to date The Ugly, and each of them considers themselves The Ugly, so the two populations could plausibly exist alongside each other, each turning up their nose at the other. Both sides could plausibly admire Elliot Rodger, becuase he wanted to kill both genders - Incels believe the pretty people of both genders are against them.


Presuming, again, that "Femcels" exist at all.

ETA: hmm, looks like you actually posted a link to a femcel forum in the time since I started responding. Looks like your link doesn't help your position much, either.

Helena330 07-26-2019 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772130)
By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html

You misrepresented this study. You have to read more than the headline. They asked 50 white people what hue of skin they found most healthy, which was white skin with a slight yellowish tinge. That in no way equates to your assertion that "white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive."

I didn't go to that incel site, but I imagine they did much the same thing by either misunderstanding a study or by figuring no one would check.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21772384)
If true (and you've done a piss poor job so far arguing your points), so what? Why is this inherently other people's problem?

Thanks. I didn't really come with any point to argue except that it does appear there is a large volume of evidence backing most of the points incels make eg. on race, height, hypergamy, autism, personality, and where society is going.

Why should anyone care about anything that happens in our society? Maybe because we're all living in it? Let's say hypothetically that inceldom is a state associated with mass murder. Then shouldn't we be concerned if the stats show more and more men are becoming involuntarily celibate? Or worry about how we're going to address that as a society?

I notice Japan has managed to attain massive celibacy levels without much social discord. I am not sure the West will be able to do this. I would guess Japan managed to do this because they are more stoic or withdrawn people culturally by nature. Whereas in the West we have a culture of worshiping sex. I once read that sex has replaced God in the West and I think that's probably true for a lot of people.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood (Post 21772391)
And?

I mean, you linked to a femcel community. I clicked on your link. Know what it says there?



That's what it says there. So what the fuck are you talking about? Is this a thread about how incels aren't dangerous selfish scumbags and are actually making a lot of sense, or is it a thread about something else? You said people are "biased" against incels. I have demonstrated why. What does the fact that there's some other subcommunity that also knows that incels are dangerous selfish scumbags do to promote your position that incels aren't dangerous selfish scumbags?


So female incels aren't incels? This is getting ridiculous. This is what I mean by not liking culture wars. It's always just a never ending rabbit hole of names and labels that mean virtually nothing because people dissect them into oblivion. It's like music genres when someone says "I like posthardcore shoegaze." Sorry at that point you lost me.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 06:18 PM

Just to recap: you linked to a bunch of people who say incels are dangerous people, which is a true statement. I don't give a fuck about femcels one way or the other. The definitional omphaloskepsis, as a result, would seem to very much be a personal problem for you to resolve, as the person who literally created an account to support your thematic presentation here about how 'we' need a plan for the future now that incels have cracked the code.

Again: what's your point? Culture wars? Names and labels? What? I'm talking about the people you brought up. What are you talking about?

iiandyiiii 07-26-2019 06:19 PM

It's not a big mystery -- high sex drive + no sexual partner + loneliness = extreme bitterness and anger. I remember this bitterness and anger -- my sophomore year in college, I had very little romantic success and dipped my toes into this sort of these feelings, though this was long before incels were a group that talked on the internet (this was in the 90s). I remember feeling hopeless, angry, and bitter, and often those feelings were directed at women.

But it was bullshit. I wasn't owed anything, and I wasn't being a nice, decent, and respectful person. I might have thought I was, but I wasn't, really. I wasn't treating women and girls like people with their own thoughts and desires. Once I started to do this -- truly, not in a fake way that's meant to hide objectifying intentions -- I got into a relationship. And it didn't take long to realize that there actually are plenty of women and girls who would love to date someone who was truly decent and respectful.

I was an overweight, pimple-faced teenager who looked 16 when I was 20... but once I started to pair actual respect and decency with interesting conversation, I started having romantic success. Today's incels are those that never figured that out, and still don't actually have respect for women, and still feel that anger and bitterness. Why would a woman want to go out with such a person?

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772400)
Or worry about how we're going to address that as a society?

Bullshit concern trolling.

You are already starting from the position that a lack of sex must lead people to do terrible things in society.

Well, there's already a lot of evidence, historical and current, that this isn't the case.

If there is a conclusion to be drawn from available evidence, it's that there's a group of people out there using a misleading name for themselves and casting blame everywhere else but the one place that matters.

It does no good to use flawed assumptions to solve real problems.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Instead, start with the bunch of bitter, sociopathic complainers. As already explained, many already have access to sex. But it doesn't match their own imagined automatic entitlement to women they consider conventionally beautiful. Sex dolls aren't going to fix that. Instead, they'll make up some excuse about how it's not the same thing or not an adequate substitute.

Start with your garbage assumptions about the problem and work up from there instead of drawing garbage conclusions.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21772421)
Bullshit concern trolling.

You are already starting from the position that a lack of sex must lead people to do terrible things in society.

Well, there's already a lot of evidence, historical and current, that this isn't the case.

If there is a conclusion to be drawn from available evidence, it's that there's a group of people out there using a misleading name for themselves and casting blame everywhere else but the one place that matters.

It does no good to use flawed assumptions to solve real problems.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Instead, start with the bunch of bitter, sociopathic complainers. As already explained, many already have access to sex. But it doesn't match their own imagined automatic entitlement to women they consider conventionally beautiful. Sex dolls aren't going to fix that. Instead, they'll make up some excuse about how it's not the same thing or not an adequate substitute.

Start with your garbage assumptions about the problem and work up from there instead of drawing garbage conclusions.

I actually think that Japan has proven you can have massive levels of celibacy without problems. According to the link there "42% of men and 44% of women 18-35 years old and unmarried in Japan are now virgins".

So I concede I didn't think about in my post above where I listed three possible outcomes, but the fourth possible outcome is we change our culture so that we can be like Japan.

Japan has managed this rise in celibacy without too many problems. I don't know if there have been any incel related problems over there but I don't think so. I think they just have the hikikimori who are men who have withdrawn completely from society, but they have done it peacefully without any associated hate or outbursts. They are suffering from a dying birth rate but that is a quiet problem.

I presume this is due to cultural differences but I don't know. I don't know why celibacy is such a seemingly different experience for Japanese vs. Western men. Or maybe we're just not hearing about the problems they're having over there?

begbert2 07-26-2019 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772400)
Thanks. I didn't really come with any point to argue except that it does appear there is a large volume of evidence backing most of the points incels make eg. on race, height, hypergamy, autism, personality, and where society is going.

There's more a large volume of evidence that Incels are fucking up their science and none of it says what they claim it does, but I will concede that physically attractive people have something of an advantage in the dating game, and an even bigger advantage in the "I want to have casual sex and then immediately discard the woman and move on to the next one" game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772400)
Why should anyone care about anything that happens in our society? Maybe because we're all living in it? Let's say hypothetically that inceldom is a state associated with mass murder. Then shouldn't we be concerned if the stats show more and more men are becoming involuntarily celibate? Or worry about how we're going to address that as a society?

I notice Japan has managed to attain massive celibacy levels without much social discord. I am not sure the West will be able to do this. I would guess Japan managed to do this because they are more stoic or withdrawn people culturally by nature. Whereas in the West we have a culture of worshiping sex. I once read that sex has replaced God in the West and I think that's probably true for a lot of people.

Japan's advantage probably comes from the fact that involuntary celibacy isn't actually the problem, it's Incels that are the problem. For example, I am involuntarily celibate - given my druthers I'd be married to the woman I love(d), but she differed with me on religion and it didn't work out. I'm not an Incel though - that's a specific hate group of which I'm not a member.

All things considered, though I do get a little sad now and then (and though I do choke the chicken now and then), I still consider myself a pretty laid back guy and think the country would still do pretty okay if 50% of the population were me. I don't have the bitter jealous hatred that Incels teach each other is justified and should be acted on.

Vinyl Turnip 07-26-2019 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772341)
As a point of reference for the OP, who is new around here.

Another assertion on which one is advised not to wager anything of significant value.

Helena330 07-26-2019 06:33 PM

In one of the first articles when Googling femcels, is that many of them are guys pretending to be girls. But even if that weren't the case, good on femcels for not settling for incels.

Only when incels (and femcels from what I've read) look at themselves, at their personalities and personal hygiene, will they ever have a hope of attracting a woman. While they continue to blame women for not being attracted to them, it will only get worse. This incel world isn't only bad for women, it's bad for the men who refuse to face reality, too.

