# Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [July 26, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677 "2019-07-26T18:11:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 26

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Trafalgar\_Laura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trafalgar_laura/32/2907_2.png) [@Trafalgar\_Laura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trafalgar_Laura)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/504 "2019-08-04T18:03:22Z")

</div>

To respond to the request for a citation on those numbers:

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> For example, if you [look at the actual study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085605) spun on the incels wiki as “62% of women have rape fantasies”, what it says is that among 355 female undergraduates, 62% had **ever** had a rape fantasy, with the median frequency of such fantasies among that 62% being 4 times per year. So it’s fair to say that about two-thirds of women never or almost never fantasize about being raped.
> 
> [Other research indicates](https://www.businessinsider.com/which-sexual-fantasies-are-normal-2014-10) that men and women are about equal in their tendency to fantasize about being forced to have sex: 28.9% of women versus 30.7% of men. Fantasies about forcing someone else to have sex, on the other hand, are reported by 10.8% of women and 22.0% of men.
> 
> In short, a tendency to fantasize about raping or being raped is not uncommon (though not a majority characteristic) among men and women alike, and they have little or nothing to do with what people seek in their real-life sexual experiences. But of course that mundane conclusion is not what the people on incels wiki want to hear, since they tend to be heavily invested in misogynistic notions of women being subservient sluts who just want dominant men to abuse them.

I was talking about this post by **Kimstu** , and specifically, the other research mentioned. I found it interesting, and that it was too bad the conversation hadn’t gone further into looking at the implications of men experiencing these fantasies, perhaps as often or more often than women do. Not to mention how Kimstu’s post helpfully pointed out the actual details behind the numbers in the first study, instead of citing the most sensationalist (OMG 62% of women!) without context.

There is a very high demand for dominant women within certain… sub-communities, and there’s surely a reason if not a number of varied reasons for that.

And I imagine we can come up with a just-so simple story for how this fits with evo psych too, if we stretch our minds enough. But it’s not really worth continuing to converse with someone who is so scattershot all over the place instead of focusing on one issue, aside from the vague manifesto that “science” (as a whole, single voice, speaking at once!) has declared “Incels are right about everything.” I don’t have the energy to keep chasing back and forth between topics. Also, I’m bored, and god help us if this idiocy is “TheFuture.”

But you just have a super day, there, buddy. After all, you are \*right \*about _everything_, and who can claim that? Other than a moron or liar, I mean.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/505 "2019-08-04T18:05:21Z")

</div>

> [@TheFuture](#):
>
> Because I don’t understand the point of what you’re suggesting. The studies are already linked by the wiki. There are like 130 or more of them summarized there. Have you ever read a review article before from a journal article? The whole point of a review article is that it takes 50-100+ articles and collates them to summarize them and allow a quick impression of a broad field of evidence. But each review article still lists its citations so you can see where they come from. Interestingly enough, I have found errors in review article citations where the citations don’t match the research, even in good peer-reviewed journals. But it is not common and it is easily checkable. No one suggests the entire concept of Review articles is rubbish though. It’s a common part of science in general. I don’t see how something like this is any different in general concept.
> 
> I did post one link directly to the study when repeatedly requested on the fact that Asian men have half the odds of relationships compared to white men which researchers concluded was due to “women’s racial hierarchies”. My posting of that did not lead to anything except me being insulted more and more strawmen being thrown at me. No one offered any commentary whatsoever on the article itself. So I can only conclude this is not a genuine request and, as stated (genetic fallacy, ad hominem, etc), it is not rational either.
> 
> Here is that study again if you do want to read it:  
> [Relationship Involvement Among Young Adults: Are Asian American Men an Exceptional Case? - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631383/)
> 
> I think the fact that people can’t even view that incel page (even via a third party host) without apparently vomiting or requiring me to extract information from it first and excise it away before they will even talk about it shows how emotional they are being. It demonstrates a lack of capacity for honest unbiased discussion, because if you were unbiased, there would be no reason to be so afraid of what site the information came from or didn’t come from. I love my mom, but if someone published a journal article tomorrow targeted at me that said “Your Mother’s a Whore” and the references and data was sound, then I would shrug and say “I guess so.” You can’t really go into science with all these emotions and biases and then expect to be able to consider things fairly.

