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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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 *
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