Helena330 07-26-2019 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772400)
Thanks. I didn't really come with any point to argue except that it does appear there is a large volume of evidence backing most of the points incels make eg. on race, height, hypergamy, autism, personality, and where society is going.

No, there isn't.

Chimera 07-26-2019 06:37 PM

1. "There's a large amount of evidence" doesn't mean jack shit if the evidence is crap or is being distorted. People claim there's a large amount of evidence that the Earth is flat, or that we never landed on the moon. They're full of shit.

2. Society doesn't have any duty to get you laid.

3. As I pointed out from the survey, the #1 thing women were looking for was KINDNESS. Incels aren't exactly brimming with that and as Sir Andy of the Eyes points out, a lot of us start out as oversexed, angry kids who don't know how to get laid and eventually grow out of it. How? By NOT being anger and blame driven assholes who drive people away from us.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by begbert2 (Post 21772438)
There's more a large volume of evidence that Incels are fucking up their science and none of it says what they claim it does, but I will concede that physically attractive people have something of an advantage in the dating game, and an even bigger advantage in the "I want to have casual sex and then immediately discard the woman and move on to the next one" game.

Japan's advantage probably comes from the fact that involuntary celibacy isn't actually the problem, it's Incels that are the problem. For example, I am involuntarily celibate - given my druthers I'd be married to the woman I love(d), but she differed with me on religion and it didn't work out. I'm not an Incel though - that's a specific hate group of which I'm not a member.

All things considered, though I do get a little sad now and then (and though I do choke the chicken now and then), I still consider myself a pretty laid back guy and think the country would still do pretty okay if 50% of the population were me. I don't have the bitter jealous hatred that Incels teach each other is justified and should be acted on.

Well I think what you're saying is "violent and hateful incels are the problem", because:

- Elliot Rodger committed his crime before there was even a common label "incel" and mostly posted on bodybuilding.com so he couldn't have been part of an "incel" hate group if one didn't yet exist.
- In the recent BBC documentary I watched 2/3 of the guys were similar to how you describe - just quiet withdrawn sad guys who weren't bitter or hateful at all.

Again, there also does exist communities of female incels. I posted an example of one above who just seemed like a normal sad lonely girl. So saying incel = hateful misogynist as an automatic assignment does not make sense.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helena330 (Post 21772455)
No, there isn't.

And I'm still very unclear on what points he think they are trying to make.

Unreconstructed Man 07-26-2019 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture
I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate". There are crazy people among every group or demographic.

There’s no such thing as an “involuntary celibate”. Anyone can get laid, including so-called “incels”. They just need to lower their standards. They’re not mad because they can’t get a girl. They’re mad because they can’t get a fuckin’ beauty queen. Their celibacy is entirely self-imposed.

The King of Soup 07-26-2019 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772400)
... shouldn't we be concerned if the stats show more and more men are becoming involuntarily celibate? Or worry about how we're going to address that as a society?

No, that is a problem that should probably be addressed individually, because we probably won't invent a universal cure for unappealing entitled misogynistic asshole.

Quote:

I notice Japan has managed to attain massive celibacy levels without much social discord. I am not sure the West will be able to do this. I would guess Japan managed to do this because they are more stoic or withdrawn people...
I just knew you were the kind of person to guess based on stereotypes of other cultures (please note: Japanese people are neither particularly stoic nor withdrawn; in fact, these aren't even the usual racist stereotypes, they are just being made up for this argument). I'm actually surprised you didn't bring up the aging demographics. An honest man might also guess about the general availability of firearms, especially since rape culture in Japan is about, give and take, as bad as our own.
Quote:

Whereas in the West we have a culture of worshiping sex.
So, no idea about Japanese culture, or Western culture, or spelling, at all, huh?

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772457)
- In the recent BBC documentary I watched 2/3 of the guys were similar to how you describe - just quiet withdrawn sad guys who weren't bitter or hateful at all.

A documentary which happened to feature only three incels.

JRDelirious 07-26-2019 06:45 PM

"right about everything"?? (emphasis mine) Oh, please. Not being totally wrong about some things that are noncontroversial does not mean being right about everything that is, or not coming to the wrong conclusion from the evidence.


The only thing to be done, is for the self proclaimed "incels" to get over it and over themselves. So life is not the way we'd like it to be? Old news.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772352)
seems like the only viable solution and I think sex dolls will eventually need to fill that void. The technology though might take another 20-30 years to become useful so until then I think it's going to get uglier out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21772421)
As already explained, many already have access to sex. But it doesn't match their own imagined automatic entitlement to women they consider conventionally beautiful. Sex dolls aren't going to fix that. Instead, they'll make up some excuse about how it's not the same thing or not an adequate substitute.

"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the next decade is out, to land a fully functional sexdroid on an incel and return him safely to Earth. We choose to do this not because it's easy, but because it's haaahhd..."

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772460)
And I'm still very unclear on what points he think they are trying to make.

Mostly I would summarize the points I think from that page as:

- Personality matters but not not how people commonly claim.
- Autism creates a very high likelihood of men ending up alone and virgins even though autistic men want relationships as much as anyone else.
- A man's race is very important to women eg. Asian men get 11 times fewer messages than white ones.
- Looks are more important than personality for both men and women in dating.
- Height is very important for men in dating.
- Money is somewhat important for men in dating.
- Online dating is making it easier for women to endorse their natural instinct to seek the best men.
- The top men are having more sex than ever while overall male celibacy is rising.
- Men dominate online dating platforms and the thirst is real.

I don't think most people acknowledge in public the above points. I haven't heard much of it except that money matters and most people know from experience that height matters. I was pretty surprised by the race studies. And it's interesting to see these effects quantified.

Sunny Daze 07-26-2019 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772263)
IMHO, incels generally have four options:

1. Continue the unhappy status quo forever;
2. Go abroad (not that incel-dom isn't a thing abroad, but most of the discussions about it are about American incels; and even an ugly American is usually granted a certain 'status' in some foreign countries);
3. Improve themselves (depending on situation, much easier said than done - for instance, if you have 3rd-degree burn scars over half your body, that's not cheaply or easily fixed)
4. Try to change society's attitudes

Really? You can't think of anything else at all that an incel could do to make themselves more appealing to others?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772295)
I didn't even see it from an incel forum. I wouldn't want to spend time on one of those forums because I'm sure they'd be depressing as hell. I saw it from another subreddit post which has now been deleted.

How convenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic (Post 21772322)
It's really weird how women do not like to date men who are angry, bitter, self absorbed and generally dislike women except as a place to put their penis.

I guess we'll never know exactly why women feel this way. Total mystery.

We vote each quarter. If your name isn't on the "fuckable" list, you are shit outta luck.

I want to acknowledge the men of the Dope who have stepped up to give this thread all of the consideration it deserves (and sometimes more - clicking on that link is a whole other kind of selfless). Y'all rock.

I'd say it was sweet that Velocity now has someone to seriously discuss these issues with, but it's really not. You are both fuckwits. Sod off.

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man (Post 21772471)
They just need to lower their standards.

Not even sure this part is true (and it's a bit demeaning in any case).

Part of their inferiority complex is the idea that they themselves are undesirable. So, the thinking goes, anybody who would have anything to do with them is automatically undesirable themselves. It's a nasty Catch-22 they impose on themselves.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The King of Soup (Post 21772474)
No, that is a problem that should probably be addressed individually, because we probably won't invent a universal cure for unappealing entitled misogynistic asshole.

I just knew you were the kind of person to guess based on stereotypes of other cultures (please note: Japanese people are neither particularly stoic nor withdrawn; in fact, these aren't even the usual racist stereotypes, they are just being made up for this argument). I'm actually surprised you didn't bring up the aging demographics. An honest man might also guess about the general availability of firearms, especially since rape culture in Japan is about, give and take, as bad as our own.

So, no idea about Japanese culture, or Western culture, or spelling, at all, huh?

So if you know more about Japanese culture, why have they been able to attain such a high level of celibacy in young people without any problems? Or have they experienced the same problems as the west?

I am honestly curious. I don't know that answer. If I knew everything in life I wouldn't be asking questions or trying to get people's opinions.

guizot 07-26-2019 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772400)
. . . there is a large volume of evidence backing most of the points incels make eg. on race, height, hypergamy, autism, personality, and where society is going. . . .