Other than accusing us of being emotional, can you think of any reason why a person might want to see the original source material rather than a summary from a third party? Any reason at all? I’ll help you. Summaries are incomplete, may be inaccurate, and are informed by the bias of their creator. We would like to see the original material because we want to see the entirety of the story, not just what’s been cherry-picked by individuals with a very clear agenda. Further, in the cases where people have looked at your studies, material is presented out of context, the summary is incomplete, and/or other errors of fact or omission render the cite as used by the incel wiki meaningless.

Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the errors in the wiki, along with your refusal to make an argument, with cites, on your own, make debating with you about as pointless as spitting into the wind.

In general, folks have been very well behaved, despite the presence of this thread in the Pit. I personally see no reason to continue to try and engage in an intellectual discussion with you.

You are a dishonest, disingenuous twit. Fuck off.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TheFuture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@TheFuture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFuture)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/506 "2019-08-04T18:13:44Z")

</div>

> [@Sunny\_Daze](#):
>
> Other than accusing us of being emotional, can you think of any reason why a person might want to see the original source material rather than a summary from a third party? Any reason at all? I’ll help you. Summaries are incomplete, may be inaccurate, and are informed by the bias of their creator. We would like to see the original material because we want to see the entirety of the story, not just what’s been cherry-picked by individuals with a very clear agenda. Further, in the cases where people have looked at your studies, material is presented out of context, the summary is incomplete, and/or other errors of fact or omission render the cite as used by the incel wiki meaningless.
> 
> Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the errors in the wiki, along with your refusal to make an argument, with cites, on your own, make debating with you about as pointless as spitting into the wind.
> 
> In general, folks have been very well behaved, despite the presence of this thread in the Pit. I personally see no reason to continue to try and engage in an intellectual discussion with you.
> 
> You are a dishonest, disingenuous twit. Fuck off.

Wow more insults from Sunny Daze. What a surprise. I don’t think you’ve spent much time reading science if you think that’s the case. Abstracts are summaries. Review articles are summaries written by people who didn’t write the articles. Textbooks are summaries written by people who didn’t write the articles. Encyclopedias and Wikipedia are summaries written by people who didn’t write the articles.

The whole point of writing a summary is that you must reference your sources. If the sources are referenced, then I don’t see an issue.

For example, for that race one I just posted: Here’s the formal abstract summary from the authors and journal that published it:

Asian American men and women have been largely neglected in previous studies of romantic relationship formation and status. Using data from the first and fourth waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), we examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (N=11,555). Drawing from explanations that focus on structural and cultural elements as well as racial hierarchies, we examine the factors that promote and impede involvement in romantic/sexual relationships. We use logistic regression to model current involvement of men and women separately and find, with the exception of Filipino men, Asian men are significantly less likely than white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.

Here’s how that incel page summarized it:

Data from the data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) was evaluated to examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (n = 11,555).

Overall, white men had the highest odds of being in a relationship, followed in order by Hispanic, black and Asian men. In fact, it was found that Asian men were half as likely as white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Asian women by contrast did not suffer any reduced odds of being in a relationship compared to white women.

Researchers concluded that the dramatically lower odds of an Asian man finding a relationship are due to the racial hierarchies women employ in judging men.

Data:  
Man’s Race Odds Ratio of Being in a Romantic/Sexual Relationship  
White 1.0  
Hispanic 0.895-0.967  
Black 0.738-0.769  
Asian 0.474-0.586

Quotes:

```
Asian women were half as likely as Asian men to be unpartnered (i.e., 18% versus 35%).
Asian men, but not black or Hispanic men, exhibit significantly lower odds of involvement than white men. Specifically, they have roughly half the odds of current involvement as white men.
We found no evidence that socioeconomic resources or physical characteristics were driving the lower levels of involvement among Asian men. Instead, our findings are consistent with the notion that Asian American men are at the bottom of the racial hierarchy when it comes to the different-sex dating market.
If “Asian cultural values” account for differences in romantic partnership formation, we would have found similar patterns for Asian women as Asian men. In fact, the opposite was true.
Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
A racial hierarchy explanation suggests that Asian American men will be less likely than Asian American women to be partnered, as Asian American men face gendered cultural stereotypes barring them from entry into romantic partnerships.

```

References:

```
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631383/

```

Why is one of these summaries okay and the other is not?

