You mean by using birth control to prevent pregnancies? Wow, yes, that’s a terrible experiment. I’ll be right back. I need to take my shoes off and move into the kitchen.
You know, I don’t really think that being an Incel is really about being celibate anymore. That’s right, I think it has drifted that far from its plantext definition. (Much like “pro-life” has, actually.)
I think that the Incels are a group of people who have specific beliefs about how women think and choose their romantic/sexual partners, about what men should do if they wish to improve their chances with women, and about how men and women should interact in general. They have beliefs about what women should be doing, and how this differs from what they think women are doing.
I think that these beliefs are the core of what makes an Incel an Incel. I think that if an Incel goes out and rapes a woman, while maintaining his beliefs that women are all sluts at heart and that it’s his right to rape women due to the horrible crimes womankind has committed against mankind, that doesn’t make him stop being an Incel. Quite the opposite, really.
Not to say that I personally think you’re an Incel - honestly I don’t care enough about you as a person to have formed an opinion on the subject. I just don’t think that being married means that a person can’t be a participating member on Incel boards and subreddits, and be a full and true member of that group.
So I had a brief - a very brief, I swear! I’ll only need a 30 second shower! - trying to figure out wft is this “genetically compatible” of which that paper [ed: post #581] speaks, that’s being so rudely tossed aside in favour of dumb traits like “nurturing” and “helpful”. 'Cus as far as I know, “genetically compatible” ain’t a thing - pretty much any fertile man and woman can make a baby between themselves just as easily.
Then the penny dropped. “Genetically compatible” means of the same “race”, dunnit?
Mutation. It is the key to evolution.
But without no sex, it’s kind of pointless.
Dang it. I had to look. (I can’t copy and paste from that site for some reason.)
The study looked at differences between how much attention women on birth control paid to attractive men versus women who were not on birth control. It found that women not on birth control noticed attractive men more. Further, the difference was primarily noticed at ovulation. The study did not establish a causal relationship. There are others reasons that explain this, but they are not considered in the paper. Women on birth control are more likely to be in a relationship, for example, and bonded women are less likely to notice men or seek partners outside of their relationship.
The study also posits that women in a relationship who cease birth control “should feel disenchanted with their initial partner choice.” (“Should” for fuck’s sake.) The study’s authors admit that “other studies, which used larger samples, have found only partial support or no support at all for this hypothesis.”
I could go on, but the paper then delves into speculation about whether “bad boys” are more attractive because of their looks or unreliability. Also, they wrapped up the study under the statistically significant number of participants that they recruited for. They couldn’t find enough women that agreed to take part in the research.
Aspidistra The paper claimed to be using “attractiveness” as a proxy for genetic fitness (the idea that perceived good looks such as facial symmetry and a muscular build are tied to the health of the genes a father will pass along). It’s not clear that participants were shown men with racial variance. I can’t rule out your theory.
tl;dr This study sucks. Slacker is a sexist with Incel leanings, as well as a racist.
Well…considering that they probably aren’t claiming that contraceptives are making women marry outside their species it’s likely a euphemism for something like that, since humans are all “genetically compatible” with one another. That’s part of the* definition* of species after all.
Talk about some wild, and malign, speculation. My interpretation was that it was just about being more into symmetrical men while ovulating, like the UCLA metastudy (which found, amazingly, that ovulating women can unconsciously suss out who is more symmetrical just because they prefer the smell of a T-shirt such a man had worn).
:rolleyes:
I’m all for birth control. My wife and I decided to be done after our youngest son was born seven years ago. But for us, that has not involved a systemic hormonal regimen that takes a sledgehammer to a delicate and complex hormonal system that evolved over eons.
You just let her read your posts?
:rimshot: Tip your servers!
Good analogy!
12 pages.
Oh my
Well, thank you for your guest appearance, Mr. Takei.
Part of it, yes, with the caveat that humans and Neandertals were different species but were fully genetically compatible.
See, this is why I like genetics: It’s just so dang logical and shit.
It could mean the opposite, since people who are too close genetically are more likely to double up on the kind of genes for which one copy is OK but two copies produces a miscarriage. That’s why it’s important to define one’s terms and if one can’t be arsed, one shouldn’t be surprised to be called shit.
Reminds me of racial IQ and crime debate and similar. Even if there is some scientific support for some of the claims of racists, individuals and society still have a choice on how to address those beliefs if at all. And no one should be using state violence (or personal assholery) to treat certain groups of people differently under the law or interaction.
I read the paper and it was a crap paper. The authors themselves admitted that they didn’t get enough subjects for statistical significance. They are also really reaching for the causation they claim exists, even though larger studies say different things.
Took me a second, but bravo.
Agreed.
Except there completely fucking isn’t.
Joe Jackson songs must make these incels rage. 