No, there isn't. I read five of those studies at random (I'm not going to waste any more of my time reading any more), and they don't support the conclusion which "incels" draw about these issues. Nice try. Now I'm going to do something more productive with my time.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772483)
Mostly I would summarize the points I think from that page as:

- Personality matters but not not how people commonly claim.

How do you think they think it matters?

Quote:

- Autism creates a very high likelihood of men ending up alone and virgins even though autistic men want relationships as much as anyone else.
- A man's race is very important to women eg. Asian men get 11 times fewer messages than white ones.
- Looks are more important than personality for both men and women in dating.
- Height is very important for men in dating.
- Money is somewhat important for men in dating.
- Online dating is making it easier for women to endorse their natural instinct to seek the best men.
- The top men are having more sex than ever while overall male celibacy is rising.
- Men dominate online dating platforms and the thirst is real.
Ok, no big surprises, but so what? What's next?

begbert2 07-26-2019 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772457)
Well I think what you're saying is "violent and hateful incels are the problem", because:

I think that what I'm saying is that Incels are the problem, because I fucking straight up said Incels are the problem. The term is a label for a specific group and, in my opinion, should always be capitalized as such (though I'm imperfect at that myself).

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772457)
- Elliot Rodger committed his crime before there was even a common label "incel" and mostly posted on bodybuilding.com so he couldn't have been part of an "incel" hate group if one didn't yet exist.
- In the recent BBC documentary I watched 2/3 of the guys were similar to how you describe - just quiet withdrawn sad guys who weren't bitter or hateful at all.

The Incel hate group probably existed for a while before it decided to adopt the deliberately-deceptive label "Incel" for marketing reasons.

And from what I understand, the path to becoming an Incel is a slow one - you go there seeking support and camaraderie, and as you spend time in the group you start to adopt their ways. (This happens with all kinds of groups, not just Incels.) I also gather that as you become acclimatized to a given group's level of Incelishness and start to reflect it in your speech and posting style, you'll be guided to other discussions where a slightly more hardcore attitude is present. As you acclimatize to each 'level' you will be exposed to harsher and harsher attitudes, until you join them in spouting hatred and bitterness and calls for violence that would have repelled you when you first approached the group. You keep diving in deeper and deeper because you seek the support of the community, and the further into the community you get the more it seems that they're the only group that supports you. (Possibly because everyone else now sees you as an asshole.)

I gather that becoming a neo-nazi works the same way - you're mostly seeking camaraderie and brotherhood, and come away as a person who can't find camaraderie with nonradicalized people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772457)
Again, there also does exist communities of female incels. I posted an example of one above who just seemed like a normal sad lonely girl. So saying incel = hateful misogynist as an automatic assignment does not make sense.

You've utterly failed to provide evidence that "femcels" share anything with incels but the general attitude that they're lonely and wish they were luckier in love. Most likely when they chose the appellation they had fallen for the lie that "Incel" just means involuntarily celibate, and only later learned that the term had another meaning (that they explicitly distance themselves from).

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772457)
- Elliot Rodger committed his crime before there was even a common label "incel"

From the article linked in Post #103:
Quote:

[T]he term “incel” was actually started by a woman. In 1993, Alana – known by her first name only, presumably for her own safety – created an online relationship support group for people like herself, who were experiencing unwanted sexual inactivity, to discuss their thoughts and feelings with other people. She called the forum’s newsletter “Alana’s Involuntary Celibacy Project”, which she shorted to INVCEL and then INCEL. “

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guizot (Post 21772498)
No, there isn't. I read five of those studies at random (I'm not going to waste any more of my time reading any more), and they don't support the conclusion which "incels" draw about these issues. Nice try. Now I'm going to do something more productive with my time.

Which ones were bad/wrong?

For example, I read the one on height cutoffs:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...for_both_sexes

And it was just a graphing of the data right from the research tables.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 21772505)
From the article linked in Post #103:

So incels as a group were created by women, and remain populated by women in female incel groups, but somehow all incels are hateful mass murdering misogynist men. LOL. That does not make any sense at all.

begbert2 07-26-2019 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772492)
So if you know more about Japanese culture, why have they been able to attain such a high level of celibacy in young people without any problems? Or have they experienced the same problems as the west?

I am honestly curious. I don't know that answer. If I knew everything in life I wouldn't be asking questions or trying to get people's opinions.

Here's a guess: the Incel discussion boards are likely mostly in English, slowing the group's spread to countries that don't use English as a first language.

Again, celibacy isn't actually a problem - that's a stupid Incel lie. Normal humans can be celibate just fine without going on murder sprees. It takes a certain kind of groupthink to start idolizing murders, so without such a group the only negative societal effect of celibacy is a lowered birth rate.

begbert2 07-26-2019 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772509)
So incels as a group were created by women, and remain populated by women in female incel groups, but somehow all incels are hateful mass murdering misogynist men. LOL. That does not make any sense at all.

Given that that's obviously not what happened, it's not surprising that your silly nonsense doesn't make sense.

Sunny Daze 07-26-2019 07:03 PM

Back to the OP's first question: what do we do about incels? I propose exile. Antartica maybe? The moon is an option, but there are gravity well issues that I'm not happy about. Floating city in international waters? Nations could take turns dropping off rations.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by begbert2 (Post 21772515)
Here's a guess: the Incel discussion boards are likely mostly in English, slowing the group's spread to countries that don't use English as a first language.

Again, celibacy isn't actually a problem - that's a stupid Incel lie. Normal humans can be celibate just fine without going on murder sprees. It takes a certain kind of groupthink to stark idolizing murders, so without such a group the only negative societal effect of celibacy is a lowered birth rate.

Yeah but again that doesn't really make sense since Elliot Rodger went on his killing spree before there was even an incel forum for him to post in and Alek Minassian only referenced 4chan and 4chan was based off of an equivalent Japanese site in the first place.

So it would suggest either there's a cultural difference as it pertains to celibacy, things are overhyped here in the west ("incel bogeymen"), or maybe Japan actually has the same problems but we don't hear about them in the same way.

begbert2 07-26-2019 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772506)
Which ones were bad/wrong?

For example, I read the one on height cutoffs:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...for_both_sexes

And it was just a graphing of the data right from the research tables.

Just a skim told me that the study was specifically about speed dating.

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772521)
or maybe Japan actually has the same problems but we don't hear about them in the same way.

Or maybe there's more than a touch of media sensationalism and there isn't as big a fucking problem as this racist bullshit you've got going on!

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefuture (Post 21772521)
elliot rodger went on his killing spree

2014
Quote:

an incel forum for him to post in
1993

begbert2 07-26-2019 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772521)
Yeah but again that doesn't really make sense since Elliot Rodger went on his killing spree before there was even an incel forum for him to post in and Alek Minassian only referenced 4chan and 4chan was based off of an equivalent Japanese site in the first place.

So it would suggest either there's a cultural difference as it pertains to celibacy, things are overhyped here in the west ("incel bogeymen"), or maybe Japan actually has the same problems but we don't hear about them in the same way.

Oh, I won't say that there aren't people who are bitter sexist misogynistic fucks straight out the gate, without any help. I mean, somebody pushed it to the depths of the toilet where it now resides, and it would have to be guys like that. But also, as I previous mentioned and which you ignored because of reasons only you know, the group doubtlessly existed prior to taking on the "Incel" label. The dude posted on bodybuilding forums, you said? It's my understanding that there's a huge focus on appearance in that subculture too.

And as for Japan, aside from the rather large cultural difference that Inceldom seems to have sprouted from english language communities, it appears that in Japan they're getting hikikomoris, who have internalized their anxieties to the point of withdrawing from society, rather than blaming other people and hating society. Which seems significantly more mature, if you ask me.

The King of Soup 07-26-2019 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772492)
So if you know more about Japanese culture, why have they been able to attain such a high level of celibacy in young people without any problems?

Your knowledge of Japanese culture seems to be entirely made up in your own head. Your knowledge of Japanese society seems even worse. "Without any problems?" And you think that if there were, they'd be attributable to celibacy? Not to mention things like demographics, availability of firearms, and such.

If you were honestly curious, you'd shut up, read the thread, be ashamed, and go away. But you won't, will you? Everyone knows by now that "Involuntarily celibate" is simply the stupid version of "Enthusiastically awful." Seriously, when you decide science has decreed no one wants to have sex with you, think about another scientific theory: evolution. When the planet doesn't want you around anymore, take the hint.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by begbert2 (Post 21772525)
Just a skim told me that the study was specifically about speed dating.

