Did you even notice that you’re simultaneously thanking someone for not insulting you, while announcing that you intend to continue insulting others?
I have asked you repeatedly in this thread to state what specific claims made by incels you think are backed by a specific study to which you’ve posted a direct link. I’ve also asked you repeatedly to post direct link(s) to any other specific study you wish to discuss, along with a statement as to which specific claim(s) you think are backed by that study. You have not answered.
Here’s a clue for you, since you don’t seem to have any: if you engage in discussion with other humans, as opposed to having a discussion carried on entirely within your own head, you’re not in control of that discussion, and you don’t get to direct it to go precisely in the direction that you want and produce only the sorts of answers that you want.
And a whole hell of a lot of evidence in the other direction, walking all around the United States carrying a mix of African and European (and often other) genes.
Quoted for truth. Thank you, Trafalgar Laura.
A five year span from 2009 to 2014? That proves nothing at all about whether something’s been ingrained over hundreds of thousands of years.
Not to mention that a study done by one dating site proves nothing about overall human tendencies. (And, TheFuture, where’s your direct link to that study? And what specific claim do you think it is backing?)
Because if having those traits meant not being sexually desirable, then people with those traits would not have reproduced, and large populations with those traits wouldn’t exist in the first place.
I don’t think that’s even true. Who do you think I have intentionally insulted and where? Please quote me. I am trying to be civil as always. Someone said “tranny” is an insult. I am not aware of it being that. I just searched “tranny forum” in google and one of the top links was:
Trans Ladyboy Forum - for tgirls and their admirers forum.transladyboy.com
Trans Ladyboy Forum - the board for all shemale and tranny lovers from all over the world
So clearly not everyone is using “tranny” as in insult. Early in this thread I voiced my disdain for word-wars and culture-wars that require the constant redefinition of words and which words are and aren’t acceptable every 3-5 years, because I find it Orwelian and I don’t spend a lot of time trying to keep track of all the newest changes. I still feel that way. If other people are using “tranny” as a word of “love” then I don’t see how it’s automatically an insult, but even if it was, it wasn’t intentional.
On the bigger picture if you find the entire subject of evolutionary psychology/biology inherently offensive I can’t help you there.
That’s not the issue at all. For thousands of years, each race was mostly isolated from each other. For example, Chinese men weren’t in direct sexual competition with White men in large numbers until recent times. A Chinese man to succeed only had to be the most attractive Chinese man in his area compared to other Chinese men. Now a Chinese man at an average height of 5’7" in LA must compete with 6’ German men, 5’10" ‘American’ men, 5’10" black guys, etc. Just on height alone, he will be at a disadvantage. If we look at comparative biological markers of sexual dimorphism like I listed he will also be at a disadvantage.
Another example would be a 5’3" Filipino man. That is actually the height of the average Filipino man. According to this height data which we reviewed and everyone said was validly collected, about 91% of women in the west will reject him for his height:
How could that as well not be explainable by biological and evolutionary factors? Do you think it is “culture” that draws women towards tall men? Do you think that is malleable? Do you think that will change? From what I see of our “culture”, if anything it is only heightening, exaggerating, and enhancing biology, as dating apps give women unprecedented access to large volumes of men to filter through which inevitably raises their expectations. That’s a normal phenomenon too. When you get more choices, you get more picky.
If you think that’s interesting, what about the more direct meta-analysis that says women misrepresent the father of the child in 4.2% of cases based on the median of studies?
i.e. Either they don’t know the father or they misrepresent him. If they are misrepresenting it, it is likely part of a “dual mating strategy”. For a 1/25 chance of getting cucked for life, I would get DNA testing as soon as I could collect a fallen hair.
The study on that site showed 62% of women harbor rape fantasies. Do you know of a study that shows men have more rape fantasies than that? I just tried searching about male fantasies of being raped and I couldn’t find anything except pages about women fantasizing about being raped. I was asked to offer an evolutionary psych/bio theory on the rape issue which is pretty straight forward but I would have to change my perspective if there is large amounts of data showing men want to be raped even more than women. So I’ll wait to hear from you first.
The top of the second page of the thread I posted a link to archive.org which lets you view the studies without going to the site at all. I can’t copy and paste the whole page out without losing all the formatting and making it unreadable.
If people are afraid of giving certain sites traffic, they should learn how to use the Wayback Machine. It’s very easy and works well. You can browse a lot of the web without actually browsing those parts of the web.
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”?
