The rage would be coming from the same place it always came from. “Stacey” didn’t put it there, and she can’t take it away.
You’ve shifted the goalposts from just a girlfriend to a “Stacey” girlfriend (i.e. attractive, popular), but that doesn’t make much difference to my point. A girlfriend is not going to cure these guys, not even a really hot girlfriend. I agree with you that they see “Stacey” as a status symbol, but what I think you’re missing is that a real, live girlfriend could never live up to that. She’s not going to convey upon this hypothetical incel all the success he ever dreamed of, and it’s not going to take him long to realize that her kiss didn’t turn him into a “Chad”.
That’s the thing, though – having a girlfriend (or boyfriend) isn’t a cure for insecurity and self-loathing. Especially not for people who are covering up rather than confronting their real problems. It’s certainly possible for insecure, self-loathing people who are unwilling or unable to address these issues to have romantic relationships, but they aren’t going to be happy or healthy ones.
I’d venture to guess that an attractive, popular woman who’s willing to stay in a relationship with an unpopular, low-status, rage-filled man who hates her and only wants her as a status symbol has serious issues of her own, so this hypothetical romance seems doomed to make things much worse for both of them.
Could you explain why you think I’m saying that? I don’t believe in scoring people 1-10.
I believe women are not as focused as dating “up” as they were in the past, and I also believe how we see “up” has changed with the times. More than a job goes into making men attractive, which means low wage earners with charisma can compete against higher wage earners with more boring personalities. Women nowadays want partners, not Daddy figures. So the male grocery bagger may not easily land a date with the store manager, but another bagger? A cashier? I see no indication these women would turn their nose up at a guy who is their socioeconomic equal.
I make significantly more money than my husband. Decades ago this would’ve been quite remarkable and embarrrassing, but it does not faze either one of us now. To me, the fact that it’s a non-thing shows dating preferences have changed and likely will continue to change. We can’t look to what bower birds are doing to predict human mating behaviors.
You’re using a definition is status that most people don’t. I’ve turned down dates with doctors and lawyers, guys who objectively have been successful in their jobs that pay well and command respect. Just because I rejected them doesn’t mean they weren’t “high status”, it just means they were not compatible with me.
To my read they way you were using the phrase “high status” was in the manner of it having some objective reality.
“Status” in terms of partnering is I think much more subjective than that … because we are not bower birds.
And yes that maybe is different than how many think of the term, but I still think it is more accurate and that any implication of an objective status plays into the mindset that the incel community falls into with Chads and Stacies.
What is a high status male for a female? Income? Education level? Looks? It varies, by individual, by family and small group culture, by event even (the date to a dance, the long term relationship, other …)
What is a high status female for a male? Income? Education? Looks? It also varies.
Bower birds have more defined rules and the incels (and playas also) believe we humans do too. I don’t. And again I don’t think you do but I do think the choice of phrasing plays into the concept that we do. Or sounded that way to my read anyway.
Insecurity and self loathing with a girlfriend turns into a constant belief that she is cheating on you. Or that she is giving you a pity fuck. That isn’t going to solve any issues.
The thing with these guys is what has been stated upthread.
They believe sex is a basic human need (I don’t agree with this - no one dies if they don’t get laid. Human intimacy and touch may be a basic human need, but that is very different than sex).
Having that need makes it their right to get it. (Another point which is problematic in a society that doesn’t agree we need to house the homeless)
Since they have a right to it, it is society/women’s responsibility to provide it. And if we are not holding up our end of the responsibility, they feel justified in their anger at us not holding up our responsibility. (Again, I don’t see the homeless shooting people because we aren’t meeting their needs).
Women are basically a thing to meet their need. Since there are plenty of women, other men must be complicit in restricting access.
The other truly screwed up thing about these guys is that they feel entitled not just to sex with women, but status women. Young, good looking women. Women with the means to be attractive (and yet, are mad that women are wearing makeup and a bra that - when removed - leaves them looking somewhat less than an airbrushed Playboy model.) Their self centered world view seems to make them believe that a woman wearing a pair of high heels is wearing them simply to tease HIM - and not because the heels are really cute and make the outfit. So even if our government, in its wisdom, created government subsidized whorehouses (I can think of other priorities our government should spend on first) to meet their needs, they wouldn’t be happy with the “food stamp quality” of women likely to be provided on government subsidy - cause I don’t think Brooklyn Decker is going to be working a government house of ill repute.