Yeah, they took 5782 speed daters and charted the women's height requirements that the women themselves stated (min and max) and did competitor analyses on how many men would have to compete for a woman at each height. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I did speed dating a few times and it was fun. Do you think it could have been studied a better way?

This other height study showing women were happiest when the man was 8" taller than them used a sample of 52,677 people:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886913000020

But I can't find a full text version for free and I don't care enough to pay to read that methodology. In my experience most of the girls that were easiest to date did tend to be around 6-8" shorter than me. I've dated girls with closer heights but it's never been so easy as when I've been that much taller myself.

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772509)
So incels as a group were created by women, and remain populated by women in female incel groups, but somehow all incels are hateful mass murdering misogynist men. LOL. That does not make any sense at all.

Woman behind 'incel' says angry men hijacked her word 'as a weapon of war': The woman who coined the term ‘involuntary celibate’ says she intended it as a community for lonely people, and is shocked by its misogynistic turn:
Quote:

Soon after her social life began to blossom and she handed off the site to someone she didn’t know. It would be years before she would hear the term incel again – this time as she was browsing through an issue of Mother Jones in a bookstore.

The magazine had covered the story of Elliot Rodger, who in 2014 killed six people and wounded 14 others in California. In online posts that raged at women for rejecting his romantic advances, Rodger had described himself as an incel.

“Holy shit,” Alana thought. “Look what I started.”

The term – and the friendly community of lonely people she had once fostered – had morphed into a deeply misogynistic online subculture that at times called for rape or other violence. Thousands were now on incel forums, united in their belief that the modern world is unfairly stacked against heterosexual men who are awkward or unattractive.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The King of Soup (Post 21772542)
Think about another scientific theory: evolution. When the planet doesn't want you around anymore, take the hint.

I think that's why they call it "The Blackpill." They see it that way as well. That this is all reduceable to evolutionary biology. Most of those studies are evolutionary biology at their heart. Eg. Women want tall muscular men because once tall muscular men were needed to fight off wild beasts.

Ukulele Ike 07-26-2019 07:24 PM

Unattractive men are unable to have sex with women.

Within a few generations, unattractive people have been removed from the gene pool.

Is there a...downside to this that I’m somehow missing?

TheFuture 07-26-2019 07:25 PM

I didn't know anyone could own a word. Unless maybe a copyright or trademark. Nonetheless, female incels like Alana still exist as posted. So her legacy still exists online:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trufemcels/

Darren Garrison 07-26-2019 07:26 PM

Quote:

They just need to lower their standards.
Lowered expectaaaaaations!

begbert2 07-26-2019 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772545)
Yeah, they took 5782 speed daters and charted the women's height requirements that the women themselves stated (min and max) and did competitor analyses on how many men would have to compete for a woman at each height. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I did speed dating a few times and it was fun. Do you think it could have been studied a better way?

This other height study showing women were happiest when the man was 8" taller than them used a sample of 52,677 people:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886913000020

But I can't find a full text version for free and I don't care enough to pay to read that methodology. In my experience most of the girls that were easiest to date did tend to be around 6-8" shorter than me. I've dated girls with closer heights but it's never been so easy as when I've been that much taller myself.

"Easiest to date"?

Out of genuine curiosity, what the fuck? How is it hard to date a woman who you can look in the eye?

I mean, yes, I get that there's a vague societal notion in a couple the man should be taller than the woman. Vague. But (like all the other stuff in these studies), that's just a trend thing, and there are numerous actualized counterexamples. Being a somewhat short man is not a death knell, no matter how much Incels want something other themselves that they can blame for their problems.

Ukulele Ike 07-26-2019 07:28 PM

Getting rid of all the short people is a bonus. They got little hands and little eyes, they walk around telling great big lies.

They got no reason to live.

begbert2 07-26-2019 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike (Post 21772564)
Getting rid of all the short people is a bonus.

All the short men.

Presumably we're going to slaughter all the tall women too, just to balance things out.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by begbert2 (Post 21772562)
"Easiest to date"?

Out of genuine curiosity, what the fuck? How is it hard to date a woman who you can look in the eye?

I mean, yes, I get that there's a vague societal notion in a couple the man should be taller than the woman. Vague. But (like all the other stuff in these studies), that's just a trend thing, and there are numerous actualized counterexamples. Being a somewhat short man is not a death knell, no matter how much Incels want something other themselves that they can blame for their problems.

I mean there was the most instant attraction from the girl. Her playing with her hair, batting her lashes, rocking back and forth, making innuendo. Have you never noticed any types of trends about the girls who like you most?

I don't think anecdotes outweigh statistics. One of the girls who loved me most was around my height and I once had a girl much taller than me "fall in love with me" (told everyone this) but I never ended up dating her for other reasons.

Anecdotes and outliers don't change or invalidate the data.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772551)
I think that's why they call it "The Blackpill." They see it that way as well. That this is all reduceable to evolutionary biology. Most of those studies are evolutionary biology at their heart. Eg. Women want tall muscular men because once tall muscular men were needed to fight off wild beasts.

Again, even if true, so? What's next?

Ukulele Ike 07-26-2019 07:32 PM

Nah, tall women are an evolutionary advance.. They can get the premium products off the top shelves at the grocery store.

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772557)
I didn't know anyone could own a word. Unless maybe a copyright or trademark. Nonetheless, female incels like Alana still exist as posted. So her legacy still exists online:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trufemcels/

Do you practice deliberately missing points or does it just come natural?

TheFuture 07-26-2019 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772576)
Again, even if true, so? What's next?

That was my question in the OP exactly. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked.

Ukulele Ike 07-26-2019 07:38 PM

Man, I love these threads that have the one schlemiel is them that go so fast you can’t keep up.

I’ve banged all sizes of gorgeous chicks. The tall ones were great, the medium size were great, and the short ones were especially great. I guess you could call me “Chad!” And in the morning, they made breakfast!

Ukulele Ike 07-26-2019 07:40 PM

And I’m talking fresh fruit, homemade biscuits, and caviar omelettes. None of that cold cereal shit.

begbert2 07-26-2019 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772573)
I mean there was the most instant attraction from the girl. Her playing with her hair, batting her lashes, rocking back and forth, making innuendo. Have you never noticed any types of trends about the girls who like you most?

I don't 'prowl'.

The three women I've dated were all shorter than me, but that's probably just because I'm moderately tall, at 6'1" - that's seven inches taller than the american female average height.

Are you, perhaps, somewhat tall too? Maybe most of the females that reciprocated your attentions were shorter than you because most of the females you met were shorter than you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772573)
I don't think anecdotes outweigh statistics. One of the girls who loved me most was around my height and I once had a girl much taller than me "fall in love with me" (told everyone this) but I never ended up dating her for other reasons.

Anecdotes and outliers don't change or invalidate the data.

They sure as fuck invalidate the Incel worldview, though. The Incel worldview is that the deck is so stacked against them that they have no chance. Even one single counterexample blows their beliefs to shreds.

They pretend this is false, and keep citing data that manifestly, explicity, and comletely doesn't support their conclusions of doom, because a bitter inferiority complex doesn't work if you're not doomed.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 21772581)
Do you practice deliberately missing points or does it just come natural?

Your notion that "all incels are hateful misogynists" is so easily disprovable it's ridiculous. Generally speaking, if you phrase a sentence about groups of people and who they are as people with "all ____ are ____" you're not going to win a debate on the veracity of that statement.

Because then all anyone has to do is provide a counterexample and you've been proven wrong. I've provided male examples from the BBC documentary, from female incel groups, and you yourself have provided the female who started the "incel" movement, all of whom disprove that the name "incel" must necessarily imply what you suggest it should.

You could say "some ____ are ___" or even "most ___ are ___" if you believe that to be true and we can have a debate. But if you say "all ___ are ___" you've lost by definition and revealed yourself as an ideologue not interested in nuanced discussion.

Tee 07-26-2019 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike (Post 21772594)
And I’m talking fresh fruit, homemade biscuits, and caviar omelettes. None of that cold cereal shit.

I love a man with a well stocked fridge.

Darren Garrison 07-26-2019 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772573)
Her playing with her hair, batting her lashes, rocking back and forth, making innuendo.


Are you sure that isn't Tourette's?

TheFuture 07-26-2019 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 21772615)
Are you sure that isn't Tourette's?

lmao

:smack: :D

So I've been doing it wrong all these years. Gotta stop picking up girls from psychiatric wards.