You are not being logical which is why you are continually resorting to insults.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/507 "2019-08-04T18:24:13Z")

</div>

> [@TheFuture](#):
>
> Have you ever bought Japanese condoms before? I have and all the ones I got were much smaller than American condoms. I don’t know how to explain that. I’m not big at all (average) and they were reaallly tight. Maybe I got the wrong brands. But I’ve never seen any brand of American ones like that. I think condom data would give the best information on penis size because there’s a massive financial and legal obligation to get it right. Whereas, no university is going to dedicate a $1,000,000 grant to measuring the dicks of men all over the world just for the fun of it.

They did measure over 15,000 penises in the peer-reviewed article I previously linked to.

Here is a study measuring 253 men in Tanzania:  
[https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3200](https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3200)

Here is one from Nigeria measuring 115 men in Nigeria:  
[https://www.ajol.info/index.php/wajm/article/download/28282/5049](https://www.ajol.info/index.php/wajm/article/download/28282/5049) (PDF warning)

The average length in those studies was at or slightly below the world average. So much for the myth of larger penis size for men of African heritage.

You are citing personal anecdotes as evidence that condoms are smaller in Japan. How about this article citing a statistic from a manufacturer of “male masturbatory devices” (I’m not sure what those are and didn’t look into details) that claims to have measured sizes for over 50,000 males, and found the Japan average larger than the American average. Now, I don’t claim that this is a rigorous scientific study like my previous cites, but it’s still better than a single person’s anecdote.

[https://www.tokyoreporter.com/japan-news/tabloid/tenga-survey-data-sheds-new-light-on-how-japanese-males-measure-up/](https://www.tokyoreporter.com/japan-news/tabloid/tenga-survey-data-sheds-new-light-on-how-japanese-males-measure-up/)

Again, there is no empirical evidence for the myth about racial penis size hierarchy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/508 "2019-08-04T18:53:52Z")

</div>

So this study is demonstrating that Japanese penises are disproportionately large relative to body size? I would have assumed it was roughly proportional worldwide.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/509 "2019-08-04T19:10:10Z")

</div>

> [@SlackerInc](#):
>
> So this study is demonstrating that Japanese penises are disproportionately large relative to body size? I would have assumed it was roughly proportional worldwide.

I think it’s just saying they’re not small, contrary to the prevailing “wisdom”. In general the average size seems about the same everywhere, with only minor deviation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/510 "2019-08-04T19:11:11Z")

</div>

Just because one is a big dick does not mean one has a big dick.

CMC fnord!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/511 "2019-08-04T20:06:01Z")

</div>

Congratulations. You finally did one, sort of. You missed the part where you state your position, but you’re learning.

> [@TheFuture](#):
>
> The whole point of writing a summary is that you must reference your sources. If the sources are referenced, then I don’t see an issue.

Yes, clearly you do feel that way. Several us have repeatedly explained to you why someone else’s summary is not adequate.

> [@](#):
>
> For example, for that race one I just posted: Here’s the formal abstract summary from the authors and journal that published it:
> 
> Asian American men and women have been largely neglected in previous studies of romantic relationship formation and status. Using data from the first and fourth waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), we examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (N=11,555). Drawing from explanations that focus on structural and cultural elements as well as racial hierarchies, we examine the factors that promote and impede involvement in romantic/sexual relationships. We use logistic regression to model current involvement of men and women separately and find, with the exception of Filipino men, Asian men are significantly less likely than white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
> 
> Here’s how that incel page summarized it:
> 
> Data from the data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) was evaluated to examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (n = 11,555).
> 
> Overall, white men had the highest odds of being in a relationship, followed in order by Hispanic, black and Asian men. In fact, it was found that Asian men were half as likely as white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Asian women by contrast did not suffer any reduced odds of being in a relationship compared to white women.
> 
> Researchers concluded that the dramatically lower odds of an Asian man finding a relationship are due to the racial hierarchies women employ in judging men.
> 
> Data:  
> Man’s Race Odds Ratio of Being in a Romantic/Sexual Relationship  
> White 1.0  
> Hispanic 0.895-0.967  
> Black 0.738-0.769  
> Asian 0.474-0.586
> 
> Quotes:
> 
> ```
> Asian women were half as likely as Asian men to be unpartnered (i.e., 18% versus 35%).
> Asian men, but not black or Hispanic men, exhibit significantly lower odds of involvement than white men. Specifically, they have roughly half the odds of current involvement as white men.
> We found no evidence that socioeconomic resources or physical characteristics were driving the lower levels of involvement among Asian men. Instead, our findings are consistent with the notion that Asian American men are at the bottom of the racial hierarchy when it comes to the different-sex dating market.
> If “Asian cultural values” account for differences in romantic partnership formation, we would have found similar patterns for Asian women as Asian men. In fact, the opposite was true.
> Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
> A racial hierarchy explanation suggests that Asian American men will be less likely than Asian American women to be partnered, as Asian American men face gendered cultural stereotypes barring them from entry into romantic partnerships.
> 
> ```
> 
> References:
> 
> ```
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631383/
> 
> ```
> 
> Why is one of these summaries okay and the other is not?
> 
> You are not being logical which is why you are continually resorting to insults.