I wanted to wait for Trafalgar Laura to reply with their study suggesting men have lots of rape fantasies too, but if people are already getting worked up again, and all that’s gonna happen in the interim is a million more insults, I’ll just get to the point:
In psychological sciences, the fact that such a high number of women have rape fantasies is NOT considered “just a quirky funny weird fetish that no one can explain and no one should try to explain.” A lot of people believe it can be understood and are trying to understand it. Just search for “why do women have rape fantasies?” and you’ll find loads of examples, many of which come from evolutionary biology and also explain some of the studies showing women have high attraction to men with very dominant faces (high fWHR) who are more violent and aggressive on average and Dark Triad men even though they are also more dangerous if they choose to be.
There are lots of theories on the subject. But a few biological/psychological theories (which are not “MINE” per se but rather exist in a larger sense within the psychological field and I just happen to think there is likely some truth to them) are:
Rape is an act of hyper-exaggerated dominance and submission that has been a major part of our species came into existence. Most animal species do not (cannot) have the same complex concepts of “consent” as humans do. In many cases, the stronger male simply pins the female down and gets his job done if he can. The female submits. The “rape” leads to propagation of the species. If our species came to be through millions of episodes that were described just like this over hundreds of millions of years, it would seem inevitable that on some level some remnant of that might feel familiar still. That’s evolutionary biology though so it can’t be replicated or proven experimentally. But like I said, it fits with the findings that women find high fWHR men who are more psychopathic and dominant more attractive for short term mating as well.
The idea of being irresistably desirable is exciting for women. This is a purely psychological theory based on the themes of women’s fantasies. This would match with the fact many of women’s rape fantasies center around them being lusted for so incredibly by an attractive man that cannot hold himself back. And then little by little, she becomes excited as he is attractive to her as well, and then it becomes mutual. So although the initiation of the encounter would legally qualify as rape, by the end it is “consensual”.
Pain can heighten pleasure. I read one article a few years ago on why people can orgasm from rape and it suggested that pain in general can heighten sexual arousal both for men and women. It’s actually amazing how good search engines are nowadays. Thought I’d never find it again. Took 2 minutes:
“Sexual arousal and orgasm appear to originate from the autonomic nervous system-- the same reflex-driven system that underlies heart rate, digestion, and perspiration. Our control over sexual arousal is no better than our control over the dilation of our pupils or how much we sweat. The presence of sexual arousal during rape is about as relevant to consent as any of these other responses. In violent assaults, intense physical arousal from fear can heighten sexual sensations in a process called ‘excitation transfer.’ In one laboratory study, anxiety from threat of electric shock enhanced male erectile responses to erotic images. The men in this study were not looking forward to the shock. They did not enjoy the shock. Their body’s heightened state of physical arousal – anxiety about the threat of pain – heightened sexual arousal as well. Sexual arousal is just one more component of the ‘fight or flight’ state.”
None of this suggests “women want to be raped” or “women ought to be raped” or “women like being raped” or any other nonsense strawmen so get those out of your heads. We can discuss psychology and evolution and biology without assuming it ends with someone getting raped can’t we? I feel like we had that discussion already … Or do people believe these entire fields of scientific inquiry have no merit or value? I think they’re interesting in any case.
Why not? I don’t understand. That just sounds like an ad hominem too. “I will not consider any information that is summarized from that website even if I don’t have to visit that website to view it.” You’re attacking the source not the information. Isn’t that then an ad hominem?
When do people have biases like this anywhere else and it’s considered normal? Can you give me an example or how this fits into a normal evaluation of whether information is correct or not? What’s the RationalWiki say about discarding any information because it comes from a group of people you don’t like? How is this not an ad hominem?
I already gave you a way to view the information without actually going to that site if traffic is your concern. If your concern is more deeply ideological than that, then maybe this is just too emotional a subject and you should skip it. Sorry if it is so upsetting. This topic seems to be upsetting a lot of people and honestly more than I can understand or feel comfortable with. Is it people’s cognitive dissonance or what?
Or you can give direct links to the studies. Why are you so resistant to that?
ETA
TheFuture: let’s talk about these studies (link to wiki)
Everyone else: a wiki isn’t a study, give us a link to the study you want to discuss.
TF: WIKI LINK
EE: direct link?
TF: Wayback machine link to same wiki
EE:???
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:
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.
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.
I will tell you what is not rational, is to use an study about dating issues and telling all that is demonstrates something about incels, it does not do that.
As a serious research paper they also do point at the limitations they had on the way of admitting that their study “suggest” something, point is, this is not so sure, interesting for relationships not much for incels who are not mentioned at all.
So, as it is the frustrating case on many issues about sex relations, more research is needed, it is then that one can say with more confidence: this study suggest something, just not much for incels.
Okay that’s funny.