Ukulele Ike 07-26-2019 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tee (Post 21772613)
I love a man with a well stocked fridge.

Hey, baby. Want to come over, spin a little Barry White, and check out my “well stocked fridge?”

Ukulele Ike 07-26-2019 07:57 PM

See, if all those incels knew about Barry White, they’d have the Victoria’s Secret models tripping ‘em and beating them to the floor.

begbert2 07-26-2019 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike (Post 21772640)
See, if all those incels knew about Barry White, they’d have the Victoria’s Secret models tripping ‘em and beating them to the floor.

Being tripped and then getting a beatdown? Sounds painful.

Ukulele Ike 07-26-2019 08:07 PM

TWO schlemiels.

G’night. I’m in the middle of a good book. And my gorgeous wife will probably want to have mind-blowing sex.

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike (Post 21772655)
TWO schlemiels.

From the Shotz Brewery?

TheFuture 07-26-2019 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by begbert2 (Post 21772596)
I don't 'prowl'.

The three women I've dated were all shorter than me, but that's probably just because I'm moderately tall, at 6'1" - that's seven inches taller than the american female average height.

Are you, perhaps, somewhat tall too? Maybe most of the females that reciprocated your attentions were shorter than you because most of the females you met were shorter than you.

They sure as fuck invalidate the Incel worldview, though. The Incel worldview is that the deck is so stacked against them that they have no chance. Even one single counterexample blows their beliefs to shreds.

They pretend this is false, and keep citing data that manifestly, explicity, and comletely doesn't support their conclusions of doom, because a bitter inferiority complex doesn't work if you're not doomed.

I'm not tall at all. You're lucky for that height you have. So when I say they were 6-8" shorter than me, they were pretty short girls. That I can recall, I've never had that kind of instant attraction from girls closer to my height. But again, that's just personal experience. I think science > personal experience. In this case, it just happens the science seems to match my experience.

If there's any one thing I believe it's that there are no absolutes in life. Science for example is not about absolutes. It's about probabilities. Even scientific conclusions are typically stated with a P value meant to signal the probability that the conclusion the data draws is valid.

On the other hand, what is or isn't "hopeless" is entirely subjective. I can't comment on one person's threshold for hopelessness vs. another's, because that likely depends on their entire lifetime of experience. Almost certainly, if you've spent your whole life getting bullied, rejected, isolated, say due to autism or some other incurable problem, and then you try online dating and only get ignored and no matches, you're going to have a lower threshold to declare it "hopeless" and give up than someone who had a great upbringing and happy life up to that point.

I can certainly say hopelessness is not a pleasant feeling and if the current culture is leading more and more young isolated men to feel hopeless that is likely not ideal for those men or society as a whole.

Tee 07-26-2019 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772674)
I can certainly say hopelessness is not a pleasant feeling and if the current culture is leading more and more young isolated men to feel hopeless that is likely not ideal for those men or society as a whole.

We can see them. They discourage each other and chase all hope out of the room, that's the problem. You should check it out.

elucidator 07-26-2019 08:51 PM

She was only the banker's daughter, but there was substantial penalty for early withdrawal.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tee (Post 21772705)
We can see them. They discourage each other and chase all hope out of the room, that's the problem. You should check it out.

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. Or as another example, it's a chicken and egg problem.

Let's take an autistic man for example, since both the two "incel killers" were autistic men. Autistic men get bullied like crazy growing up. They have high sex drives and want relationships. Women reject them massively. People in general reject them massively. There is no cure for their problem. According to one citation there, autistic men have 10 times as many suicidal thoughts and are 7.55 times more likely to die from suicide than normal men:

https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Bla..._as_normal_men

That's not autistic "incels" in the way people here are trying to characterize incels - that's just regular autistic men who are failing horribly at life and being left isolated, depressed, alone, and suicidal. There's no "incel forum" causing that - it's just life.

Ditto with the study saying short men have double the suicide rate of tall men:

https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Bla...te_of_tall_men

It's not as dramatic an effect, but anything that doubles your risk of blowing your head off in life should be considered significant. Again no "incel forum" is involved in that effect.

I don't know if incel forums make incels feel better or worse about their situation. Probably if there is a discouragement of improvement that is not good, but on the other hand it probably makes them feel less alone and gives them a place to vent. I would rather they vent their anger in Internet posts than in real life.

I'm not sure what society would otherwise intend to offer men like this. Autism is also on the rise, FYI:

https://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hghr/onl...l-perspective/

Maybe some of that is overdiagnosis, but likely it is rising as well from aging parents having babies past their most fertile years. I have read increased paternal age is associated with higher risk of autism for example.

So what are we going to do with all these people? What real actual solutions can society offer to these problems?

Darren Garrison 07-26-2019 08:59 PM

They could solve this by issuing mandatory punch-cards to women. After a certain number of sexes with men that they find attractive, they would be required to sex with a short, ugly, poor, autistic Asian.

Monty 07-26-2019 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772509)
That does not make any sense at all.


Now you see that as a problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike (Post 21772655)
G’night. I’m in the middle of a good book. And my gorgeous wife will probably want to have mind-blowing sex.


No doubt. But I guess she's going to have to settle for sex with you. {I kid, I kid! You know you walked into that one.}

By the way, my wife says I'm cute. I like to think I'm handsome, but since "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I'm going to have to accept her judgment on the matter. And most people find her to be gorgeous. I guess the "Incel" world-view is a crock, hey?

TheFuture 07-26-2019 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 21772730)
They could solve this by issuing mandatory punch-cards to women. After a certain number of sexes with men that they find attractive, they would be required to sex with a short, ugly, poor, autistic Asian.

lmao. I'm sure the short, ugly, poor, autistic Asian man would be cool with it.

Seriously though I think sex work should be legalized as it could be therapeutic. If a woman wants to do that and she is being paid well, why does the law say she can't? In Britain they allow sex workers to service disabled men under government programs:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-l...taboo-10792163

That's not a total solution but it might help a bit. Most autistic guys ARE pretty disabled according to this data. Why should disabled people be barred from even paying to experience sex or intimacy with someone who is agreeable to provide it for a fee?

Chimera 07-26-2019 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772736)
Seriously though I think sex work should be legalized as it could be therapeutic.

There are legal brothels in Nevada.
There are legal brothels in Europe.

It's not like they don't exist.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772748)
There are legal brothels in Nevada.
There are legal brothels in Europe.

It's not like they don't exist.

Sure but that's not then accessible to most men. The Mirror article on disabled men and sex workers also talks a lot about how many of the men are repeat customers. ie. The sex workers provide a long term surrogacy for the disabled men (who would almost certainly be involuntarily celibate on account of their disabilities without those sex workers).

I don't think most men want to just have sex once then say, "Well that's it, I'm good for life. My sex drive and drive for female affection has been fully satisfied." I think especially for autistic men who are covered in that article you need a long term kind of process because I think the thing autistic men want the most in addition to just sex is a sense of human connection, since that's what they're least capable of establishing.

Highly intelligent AI sex dolls could do this one day but it will be a long time until those exist in any practical sense.

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 09:33 PM

Wow, I go out to dinner and this Gish Gallop is still going on. Good thing I like trainwrecks.

Sherrerd 07-26-2019 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 21772730)
They could solve this by issuing mandatory punch-cards to women. After a certain number of sexes with men that they find attractive, they would be required to sex with a short, ugly, poor, autistic Asian.

Now why aren't you running for President!?!

^_^

Tee 07-26-2019 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772720)
So what are we going to do with all these people? What real actual solutions can society offer to these problems?

I seem to pair bond with men on the spectrum. Don't ask me why, I don't know. For purposes of this discussion though, you say they want relationships...I can give you a brief rundown of problems that might arise with autistic men in relationships, and incels of course have no idea of this. No matter, we're on to legalized sex work already, which is not a relationship, it's just guaranteed sex...and you're right, it may do them a world of good, the ones who would lower themselves to that.

We run into this periodically and it never fails to amaze me...that we need to find a way to fix the most misogynist, rage-fueled, openly degrading men we can think of, by fucking them. Just amazing.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tee (Post 21772774)
I seem to pair bond with men on the spectrum. Don't ask me why, I don't know. For purposes of this discussion though, you say they want relationships...I can give you a brief rundown of problems that might arise with autistic men in relationships, and incels of course have no idea of this. No matter, we're on to legalized sex work already, which is not a relationship, it's just guaranteed sex...and you're right, it may do them a world of good, the ones who would lower themselves to that.