I’m not the one with logic problems. I also see no need to avoid pejoratives. If you want a thread without bad words, start one out of the Pit.

I did take a look at the cite. I’d like to note that the study looked at men and women, not only men.

The study looked at 3 areas:  
[ul]  
[li]Structural - [/li][QUOTE]  
It may be that those who are not currently involved simply lack both economic and physical resources necessary to form a romantic relationship. In addition, structural explanations highlight the role that imbalances in local sex ratios (e.g., the number of men per 100 women in a metropolitan area) in shaping the availability of potential romantic and sexual partners (Fossett and Kiecolt 1991).  
[/QUOTE]

[li]Cultural - [/li][QUOTE]  
In contrast, cultural explanations suggest that the norms and values of some racial and ethnic groups (e.g., strict parental control over dating, obligation to the family) impede their romantic relationship involvement (Schneider and Lee 1990; Smith 2006; Espiritu 2001).  
[/QUOTE]

[li]Race Hierarchies - [/li][QUOTE]  
we add to the literature by considering a third explanation that emphasizes the role of racial hierarchies in shaping romantic involvement.  
[/QUOTE]

> [@](#):
>
> Critical race perspectives explicitly argue that racial hierarchies define desirability in ways (e.g., the equation of female attractiveness with white standards of beauty) that marginalize some groups of men and women in broader mate markets (Burton et al. 2010).

[/ul]

These authors are the first to propose “racial hierarchies” as causative in the forming of relationships.

Key quotes:

> [@](#):
>
> Studies continue to show that employment and earnings increase the likelihood of marriage, especially among men (e.g., Xie, Raymo, Goyette and Thornton 2007).

People with better economic prospects have a better chance at dating, co-habitation, or marriage.

> [@](#):
>
> A cultural framework suggests that some racial and ethnic groups, particularly those composed of a high proportion of immigrants, may have distinctive patterns of involvement due to their family values, such an emphasis on educational achievement (Glick, Ruf, Goldscheider and White, 2006; Schneider and Lee 1990), cultural views about dating and premarital sexual behavior (Espiritu 2001) and a heightened sense of obligation to the family (Smith 2006). Research that relies on a cultural framework to explain Asian patterns of union formation stress the influence of family ties that places strong constraint on obedience to parents which may limit premarital sexual behavior and cohabitation (Chan 1994). Research by Espiritu (2001) supports this notion, finding that Filipino first-generation parents retain strict control over their daughters’ dating choices as compared to their sons. Moreover, the control of parents over dating ought to affect women more than men, so to inhibit the relationship formation of Asian American women more than Asian American men.

Social expectations among groups can cause differences in when and how people form relationships.

> [@](#):
>
> Offering support for the cultural framework, prior research finds that romantic relationship behaviors among adolescents differ markedly by race and ethnicity (O’Sullivan et al. 2007). Given that adolescent romantic relationships are an important precursor of union formation in early adulthood (Raley, Crissey, and Muller 2007; Thornton, Axinn, and Xie 2007), we may expect racial and ethnic patterns of adult romantic partnerships to mirror adolescent patterns.

Again, different social norms cause different behaviors.