Or perhaps the idea that “why doesn’t it work for me the way it does in movies, or TV, or porn”. Everybody gets laid in movies, and it happens almost automatically. Dorky male star gets attractive female co-star. Schlumpy TV husband and his trophy wife.
It’s easy to get pissed at your life situation if you think TV is real.
Hold on, let me write that down for the next Platform Committee meeting…
Then again they’d probably be furious at the government for providing female companionship to Welfare Kings on their tax dollar. (And now the you mention Ms Decker, would the dudes in question want a conscription of 1-A quality females for a mandatory term of National Service?)
I wouldn’t blame TV or movies when it’s easy enough to see in real life. Anyone who’s sexually frustrated and socially alienated will see couples everywhere they go, and it’s not uncommon at all to see guys who are…not necessarily ugly, but not particularly well-attired/groomed, or a bit overweight, or whatever, with women who are attractive. Obviously normal people judge others, including romantic/sexual partners, by more than just their looks.
In Roger’s case, he already was good looking, very well dressed/groomed, drove a slick car, had plenty of cash to throw around…but none of that matters if all you do is sit at a table literally expecting women to just come up to you!
His entire perspective, on every single element of life, was totally warped.
Well, Joe Jackson and roughly 9,000 other guys managed to channel that frustration into music that brought them not only female attention, but also money and success. It sure would be nice if these incels could try something like that, but oh that would mean they’d have to work on something, which they’re incapable of because they’re entitled shitheads who think they shouldn’t have to work for anything.
It certainly isn’t only TV and movies and porn, but my impression is that the angry losers who make up the incel movement are socially isolated. And they are going to selectively perceive real life in the same way that they do movies - ‘that homely shlub can get a hot chick, why can’t I?’
Maybe the difference between the miserable adult virgin and an incel is who you blame for it - the MAV blames himself, and the incel blames women. With a lot of overlap, no doubt.
But it is the same dilemma as for everybody - being miserable is un-attractive, being without a romantic partner makes you miserable, and thus you are even less likely to attract a partner. Which, ISTM, is where the PUA and his advice has somewhat of a point - you have to pretend to be confident, you have to pretend not to be a miserable loner, before you can stop being a miserable loner because you managed to attract a partner.
‘I’ll always be alone because no woman would look at a loser like me’ and ‘I’ll always be alone because those bitches won’t look at me’ have something in common - neither gets you many dates.
Either you wallow in self-pity or blaming others or both, or you fucking do something about it and improve yourself, but the latter takes actual work.
Make no mistake though, there are guys who have worked their asses off to gain money, status, power, female companionship, Ferraris, the best shit in the world, but are still miserable and still wind up committing suicide or sinking into a hole of drugs and alcohol or both.
As with any word or concept, what constitutes “high status” is equivalent to what is commonly understood by people using the term. Yes, there’s some subjectivity but if I were to poll most people, they’d like all agree that Prince Harry is of higher status than Joe Blow the janitor. Joe Blow could be the sweetest, most caring man on earth but he will have to work harder to look impressive to others. This impress factor is status, and class, education, income, and occupation are what defines men’s status in western society.
It’s not particularly helpful to communication to ignore this reality by treating status as imaginary, IMO.
If your son described his new girlfriend to you, what would scream “great catch” to you aside from how well she treats him? If he said she was in grad school studying biochemistry and was the daughter of a state senator, wouldn’t you be more impressed than if he said she was was a high school dropout waitressing at Denny’s and still lived at home? I’m not an expert on you, but I have a feeling you’d rather your son date the former. Doubly so if she was also pretty. Most people would.