We run into this periodically and it never fails to amaze me...that we need to find a way to fix the most misogynist, rage-fueled, openly degrading men we can think of, by fucking them. Just amazing.

Again I don't think that's a fair judgment to say incels are the "most misogynist, rage-fueled, openly degrading men we can think of". I think guys like Ted Bundy or Josef Fritzl would have most incels beat on that metric. And I think we can reasonably say some incels are just lonely men with mental or physical problems who can't get dates, love, or sex.

Mr. Miskatonic 07-26-2019 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 21772730)
They could solve this by issuing mandatory punch-cards to women. After a certain number of sexes with men that they find attractive, they would be required to sex with a short, ugly, poor, autistic Asian.

You laugh, but on incel forums this is one of their more moderate solutions.

They honestly act like sex is bread that should be rationed, or more likely horded by them.

As for the excuses? Same old same old. If society changes its standards it won't be by incels whining about how they are short. All they have is a bunch of psychotic solutions in toxic forums brimming with digital self-harm.

Tee 07-26-2019 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772779)
And I think we can reasonably say some incels are just lonely men with mental or physical problems who can't get dates, love, or sex.

We can, and we have, but then we would not call them incels. Incel is a word people adopt for themselves, it's not assigned to them.

Czarcasm 07-26-2019 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772779)
Again I don't think that's a fair judgment to say incels are the "most misogynist, rage-fueled, openly degrading men we can think of". I think guys like Ted Bundy or Josef Fritzl would have most incels beat on that metric. And I think we can reasonably say some incels are just lonely men with mental or physical problems who can't get dates, love, or sex.

Are you the former, the latter or both?

TheFuture 07-26-2019 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tee (Post 21772802)
We can, and we have, but then we would not call them incels. Incel is a word people adopt for themselves, it's not assigned to them.

This again. Then how do you explain the fact that some men who are clearly not misogynists like the ones in the BBC documentary call themselves incel? Or that many women now call themselves incels as well?

I just searched and found all these articles about women who say they are incels:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...te-incel-woman
https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-cult...ncel-movement/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-be-incels-too
https://quillette.com/2018/07/18/i-was-a-female-incel/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...le-incels.html

So should someone tell all these women they're also using the wrong word? Those articles are all from 2018/2019 so they are current. Which word should they use? And what word should we use for the nonhateful male incels? How many more words do we need to accurately describe all these variations of people who want sex/love but aren't getting it?

This word-war nonsense people keep circling to sounds like empty SJW culture war bullshit to me. SJWs always want to talk about words all day and instruct you on which words are okay for which thing even if it's illogical and cumbersome.

An incel is an involuntary celibate. Some incels are men. Some incels are women. Some incels have misogynists beliefs. Some incels do not.

That is a far better way to use the word that actually still makes sense in the context of all the above. And we don't have to come up with a dozen new words because that word can only mean one very narrow thing now because of no good reason.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21772810)
Are you the former, the latter or both?

I've done okay for myself in dating. I can definitely say I'm glad I went to university before Tinder was a thing. I'm not the tallest or best looking guy, so I have relied mostly on my personality to get women.

I can see how the current dating system could make things harder for most men than before.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772587)
That was my question in the OP exactly. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked.

So it's a non issue that means nothing and you're wasting everyone's time. Got it.

Wesley Clark 07-26-2019 10:19 PM

Looking at that a bit, that is interesting they got all those studies together. But those studies only tell part of the story.

Like with women preferring dark triad men. Yes women prefer them, but only for short term mating. My understanding is that for long term mating, dark triad personality traits are a negative and not a positive. Which makes sense.

Either way, by a person's late 30s nearly 80% of people are married or have been married. I'm sure an even higher % have been in committed relationships. So people of all looks and personalities end up in relationships.

running coach 07-26-2019 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772819)
I've done okay for myself in dating. I can definitely say I'm glad I went to university before Tinder was a thing. I'm not the tallest or best looking guy, so I have relied mostly on my personality to get women.

I can see how the current dating system could make things harder for most men than before.

And that worked?

Tee 07-26-2019 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772817)
This word-war nonsense people keep circling to sounds like empty SJW culture war bullshit to me. SJWs always want to talk about words all day and instruct you on which words are okay for which thing even if it's illogical and cumbersome.

In this case it's warranted. You don't assign the word "incel" to people because of the hateful connotations, which you know nothing about by your own admission. "Involuntary celibate" might work if we really need an all-inclusive word, I mean the extra letters are free, but I would defer to others on that.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 21772825)
And that worked?

Sure. Why not? I have a top tier personality in my opinion in terms of wit, intelligence, charisma, etc. I also have a bit of some Dark Triad traits myself and maybe a bit of ADHD too. The Dark Triad stuff and even ADHD interestingly enough are supported by that data as attractive to women.

The studies linked didn't say personality didn't matter. They just said it didn't matter in the ways most people think. And that it matters less than Looks. One of the studies there says the importance is: Looks > Personality > Money for both genders.

For my part, nowadays I do better on speed dating than I do online, since I get swiped left online, but IRL I can make a girl laugh etc. Most dating culture is becoming more swipe oriented so it's easy to see how looks can become even more important. Most of my dating was before online dating was a big thing.

I also don't believe most of your personality is malleable. Eg. You can't teach someone to be smarter, or less autistic. Most people's personalities don't change that much over their lives, except perhaps after major trauma or over many years of failure/success.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tee (Post 21772829)
In this case it's warranted. You don't assign the word "incel" to people because of the hateful connotations, which you know nothing about by your own admission. "Involuntary celibate" might work if we really need an all-inclusive word, I mean the extra letters are free, but I would defer to others on that.

Yeah except I linked many recent articles that are not using the word the way you are suggesting it must be used, and are instead using it the way I am using it. So I think my usage is entirely fine, and as I said, it is far simpler, more correct, and more logical.

Let's look at the implication of your usage.

Say we have an "incel forum". Then say a man who is involuntarily celibate starts posting on it but he harbors no misogyny and no violent thoughts. He is just a lonely man looking to talk to people in the same position. Let's say a certain percent of the users of that forum can be described that way on an ongoing basis.

Then what? Are we saying even the "involuntarily celibate" men using incel forums aren't really all incel? So only a certain percent of "incel" men are actually incel? Do you not see how cumbersome and brain melting that becomes?

In no other area is a word warped like this. Eg. We don't call all suicide bombers "muslims" and then say we can't use that word for other muslims anymore because it only applies to ones that strap bombs to themselves so we will call normal muslims "followers of islam" from now on. We call them "radical muslims" or "muslim extremists" and still use the word muslim to describe the whole group.

Why can't we use the same logic here? How is it not more logical to use it the way I am and the women in those articles are?

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772587)
That was my question in the OP exactly. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked.

Oh, so now you DO have solutions...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772736)
lmao. I'm sure the short, ugly, poor, autistic Asian man would be cool with it.

Seriously though I think sex work should be legalized as it could be therapeutic. If a woman wants to do that and she is being paid well, why does the law say she can't? In Britain they allow sex workers to service disabled men under government programs:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-l...taboo-10792163

That's not a total solution but it might help a bit. Most autistic guys ARE pretty disabled according to this data. Why should disabled people be barred from even paying to experience sex or intimacy with someone who is agreeable to provide it for a fee?

I'm sure you have plenty of more ideas. Please share them.

Personally, I have no problems with legalizing prostitution. But I also want there to be good policing to prevent trafficking. Where the line is, I'm not sure.

Skywatcher 07-26-2019 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772855)
I'm sure you have plenty of more ideas. Please share them.

We can do without the ones concerning scat fetishes, though. ;)

TheFuture 07-26-2019 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772855)
Oh, so now you DO have solutions...



I'm sure you have plenty of more ideas. Please share them.

Personally, I have no problems with legalizing prostitution. But I also want there to be good policing to prevent trafficking. Where the line is, I'm not sure.

You're a real pleasant guy to talk to, you know that? I can almost imagine you sneering through the screen with every reply.

I already said the only ideas I can come up with. Prostitution now. Sex robots eventually. Or maybe we can make our culture less sex oriented so people don't think it's as important as they do now. I was thinking maybe that's what's happened in Japan, and while people here want to tell me I'm wrong about the Japanese, no one can seem to explain how they managed to get such massive celibacy levels without all the "incel problems" that the west supposedly has. It would be useful to figure that out I think. I've offered my initial theories on that.