> [@](#):
>
> Studies have suggested that unflattering stereotypical media depictions of nonwhites have contributed to a racial hierarchy in many aspects of society, including mate preferences (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Larson 2006). For example, media studies continue to document the racialized portrayals of Asian men’s masculinity as desexualized or effeminate (Feng 2002; Eng 2001) and black women’s femininity as less than desirable (Larsen 2006; Collins 2004; Wallace 1990). Scholars suggest that a preference for white standards of beauty reduces black women’s opportunities to date or intermarry outside of their race (Collins 2004; Bany, Robnett and Feliciano 2014).

Many of these cites are older, but it seems likely that media plays a role in public perception of desirability.

> [@](#):
>
> Research on dating preferences provides additional evidence of this racial hierarchy. A recent study of internet daters finds that among those who expressed a racial preference, less than 10% of Asian men would not consider dating Asian women, yet approximately 40% of Asian women would rule out dating Asian men. It also reveals that more than 90% of women of all different racial groups who expressed a racial preference excluded Asian American men. In addition, men of all different racial groups are most likely to exclude black women than any other women (Feliciano, Robnett and Komaie 2009).

Note that they are pulling data from internet daters (methodology would be important to know) who expressed a preference on race. How many did or did not?

> [@](#):
>
> The analyses presented in this study are limited in a few respects. First, we do not measure mate availability.

They’ve noted themselves that this is a key metric.

> [@](#):
>
> A second limitation concerns our measurement of cultural norms. We do not have measures of parental attitudes toward the formation of romantic partnerships, which might provide us with a more direct measure of family influences on young adult behaviors.

The data they used does not provide them a way to measure social group expectations, which they have also noted are important.

> [@](#):
>
> As Add Health does not ask respondents about their willingness to form relationships with partners from specific racial groups, we are not able to empirically test the racial hierarchy explanation and suggest that future population-based surveys incorporate these measures.

The data they used does not permit empirical measurement of their proposed racial hierarchy. Any conclusions taken from this paper are purely theoretical.

**tl;dr the study doesn’t say what you think it does. The authors proposed a new metric, social hierarchy, but had no way to test for it. Testing that has occurred actually supports other factors, such as socioeconomic and cultural, as being relevant determiners of romantic prospects.**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/512 "2019-08-04T20:55:08Z")

</div>

> [@TheFuture](#):
>
> I did post one link directly to the study when repeatedly requested on the fact that Asian men have half the odds of relationships compared to white men which researchers concluded was due to “women’s racial hierarchies”. My posting of that did not lead to anything except me being insulted more and more strawmen being thrown at me.

We are in the pit, aren’t we? – yes, we are.

That’s bullshit.

It led to repeated demands, all of which you have ignored, to state what claim(s) you think that specific study proves. Here’s two, there have been others:

> [@thorny\_locust](#):
>
> in order to respond to your claim that these studies support what incels are saying, I need to compare the study to specific things that incels are saying. Yet again: what specific claim(s) that incels are making do you think that the specific study supports?  
> [. . .]  
> In case that was too much to read, let me give you part of it in shorter form:
> 
> 1. If the study you’re referring to is not “Relationship Involvement Among Young Adults: Are Asian American Men an Exceptional Case?”, then provide a direct link to whatever study you are talking about in the quoted post. (If it is that study, then you’ve already done so, and I have a page open to it.)
> 
> 2. For at least the third time: spell out what specific claim(s) incels are making that you think the study supports.

> [@thorny\_locust](#):
>
> Post a link to the specific study on one of those sites. If the link from your incels wiki does go to the actual study, that ought to be easy enough to do; just copy and paste the url from the study itself.
> 
> Now you actually did post such a link in one case, the study about Asian men that’s been briefly discussed already.
> 
> But you need to ALSO POST what specific incel claim you think the specific study is backing. “Everything” is not a valid comparison point. [. . .]
> 
> If you’ll do that, I’ll find time to look at the study.

It is also bullshit to say that nobody’s told you why we want direct links to the studies. We don’t trust your wiki’s links to go to the actual studies, and we don’t trust your wiki’s summaries to be accurate.

And we are in the Pit. The only possible reasons I can see for you to be so insistent that people click on links on an incel wiki page are

– 1) that you know those links don’t go direct to the studies but to some other incel page(s) that you either want clicks for or hope we’ll believe the lies on and/or

– 2) that as you’ve been consistently all through the thread posting links that go to a live incel page under the guise that you’re claiming they’re links to the studies (despite the fact that once early on in an 11 page thread you posted a link to an archive of the page), what you’re actually doing is trying very hard to get people to that specific page either because you want clicks for it or because you hope we’ll believe the lies on it or that

– 3) you’re too massively ignorant to understand the difference between an actual study and somebody’s biased description of it, and are exactly the sort of person the sites hope to be able to delude into destroying themselves.

