Incels:

[Week]

The sea lion is impervious to dunking. No matter how many times or how furious the dunk is. The water is their natural habitat.

[Crixus]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

There are a number of reasons why monogamy is seen as less of a requirement these days (the pill, the sexual revolution, dating patterns, career changes) and that just means that whole dating market has become a lot more capitalist, with a few young men having a monopoly,  tending to get laid with a snap of their fingers and the rest of the male population desperately working to get just one girl to like them. 

That changes over the course of a person's life, but certainly in my own past, I could see that the 6'5 good looking rugby team lads were shagging like rabbits and everyone else was just trying to pick up the pieces. I can see how that can drive some guy to bitterness and anger, because it doesn't look fair. But then the dating market isn't fair, and life isn't fair. 

As for incels, the best way to deal with the situation is to work with them to make them more attractive to women, and to help them understand the world a bit better, instead of leaving them to stew in some toxic circle jerk. 

All the reasons you've cited above on why monogamy is 'less of a requirement these days' pertain to women having more agency and freedom - how can you not see that? The pill/sexual revolution/career changes etc. are all factors that have given women a degree of independence we didn't have a few decades ago. Which means women no longer have to be economically subservient to men, or stay in monogamous relationships even if they're unhappy, or marry as virgins and not ever have the opportunity to experience sexual freedom - in short, the same sort of thing @Varysblackfyre321was saying, even if worded differently. 

 

Second, the way you're depicting modern dating through phrases like 'a few young men having a monopoly' commodifies women and sex - again, I'm surprised you can't see that. Sex is consensual; there are 2 (or more) people involved, and they both get to choose who they want to shag. Women have the choice of picking a partner (whether for a night or for life). So all this shit about it not 'being fair' is rubbish, and also harmful. In fact, it's the exact sort of thing incels buy into. No one is owed sex. So yeah, if there were some attractive young men in your past who got laid, and you didn't, it's the same as attractive young women getting more attention than average looking ones. Physical appearance is a universal factor - it may be shallow and silly, but it exists. And it exists for men and women (albeit manifested in different ways). 

From all I've read about incels, they don't just want sex - they want sex with '10s' and won't settle for anything less. They have the worst sort of slurs for most average looking women, in fact. Because even though they're socially awkward/unsuccessful/bitter/angry themselves, they think they somehow 'deserve' something. 

Basically you seem to be implying that modern dating gives women more choice, and that's bad because it deprives a bunch of men of sex because women can now choose who they want to date/fuck/marry. 

 

[Heartofice]

29 minutes ago, Crixus said:

Basically you seem to be implying that modern dating gives women more choice, and that's bad because it deprives a bunch of men of sex because women can now choose who they want to date/fuck/marry. 

 

It does. But what I'm suggesting is that if you look at who they are choosing it's a small percentage of men who are deemed desirable, especially at certain stages of life. If I go back to my uni days (and even school!), it wasn't that everyone was copping off with everyone else, it was that a small popular, attractive group of guys would generally manage to work their way through most of the girls on campus, and most of the girls were competing with each other to get their attention. 

I think these things tend to even out over time, as people grow up. But if you look at the ages of those angry incels its right around the time where everyone is going off and having fun and sleeping around, it's just that it's really only happening to a small proportion of guys. 

Again, not suggesting the solution is to force everyone to get back into 1 relationship for the rest of their life, and neither it seems is Peterson. However it is a valid observation that one of the results of opening up the sexual marketplace and giving everyone more freedom is that women have far more freedom to choose who they sleep with. It's just that they are more selective about it than most guys, and they tend to find only a small proportion of men in society attractive. This is just the way it is. 

This leads to a lot of guys who barely have any attention from women, who have been hearing crap about 'just be yourself', and have been fed loads of romantic nonsense about dating and suddenly figure out that dating and sex is far more cynical and hormone led than they were led to believe.

It is simply about pointing out that these changes in society have side effects, and one of those is that you end up with a lot of guys who get kicked out of the dating marketplace and essentially become losers in that world.