When I was writing about autistic men's suicide rates a minute ago, I was also wondering if in person support groups would be good for this sort of thing. I don't know what the true solution to autism is. It seems like a pretty bleak and lonely existence. I'm sure as fuck glad I don't have to deal with that.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772869)
You're a real pleasant guy to talk to, you know that? I can almost imagine you sneering through the screen with every reply.

I already said the only ideas I can come up with. Prostitution now. Sex robots eventually. Or maybe we can make our culture less sex oriented so people don't think it's as important as they do now. I was thinking maybe that's what's happened in Japan, and while people here want to tell me I'm wrong about the Japanese, no one can seem to explain how they managed to get such massive celibacy levels without all the "incel problems" that the west supposedly has. It would be useful to figure that out I think. I've offered my initial theories on that.

When I was writing about autistic men's suicide rates a minute ago, I was also wondering if in person support groups would be good for this sort of thing. I don't know what the true solution to autism is. It seems like a pretty bleak and lonely existence. I'm sure as fuck glad I don't have to deal with that.

I sneer because there is no scientific study that could or should trump consent. If women don't wanna fuck somebody for whatever reason, that's their prerogative. It's up to the guys to make themselves fuckable. Either with money or, God forbid, improving their personality. I feel real bad for autistic guys who have a hard time with this. But...sorry, you can't impose your will upon the unwilling. Which, inevitably, is where all these incel conversations lead. ALL of them.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772883)
I sneer because there is no scientific study that could or should trump consent. If women don't wanna fuck somebody for whatever reason, that's their prerogative. It's up to the guys to make themselves fuckable. Either with money or, God forbid, improving their personality. I feel real bad for autistic guys who have a hard time with this. But...sorry, you can't impose your will upon the unwilling. Which, inevitably, is where all these incel conversations lead. ALL of them.

I don't see why that should have to be the end point of the conversation. That's pretty narrow minded to think we can't solve a problem unless someone gets raped.

I think we can do better than that.

Tee 07-26-2019 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772846)
Why can't we use the same logic here? How is it not more logical to use it the way I am and the women in those articles are?

The femcel cites were interesting. Not the older, divorced or widowed women using the term unknowingly, and not the ripsnorting bullshit at Quillette, but the ones who claimed to be a part of the incel boards. Note that one had to pretend to be a man in the forums. I'm not sure what this proves to you. It supports my saying that “incel” is not indicative of both genders, because the misogyny is unavoidable and women are typically banned from there. The term is going to be problematic no matter how determined you are to restore its rightful place in the world.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772890)
I don't see why that should have to be the end point of the conversation. That's pretty narrow minded to think we can't solve a problem unless someone gets raped.

I think we can do better than that.

I'm just tired of the bullshit. Just say what you came here to say from the very moment you started this thread.

If you legitimately have some sort of solution, some end game, some wonder cure, just please say it. THEN we can START the discussion.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772896)
I'm just tired of the bullshit. Just say what you came here to say from the very moment you started this thread.

If you legitimately have some sort of solution, some end game, some wonder cure, just please say it. THEN we can START the discussion.

What the hell kind of thing is that to say? You're saying I have to have the solution to a problem no one in society has been able to offer a good solution on in order to even start a discussion about how to solve it?

Since when is that how a discussion works? I just gave my only ideas. You just replied to them so I know you read them. If we need to start at a solution in order to discuss anything, are those not good enough?

I was hoping other people might have some other ideas or thoughts as well.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tee (Post 21772892)
The femcel cites were interesting. Not the older, divorced or widowed women using the term unknowingly, and not the ripsnorting bullshit at Quillette, but the ones who claimed to be a part of the incel boards. Note that one had to pretend to be a man in the forums. I'm not sure what this proves to you. It supports my saying that “incel” is not indicative of both genders, because the misogyny is unavoidable and women are typically banned from there. The term is going to be problematic no matter how determined you are to restore its rightful place in the world.

It doesn't matter what I do. As long as women continue to apply the word "incel" to themselves you will continue to be wrong.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772909)
What the hell kind of thing is that to say? You're saying I have to have the solution to a problem no one in society has been able to offer a good solution on in order to even start a discussion about how to solve it?

Since when is that how a discussion works? I just gave my only ideas. You just replied to them so I know you read them. If we need to start at a solution in order to discuss anything, are those not good enough?

I was hoping other people might have some other ideas or thoughts as well.

How many times do you need to hear/read "incels need to work on themselves and not blame others" for you to get it?

TheFuture 07-26-2019 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772912)
How many times do you need to hear/read "incels need to work on themselves and not blame others" for you to get it?

That's a nice platitude but it doesn't actually solve anything for the ones that still won't make the cut after "working on themselves and not blaming others." I mean, so an autistic man "works on himself", still doesn't get a girlfriend, and then blows his brains out from loneliness at 7.55x times the rate as a normal man.

Problem solved, huh? That's still the best we can do?

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772909)
What the hell kind of thing is that to say? You're saying I have to have the solution to a problem no one in society has been able to offer a good solution on in order to even start a discussion about how to solve it?

Since when is that how a discussion works? I just gave my only ideas. You just replied to them so I know you read them. If we need to start at a solution in order to discuss anything, are those not good enough?

I was hoping other people might have some other ideas or thoughts as well.

Also, I'm 90% sure you have had an idea to solve this problem from the very beginning. But now that we've already called bullshit on it, you are backpedaling.

Chimera 07-26-2019 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772817)
empty SJW culture war bullshit

Oh okay, we're going there now. I'll make my exit and leave you to your whining then.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772913)
That's a nice platitude but it doesn't actually solve anything for the ones that still won't make the cut after "working on themselves and not blaming others." I mean, so an autistic man "works on himself", still doesn't get a girlfriend, and then blows his brains out from loneliness at 7.55x times the rate as a normal man.

Problem solved, huh? That's still the best we can do?

So you're saying they SHOULD blame others? Or are you just ignoring what all "working on themselves" actually can entail?

TheFuture 07-27-2019 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772919)
So you're saying they SHOULD blame others? Or are you just ignoring what all "working on themselves" actually can entail?

What does blame have to do with wanting to help someone who is suffering and suicidal? We have all sorts of initiatives to help people when they are desperate. eg. Most places have some form of welfare for people who can't get a job. If someone needs to take advantage of such a service, it doesn't mean that person should "blame someone" for the fact that they can't get a job or not work on trying to get a job. It just means we recognize they need a bit of help and we're willing to provide it until hopefully they can succeed on their own. Or if they are permanently disabled, we typically support them indefinitely.

I'm not saying those are equivalent problems or solutions. Just that "blame" has nothing to do with the equation. Eg. No one intends to have an autistic child and no person intends to be born autistic. Ditto with deformities or other problems. So how can anyone be blamed for it?

Are you a social Darwinist in general or just on this issue? I have nothing against someone who is a social Darwinist as long as they are applying the principle consistently across the board.

snfaulkner 07-27-2019 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772922)
What does blame have to do with wanting to help someone who is suffering and suicidal? We have all sorts of initiatives to help people when they are desperate. eg. Most places have some form of welfare for people who can't get a job. If someone needs to take advantage of such a service, it doesn't mean that person should "blame someone" for the fact that they can't get a job or not work on trying to get a job. It just means we recognize they need a bit of help and we're willing to provide it until hopefully they can succeed on their own. Or if they are permanently disabled, we typically support them indefinitely.

I'm not saying those are equivalent problems or solutions. Just that "blame" has nothing to do with the equation. Eg. No one intends to have an autistic child and no person intends to be born autistic. Ditto with deformities or other problems. So how can anyone be blamed for it?

Are you a social Darwinist in general or just on this issue? I have nothing against someone who is a social Darwinist as long as they are applying the principle consistently across the board.

I wasn't saying they should blame anyone. I was asking you if they should.

So since we're in agreement on that, ok. You've mentioned giving them help. I'm all for that. Psychological/psychiatric help can work wonders. That is but one part of...listen carefully...working on themselves. Or do you have a different idea about giving them "a bit of help"?

TheFuture 07-27-2019 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772932)
I wasn't saying they should blame anyone. I was asking you if they should.

So since we're in agreement on that, ok. You've mentioned giving them help. I'm all for that. Psychological/psychiatric help can work wonders. That is but one part of...listen carefully...working on themselves. Or do you have a different idea about giving them "a bit of help"?