That said, I think women are judged differently when it comes to status and romance. A very attractive woman doesn’t have to be impressive socioeconomically to be sought after, because trophy wives are still a thing. But as times change, so do expectations. Men increasingly want more than a pretty face. They too also want partners to help carry the load.
to be fair, TV and movies are full of “s’posed’as.” TV and movies tells young people they’re s’posed’a be a popular football player or cheerleader in grade school. they’re s’posed’a go to lots of parties and get wasted (and/or laid) constantly in high school. they’re s’posed’a move away for college and go to lots of parties and screw each others’ brains out. then all of a sudden they’re s’posed’a throw a switch and be an adult and get married to the girl they deserve and have their 2.1 kids.
I can see someone being dejected when they’ve never experienced anything like the above script that TV says they’re s’posed’a follow. especially when you don’t have anyone to turn to for advice.
but it’s been explained already in this thread that while that may contribute, it isn’t why these people are pieces of shit. it’s like Columbine. Everyone in the media pushed the narrative that Harris and Klebold were these poor, bullied goth kids getting revenge, when that couldn’t be further from the truth. When you’re the kind of hate-filled psychopath that Eric Harris or Elliot Rodger were- who feel it’s their place to be able to choose who can live or die- then you’re already a stick of dynamite. The only difference is what lights the fuse.
(yes, I know those are Cracked articles. but in serious topics, they do cite their sources. and yes, I acknowledge the title of the first one is a bit click-baity in the use of the word “trained.”)
Parents often have different criteria for what is a good spouse for their kids than their kids’ own criteria. But that aside, many men do not care in the least about a woman’s education or income or career; 99% of their attraction to a woman is based off of appearance, personality and character traits. The saying someone used before on the SDMB was that many women would balk at dating or marrying a guy who delivers pizzas for a living, but many men wouldn’t mind a woman being a pizza-deliverer in the least if she was a very beautiful and friendly person.
A hedge fund manager would marry a preschool teacher if he liked her looks and personality. Probably wouldn’t happen with the genders reversed, due to various differences that could be biological, cultural, or both. If his other choice is an heiress or an actress or something, maybe he’d choose her, but maybe not. What I do know, is that regardless of her looks, if she’s an unpleasant person, the relationship is not going to be a happy one and that hedge fund manager could still suck down a vial of pills and drive his Ferrari off a cliff if he’s not happy, regardless of how much sex appeal that woman might have. And that guy might have money and status, but if he’s a douchebag, the woman isn’t going to be happy with him either.
These remarks immediately reminded me of the famous/infamous Cracked article, Six Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person, the general summary of which is that if you want something from other people, you better have something to offer in return - and it needs to be something they want, not something you think they should want.
Yeah, once a person has become that radicalized, there is little that can be done. The question that needs to be addressed is how to prevent that radicalization in the first place.
Stuff like this doesn’t help, either, because it makes people look at the suspected adult virgins in their midst, and add in sociopath and violence to their perceptions of those people that they already think of and treat as losers.
Yeah, but what happens when others call you an incel because you are celibate through nonvoluntary means? I do see that people who are seen as losers in social circles are being pushed away from mainstream thought. They are being denied healthy outlets to discuss their frustrations. They are shut off from social contact, just as social contact is most necessary.
So they go and try to find someone who will accept them, who will understand them. What community do you think that that is?
Yes, I agree which is why I ended my post by saying women aren’t judged the same way as men.
Just wondering though if you agree with me that women and men’s requirements in a mate are becoming more similar. Among the people in my friend and acquaintance circle (which is disproportionately professional), few guys are married to women who are less accomplished than them educationally or occupationally. It’s becoming less and less common to find couples that are unevenly matched in these areas, and it’s not a surprise why. People hook up with the people nearest to them. If half the people you interact with either through work or school are women, then there is less of a reason to pursue women from a less familiar sphere.
Oh please! Media, movies and love songs since time immemorial are as much about screwed up heartbreak as dreamy love. The average young girl has faced more mocking and societal pressure from movies, media, magazines to be other than they are, than any male virgin, by the time they’re 15 years old!
The pressure they feel is all in their heads in my opinion. Ultimately we’re all responsible for our own happiness. You want to dote on your shortcomings, and blame society rather than seek an internal change in your maturity you’re unlikely to get what you want no matter what it is.
We all have crosses to bear in life. Shitty job, bad hair, short, people get over these and worse obstacles to love every damn day. These intel’s are just extremely immature men, I think. It isn’t more complicated than that, I feel.