And if I sound like I am commoditising sex, well we live in a highly sexually fuelled world, where sex is promoted all the time, and a lot of guys do think of sex in that way, and mostly detach themselves from it in any sort of emotional way. 

 

Quote

From all I've read about incels, they don't just want sex - they want sex with '10s' and won't settle for anything less. They have the worst sort of slurs for most average looking women, in fact. Because even though they're socially awkward/unsuccessful/bitter/angry themselves, they think they somehow 'deserve' something. 

On this yeah, that is a common thing you will hear. It is in reality all bluster however, like most things they will say online, just part of the culture to demean women and make themselves feel superior. If any average woman gave them the time of day they would collapse from happiness.

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It does. But what I'm suggesting is that if you look at who they are choosing it's a small percentage of men who are deemed desirable, especially at certain stages of life. If I go back to my uni days (and even school!), it wasn't that everyone was copping off with everyone else, it was that a small popular, attractive group of guys would generally manage to work their way through most of the girls on campus, and most of the girls were competing with each other to get their attention.

You seem to genuinely be missing the point that the same is true if you reverse sexes: a few attractive girls might be described as being the focus of attention for all boys.
Might be. Because in reality, of course, this is a stupid teenager's view on sexual relationships.
In actuality, even in high school, no one has to focus on the most physically attractive people. Maturity is discovering how the other sex can be attractive through more than physical appearance alone. It's a process, but most people get there eventually.

Deep down, that is the problem with the incels and their view of the world. They're stuck at somewhere between 12 and 17. Though that's being generous: many of us already knew that looks aren't all that matters in high school.
In fact, in my high school years, those who were the most "successful" at dating were the people who did NOT seek partners based on looks alone, but had other interests: stuff like music or movies, partying (booze & weed), or even stuff that could be described as a bit nerdy at a glance (like mangas or games ^^). Stuff that could be shared. Sure, the jocks would get girls, but so would any kid who had hobbies and could use them to, well, talk to girls, as, well, human beings.

Of course, the "incel type," who kept seeing girls as a prize and sex as the goal, never managed. Go figure.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

All the reasons you've cited above on why monogamy is 'less of a requirement these days' pertain to women having more agency and freedom - how can you not see that? The pill/sexual revolution/career changes etc. are all factors that have given women a degree of independence we didn't have a few decades ago. Which means women no longer have to be economically subservient to men, or stay in monogamous relationships even if they're unhappy, or marry as virgins and not ever have the opportunity to experience sexual freedom - in short, the same sort of thing @Varysblackfyre321was saying, even if worded differently. 

 

Second, the way you're depicting modern dating through phrases like 'a few young men having a monopoly' commodifies women and sex - again, I'm surprised you can't see that. Sex is consensual; there are 2 (or more) people involved, and they both get to choose who they want to shag. Women have the choice of picking a partner (whether for a night or for life). So all this shit about it not 'being fair' is rubbish, and also harmful. In fact, it's the exact sort of thing incels buy into. No one is owed sex. So yeah, if there were some attractive young men in your past who got laid, and you didn't, it's the same as attractive young women getting more attention than average looking ones. Physical appearance is a universal factor - it may be shallow and silly, but it exists. And it exists for men and women (albeit manifested in different ways). 

From all I've read about incels, they don't just want sex - they want sex with '10s' and won't settle for anything less. They have the worst sort of slurs for most average looking women, in fact. Because even though they're socially awkward/unsuccessful/bitter/angry themselves, they think they somehow 'deserve' something. 

Basically you seem to be implying that modern dating gives women more choice, and that's bad because it deprives a bunch of men of sex because women can now choose who they want to date/fuck/marry. 

 

All this and I have to point out out again this basic fact; most guys’ are capable of getting into a romantic relationship with a woman. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/single-americans-week.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/13/8-facts-about-love-and-marriage/%3famp=1
It’s not hard to find man who isn’t an epitome of rugged masculinity, and/or has personality of the asshole jock you’d find in a movie about high school, having or had sexual and romantic partners in their life

It’s only real in incel-world.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

43 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You seem to genuinely be missing the point that the same is true if you reverse sexes: a few attractive girls might be described as being the focus of attention for all boys.
Might be. Because in reality, of course, this is a stupid teenager's view on sexual relationships.
In actuality, even in high school, no one has to focus on the most physically attractive people. Maturity is discovering how the other sex can be attractive through more than physical appearance alone. It's a process, but most people get there eventually.