Yes, I do have a different idea about that. I don't think forceably drugging people up on antidepressants or telling them to talk to a shrink for an hour a week will healthily overcome their natural male drive for a partner or sex or companionship which are probably the strongest drives we have after eating, drinking, and sleeping. It's that drive that propagated the species to this point, so of course it is a strong one. I think solutions should recognize that. Which is why I think for example legalized prostitution like they describe in that Mirror article could do more good than 1000 shrinks and 1000000 antidepressants. It's not like psychiatrists can cure autism or many of the other issues that might make someone incel.

The notion that most incels probably just have one simple problem with their personality ("misogyny!") and otherwise they'd do fine in dating is almost certainly false. The world has lots of disabled, deformed, mentally ill, terribly ugly, and otherwise abnormal people in it. It seems inevitable some percent of those people will absolutely end up involuntarily celibate and they won't be able to "work on themselves" sufficiently to be able to compete with the guys who were born far better off.

I mean sure, everyone should "work on themselves", but what happens to the ones where that is not enough? Or they try and fail?

Why can't we recognize that people have a natural desire for companionship, sex, relationships, and love, which is actually healthy for them to fulfill? And then try to offer them some facsimile of that if we can't give them the real thing? Wouldn't that make more sense to try to accomplish?

snfaulkner 07-27-2019 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772947)
Yes, I do have a different idea about that. I don't think forceably

Let me stop you right there. I am vehemently against forcing anyone to give up their own autonomy as long as they aren't infringing on others' autonomy. Tho I admit there might be some debatable exceptions. So far you haven't convinced me of such.

Quote:

...forcing drugging people up on antidepressants or telling them to talk to a shrink for an hour a week will healthily overcome their natural male drive for a partner or sex or companionship which are probably the strongest drives we have after eating, drinking, and sleeping.
who's generalizing now?

Quote:

It's that drive that propagated the species to this point, so of course it is a strong one. I think solutions should recognize that. Which is why I think for example legalized prostitution like they describe in that Mirror article could do more good than 1000 shrinks and 1000000 antidepressants. It's not like psychiatrists can cure autism or many of the other issues that might make someone incel.

The notion that most incels probably just have one simple problem with their personality ("misogyny!")
i think most here are saying it's more than that
Quote:


and otherwise they'd do fine in dating is almost certainly false. The world has lots of disabled, deformed, mentally ill, terribly ugly, and otherwise abnormal people in it. It seems inevitable some percent of those people will absolutely end up involuntarily celibate and they won't be able to "work on themselves" sufficiently to be able to compete with the guys who were born far better off.

I mean sure, everyone should "work on themselves", but what happens to the ones where that is not enough? Or they try and fail?
you tell me. Please, just say what you have been dancing around this whole time
Quote:



Why can't we recognize that people have a natural desire for companionship, sex, relationships, and love, which is actually healthy for them to fulfill?
we do already.
Quote:

And then try to offer them some facsimile of that if we can't give them the real thing? Wouldn't that make more sense to try to accomplish?
Again, please stop wasting everyone's time and say what you came here to say.

TheFuture 07-27-2019 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772960)
Let me stop you right there. I am vehemently against forcing anyone to give up their own autonomy as long as they aren't infringing on others' autonomy. Tho I admit there might be some debatable exceptions. So far you haven't convinced me of such.

who's generalizing now?

i think most here are saying it's more than that you tell me. Please, just say what you have been dancing around this whole time we do already.

Again, please stop wasting everyone's time and say what you came here to say.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that's the extent of my thoughts on the matter. If you've exhausted your idea supply as well, then perhaps we can stop talking and wait to see if anyone else has any other ideas or thoughts?

SlackerInc 07-27-2019 01:21 AM

I agree with everyone who says that the spin and conclusions drawn from this body of research are, shall we say...unfortunate. But can we also acknowledge that these study findings are in and of themselves rather hair raising, even if what is left out is the even darker picture of men that could be painted by looking at a different set of studies? While incels and the MRA crowd are definitely full of shit, the evidence would tend to lead an objective observer to the conclusion that social scientists, ardent feminists, and the politically correct Twitterati are also just as full of feces.

Voyager 07-27-2019 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772947)
Yes, I do have a different idea about that. I don't think forceably drugging people up on antidepressants or telling them to talk to a shrink for an hour a week will healthily overcome their natural male drive for a partner or sex or companionship which are probably the strongest drives we have after eating, drinking, and sleeping. It's that drive that propagated the species to this point, so of course it is a strong one. I think solutions should recognize that. Which is why I think for example legalized prostitution like they describe in that Mirror article could do more good than 1000 shrinks and 1000000 antidepressants. It's not like psychiatrists can cure autism or many of the other issues that might make someone incel.

The notion that most incels probably just have one simple problem with their personality ("misogyny!") and otherwise they'd do fine in dating is almost certainly false. The world has lots of disabled, deformed, mentally ill, terribly ugly, and otherwise abnormal people in it. It seems inevitable some percent of those people will absolutely end up involuntarily celibate and they won't be able to "work on themselves" sufficiently to be able to compete with the guys who were born far better off.

Are you saying that most incels are autistic, terribly ugly disabled and/or mentally ill?

BTW, while sex work might be illegal in many places, if an incel cannot find a sex worker you can add stupidity to their many other fine qualities. But I don't think access to prostitutes would help them much in the long run.
Might I remind you that Stephen Hawking had an affair - and I doubt you can find many men more disabled than he was.

MrDibble 07-27-2019 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21772276)
Picking one bullet point at random:
Quote:

More men are raped in the USA every year than women
<...snip by Dibble>
More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons.
In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures.
That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.
<...snip by Dibble...>
Peer-reviewed journals, my ass.

Here's a pretty comprehensive takedown of that one.
tl;dr version:
  1. Compares numbers for prison sexual assault (which definition includes unwanted touch and attempted rape) with numbers for actual rape outside
  2. Compares self-assessed prison numbers with numbers of rapes officially reported
  3. Uses prison numbers that include women prisoners (who reportedly have higher rates of sexual assault in prison than men)
1 is the absolute killer for me.
So yeah, if the other cites are as bullshit as that one, I would not be surprised.

Kobal2 07-27-2019 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772918)
Oh okay, we're going there now. I'll make my exit and leave you to your whining then.


I mean, yes, but at the same time, dude. Incel defender. OF COURSE that's where we were going. It's pretty much also where we started, so at least the trek was uneventful.

Helena330 07-27-2019 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772913)
That's a nice platitude but it doesn't actually solve anything for the ones that still won't make the cut after "working on themselves and not blaming others." I mean, so an autistic man "works on himself", still doesn't get a girlfriend, and then blows his brains out from loneliness at 7.55x times the rate as a normal man.

Problem solved, huh? That's still the best we can do?

You have to start someplace. Focus on the ones who CAN "make the cut" after "working on themselves and not blaming others." You'll make a significant dent in the problem and there won't be as many unhappy men. Yes, there will still be some who are unhappy. Do what you can now and work on the rest later. Why isn't that acceptable to you?? There isn't one solution that will work for everyone. But you aren't even willing to entertain what would work for many. So it's understandable that people think you have a motive with all this verbose bullshit.

iiandyiiii 07-27-2019 06:56 AM

Legalizing prostitution wouldn't really change anything for incels (though I'm still in favor of it, and other proposals to give more rights and dignity to sex workers). Prostitution is still ubiquitous in America and most other places, and unless you're a complete idiot, very easy to utilize without getting in trouble (in my understanding, not my personal experience ;)). If incels are consumed with anger and bitterness over a lack of sex with women, and nothing else, then it would be trivially easy, with a relatively low risk (or no risk if they take a vacation to Nevada), to hire a prostitute.

HMS Irruncible 07-27-2019 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772947)
Why can't we recognize that people have a natural desire for companionship, sex, relationships, and love, which is actually healthy for them to fulfill? ?

It is healthy to get up off your ass and put in some work to find a partner. Every life-improvement project involves work.

Quote:

And then try to offer them some facsimile of that if we can't give them the real thing?
There are plenty of facsimiles. Porn, for instance. But facsimile isn't really enough for you, is it?

Quote:

Wouldn't that make more sense to try to accomplish?
It makes sense for YOU to try to accomplish that. Either accomplish it, or accomplish therapy to deal with the disappointment. You are not entitled to have anyone else accomplish it, no matter how much sophistry and wheedling you deploy.

asahi 07-27-2019 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

An argument requires more than sources to be valid; the information from said sources has to be used correctly.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.