# Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next? **URL:** \ **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:** 32
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/624 "2019-08-15T09:29:35Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Stanislaus: > > (1) Nitpicking of one study’s methodology aside “Nitpicking”? These weren’t quibbles about the niceties of research methodologies. That study is junk from start to finish and anyone with half a brain should be able to work that out on first read (see, for example, Sunny Daze’s posts on it). I am genuinely surprised that you thought it worth bringing to the table. > [@](#): > > do you really argue there is no basis to believe there are competing ESSes that make both being a Haim or being an Eric viable approaches to replicating one’s “selfish” Y chromosome? What are you talking about? You cited this study as evidence of women’s hormonal driven attraction to symmetrical men. That is indeed what the study purports to show. If you want to spin on a dime and claim that it’s actually about male reproductive strategies, feel free but you’re going to need to show your working (and, if I’m being picky, acknowledge that you’re abandoning your original claims for it). I wouldn’t strive too hard though - it’s still a junk study with dodgy data, so it can’t provide much support for whatever new claims you want to rest on it. > [@](#): > > (2) Do you acknowledge that under equally withering, skeptical analysis, most social psychology research (on the “nurture” rather than “nature” side of the ledger) would crumble? I have no idea. But that’s not how this works. If you want to argue that it would crumble under withering skeptical analysis, you have to actually do the analysis. Simply positing that it might turn out to be bad if you ever got round to checking is a) lazy and b) stupid. > [@](#): > > (3) What say you about the UCLA T-shirt-sniffing metastudy? Haven’t read it. You could send a link, but really, I only dug into that paper because I was on a long train journey and it helped pass the time. I don’t have any more long journeys due, so I probably won’t have time to look at this metastudy. But tell you what. I can see you’re not confident about your ability to critically appraise research papers. That’s fair enough, and it reflects well on you that you’re asking for help. If you want to outsource your critical thinking to me, I can take it on but I’ll have to charge. Normally my rates would work out at $500 an hour, but as you’re a fellow doper and this is really pro bono work, let’s call it $495. ---
**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 15, 2019, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/625 "2019-08-15T11:36:08Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > I have no idea. The point being, we have to judge these studies, if we are fair, by the same standards that other research purporting to explain human behavior is judged. So compared to research in social psychology and the social sciences. And very little of that research would stand up to extremely rigorous tests of the kind you are imposing on this one. There’s tons of peer-reviewed research out there linking ovulation with a change in women’s mate selection behavior. > **[Women's sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/)** > > Normally ovulating women have been found to report greater sexual attraction to men other than their own partners when near ovulation relative to the luteal phase. One interpretation is that women possess adaptations to be attracted to men possessing... [https://scholar.google.com/scholar\_lookup?journal=Human+Nature&title=Women’s+fertility+across+the+cycle+increases+the+short-term+attractiveness+of+creative+intelligence&author=MG+Haselton&author=GF+Miller&volume=17&publication\_year=2006&pages=50-73&](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Human+Nature&title=Women%E2%80%99s+fertility+across+the+cycle+increases+the+short-term+attractiveness+of+creative+intelligence&author=MG+Haselton&author=GF+Miller&volume=17&publication_year=2006&pages=50-73&) > **[Menstrual cycle variation in women's preferences for the scent of symmetrical...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9633114/)** > > Evidence suggests that female sexual preferences change across the menstrual cycle. Women's extra-pair copulations tend to occur in their most fertile period, whereas their intra-pair copulations tend to be more evenly spread out across the cycle.... > **[Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15016293/?i=3&from=%2F9633114%2Frelated)** > > Women prefer both the scent of symmetrical men and masculine male faces more during the fertile (late follicular and ovulatory) phases of their menstrual cycles than during their infertile (e.g., luteal) phases. Men's behavioral displays in social... > **[Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15979620/?i=10&from=%2F15016293%2Frelated)** > > Previous studies of changes in women's behavior during the menstrual cycle have offered insight into the motivations underpinning women's preferences for social cues associated with possible direct benefits (e.g., investment, low risk of infection)... > **[Ovulatory shifts in women's attractions to primary partners and other men:...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22984512/?i=9&from=%2F15016293%2Frelated)** > > Previous research has documented shifts in women's attractions to their romantic partner and to men other than their partner across the ovulation cycle, contingent on the degree to which her partner displays hypothesized indicators of high-fitness... If you think it’s all bunk, and that humans are so uniquely different from other mammals, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, not me. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/626 "2019-08-15T11:40:50Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > If you think it’s all bunk, and that humans are so uniquely different from other mammals, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, not me. I regret to inform you that [Bloodhound Gang songs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k)do not constitute peer-reviewed research. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/627 "2019-08-15T12:11:46Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The point being, we have to judge these studies, if we are fair, by the same standards that other research purporting to explain human behavior is judged. So compared to research in social psychology and the social sciences. And very little of that research would stand up to extremely rigorous tests of the kind you are imposing on this one. > > There’s tons of peer-reviewed research out there linking ovulation with a change in women’s mate selection behavior. > > [Women's sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/) > > [Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Human+Nature&title=Women%E2%80%99s+fertility+across+the+cycle+increases+the+short-term+attractiveness+of+creative+intelligence&author=MG+Haselton&author=GF+Miller&volume=17&publication_year=2006&pages=50-73&) > > [Menstrual cycle variation in women's preferences for the scent of symmetrical men - PubMed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9633114/) > > [Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle - PubMed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15016293/?i=3&from=/9633114/related) > > [Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when progesterone level is high - PubMed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15979620/?i=10&from=/15016293/related) > > [Ovulatory shifts in women's attractions to primary partners and other men: further evidence of the importance of primary partner sexual attractiveness - PubMed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22984512/?i=9&from=/15016293/related) > > If you think it’s all bunk, and that humans are so uniquely different from other mammals, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, not me. Excellent execution of the famed Gish Gallop with a Triple-Axle Goalpost Shift! I give it a 9.6. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/628 "2019-08-15T12:32:01Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The point being, we have to judge these studies, if we are fair, by the same standards that other research purporting to explain human behavior is judged. What’s this “we” business? If you mean that, generally, standards of rigour in academic research should be both high and universal, I agree. If you meant that it’s down to you and me (and, given your admitted inability to critically evaluate papers, that really just leaves me), then, while conscious of the honour your doing me, I’m going to politely resile from any position where I’m the final arbiter of rigour. > [@](#): > > And very little of that research would stand up to extremely rigorous tests of the kind you are imposing on this one. Oh, really? How do you know? We’ve established that you lack the critical thinking skills to impose these extremely rigorous tests, so what’s your basis for this claim? (In fact, I wouldn’t say that my critique was extremely rigorous. Noting that n=11, or spotting that the authors \*\*admit \*\*their experiment design introduces a confounding variable, or seeing a standard deviation in a sub-sample of **fucking zero** is not massively rigorous. It’s elemental.) > [@](#): > > There’s tons of peer-reviewed research out there linking ovulation with a change in women’s mate selection behavior. Is there? I haven’t read the links, but are you completely certain that those studies show a link between ovulation and actual mate selection behaviour in the wild (as it were) rather than between ovulation and indicated or derived preferences in a lab setting? > [@](#): > > If you think it’s all bunk, and that humans are so uniquely different from other mammals, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, not me. Humans override their instincts every day in a way that mammals don’t. So I’m pretty confident that we are uniquely different in that respect. Do you want to argue that we’re indistinguishable? The weak and dodgy study you thought was interesting was trying to show that coming off the pill was a threat to stable relationships and a net negative to human happiness. That coming off the pill affects mate selection to the exent that it is a primary or main or significant factor in women’s decisions to either end relationships or have affairs in real life is a much bigger claim and the burden of proof for that is not on me. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/629 "2019-08-15T16:05:41Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > “Nitpicking”? These weren’t quibbles about the niceties of research methodologies. That study is junk from start to finish and anyone with half a brain should be able to work that out on first read (see, for example, Sunny Daze’s posts on it). I am genuinely surprised that you thought it worth bringing to the table. Another fundamental problem with that study that I don’t think was mentioned in **Stanislaus** ’s excellent analysis of its shortcomings is the fact that **women who stop taking hormonal birth control are consciously aware that they’ve done so and have generally done so for consciously chosen reasons**. So the idea that a difference in women’s responses to men pre- and post-cessation of hormonal birth control represents some kind of direct unmediated measurement of the physiological effects of hormones on women’s spontaneous attraction levels is utter bullshit. When women consciously **know** whether and why they’re on the Pill, that necessarily brings in a whole lot of confounding cognitive and social influences on the sexual responses that the study is attempting to analyze as a purely biological phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/630 "2019-08-15T17:08:24Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Ha, that’s rich. I tore you apart in that post you are claiming is cowardly. It was a thing of beauty actually. Most people quickly learn that we are all very poor judges of the quality of our own takedowns of others. It’s just a fact of human nature that we are heavily biased toward our own arguments and are incapable of objectively evaluating how devastating we really were. So the true measure of whether a post was “a thing of beauty” can be made best by third parties, to a lesser extent by the person attacked, and to zero extent by the person making the attack. And when someone needs to call attention to their own post to crow over its devastation, it diminishes both them and the post even more. This is still really something you should have figured out by now, assuming you’re as smart as you think you are. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/631 "2019-08-15T17:15:27Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > Most people quickly learn that we are all very poor judges of the quality of our own takedowns of others. It’s just a fact of human nature that we are heavily biased toward our own arguments and are incapable of objectively evaluating how devastating we really were. So the true measure of whether a post was “a thing of beauty” can be made best by third parties, to a lesser extent by the person attacked, and to zero extent by the person making the attack. And when someone needs to call attention to their own post to crow over its devastation, it diminishes both them and the post even more. > > This is still really something you should have figured out by now, assuming you’re as smart as you think you are. It’s been obvious for quite some time that the pain of not being noticed and heard far outweighs any embarrassment or ridicule MomzerInc brings on himself. ---
**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 16, 2019, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/632 "2019-08-16T04:04:56Z")
I honestly am not super interested in whether going off the Pill has the precise hypothesized effect. I just think it’s fascinating how these behaviors and preferences change based on the reproductive cycle (or the way we crudely monkey with it using the blunt instrument of artificial hormones) without women consciously realizing it. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > Is there? I haven’t read the links, but are you completely certain that those studies show a link between ovulation and actual mate selection behaviour in the wild (as it were) rather than between ovulation and indicated or derived preferences in a lab setting? I never said they did, so I am definitely not certain of it. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > Humans override their instincts every day in a way that mammals don’t. So I’m pretty confident that we are uniquely different in that respect. Do you want to argue that we’re indistinguishable? Not at all. That’s precisely what I find so interesting about ev-psych: the way we navigate the often-conflicting strictures of civilization vs. instinct, and how we so often fail. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2019, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/633 "2019-08-16T22:07:41Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I honestly am not super interested in whether going off the Pill has the precise hypothesized effect. I just think it’s fascinating how these behaviors and preferences change based on the reproductive cycle (or the way we crudely monkey with it using the blunt instrument of artificial hormones) without women consciously realizing it. Wait, hadn’t we just confirmed that you’d have to be an idiot to think that this study showed that that was happening? You think it’s fascinating how something something something not proven made up bullshit? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2019, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/634 "2019-08-16T22:48:20Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I honestly am not super interested in whether going off the Pill has the precise hypothesized effect. I just think it’s fascinating how these behaviors and preferences change based on the reproductive cycle (or the way we crudely monkey with it using the blunt instrument of artificial hormones) without women consciously realizing it. But the point you seem to be resolutely failing to grasp is that a) the studies you cited **don’t** show in any statistically significant way that “these behaviors and preferences change based on the reproductive cycle”, and b) the studies **didn’t** manage to isolate purely homonal/physiological effects of the “reproductive cycle” from the effects of “women consciously realizing” how their actions were impacting it. You’re not wrong that it’s fascinating to study the effects of our evolved physiology on our “behaviors and preferences”. But you’re dead wrong when you assume that the findings of poorly designed studies tell us anything scientifically reliable about these phenomena. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > That’s precisely what I find so interesting about ev-psych: the way we navigate the often-conflicting strictures of civilization vs. instinct, and how we so often fail. Again, though, the insights gained from evolutionary psychology are only as good as the studies they’re based on. If you can’t tell a good scientific study from a bad one, you’re at a disadvantage for understanding what we really know or don’t know about the subject. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/635 "2019-08-17T17:50:37Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 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. I looked a few up. They kind of do, but kind of not. The problem isn’t any one cite, it’s that they’re misunderstood and then tied together in a way that makes no sense. Fuck’s sake, look around you. The idea that only very attractive men get laid is demonstrably false. It is obviously, ridiculously false. ---
**Author:** ![Deltree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6de8d8/32.png) [@Deltree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deltree)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2019, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/636 "2019-08-24T23:58:42Z")
> [@Maserschmidt](#): > > There _are_ actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad. [ul] [li]There are 272,261 people in the U.S. with the first name Chad.[/li][li]Statistically the 259th most popular first name.[/li][li]More than 99.9 percent of people with the first name Chad are male.[/li][/ul] [ul] [li]There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.[/li][li]Statistically the 305th most popular first name.[/li][li]87.68 percent of people with the first name Stacy are female.[/li][/ul] From this website: [http://howmanyofme.com/](http://howmanyofme.com/) ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2019, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/637 "2019-08-25T13:24:45Z")
My God, science _does_ say they’re right! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2019, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/638 "2019-08-25T13:32:00Z")
> [@Deltree](#): > > [ul] > [li]There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.[/li][li]Statistically the 305th most popular first name.[/li][li]87.68 percent of people with the first name Stacy are female.[/li][/ul] > > From this website: [http://howmanyofme.com/](http://howmanyofme.com/) Also: There are 184,811 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacey. So when you add up the numbers, a helluva lot of Chads are out in the cold if they want to make it with Stacy/Stacey. ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2019, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/639 "2019-08-25T13:32:03Z")
> [@Deltree](#): > > [ul] > [li]There are 272,261 people in the U.S. with the first name Chad.[/li] > [/ul] > > {snip} > > [ul] > [li]There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.[/li] > [/ul] There you go, absolute proof the Incels are wrong! Clearly 44.552 Chads will have to settle for non-Stacy’s. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2019, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/640 "2019-08-25T13:38:21Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > There you go, absolute proof the Incels are wrong! Clearly 44.552 Chads will have to settle for non-Stacy’s. ☹ 44,552 Beckys finally got the lucky break they were hoping for. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/641 "2019-08-25T16:31:21Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > There you go, absolute proof the Incels are wrong! Clearly 44.552 Chads will have to settle for non-Stacy’s. ☹ I’m unfamiliar with the Incel canon. Are Stacys not reusable? ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/642 "2019-08-25T16:39:31Z")
WI they are Hanging Chads? ---
**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 25, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/643 "2019-08-25T18:13:07Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > I’m unfamiliar with the Incel canon. Are Stacys not reusable? Thinking about this makes my head hurt. Are the Stacys desirable because they are unattainable? If they are attained, does that mean they aren’t Stacys? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677.md?page=33)