Deep down, that is the problem with the incels and their view of the world. They're stuck at somewhere between 12 and 17. Though that's being generous: many of us already knew that looks aren't all that matters in high school.
In fact, in my high school years, those who were the most "successful" at dating were the people who did NOT seek partners based on looks alone, but had other interests: stuff like music or movies, partying (booze & weed), or even stuff that could be described as a bit nerdy at a glance (like mangas or games ^^). Stuff that could be shared. Sure, the jocks would get girls, but so would any kid who had hobbies and could use them to, well, talk to girls, as, well, human beings.

Of course, the "incel type," who kept seeing girls as a prize and sex as the goal, never managed. Go figure.

To the bolded I remember a girl I really liked in High-school going out with a chubby boy in band. She was also in band.

I’m pretty sure it’s not hard for most posters here to know a man/men in their life who aren’t tens who have or at least had a girlfriend or wife.

 

[Zorral]

Sea lions / bots / trolls / sock puppets do not understand how language actually works.

Throw out a solution that is 'socially enforced monogamy' and they refuse to admit what these words signify -- a vast number male dominated, interlocking mechanisms and systems that are designed to subjugate women and force them to make the whole society comfortable for (white) men, who take no responsibility for any of it, except to retain their own power.  Exactly how a slave society operates -- everything is organized to keep slavery safe for the white men. In the antebellum south even the sheriffs were about punishing slaves and tracking down run-away slaves, not about crimes against property, etc. -- other than a slave deliberately hurting herself, then she'd be punished for hurting her owner's property.

Most societies that aren't organized as military societies at wars of conquest, or deeply agricultural societies, have a huge surplus of males who don't produce or contribute anything.  How many males can a society handle whose lives are lived via playing games, whether on screen or on the field and find this their mode of identity and recreation and actually, just what they mostly do?  They've even turned politics into that gaming life, which is the complete opposite of a productive life.

Yet somehow, women have remained essential at all levels of society, women have continued to contribute productively -- so much so that these unessential, non-productive sea lions are demanding that women sacrifice themselves to give them some meaning to themselves.  And you know what?  Even if women did that, these men still would have no meaning to themselves.

 

[Heartofice]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You seem to genuinely be missing the point that the same is true if you reverse sexes: a few attractive girls might be described as being the focus of attention for all boys.

No I don't think that is quite true actually. I think the percentage of girls that these guys find attractive is much higher than the reverse, and I remember seeing a couple studies that tended to back that up, in that the percentage of men that women found attractive was a lot smaller than the reverse. Incels obsess about 'Hypergamy' where women tend to try to date across and up the social hierarchy and men tend to date across and down. Even though it's probably not worth worrying about, there seems to be some truth in that even now, women still tend to marry men who earn more than them, whereas for men, a woman's economic status is far far less important to them over simply looks and personality.

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Might be. Because in reality, of course, this is a stupid teenager's view on sexual relationships.

Not disagreeing there, but then a lot of Incels are teenagers or young adults. It makes sense that their world view is related to their age and environment. 

I think it's also worth mentioning that the obsession with physical attractiveness is really more of a male trait than a female one, and incel's take it to extremes.

It could be said that women are generally less interested in a man's looks than they are a lot of other qualities, mainly around socio economic status. What this means at younger ages is that the coolest guys get laid a lot more. Obviously what is viewed as 'cool' is contextual and will be different in different social groups. A manga nerd is cool to manga loving girls and guy in a rock band, no matter how chubby might get the odd girl being into him. 

Having said that I highly doubt your manga loving nerd was getting anywhere near as much action as the sporty jock, because he is really only appealing to a small niche. I'm sure if you looked at the sheer number of notches on the jock's bedpost it would be a lot lot higher and there are quite a few reasons behind that.