Either of the first two reasons would mean you’re arguing in bad faith.

If it’s the third reason, the first thing you ought to do is to get away from those incel sites. They’re playing you, and they’ll think it’s funny when you flame out, whether or not you do damage to others besides yourself on the way.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/513 "2019-08-04T21:06:00Z")

</div>

> [@TheFuture](#):
>
> I did post one link directly to the study when repeatedly requested on the fact that Asian men have half the odds of relationships compared to white men which researchers concluded was due to “women’s racial hierarchies”. My posting of that did not lead to anything except me being insulted more and more strawmen being thrown at me.

We are in the pit, aren’t we? – yes, we are.

That’s bullshit.

It led to repeated demands, all of which you have ignored, to state what claim(s) you think that specific study proves. Here’s two, there have been others:

> [@thorny\_locust](#):
>
> in order to respond to your claim that these studies support what incels are saying, I need to compare the study to specific things that incels are saying. Yet again: what specific claim(s) that incels are making do you think that the specific study supports?  
> [. . .]  
> In case that was too much to read, let me give you part of it in shorter form:
> 
> 1. If the study you’re referring to is not “Relationship Involvement Among Young Adults: Are Asian American Men an Exceptional Case?”, then provide a direct link to whatever study you are talking about in the quoted post. (If it is that study, then you’ve already done so, and I have a page open to it.)
> 
> 2. For at least the third time: spell out what specific claim(s) incels are making that you think the study supports.

> [@thorny\_locust](#):
>
> Post a link to the specific study on one of those sites. If the link from your incels wiki does go to the actual study, that ought to be easy enough to do; just copy and paste the url from the study itself.
> 
> Now you actually did post such a link in one case, the study about Asian men that’s been briefly discussed already.
> 
> But you need to ALSO POST what specific incel claim you think the specific study is backing. “Everything” is not a valid comparison point. [. . .]
> 
> If you’ll do that, I’ll find time to look at the study.

It is also bullshit to say that nobody’s told you why we want direct links to the studies. We don’t trust your wiki’s links to go to the actual studies, and we don’t trust your wiki’s summaries to be accurate.

And we are in the Pit. The only possible reasons I can see for you to be so insistent that people click on links on an incel wiki page are

– 1) that you know those links don’t go direct to the studies but to some other incel page(s) that you either want clicks for or hope we’ll believe the lies on and/or

– 2) that as you’ve been consistently all through the thread posting links that go to a live incel page under the guise that you’re claiming they’re links to the studies (despite the fact that once early on in an 11 page thread you posted a link to an archive of the page), what you’re actually doing is trying very hard to get people to that specific page either because you want clicks for it or because you hope we’ll believe the lies on it or that

– 3) you’re too massively ignorant to understand the difference between an actual study and somebody’s biased description of it, and are exactly the sort of person the sites hope to be able to delude into destroying themselves.

Either of the first two reasons would mean you’re arguing in bad faith.

If it’s the third reason, the first thing you ought to do is to get away from those incel sites. They’re playing you, and they’ll think it’s funny when you flame out, whether or not you do damage to others besides yourself on the way.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/514 "2019-08-04T21:23:08Z")

</div>

NM, the board was acting weird and I didn’t realize this had posted – and it’s now too late to remove one of the extras. Sorry.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2019, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/515 "2019-08-04T21:36:59Z")

</div>

> [@TheFuture](#):
>
> What is it with people and strawmen? Are strawmen and ad hominems the only debate tactics around here? :smack: When did I say “women want to be raped”?
> 
> Please let me know if you don’t understand this.

You have yet to tell us what about incels that studies prices they’re right about, or what that study has to do with, well, anything, so you’ve left us guessing. And “data showing men want to be raped even more than women” is a nonsensical thing to write if you don’t think women want to be raped. So by all means clarify what, specifically, you think that study tells us.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\
**Post date:** [August 5, 2019, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/516 "2019-08-05T22:40:26Z")

</div>

Heh, to find a thread with a title as stupid as this one that also happens to be 11 pages…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\
**Post date:** [August 5, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/517 "2019-08-05T23:17:15Z")

</div>

> [@TheFuture](#):
>
> Why is one of these summaries okay and the other is not?