 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

All this and I have to point out out again this basic fact; most guys’ are capable of getting into a romantic relationship with a woman. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/single-americans-week.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/13/8-facts-about-love-and-marriage/%3famp=1
It’s not hard to find man who isn’t an epitome of rugged masculinity, and/or has personality of the asshole jock you’d find in a movie about high school, having or had sexual and romantic partners in their life

It’s only real in incel-world.

 

Yeah you keep bringing this up but it really does miss the point. In fact the only point it really makes is to reinforce the fact that we live in a world where enforced monogamy exists . 

Nobody is saying that men cannot ever find someone to date and marry (though that is true for some men.. like incels), only that the distribution of sex (and remember it is sex that incels really care about, not whether someone will end up marrying them when they are 40) is quite unevenly spread out, with a small percentage of guys racking up huge numbers without really having to try and the majority of men not really coming close while many are trying really hard. That is a real sticking point for incels because they really believe that having lots of sex will make them happy. 





 

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No I don't think that is quite true actually. I think the percentage of girls that these guys find attractive is much higher than the reverse, and I remember seeing a couple studies that tended to back that up, in that the percentage of men that women found attractive was a lot smaller than the reverse. Incels obsess about 'Hypergamy' where women tend to try to date across and up the social hierarchy and men tend to date across and down. Even though it's probably not worth worrying about, there seems to be some truth in that even now, women still tend to marry men who earn more than them, whereas for men, a woman's economic status is far far less important to them over simply looks and personality.

Not disagreeing there, but then a lot of Incels are teenagers or young adults. It makes sense that their world view is related to their age and environment. 

I think it's also worth mentioning that the obsession with physical attractiveness is really more of a male trait than a female one, and incel's take it to extremes.

It could be said that women are generally less interested in a man's looks than they are a lot of other qualities, mainly around socio economic status. What this means at younger ages is that the coolest guys get laid a lot more. Obviously what is viewed as 'cool' is contextual and will be different in different social groups. A manga nerd is cool to manga loving girls and guy in a rock band, no matter how chubby might get the odd girl being into him. 

Having said that I highly doubt your manga loving nerd was getting anywhere near as much action as the sporty jock, because he is really only appealing to a small niche. I'm sure if you looked at the sheer number of notches on the jock's bedpost it would be a lot lot higher and there are quite a few reasons behind that.

 

Yeah you keep bringing this up but it really does miss the point. In fact the only point it really makes is to reinforce the fact that we live in a world where enforced monogamy exists . 

Nobody is saying that men cannot ever find someone to date and marry (though that is true for some men.. like incels), only that the distribution of sex (and remember it is sex that incels really care about, not whether someone will end up marrying them when they are 40) is quite unevenly spread out, with a small percentage of guys racking up huge numbers and the majority of men not really coming close. That is a real sticking point for incels because they really believe that having lots of sex will make them happy. 





 

Do you not gather how you have, in like five different ways, posited that it's unfair for women to not provide sex for men they are not interested in? In your last paragraph you straight-up declare that it's about sex, not relationships. You have identified a woman's value to these men to be that of a sex appliance and are defending a position that it's unjust that the appliance would withhold its value from less-than-desirable customers.

As an appliance myself, I think these mutts fucking pathetic and I would personally encourage them to suicide if approached for mental health treatment while off-duty. Maybe if they pulled themselves up by their nutstraps and made something of themselves women would be into them. But surely socializing the sex trade makes a lot more sense than expecting these disgusting animals to conform to human society.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

Do you not gather how you have, in like five different ways, posited that it's unfair for women to not provide sex for men they are not interested in? In your last paragraph you straight-up declare that it's about sex, not relationships. You have identified a woman's value to these men to be that of a sex appliance and are defending a position that it's unjust that the appliance would withhold its value from less-than-desirable customers.

As an appliance myself, I think these mutts fucking pathetic and I would personally encourage them to suicide if approached for mental health treatment while off-duty. Maybe if they pulled themselves up by their nutstraps and made something of themselves women would be into them. But surely socializing the sex trade makes a lot more sense than expecting these disgusting animals to conform to human society.