Oh, and while I’m at it:

“Our results suggest” is not the same thing as “researchers concluded”.

The lengthly “summary” which you quoted from the incel page commits lies by omission. It leaves out portions both of that abstract and of statistics given in the report itself; and including the parts that it leaves out provides a very different picture.

I believe the study is itself otherwise flawed, though not as flawed as that summary; and will give further detail if you will – is this the fifth request by me, plus multiple requests by others? – say what specific incel claim(s) you think the study is backing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/518 "2019-08-06T00:00:39Z")

</div>

> [@SlackerInc](#):
>
> Here is the kind of ev-psych research I find fascinating, but which many feminists (somewhat understandably) cannot abide and simply will not accept:  
> [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/272697.php](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/272697.php)

You still haven’t provided any cite for any of the “many feminists” who allegedly “cannot abide and simply will not accept” a particular research finding about human evolutionary development.

And of course, there needs to be a distinction between “not accepting solidly confirmed findings of scientific research” and “not accepting speculative inferences about what scientific research of unknown quality may ‘suggest’ as summarized in a fifteen-sentence article for a general lay audience”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/519 "2019-08-06T03:10:25Z")

</div>

It’s a metastudy of 50 studies, carried out at a Pac-10 “Research 1” school. To argue that sociologist feminists would be open to this kind of research is either disingenuous or shows you don’t know feminist sociologists. (I am the son of one and the husband of another.) And we have seen people right on this board who have dismissed the entire field of evolutionary psychology, providing no basis for doing so other than a vague sense that they don’t like its implications.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/520 "2019-08-06T14:55:54Z")

</div>

> [@Sunny\_Daze](#):
>
> If you want a thread without bad words, start one out of the Pit.

To be fair, the relatively contentless OP was in GD.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/521 "2019-08-06T18:25:21Z")

</div>

> [@Trafalgar\_Laura](#):
>
> Without sarcasm, I do suspect that the appeal is just that, a wish to not feel ‘responsible,’ whether it’s the responsibility of being the stereotypical proactive male pursuing a woman, or the responsibility of a woman picking a male. Instead, in the fantasy, or sometimes perhaps with a paid professional “dom/domme,” control can be handed over and the person can just relax into the fantasy itself without social worries about the consequences of their choices.
> 
> But fantasies, much like a rich man hiring a high-priced dominatrix, are fundamentally consensual no matter how weird they get. And I think that the basic lesson learned is still that… well, sexual fantasies are weird in the way dreams are weird, complex mixtures of a lot of personal and social and biological urges. To pick out, say, “Women have rape fantasies” and to conclude it means anything about their biological innate desires is a stretch at best, particularly since men experience similar fantasies.

I read the link. I haven’t run the numbers, but I suspect that the difference is not statistically significant. Also, the numbers in the table aren’t broken down by gay men or straight men. I strongly suspect that gay male rape fantasies are far more prevalent than heterosexual male rape fantasies. There are enough gay and bi people in the survey population to influence the results, especially because the percentages are fairly small.

Even so, I agree that fantasies are not a reflection of true desires, and that if a group of men think they are and fail miserably at attracting women based on this, we shouldn’t be surprised.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/522 "2019-08-06T19:22:00Z")

</div>

> [@SlackerInc](#):
>
> It’s a metastudy of 50 studies, carried out at a Pac-10 “Research 1” school.

I’m not questioning the study itself (which I haven’t seen); I’m just pointing out that without seeing the study itself we can’t know whether the fifteen-sentence non-technical popular article you linked to is an accurate summary of its actual findings.

> [@SlackerInc](#):
>
> To argue that sociologist feminists would be open to this kind of research is either disingenuous or shows you don’t know feminist sociologists.

Those accusations are also not actual cites for any of the alleged “many feminists” who allegedly “cannot abide and simply will not accept” a particular research finding about human evolutionary development. In case you’ve forgotten, it’s actual cites to that effect that you were asked for.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/523 "2019-08-06T22:41:07Z")

</div>

And you’re playing a version of the Gish Gallop. Not gonna bite.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677.md?page=25)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677.md?page=27)