Not really. I am simply pointing out the reality of the world. I'm not putting a judgement on it.

It is about sex though. These guys are mostly virgins, and they are young men. Of course they are obsessed with sex. What is shocking about that in any way?

And yeah, all I'm doing is pointing out that life isn't fair, the dating world is cruel and harsh and there are winners and losers. I'm not requesting it become fair, because that can't really happen. The only solution for these guys is to do something about their lives and make sure they sit on the winning side, and ironically only then will they see the world from a far more healthy position.

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

... again, why are we even discussing what this piece of shit has to say? Are we going to go over the fine language of Mein Kampf next? Peterson is a sack of shit. QED,

Worth pointing out that Peterson has a number one selling book across the world, has a huge following across the world and is pretty damn influential. You can ignore him if you like (and grossly misunderstand what he's saying it seems) but I don't think he really cares what you think

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not really. I am simply pointing out the reality of the world. I'm not putting a judgement on it.

It is about sex though. These guys are mostly virgins, and they are young men. Of course they are obsessed with sex. What is shocking about that in any way?

And yeah, all I'm doing is pointing out that life isn't fair, the dating world is cruel and harsh and there are winners and losers. I'm not requesting it become fair, because that can't really happen. The only solution for these guys is to do something about their lives and make sure they sit on the winning side, and ironically only then will they see the world from a far more healthy position.

So your position is simply that Peterson has identified a trend in our society and while Peterson objectively proposes a batshitingly vague concept of treatment you are not, in any capacity, suggesting action to 'remedy' this perceived ill?

 

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

So your position is simply that Peterson has identified a trend in our society and while Peterson objectively proposes a batshitingly vague concept of treatment you are not, in any capacity, suggesting action to 'remedy' this perceived ill?

 

How many times have I said that Peterson isn’t suggesting it as a solution in this thread?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

And yeah, all I'm doing is pointing out that life isn't fair, the dating world is cruel and harsh and there are winners and losers. I'm not requesting it become fair, because that can't really happen. The only solution for these guys is to do something about their lives and make sure they sit on the winning side, and ironically only then will they see the world from a far more healthy position.

Yeah, I don't think romance is a sporting event....

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

How many times have I said that Peterson isn’t suggesting it as a solution in this thread?

I don't care how you choose to read what you want from Mr. Gimmie-Sex. Whose platform is literally enforced sexual bonding for life.

I'm asking your opinion.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I don't care how you choose to read what you want from Mr. Gimmie-Sex. Whose platform is literally enforced sexual bonding for life.

I'm asking your opinion.

How many times in this thread have I said what I think the solution is? Holy s**t this is tiresome.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, I don't think romance is a sporting event....

Naive.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Naive.

Lol no. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd discuss competition. And that is true. But you specifically said sport. That's telling on yourself, and how you value women. 

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

How many times in this thread have I said what I think the solution is? Holy s**t this is tiresome.

What is it?

[A wilding]

31 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Nobody is saying that men cannot ever find someone to date and marry (though that is true for some men.. like incels), only that the distribution of sex (and remember it is sex that incels really care about, not whether someone will end up marrying them when they are 40) is quite unevenly spread out, with a small percentage of guys racking up huge numbers without really having to try and the majority of men not really coming close while many are trying really hard. That is a real sticking point for incels because they really believe that having lots of sex will make them happy. 

Ignoring the male entitlement issues there, I would point out that the average age of first marriage in the US is 29, not 40 according to Wikipedia. (And typically a relationship is likely to start some time before the actual marriage.)

Also I doubt your suggestion that a significant number of young men can't manage to have a sexual relationship, or that the "majority" of them are failing while trying really hard. The best stats I can find quickly are this CDC factsheet "Among men aged 25–29,the vast majority have had sexual intercourse (96 percent)"

Sure there may be a handful of socially inept unhappy male virgins who, rather than work on their social skills, go down this deeply unpleasant route, but the idea that "forced monogamy" is any sort of solution to this I find laughable.